So where do the Tories stand on civil liberties?

Hugh Muir makes an excellent point in his diary piece in the Guardian today, which again highlights the disparity between what the Conservatives say in the UK and how they vote in the European Parliament.

Muir neatly juxtoposes David Cameron’s professed distaste for ID cards with the news that most of his Tory MEPs voted against a resolution in the European Parliament which condemned Silvio Berlusconi’s plans to fingerprint Roma children - a far more drastic measure, introduced in a discriminatory way against a particular group.

Of all the Tories present, just one didn’t back Berlusconi’s plans to ethnically profile the Roma. Last week’s vote of course took place in the same week as David Davis’s re-election to the Commons. Presumably this was the Tory MEPs' contribution to his debate on civil liberties.

Tory revolt against Cameron's anti-sleaze show

Conservative MEPs are today in open revolt over the announcement made yesterday by their supposed leader David Cameron to reform the Tories' system of auditing their MEPs expenses, after it was revealed that a secret Conservative memo referred to his proposals as, amongst other things, "half-baked" and "a PR disaster that would "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"

The story is all over today's papers and there is confusion over the source of the memo. The Guardian and Sun seem to think it came from the pen of arch-eurosceptic Roger Helmer, while the Telegraph claims that it was written by a group of several Conservative MEPs. Either way, it is hard to imagine that the author's identity will stay secret for too long. The memo is incredibly indiscreet; it is astonishing that Tory MEPs are threatening to sue the Conservative leader if he carried out his threat to de-select them!

The memo was found on a photocopier in Strasbourg. It says a lot about the incompetence of the Conservatives that they would leave such an explosive document in a photocopier for anyone to find.

Demonstrating a startling brass neck (even by his standards), Dan Hannan claims that Tory MEPs are actually the cleanest, and saying that Labour MEPs are keeping "schtum for a reason"! Well, the reason would be that since 2000, Labour MEPs have had their accounts annually reviewed by an independent auditor to make sure that they are in order and in compliance with the Parliament's rules. As Labour's leader in Europe, Gary Titley said yesterday, "Finally, after eight years, the Tory Party has caught up with the Labour MEPs' regime for dealing with expenses. The difference is that all 19 Labour MEPs have signed up to this, but the evidence is many Tory MEPs will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing the right thing.”

I have to say that Lib Dem Norman Baker's line that "the words 'Tory and sleaze' go together as easily as cheese and sandwich" is also worth a chuckle (but it would rhyme better if it was 'sandwich and cheese')

The memo's release took the thunder out of Cameron's press conference given yesterday to announce a so-called 'deep clean' of his MEPs expenses. It wrecked his latest attempt to portray himself as taking a tough line with the sleazier elements of his party.

New rules on groups, same old story from Hannan

My proposal to raise the threshold for forming political groups in the European Parliament from 20 to 25 MEPs was today adopted by a comfortable majority in Strasbourg.

This matters. Once a political group is formed they are provided with extra resources, in terms of finance and staff for their political campaigns. The current threshold of 20 MEPs amounts to just 2.5% of the European Parliament and is therefore considerably lower than what most national parliaments require. Very small, and possibly extremist groups can help themselves to taxpayers money for their political campaigns.

While the figure adopted today (25) is still below the average for national parliaments, it is a compromise that was supported by most of the smaller groups.

Modest reforms you might think, but I have been accused of being anti-democratic and of attempting to wipe out Euroscepticism in the European Parliament!

One of my accusers is Dan Hannan, who despite being an articulate and witty writer, consistently fills his Telegraph blog with untruths to back up his conspiracy theory that the European Parliament is seeking to become a dictatorial one-party parliament intent on destroying Eurosceptics. The headline in his blog today, “European Parliament bars Euro-sceptic groups”, is a prime example. This is patently untrue!

There have always been far more than 25 Eurosceptics in the European parliament and there have always been Eurosceptic groups. Euroscepticism is an important segment of public opinion which, especially in a proportional representation electoral system, is well represented in Parliament.

Any grouping of 25 MEPs elected at the next European elections, representing seven member states, will be able to form a political group. What’s more the new rules will actually benefit them if they are close to the threshold, because they allow an existing group to continue for up to two years if it slips just below the threshold! This of course isn’t mentioned in Hannan's blog because it doesn’t fit in with his conspiracy theory.

He also suggests that the adoption of my proposals broke European Parliament rules. Again this is not true. The report was adopted at Committee level and amended when it went before the whole house, a perfectly normal and regular occurance.

The amendment adopted by the House was a compromise (between the status quo and a proposal for 30) which was supported by small and large groups alike (the Greens, Left, Union for Europe of Nations, Socialist, Christian Democrat) and some of Hannan's fellow Conservatives. Even UKIP's Group wanted to raise the threshold (to 22) - if raising the threshold was a plot against Eurosceptics, as Hannan claims, then why did the most Eurosceptic Group in the Parliament support such an idea?

Increasingly every rule change in the European Parliament is being deliberately portrayed by Hannan and his friends as an attack on Eurosceptics but as the events of today show this is ultimately a paranoid and flawed theory.

Reconsidering Thatcher, Major and Europe with some help from Boris Johnson

Going through a long overdue paper clearout of my office, I came across a fascinating article by Boris Johnson (written back in 1995 when he was still a humble hack for the Daily Telegraph) on the similarities between Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

If the attitudes of public opinion and political commentators are anything to go by, the passage of time has been much kinder to her legacy than to Major, whose premiership is often ranked alongside that of Anthony Eden as the least distinguished in post-war British politics.

However, Johnson's thesis is somewhat different and there were some passages in his article that were particularly striking. For example, he points out that taxation as a proportion of GDP soared from 34% under the Callaghan government in 1979 to 40% in 1983 under the Conservatives and was higher during the Thatcher era than it was for the majority of Major's premiership. Similarly, Johnson quotes spending statistics on social security spending which rose from £17 billion to £60 billion by the time Thatcher left office. Admittedly, these figures have to be taken into context. The massive hike in spending was, of course, not because Thatcher was committed to a benevolent welfare policy but rather the result of the near tripling of unemployment to over 3million during her time as Prime Minister. Nonetheless, the statistics are still at odds with Thatcherite claims that their heroine stood for lower taxes and lower welfare spending.

Similarly, on Europe, one of the more ironic features of recent British politics that Margaret Thatcher is a heroine to Eurosceptics despite being, in many ways, one of the most integrationist Prime Ministers. While Major's handling of the Maastricht Treaty is commonly regarded as the great betrayal by British Eurosceptics, as Johnson points out, the Single European Act agreed and ratified by the Thatcher government was "a more significant European treaty", adding that "if ever a crucial constitutional change was swept under the carpet, it was the Single European Act, forced through the Commons at dead of night by means of a guillotine procedure". Meanwhile, Britain's membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (one of the biggest single factors that brought down the Major government when the unsustainably high exchange rate at which the government chose to join of 2.95 Deutschemarks to the pound led to Black Wednesday, costing the exchequer £15bn in a day, and causing British withdrawal from the ERM) was agreed, not by Major, but by Mrs Thatcher!

Johnson's article finishes by posing a question: was Thatcher's record really better or was it that "she better disguised her failures"? It seems pretty clear that the new Mayor of London, and most powerful office-holding Conservative politician in Britain, tends towards the latter.

Bushill Matthews and gravy

Following the Tory expense scandal that accounted for their leader Giles Chichester and chief whip Den Dover, the Conservatives have appointed Phillip Bushill Matthews to lead their delegation in the European Parliament.

Speaking to a local newspaper Bushill Matthews said: "The national press only seem interested in selectively promoting the 'gravy train' image of the European Parliament."

This is a bit rich, coming from him, as his own book on the Parliament was called "The Gravy Train" (sadly no longer stocked by Amazon though available in the odd second hand shop).

Anyone reading the book would find that it actually tried to debunk much of the gravy train image, but its title (and cover complete with picture of him climbing on a train) show that he is another Tory trying to ride two horses.

High Court rejects Stuart Wheeler's referendum bid

It was good to see that the High Court has finally thrown out the claims of spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler that the Government should hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, with Lord Justice's Richards and Mackay judging that there was "nothing in the claimant's case to cast doubt on the lawfulness of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum".

Wheeler, who is one of the leading donors to the Conservative party, famously giving £5m to the party when William Hague was leader, is the second high profile Tory to have a case thrown out. Last week the renowned Europhobe Bill Cash made similar attempts to stop the ratification of the Treaty in the High Court only for his claim to be thrown out. Indeed, Justice Collins described Cash's attempts as "totally without merit" and "an attempt to pursue a political agenda through the court".

Bill Cash's attempt to take the Government to court was particularly bare-faced. Cash, whose euroscepticism first came to real prominence when he helped 'lead' the Tory Maastricht rebels in 1993, always claims that the EU undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. Deeply ironic, then, that he would go to the High Court to try and get the judiciary to overrule the UK Parliament.

These judgements should mark the end of the Treaty's progress in the UK, and the EU (Amendment) Bill will now be formally ratified and the "instruments of ratification" deposited in Rome. However, Wheeler has refused to give up, saying that he will go to the Court of Appeal despite being refused an appeal by the court. Still, if he wastes his money on that, there may be less to give to the Tories and the eurosceptic pressure group that calls itself 'Open Europe'.

The way Eurosceptics work

If ever people needed proof that phoney 'think-tank' Open Europe is nothing more than a front for Better Off Out campaigners for UK withdrawal from the EU they should look at this opinion poll.

With great fanfare, Open Europe on Tuesday announced this poll undertaken by YouGov apparently showing that only 29% of people want the UK to remain a member of the EU. Needless to say, the Tory headbangers on Conservative Home have already loudly trumpeted the poll as proof that David Cameron should heed the Better Off Out brigade and pledge to negotiate British withdrawal from the EU.

Of course, polls such as these are designed to be spun by those commissioning them, but on closer inspection, the poll itself is based on a false premise, claiming that the EU was always based around "economic co-operation" but is now responsible for making decisions on "foreign policy, immigration and crime" (carefully ignoring the fact that the EU does not govern Britain's immigration or criminal justice systems, nor can it make foreign policy decisions without the agreement of Britain and all EU countries).

Therefore, the poll offers three choices - "the UK should stay in the EU", "the UK should stay in the single market but pull out of the political elements of the EU" or, "the UK should leave the EU altogether". Faced with this, 29% chose the first option, 38% the second and 24% the third. Notwithstanding the fact that the single market is political as well as economic (a market must have rules and regulations to ensure that it is free and fair, rather than be left free to unfettered market forces, and the adoption of such legislation is a political process), the option of remaining in the single market "but pulling out of the political elements" is virtually impossible to achieve. In other words, it is a meaningless choice.

Besides, the Europhobes don't seem to have commented on the statistic that only 24% want Britain to leave the EU - a lower figure than in virtually any opinion poll since the 1975 referendum.

So there you have it - loaded questions based on false premises with bizarre choices makes for a pointless poll that reveals nothing - but don't expect Open Europe to be asking for their money back. So much for the intellectual rigour and integrity you would expect from a genuine think-tank.

Staying with Eurosceptic nonsense, the Sun came up with an inspired scare story that the French presidency wants a British aircraft carrier to be at the heart of a new EU Navy.

This 'story' is similar to the Sun's claim on St George's Day that the EU was planning to destroy Britain by dividing it into five regions (lumping the South-East in with the North of France in new super-region). Needless to say the Sun were able to find a Tory politician desperate enough for publicity to lend the story some ill-deserved credibility, with Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox saying "the EU's military ambitions know no bounds" and "we should be told whether this madness emanates from Paris or Downing Street", and, surprise surprise, Open Europe's Neil O'Brien also adds his two penn'orth.

Whilst it would be churlish to say that they've not been imaginative, (a Sun hack has certainly earned his corn with this re-writing of the lyrics to the Village People's "In the Navy") the story is fabricated tosh. Indeed, buried at the end of the story lies a quote from the Ministry of Defence demonstrating that this story is a pack of lies. Still, there seems to be nothing you can do to stop Eurosceptic tabloids writing such nonsense. Maybe the Commission should tell the press that it intends to buy up News International - now that would be a story!

The European Parliament's debate on Ireland's No

Interesting debate today in the European Parliament on the fallout of the Irish referendum, punctuated by UKIP and three of the Tories coming in wearing T-shirts urging "respect for the Irish votes" - prompting one Irish MEP to comment that history would have been quite different if right-wing British politicians had started to do that a century or more ago!

The problem we face, of course, is how to respect the divergent results of different member states - both the No from Ireland and the Yes from other member states.

Some want to listen just to one side. I want to listen to both. We must then rise to the challenge of bridging the gap.

If there are by the autumn 25 or 26 ratifications, it would not be unreasonable nor undemocratic to ask the minority to consider the possibility to seek a compromise rather than to block reforms entirely.

Indeed, that was the professed view of No campaigners in Ireland, who said they want a better deal.

Yet, the UKIP/Tory/Sinn Fein/French Communist view (what an alliance! watching the acting leader of the Tories vigorously applaud the French Communist leader was instructive) expressed in the debate was that other countries shouldn't be allowed to vote on the treaty at all (presumably in case they Vote Yes).

For good measure, Nigel Farage threw into the debate a claim that a Commissioner had committed fraud - a remark somewhat undermined when the very next speaker was UKIP's shame, Ashley Mote, recently released from prison after serving a sentance for...fraud!

Several Irish members were understandably bitter at the the claims by some No campaigners that the Lisbon Treaty would have legalised euthanasia, drug-taking and abortion in Ireland, and also required higher corporation tax rates and an Irish contribution to a European army. These lies had an impact on enough voters to swing the result.

But blame was also laid at the door of the Irish government for not campaigning or explaining properly or even bothering to rebut the No claims until the last few days, preoccupied as they were with installing a new Prime Minister and re-shuffling the government.

Be that as it may, we now have to face up to the consequences rather than apportion the blame. It will be no easy task, but the need to reform the EU has not gone away and achieving this remains on the agenda.

If you want to read more on the referendum I recommend Will Hutton's excellent piece for the Observer which addresses the issue of lies and misinformation used by some of the No campaingers.

More on MEPs' expenses

The media focus on Tory MEPs' expenses has continued unabated since I last blogged on the subject a week ago.

Following the resignation of the Conservative leader in the European Parliament, their Chief Whip has also resigned. They can hardly claim it is a case of a few small rotten apples, when it is their leadership team itself that has had to resign!

As I said, the Tories might have avoided this humiliation if they had done what we Labour MEPs have done for the last eight years, namely have our spending reviewed annually by an independent accountant to certify that all has been used properly. They are now belatedly on board for that, as are - equally belatedly - the LibDems.

Some have suggested that this has all come out now because of in-fighting among the Tories who remain bitterly divided on Europe, but even at the best of times have a reputation for ruthless backstabbing. Certainly, some of the stories in the press appear to come from internal leaks. Some have suggested that Cameron will use the opportunity, not just to deal with wrong-doers, but to purge those who are not solidly behind his own leadership. Maybe. That is an interesting dimension to their troubles, but it should not distract us from the the fundamentals. The setting up of companies run by family members to siphon off public money for private gain is a serious allegation and if true should be punished.

Meanwhile, they are determined to do whatever they can to tar other parties with the same brush. They are distraught that, despite trying, they have not been able to find equivalent cases among Labour MEPs.

We are now being bombarded with letters and calls from journalists, and queries from various campaign groups. Fortunately, we can reassure people quite easily thanks to our auditing rule and the fact that we all fill in our Declaration of Members' Interests, which includes whether any family member is employed. We publish the guidelines given to our auditors and we publish the resultant certificates on our websites. We also publish how we make use of the staff allowance in terms of employing staff in our constituency and parliamentary offices.

Despite all this information being publicly available, the anti-Europe campaign group Open Europe, which masquerades as a think tank, has now appointed itself as the policeman-cum-prosecutor of MEPs, has sent each Labour MEP a questionnaire, and denounces all those who fail to fill it in. Too lazy to read the published information on our websites, they expect MEPs to spend their time co-operating with an organisation that has no interest in improving the system, and certainly makes no distinction between genuine problems and invented ones, but simply in promoting Euroscepticism by means fair or foul. We'd rather spend our time, given that we are in order with our spending, on doing our job on behalf of our constituents.

For anyone who is interested in my expenses I suggest they look at the relevant page on my website.

Tory leader resigns

So, Giles Chichester has resigned as Tory leader in the European Parliament – their shortest-lived leader ever!

Giles Chichester was once the luckiest politician to be elected. He won the Devon & East Plymouth constituency in 1994 by a whisker, thanks to the Liberal Democrat votes being split by a “Literal Democrat” (spot the difference!) candidate, who did no campaigning, but siphoned off more than 10,000 votes from the Liberal Democrat who would certainly have won by a mile:

G.B. Chichester Conservative 74,953
A.M. Sanders Liberal Democrat 74,253
R.J. Huggett Literal Democrat 10,203


At the following election in 1999 under the new regional PR system, he competed against his Tory MEP colleagues and others for a place high enough on the Conservative list of candidates to guarantee election. The Tory party selection method was a vote among whichever party members turned up to a single general meeting in the region. The South-west is pretty vast, and having the meeting in his very own constituency was no doubt what ensured his survival.

Well, there must be many Tories who now wish he hadn’t been so lucky! But, had the Conservatives followed the example set by Labour MEPs eight years ago in having our spending of staff and office allowances reviewed by an independent external auditor every year to ensure that all monies are properly spent, then maybe they would have avoided such humiliation.

I suppose I should be jumping up and down with glee at another case of Tory trouble, but I'm afraid that for large swathes of public opinion we will all get tarred with the same brush. Parts of the media that never covers the European Parliament’s actual work will cover this in detail - and that is all that some people will ever read or hear about the Parliament. The Eurosceptics will even argue that the system is inherently corrupt and we should scrap it – a line they of course don’t take for similar scandals such as that of Derek Conway MP at Westminster. Yet the answer is the same in both cases: clear, transparent rules, properly applied and enforced.

Tories and Lib Dems follow our lead

Interesting to see the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have finally followed Labour’s lead and demanded that their MEPs produce receipts for all their office expenses.

Labour MEPs have had to provide receipts for their expenses and have their accounts approved by an independent auditor for nearly a decade. It’s a simple enough measure but I’m stunned its taken the Tories and Lib Dems this long. Hopefully more parties across in the European Parliament will now demand the same standards.

The party which have been under the most scrutiny for their MEPs expenses, UKIP, have not. Should we really be surprised?

The Conservatives are still the nasty party in Europe

Cameron's empty claim that his Tory party are the real defenders of social justice and equality rings particularly hollow in Europe.

In 2004, the Commission promised to draft a proposal for a "horizontal" directive under Article 13 of the Treaty to combat discrimination in access to goods amd services in the European market on the grounds of sex, race, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. At present, only discrimination on the grounds of gender, race or ethnicity is covered by existing directives and Parliament’s report called for Commission to "complete the package of anti-discrimination legislation". Such legislation would prohibit both direct and indirect discrimination in all areas that fall under EU competence. Yesterday, the Tory MEPs (with the honourable exceptions of Christopher Beazley and John Bowis) voted against a report by Liberal Democrat Liz Lynne which called for such legislation.

That the Conservatives would effectively vote for a hierarchy of discrimination shows that whilst they may talk the language of social justice and compassion actually doing something about it is a completely different matter.

It is the same in other areas too. The vast majority of the Conservatives (who have just one female MEP don't forget) have consistently voted against women's rights and aside from Caroline Jackson, didn't even support a measure to combat domestic violence.

Cameron of course kickstarted his cuddly image by going green yet Roger Helmer, their representative on the climate change committee, continues to denounce any attempts to battle climate change.

Worse still if you ever glance at "Conservative Home" or other Tory blogs, a lot of the MEPs are citicised for not being right wing enough!

Finally, real progress for agency workers

I was delighted to hear today that the Government has reached an agreement with the TUC and the CBI on equal treatment for agency workers. This agreement, which would give agency workers equal treatment with permanent workers after 12 weeks, breaks a six year deadlock.

This proposed European directive has caused a great deal of controversy between Government, unions and industry. Of course, temporary agency work contributes to a dynamic and flexible modern economy and can often be a bridge for long term unemployed to get back in the labour market. But agency workers should not be treated as second-class workers and agencies should not be able to distort the labour market by undercutting the wages and conditions of other workers.

Indeed, support for the Temporary Agency Workers directive was one of the key planks of the 2004 Warwick Agreement between Government and unions and the impasse in resolving its future has caused great frustration for unions.

However, this agreement at UK level is not the end of the story. A further agreement will have to be reached in the Council of Ministers, hopefully at the next meeting of Employment ministers on the 9th and 10th of June. The directive will then return to the European Parliament (which had supported equal treatment for day one at first reading) for second reading, with a view to hitting the statute book in advance of next year’s European elections.

EU legislation on agency workers will establish one common set of rules for the common market and remove the possibility of having a multitude of divergent legislation from different Member States that would still leave the problem of transnational agencies undercutting wages as well as creating legal uncertainty. Domestic legislation would create as many problems as it would solve and today’s announcement demonstrates that Government’s priority is, rightly, to agree a compromise at European level.

Moreover, the debate on agency workers has demonstrated that will be clear dividing lines on European social legislation between Labour and the Conservatives at the next election. The Conservatives have already promised to restore Britain’s opt-out from the Social Chapter and bitterly oppose this directive which will protect some of the most vulnerable workers in the labour market. In contrast, today’s agreement shows that the Government is committed to a social Europe in which workers rights and social protection stand alongside economic growth and enterpreneurship.

Cameron talks up the importance of Europe

Having spent the first 18 months of his leadership appeasing his Eurosceptic wing by pledging to withdraw from the centre-right European People's Party and being the only non-fascist right-wing party to oppose the Lisbon Treaty, David Cameron appears to have had a road to Damascus style conversion.

In the words of Cameron, during an interview for the Yorkshire Post:

"I don’t want to leave the European Union and I'll tell you why. This is a trading nation. Yorkshire relies on traded goods and on businesses which can trade all over the world and particularly in Europe. We export more per head of the population than America, Japan or other countries. We are a trading nation and Europe is a very important market for us. If we are not in the European Union, we would not be able to have a say over what the rules of the single market are. That is the primary reason for being a member of the European Union."

All pretty sensible stuff, and light years away from the reactionary nonsense and baseless scare-stories trotted out by himself and his front-bench colleagues over the Lisbon Treaty. However, it is unlikely that such an approach will find favour with the likes of John Redwood, Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory.

When I give talks about the reasons for our EU membership to constituents and visitors to the Parliament, I often point to three sets of reasons: the idealistic, pragmatic and selfish. Cameron has at least taken up the latter. Though, even that will be too much for his right-wing MPs.

Tories align themselves with an unlikely bunch

Now that national parliaments across Europe are debating the Treaty of Lisbon, the unholy alliances of hard left and far right that are attempting to block it stands revealed.

The motley crew includes Jorg Häider's Freedom Party in Austria, the Flemish separatists Vlaams Belang, the Northern League in Italy and the Bulgarian Attak party.. These parties all fall into various shades of the extreme right - xenophobic, ultra-nationalist and/or anti-immigration.

On the other extreme, the remaining Communist parties across Europe have voted 'No', while the German Die Linke partei made up of Oskar Lafontaine's defectors from the SPD and the remnants of the communist PDS party (still enjoying electoral success in parts of East Germany) has also opposed ratification. Interestingly enough, Sinn Fein is the only major Irish party to oppose the treaty. I never thought that Sinn Fein and the Tory party would line up as close allies!

Despite Cameron's attempts to position himself as a moderate conservative, the Tories are the only main centre-right party in Europe to be opposed to the treaty. Every main social democrat, Christian democrat, liberal and green party across the EU has supported the Lisbon Treaty.

All of which highlights just how out of touch Cameron is with mainstream thinking and how isolated Britain would be if the Tories were to win the next election. As Philip Stephen's put it in today's Financial Times,

"As far as abroad is concerned, as things stand Mr Cameron's first act would be to start an acrimonious and unwinnable fight to overturn the treaty of Lisbon and withdraw Britain from the European Union's social chapter. That, not to put too fine a point on it, would be barmy."

BBC's report on MEP's expenses unbalanced

Many of you will have seen the lead item on the BBC news Tuesday night on the subject of MEP's expenses. I and most of my colleagues didn't, as we were in Strasbourg at the time.

The BBC interviewed me for this item, because I have published a comparative table of all the expenses and allowances provided to MPs and MEPs. The BBC's Mark Mardell asked me to describe the system, respond to questions on it and cover also the issue of governments obliging the Parliament to meet once a month in Strasbourg.

In the end, they didn't use one second of this interview, presumably because I was boringly factual and didn't reveal any salacious gossip or make any wild claims about abuse. I gather they took a instead a Conservative and a Lib Dem MEP (and Dan Hannan and Chris Davies are not even regarded by their party colleagues as representing mainstream opinion in their parties) denouncing the system and calling for further reforms, and my Labour colleague Gary Titley defending the right of MEPs to employ their spouses provided they are doing a proper job, for which they are qualified, that the pay is commensurate and that it is declared and transparent.

This, of course, made it look as though the Lib Dems and Conservatives were for further reform and Labour was against it. Yet the employment of spouses was not an issue dividing the three parties, who all accept it under correct conditions, and anyway is not the most important issue in the reform debate.

Nowhere did they point out that up to now Labour is the only one of the three parties to require its MEPs to have their accounts audited annually by an independent auditor to ensure that all monies have been spent properly and in accordance with the rules. In other words, Labour MEPs can claim to have more, not less, propriety than the others - the opposite of the impression given by the news item, according to people who saw it.

Nor did they point out that the Parliament has not chosen to sit in Strasbourg once a month - most members heartily agree that this is silly - but the national governments who oblige it to do so.

The report featured a decision not to publish an internal auditors report, again without mentioning that all three British parties voted for such publication.

Shame that the BBC was, tabloid-style, seduced by the attractions of sensationalism. Their journalists - Mark Mardell and his colleagues - had gone out of the way to get a range of material, including the boring facts, but the producers in London chose to use only that which would titillate rather than inform.

Hoping for a ban on seal products

On Wednesday, Parliament welcomed a very special guest to speak to the Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals. Sheryl Fink, speaking on behalf of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), had travelled all the way from her native Canada to drum up support for an EU-wide ban on the import of all seal products into Europe.

New regulations implemented by the Canadian authorities, supposedly to make the Canadian seal hunts more "humane", have done little to increase the welfare of the seals. Most hunters are ignoring the regulations and the authorities seem unwilling to take action. Indeed, the group was shown a highly distressing video filmed by IFAW proving that seals were not killed quickly or humanely.

The Eurosceptic Tory MEP Roger Helmer, who was in the audience, attempted to pass Sheryl Fink's presentation off merely as a "slick" gimmick from the animal welfare lobby. Helmer asked what effect a ban on the seal hunt would have on those who relied on the trade to make a living, and what effect would a ban have on Canada’s fish stocks. If Helmer hadn't left immediately after asking his questions, he might have heard the answers!

Canada's seal hunt is not economically viable. The C$11million industry would not survive without the subsidies paid by the Canadian government. In fact, no hunter relies on the trade for a living - the hunt only makes each hunter around £1000 extra income per year. It is merely an extra bit of pocket money for them. Add to that the fact there is no evidence that seals have any significant adverse effect on fish stocks, and there appears very little justification in continuing the inhumane seal hunt, and hopefully, an EU ban on seal products will finally see an end to it.

Tories scrape the barrel on St George's Day

I had always thought that the media 'silly season' was in August, but the Tories seem to be trying to bring it forward a few months with this nonsense that was picked up by some very lazy journalists in the Sun, Mail and Express.

In what can only be described as a deeply cynical attempt to get some media coverage on St George's Day, the Conservatives have shamelessly recycled a story they used two years ago claiming that the Government is colluding with an EU plot to create transnational regions in order to create a united European state.

Sadly, it seems that a few journalists were too lazy to check the facts and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

A quick internet search shows that the Sun and the Mail ran virtually identical stories in September 2006. Indeed, it looks as though the Conservative press officers were so lazy that they couldn't be bothered to make up a new quote for their Regional Affairs spokesman Eric Pickles! In September 2006, Pickles was quoted as saying "Eurocrats could literally wipe Britain off the map". Today he says "Gordon Brown literally wants to wipe Britain off the map". I don't think I'm alone in sensing a bit of déja vu here!

On the substance (what little exists), the Tories' claims refer to a map of Europe used for the INTERREG programme which is, as the acronym suggests, an inter-regional structural funds programme designed to help regions in different countries work together in order to maximise funding opportunities and tackle common problems. For the purpose of the programme, the map defines a "North Sea" region, an "Atlantic" region, a "Transmanche" region, a "North Atlantic" region and an "Ireland/Wales" region.

But, of course, Hartlepool and Hull do share a number of common problems and interests with the likes of Zeebrugge and Rotterdam - they are ports, share the same stretch of water and have similar environmental concerns. Indeed, inter-regional co-operation is not a conspiracy - it is common sense and a map showing which regions of Europe are working with each other is no more a threat to Britain than is a geological map showing both the Kent coast and Northern France as chalk.

Of all the euromyths I've come across, this has got to be up with the most scurrilous.

Anyway, let's hear a few bars of Jerusalem! Happy St George's Day everybody!

Tories in Lords sing treaty's praises

The debate continues this afternoon in the House of Lords on the Lisbon Treaty when the European Union Amendment Bill enters the Committee stage of the debate; the bill will be discussed by the whole house in six separate sittings over the coming months.

In its Second Reading at the beginning of April, some 75 Peers were listed to speak on the subject of the Lisbon Treaty. Unlike in the Commons, a large number of Conservative peers spoke in favour of the new treaty, including several previous Cabinet Ministers.

Among them was Lord Howe, previous Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister under the Thatcher administration. Speaking during the debate, Lord Howe called for Britain to continue to exert an "increasingly effective participation in the European Union" stating that the Treaty "is an important step in that direction for the enhancement of British influence". The Lord, who was Thatcher's longest serving Cabinet Minister, went on to criticise the Conservative Party's calls for a referendum stating, "I cannot bring myself to say a word in support of one."

Lord Brittain, a former Home Secretary, also spoke against his party's position on the Treaty: "I am not only very much in favour of approving the Treaty but I am also strongly opposed to a referendum on this issue." Lord Brittain continued saying that the comparisons made between the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty are fair and paying particular heed to the numerous benefits for Britain and the rest of Europe under the new treaty. He also praised the treaty for the necessary changes it makes to ease the efficiency and functioning of the enlarged Union.

Lord Tughendhat, Member of the European Commission from 1977 to 1981, criticised the Tory line: "Sadly, I believe that the Conservative Party's present position on the treaty is not only contrary to the national interest but to its own interest."

Lord Jones, who was a previous junior Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, also criticised the Conservative position: "[The Tories] favour a referendum because they think that they would win and, in doing so, would advance a position that is at best hostile to the Union and is frequently a flimsy cover for an eventual move to withdraw."

There seems to be a generational shift in the Conservative Party. The more experienced Tories are more pro-European and in favour of the treaty compared to the new more hasty Eurosceptic generation who unthinkingly follow the media-led euroscepticism. Do none of the younger Tories have the courage to stand out against the trend and think for themselves?

Bushill-Matthews fights a Euromyth

I nearly fell off my chair when I saw that a Tory, Philip Bushill-Matthews, MEP has written to the Birmingham Post to rebut a Eurosceptic myth about transport policy. Normally stridently Eurosceptic, Bushill-Matthews rightly points out that a driver whose vehicle is registered in another EU country can evade prosecution for traffic offences in the UK because of the difficulty in verifying his/her home address. Common EU rules could be part of the solution to this problem.

I wonder what Dan Hannan (the Conservatives' chief myth-maker in Europe) thinks of his colleague's efforts!

The trend of grandiose titles

As next year's European election approaches, I am amused to see that some of my colleagues are prone to give themselves grand titles. I see that Edward Mcmillan-Scott refers to himself as "Britain's senior MEP". If he means the longest-serving member, he isn't: Bill Newton Dunn was first elected in 1979 and Stephen Hughes, Caroline Jackson David Martin, Glyn Ford and James Elles have all, like Edward, been in the European Parliament since 1984. If he means that he is an august former leader of the Conservative MEPs, he is one of four still in the Parliament (Kirkhope, Evans, Newton Dunn) as their in-fighting tends to oust their leader every two or three years. If he means he is one of the 14 Vice Presidents, he is not the only one, as Diana Wallis is also a Vice President.

Talking of Diana, she in turn has referred to herself as the "first woman Vice President" which is patently incorrect - there have been dozens. She is not even the first British woman VP as Lady Elles was one back in the 1980s.

Watch out for more imaginative descriptions as the elections approach!

Unruly MEPs deserve their fines

Parliament's President (Speaker) has this week fined the MEPs who took part in the attempt to drown out the Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates in December.

Yorkshire’s very own Godfrey Bloom is in the hall of shame, though he may well not realise this yet as he wasn’t present for the parliament sitting when Hans Gert Pottering explained the reasons behind the punishments.

That’s a pity because Pottering’s explanation of exactly why Bloom and some others were punished made it quite clear that it was not their views that were the problem (as they claim) - they were in trouble for stopping others (notably the Portuguese Prime Minister) – from expressing their views with their hollering and howling.

Of course Dan Hannan has failed to note this in his demagogic Telegraph blog, as his crusade to convince the world that the European Parliament is "despotic" continues. He points out that other protests have been allowed to go on in the parliament, which is quite true but they made no attempt to disrupt parliamentary proceedings and prevent those with a different view from speaking. Similarly, in this protest, MEPs who merely waved banners have not been reprimanded (Hannan was one). The fines were imposed on those who aggressed ushers or who continued to disrupt the proceedings after being called to order by the Speaker.

Hannan well knows that the sort of behaviour he readily condones would have ended in far more rigourous disciplinary proceedings and suspension had it taken place in the Commons, but the guilty MEPs escape such punishment. Their rights to speak in debates and to vote remain intact and they have simply been fined.

Plenty of MPs have had their right to vote and speak suspended for far less in the Commons. There are myriad examples, a fair number involving Denis Skinner, who has been suspended for simply complaining that Deputy Speaker Sir Alan Haselhurst was being lenient to Theresa May because she was a Conservative. Another MP who was recently suspended was of course Lib Dem frontbencher Ed Davey, who earned a short ban after making excessive points of order during the treaty debate. Despite the frequency of these suspensions I have yet to see Hannan rally against "the despotism of the Commons."

The point is, that all parliaments have rules of procedure and when these rules are broken the people responsible face punishment and in this case, vociferously booing and heckling a speaker on the floor of the parliament, and continuing to do so when called to order by the Speaker, is clearly un-parliamentary behaviour.

You can read Pottering's explanation of the punishments in full here.

Murphy ends Commons debate in good humour

The Commons debate on the Lisbon Treaty finally concluded last night with MPs voting by a large majority to adopt the text, which means just the Lords’ approval is required for Britain to ratify the treaty.

Europe Minister Jim Murphy’s final speech was an amusing one, and included some some weird and wonderful facts, such as "the great unreformed instiution", Bill Cash, made 214 interventions (swiftly up 215), a fifth of all those made in the entire debate!

There were also amusing digs at the strange trend of MPs quoting themselves, quoting other MPs who had quoted them, and even quoting themselves from a speech they never actually made!

Murphy pointed out: "The hon. Member for Stone (Bill Cash) quoted an historic parliamentary debate and a speech—by himself—as a source of reference. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) did the same thing by proxy, quoting the right hon. Member for Wells quoting him. This evening we had another passionate speech by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Peter Lilley), who went one step further in our proceedings. Not only did he quote himself, which has become the new fashion — a fashion that I have not yet bought into — but, in a remarkable innovation, to make his specific point he did not quote himself from an earlier speech, saying,

‘I can demonstrate that by referring to a speech that I did not give’

when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. A remarkable constitutional innovation! It is a first, and perhaps many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will take their lead from it in future debates."

Murphy also took time to list the other parties that support the Conservative's absurd position on the treaty – or "the 'not letting the matter rest' coalition" as he called them. It now includes, he said: "Sinn Fein, Marianne Thieme — who, as we all know, leads the Dutch party for the animals in its opposition to the treaty — and the now infamous Philippe de Villiers, part of the leadership of the French hunting party, we have three allies to fill this great chamber of Europe. That still leaves 23 empty seats for the great European coalition of international Governments.”

Red lines beat red herrings, as Commons votes against referendum

I was delighted to see the House of Commons reject the Tory proposal that Britain should start ratifying international treaties by means of a referendum. The vote, which finished 311 to 248, is a victory for parliamentary democracy.

While it was disappointing to see 29 Labour MPs vote against the Government, this number was far fewer than the 120 that Labour Europhobe Ian Davidson had predicted would follow him into the division lobby to vote for a referendum.

Credit should also be given to Kenneth Clarke, John Gummer and David Curry, who showed that there are still a few moderate Tories on Europe by voting with the Government.

As for the Liberal Democrats, their bizarre approach to the vote, in taking a three-line whip ordering their MPs to abstain, backfired, with a quarter of the parliamentary party voting with the Tories and four MPs resigning from their front-bench. The Lib Dems should have had the courage of their convictions. By using their (familiar) tactic of trying to be all things to all people, their opportunism has been exposed.

This country has a proud history of parliamentary democracy and an issue like the Lisbon Treaty is where MPs earn their salt. Britain has never ratified an international treaty by referendum and the House of Commons has rightly acknowledged that it would have been absurd to start doing so now. It is right that the Commons has dedicated so long to analysing and discussing the treaty, something most people simply don’t have the time to do.

Above all, this detailed scrutiny has revealed that this is a treaty which will make the EU more efficient, more democratic and more accountable and respects the British government’s red lines. The pathetic glut of Eurosceptic red herrings, including claims that the treaty would delete the Queen from our passports and allow armed French police to patrol British streets, has been exposed as nonsense by the Commons.

Prospective Conservative candidates know how to copy & paste

The hijacking of the Conservative party by their Eurosceptic wing has led a number of the remaining moderate pro-European Tory MEPs, including Christopher Beazley, John Purvis and Caroline Jackson, to decide to stand down at next years European elections.

By the looks of this survey on the Conservative Home website, the quality of their replacements is not high. When asked whether a prospective Conservative government should hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty even after it had been ratified by all countries and entered into force, most either agreed or decided to simply cut and paste the official guidance from Conservative Central Office.

However, a significant minority are brave enough to acknowledge that this decision would be folly.

The Tories are completely deluded if they think that pledging a post-ratification referendum would solve their divisions on Europe. The reality is that such a referendum would effectively be a vote on our membership of the EU, as no other member state would want re-open negotiations on a treaty that was in force and which had been recently agreed and ratified by all countries, and which most of them consider to have anyway been entirely tailored to Britain's desires.

As one of the Conservative commenters points out, with answers like this "it is obvious why we haven't been in power for (sic) almost 20 years"!

Tories a bundle of contradictions on climate change

I have followed some of the debates in the House of Commons on the Lisbon Treaty and I continue to be amazed at the disarray of the Tories.

I am told that over half the Conservative speaking time on this has been accounted for by just two MPs - Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory. That the Conservatives allow these two extremely anti-Europe members dominate their contribution to this extent shows how far they have shifted in a Europhobic direction. These two denounce every aspect of the EU as the devil incarnate.

William Hague, by contrast, is now pursuing a different line. He says we don't need a new treaty reforming the EU because, in his words, "the EU is working perfectly well". Not a position Bill Cash would agree with!

The debate on the effect of the treaty on tackling climate change was a further illustration of Conservative incoherence. Two contrasting amendments were tabled by the Conservatives: one which stated that "the Treaty of Lisbon is effectively irrelevant to the vital issue of climate change" - (implying that the EU should be given more powers in tackling climate change), and another, which my regional colleague Hugh Bayley drew attention to, tabled by a number of senior Conservatives, including former leader Iain Duncan Smith and John Redwood, stating that the EU should have no role at all on climate change! Although this amendment was disowned by the Conservative front-bench team it offers another illustration of the Tories' divisions on Europe.

The reality is that we cannot effectively tackle climate change and raise environmental standards without being engaged with the EU - a point emphasised by John Gummer, one of the few moderate Conservatives on Europe, who said that "it is not possible to have an anti-European position and have any kind of environmental policy".

Climate change policy is one of the policy areas where collective rather than individual action is most effective. The unlikely deal reached at the Bali summit on climate change was an example of the clout of the EU when we have a united position. Already committed to unilateral emissions cuts of 20% by 2020, European countries were able to speak with authority and a common voice. Unwittingly, the Tory amendment, in describing the provisions on climate change as "institutional tinkering" revealed the shallow opportunism of their demands for a referendum. The point is that the Lisbon Treaty is about institutional tinkering rather than giving the EU new powers. Therefore, if the Tories accept that the treaty is about "institutional tinkering" then why do they want a referendum?

This is not to say that the Conservatives are all climate change deniers. Indeed, Nick Hurd, Greg Barker, Peter Ainsworth and John Gummer all made speeches emphasising the importance of the EU in tackling climate change. However, their approach in the European Parliament is summed up by their choice of Roger Helmer (who believes that climate change is "a journalistic fiction") as the Conservative member of the temporary committee on climate change.

David Cameron talks a good game on the environment, but Wednesday's debate offered ample demonstration of how the Tories are all over the place. In the words of Caroline Jackson, the only Conservative woman MEP: "from the point of view of the Conservative Party, pursuing the green line is all talk and no action".

Labour's Spring Conference very positive on Europe

Strikingly positive and upbeat atmosphere on Europe at Labour's Spring Conference!

The various workshops, seminars and fringe meetings on Europe have been very well attended - indeed, I'm told the best of all. Certainly, the one that Foreign Secrtary David Miliband and I addressed on the subject of the Lisbon Treaty was packed, and positively enthusiastic.

Why? A combination of the vehemence of the Tory attacks on the EU, the pedagogic spin-off of the long Commons debate on the treaty, and the fact that Labour party members are currently voting on the choice of candidates for the next European elections has led to heightened awareness about Europe in general and the treaty in particular.

Gordon Brown too spoke at the conference of how Europe is vital to our objectives on climate change, development, trade and security, all areas where Europe is leading the way. He also said that the Tories are making a strategic error in turning their backs on Europe and focussing on the past, not the future. As Gordon has sometimes been accused of being luke-warm about Europe, this strong message reinforced the sense that Europe is now one of the major dividing lines between the two parties, and one which will work to Labour's advantage.

Eurosceptics admit they are "a small hardcore going nowhere"

The utter failure of the campaign by British Eurosceptics against the Lisbon Treaty was amply demonstrated by their protest yesterday outside Parliament. This demonstration was, after all, billed by some hardline Eurosceptics as 'the last chance to save Britain' (no less!). However, they organised the protest on the wrong day - the key vote they were targeting in the Commons will take place next week - and the so-called "mass" protest was attended by a mere few hundred people.

This has been the hallmark of the campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty: plenty of bluster about the treaty spelling the death of Britain and the end of the world as we know it, (and avoiding the real substance of the treaty), but total failure to make more than a small minority believe them enough to go out and back their campaign.

Despite backing from a media that is notoriously hostile to the EU and despite having a great deal of financial muscle, the motley crew of UKIP/Open Europe and the Conservatives have failed to make their message resonate with the British people. I never thought I would say this, but the analysis of the protest on the EU Referendum site is pretty close to the mark when it states that "Euroscepticism remains in the doldrums, a small minority of hardcore activists who are going nowhere".

Cameron's Euroscepticism loses more friends of influence

There’s an interesting post on the Times blogs by Sam Coates, about the awkward relationship between David Cameron and Republican front-runner John McCain.

In 2006 McCain was invited to speak at the Tory conference (it was less than thrilling) yet in the same year he criticised Cameron’s plans to pull out of the EPP, saying "I would hope they [the Conservatives] would appreciate the support they received from the EPP when they were wandering in the wilderness."

The Times blog quotes McCain as saying, "Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union. The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, and institutionalising our co-operation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance and democracy promotion."

Which perhaps explains the warm glow Dan Hannan feels everytime he mentions Obama’s name here and here

Tory's emergency mythmaking

Britain has 999. Belgium has 100. France has whatever. Difficult for tourists and business travellers alike to remember every emergency number from every country they visit.

So, someone has the idea of having a common number that will work everywhere, not replacing 999 etc, but as an additional number that will put you through to the same switchboard. No problem remembering several different numbers. EU countries all agree to introduce such a system. Useful.

Then, along comes a Tory MEP, desperate for some publicity and media coverage, (Chris Heaton Harris, News of the World letters, 24 February), saying "They must be bonkers if they think we are going to drop 999 in favour of 112. This is another example of an idea pushed by Brussels which nobody wants"

Yet he must surely know perfectly well (it takes about 30 seconds to look at the relevant document, and he - and his staff - are paid by taxpayers to be on top of European legislation) that no one is suggesting to drop 999, and that, far from being an idea nobody wants, every EU country thought it was a good idea.

But why should a Eurosceptic MEP let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Revealed, the way the Tories voted on the treaty

Which way individual Tory MEPs voted on yesterday’s vote on the Lisbon Treaty makes interesting reading.

The vast majority voted against the treaty, in accordance with the Cameron/Hague line. They were, as I said yesterday, the only major party in the whole of the EU to do so.

But nearly a quarter did not follow their party dictat. Christopher Beazley voted in favour as did Tory new boy Sajid Karim, who having defected last year from the Lib Dems, has obviously failed to make many of his new colleagues see sense.

Five more avoided voting. Caroline Jackson might have been simply trying to avoid her colleagues after fiercely attacking them in the Financial Times.

But what of Syed Kamall, who has spent the past few sessions tediously squeezing in references to having a referendum in almost every speech he has made, regardless of the subject being debated, but on Wednesday, when he had a chance to vote on the treaty, he didn’t? Christopher Heaton-Harris and James Elles were also notable by their absence, though the former, at least, is an unlikely closet federalist.

As to Edward McMillan Scott, he can sometimes be very sensible, so not voting against was surely deliberate. And I won't reveal the names of those who apologised to me for not voting for my report on the treaty, citing unbearable pressure from on-high.

Lisbon Treaty overwhelmingly adopted by European Parliament

My report on the Lisbon Treaty, which I co-authored with Íñigo Méndez de Vigo MEP, pleasingly sailed through the European Parliament today, with 525 votes in favour and just 115 against.

Every single party that is in government in the EU’s member states and almost every single one of the principal opposition parties in every member state – except the British Conservatives - showed their support for the treaty in today’s vote.

All the main Christian Democrat parties, all the Socialist parties and the Liberal parties in each of the 27 member states supported the treaty. The same is true for the majority of the Green parties and even Conservative parties, except, of course, the Tories.

Opposition to the treaty came mainly from the far-right and some on the extreme left of the political spectrum. It was, though, curious to see a new political alliance being forged between Sinn Féin and the British Conservatives in opposing this treaty!

Bizarely, some opponents of the treaty argued that it was being adopted without them having access to the consolidated treaties (i.e. the treaties as they will be after being amended by the Lisbon Treaty) and the poor souls find it too hard work to cross reference the amendments. But in any case, consolidated treaties have been published by several member states. Frankly, any Member of the European Parliament who says he or she has not been able to study the texts is not doing the job which they are paid to do. It is pure laziness.

There were also some strange calls for the European Parliament to demand referendums in each member state to ratify the treaty. I find it quite amusing that those who oppose the European Union now want the European Parliament to tell sovereign member states what their internal procedures should be to ratify an international treaty. That is hypocrisy in the extreme!

Finally, I suppose I couldn’t blog on today’s events without mentioning UKIP’s chicken stunt. There were rumours every UKIP MEP was going to dress as a chicken during today’s vote but sadly the sight of Godfrey Bloom in a chicken suit was not to be and in the end they settled on wearing yellow t-shirts with a chicken print. At least they didn't try to disrupt the Parliament this time, but they didn't half look silly!

However, they spent so long parading outside the chamber for the benefit of the press that it became clear to everyone that what they were really "chicken" about, was taking part in the debate - presumably because they can't stand hearing views they disagree with. They simply dislike democratic parliamentary debate.

For my speech opening the debate click here and for my speech winding it up click here.

Eurosceptics at sixes and sevens

The old saying about not being able to organise a piss-up in a brewery now has a new version: not being able to organise a political event in a parliament!

Showing that there is seemingly no limit to their talent for incompetence, some hardline Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP MEPs have organised a "demonstration" against my report on the Treaty of Lisbon - but managed to choose the wrong day! Intended to coincide with the debate on my report (Wednesday), they have invited the media to come to watch their antics today (Tuesday), the day before it is to be debated.

Meanwhile, I gather that the expulsion of Tory malcontent Dan Hannan is on the agenda of the EPP Group later this evening. Today, Hannan got up in Parliament to apologise to President Pöttering for his comments last month when he compared the Parliament's President to Hitler. It is deeply ironic that an arch-Eurosceptic like Hannan who is desperate for the Conservatives to leave the EPP, is now trying to squirm his way out of being expelled from it. Has he done a U-turn, or has he been lent on from on-high to avoid further embarrassment for the Conservative party?

Later, not a single British Conservative MEP was in the chamber to hear the speech of the Swedish Conservative Prime Minister. Tory leader Giles Chichester did turn up briefly towards the end of ther debate, made a short speech, but didn't even have the courtesy to wait for the reply from the Prime Minister.

Why this striking absence? Can't they stand hearing from a Conservative leader about how good the Lisbon Treaty is? About how an effective European Union is the only way to meet common transnational challenges? Or are they embarrassed about how a Conservative Prime Minister dismisses out of hand arguments claiming that this treaty has constitutional implications or transfers sovereignty and therefore warrants a referendum?

.

So much for the British Conservatives wanting a wider and deeper debate on the future direction of Europe! They prefer to hide outside the chamber (presumably in the bar with the equally absent UKIP MEPs) than hear arguments that many of them recognise as correct, but which their public position precludes them from applauding. Another step in their self-imposed isolation from mainstream centre-right parties in Europe!

Referendum campaign still flagging

The Conservatives were struck another blow in their failing campaign for a referendum on the Reform Treaty. Their petition demanding a referendum on the Reform Treaty, and posted on the Downing Street petitions website by Tory MEP Geoffrey Van Orden, received only 4,057 signatures. This shows how little public backing they are gaining for David Cameron's calls for a referendum on the Reform Treaty.

Hannan's calculated attack just an embarrassing stunt

There were controversial scenes in Parliament today as Conservative MEP, and Telegraph columnist, Dan Hannan stood up and compared his fellow EPP colleague, the Speaker of the Parliament, Hans Gert Pottering, to Hitler. Joseph Daul, the EPP leader, responded by telling the Parliament that he would propose to expel Hannan from the EPP.

This was a calculated attack by Hannan who will probably have already penned his Telegraph column which will accuse the Parliament of gagging him, and acting to ban any opposition to the EU.

Of course the reality is that anyone who stood up in any parliament would face opprobrium if they compared the Speaker to Hitler. Indeed, it was merely a petty stunt to support his claim that the European Parliament will not tolerate minority views.

This is simply not true. The European Parliament has a very wide range of political views and speaking time in debates is shared out proportionately among all the political groups - so all views are heard in the debates.

The incident which provoked his carefully choreographed outburst was a vote on an interpretation (by the relevant committee) of the rules of procedure of Parliament. The rules have not been changed, but it was confirmed that they already allow the President of Parliament to call an end to excessive use of points of order, procedural motions, etc where they are "manifestly intended to cause, and will result in, a prolonged and serious obstruction of the business of the House ."

This is a reserve power that has only once been used - by President Pat Cox some five years ago - but is there to protect Parliament, if necessary, from attempts to bring it to a complete halt. The President of the European Parliament anyway has far less drastic powers than the Speaker of the House of Commons

If Hannan and co are upset about that, it is probably because they are indeed intending to bring democratic debate to a halt, possibly next month when Parliament debates and votes on the Reform Treaty, which they oppose.

The interesting question now is whether Hannan will be disowned by his Tory colleagues in the EP (who, at committee stage, supported this interpretation of the Rule). It is certainly an embarrassment for the Conservative Party and it will be intriguing to see what David Cameron has to say about it. Probably nothing!