The truth about EU regulation

An argument I’ve always taken on with eurosceptics is the effects on business of EU regulation. Open Europe took umbrage at an article I wrote in the Yorkshire Post a few weeks ago, which questioned their wild assertions that EU regulation was out of control and crushing British business, in particular their claim that EU regulations will cost the UK £356 billion by 2018, the equivalent of £14,300 per household.

However, new analysis by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) indicates that EU regulation actually accounts for a tiny proportion of regulatory costs on business (0.1% in 2007-8). Indeed, according to the BCC, who should know a thing or two about how regulation affects businesses, the net cost to business of EU regulation was only £1.9bn, i.e. about £31 per person.

The BCC research also indicates that the ‘better regulation’ drive by both the European Commission and Government have, although derided by the Tories, had an effect. Having analysed 246 impact assessments on regulation affecting business in 2007-8, the BCC research states that the Government managed to cut more than £1bn in administrative costs on business.

Even hese figures, of course, don’t factor in the massive benefits to business and consumers of the European single market, estimated by the European Commission to be as much as 2% of national GDP.

The point is that, to misquote Stephen Fry’s General Melchett in TV’s BlackAdder, regulation isn’t a dirty word. Firstly, having one single set of common rules, instead of 27 different sets of national regulation, can actually cut red tape for business. Moreover, a sizeable proportion of EU regulation on matters ranging from water quality to vehicle licensing would exist at national level if the EU did not exist. The other point is that some regulation saves lives (such as banning the use of asbestos in buildings) or, in the case of the Temporary Agency Workers Directive, provides extra rights and social protection for workers,

As legislators, we don’t always get it right, and there are many ways in which the European Parliament, Government and our national parliament could improve the scrutiny and development of European law – from the initial Commission proposal to the final legislation. But research by such an authoritative business voice as the BCC (which, incidentally, also shows that EU regulation accounts for about 20% of regulation on British business, a far cry from David Cameron’s comment that “almost half of all regulations imposed on our businesses come from Brussels”) should certainly knock eurosceptic scare stories on the head.

Nonetheless, it would great to think that, faced with the evidence, the Tories, Open Europe, and Taxpayers’ Alliance will now admit that they were talking nonsense. Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath, though.

Celebrating the minimum wage with a bit more holiday!

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the minimum wage, introduced by the Labour government and opposed by many of today's Tories who claim to be on the side of working families. If you visit here you can see the dramatic difference the minimum wage makes each day.

Neatly coinciding with this year's anniversary is an increase in holiday leave for all workers in Britain. EU law already guarantees everyone 20-days paid holiday a year, however some employers were forcing people to include public holidays as part of their leave. From today, this loophole has been closed by increasing the minimum amount of leave for all full-time workers to 28 days (it's pro-rata for part-timers). So even if people must take their bank holidays as leave they will still have the equivalent of four working weeks off a year, a change which will benefit six million people.

Is Iceland going to become the next country to join the EU?

Well, stranger things have happened. Iceland's Prime Minister, Geir Haarde has announced the creation of a commission to analyse whether Iceland should join the EU, while the Icelandic Foreign Ministry has drafted an action plan that would see the country make a membership application early next year with a view to becoming a full member in 2011. Given that Iceland already implements EU single market legislation in order to have access to the common market, it should not take them long to adopt the rest of the EU acquis communautaire.
 
In a further sign of the government's determination to proceed quickly, Haarde has announced that his ruling Independence Party will hold its 2009 conference in January instead of next October as scheduled, purely to consider the question of EU membership.
 
Iceland has never before applied for EU membership, but the price of isolation has been brought home to them following the collapse of its banking sector and a massive run on its currency, the Króna. This has convinced many in Iceland that the country needs to join the euro. For this to happen, Iceland must be a member of the EU. Indeed, recent opinion polls show that 70% of Icelanders are in favour of EU membership.
 
All of which must have eurosceptics, and particularly Dan Hannan, (who frequently argue that Britain's relationship with the EU should be akin to that of Iceland), weeping into their drinks. It's been a bad few weeks for their arguments.

Bruges group anniversary highlights Tory divisions on Europe

I was interested by the coverage of the dinner to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Mrs Thatcher's notorious Bruges speech.

At the gala dinner organised by the arch-eurosceptic Bruges Group, and attended by a handful of the most eurosceptic Tory politicians and a few UKIP members, diners listened to Norman Tebbit call for Britain to completely re-negotiate its relationship with the EU, followed by a referendum on whether Britain should remain part of the EU.

It ties in quite neatly with my article in the Guardian at the weekend, looking at the Tories' continued divisions on all things European. One of things that has struck me is that many Tories, particular the younger breed, routinely claim to be eurosceptic, and argue that we should re-negotiate our EU membership, but are unable to identify or examine in any detail the policy areas they would like to see Britain opt out of. At the same time, however, they do not wish Britain to leave the EU and recognise the huge economic benefits of having access to the single market and its common set of rules.

But the diehard eurosceptics, focussed to the point of obsession on their hostility to Europe, dictate the pace. They have been appeased by Cameron since his election as party leader in 2005, through a combination of the pledge to withdraw the Tory MEPs from the mainstream centre right European People's Party in the European Parliament and his refusal to rule out a post-ratification referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, Dan Hannan, one of the most eurosceptic Tory MEPs, says he voted for Cameron in 2005 purely because of his promise on EPP withdrawal.

The Tory moderates and, indeed, Cameron would probably be happiest if all European controversies would just go away. If the Conservatives really were to win the next election, presumably with the world economy still in the process of recovering from the effects of the financial crisis, few senior Tories would relish the prospect of seeing their administration dominated by re-negotiating our membership of the EU followed by a referendum that they would probably lose.

But, while the europhobes remain such a vocal minority in the Tory party and feel that Cameron is the man to do their bidding for them, the Conservative leadership will be at their mercy. As William Hague has acknowledged, Europe is still a "ticking time bomb" for the Conservatives.

A positive few days in Manchester

I have been cheered by an enjoyable few days at Labour party conference in Manchester.

Perhaps to the surprise of some, the atmosphere was upbeat and determined with little sign of the doom and gloom many people outside the party were wishing for.

It hasn't been the easiest few months for Gordon but his speech today was excellent, setting out a commanding set of policies for the future and drawing clear battle lines between what Labour has done so well and what the Conservatives would fail to do, coninciding of course with his calm handling of the world financial crisis in this past, manic week. Another of his points, importantly, was Labour's determination to continue to work closely with our neighbouring countries in the EU, something David Cameron has failed to comprehend since taking charge of the Tories.

The stark differences between Labour and the Conservatives with regards to the EU has been hammered home time and again throughout the conference. Both on the conference floor and in fringe meetings Labour MPs, ministers, MEPs and party members have been standing up and championing Europe and it's fantastic to hear!

It was also a great pleasure to see the moving tribute to my colleagues Gary Titley and Glenys Kinnock recieved following their announcement they would be stepping down at the next European elections. Both MEPs have worked tirelessly for their constituents, Gary for almost 20 years and Glenys 15, and it was touching to see Gordon and the rest of the party acknowledge their efforts so enthusiastically.

Integration and fragmentation in Europe

Following on from yesterday, the question of whether Kosovo and South Ossetia should be recognised as sovereign states is only the latest in a trend that has seen the number of sovereign countries in Europe more than double in the space of a century, with every possibility that this trend will continue. But in the living memory of our most senior citizens, there were only 22 states in Europe prior to 1918, (and two of these, Albania and Norway, were only recently independent).

The break up of Austria-Hungary and the Tsarist Empire at the end of the First World War saw this rise to 29, soon reaching 30 with the establishment of an independent Ireland. At the end of the Second World War, however, this had fallen to 28, with the disappearance of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania hardly compensated for by the creation of the GDR. This figures remained stable during the entire Cold War period, increasing only with the independence of Malta and Cyprus, bringing the total to 30.

Since the end of the Cold War, the break ups of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, saw this jump, within a decade, to 46. Recognition of the independence of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia would bring us to nearly 50 sovereign states on the territory of Europe. And, of course, some would argue that the independence of Flanders, Scotland, the Basque country and Catalonia is not beyond the bounds of the impossible.

So, from a continent of 20 sovereign states in 1900 we could well have one with over 50 in the coming years. Of course, the majority of the states will be in the European Union. Fragmentation will have been balanced by a degree of integration. Indeed, it is this very integration that has made it plausible, in some cases, for smaller units to be viable. Arguing, for independence within Europe sounds far less isolationist when you are simply making the case to upgrade your status rather than go off into the wilderness. But, as I said yesterday, that scenario is not without problems. And what about other parts of the world where there are countless ethnicities and other groups who could seek to aspire to independence?

A world fragmented into several hundred small countries along with just a handful of giants would not necessarily be a better place in terms of getting world level agreement on global issues - not least environmental ones, it might prove even more difficult than now. There could also be an arms race as such countries seek to develop their own armies and defend themselves against real or imaginary threats from their neighbours. Much would depend on the multilateral frameworks created for integration and cooperation. And here Europe certainly remains a model.

New crackdown on airline's hidden costs

Amid the Conservative's infighting and the adoption of my parliamentary rule change on groups, I haven't had time to mention the new regulations governing how air-fair prices are advertised, which was adopted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg this week.

Many people will have come across airline advertisements promising bargain flights only to find the price rising substantially as they go through their booking. The final cost then bears little resemblance to the price which encouraged you to travel with them in the first place. The European Commission's investigation into the phenomenon found that well over a quarter of air travel websites indulged in such practices.

The new rules will put an end to these false prices by ensuring that advertised prices include all airport taxes, fees and charges. In a further attempt to improve transparency, airlines must also make clear the cost of any optional extras (luggage, booking a particular seat etc) at the start of the booking process. This is of course good news for consumers who can now feel confident they are getting the best value for money and can make an informed choice without having to sift out hidden costs and extra charges.

The rules will come into force by the end of the year.

EU plans for health tourism

Health tourism has hit the headlines over the past week with the Commission unveiling their proposals designed to clarify the rules for people to get treatment in different EU countries, potentially making it easier for them to do so.

While there has been some concerns that the NHS would be weighted down with extra costs, the fact is only one percent of health care budget is currently spent across borders. One of the things the new measures intend to do is regulate the current system so people can be certain that the health care they will recieve will be of a certain standard.

The Daily Mail is surprising pleased with the news as it has discovered dental care will be included and this exactly the sort of reason these proposals are being introduced. Different countries have different areas with spare capacity and different shortages and, by allowing people to travel for care, Europe can share a far bigger pool of resources, whilst each health service remains in charge of its own system and in control how much is spent.

As the BBC explains, "If the cost of treatment abroad exceeds the cost of similar treatment at home, the patient will have to pay the difference, under the Commission's scheme."

And should a country not be able to afford funding a significant amount of patients travelling abroad then they will be able to apply an emergency break.

You can read more about the details of this in this article in the FT.

Sunday sceptics praise EU legislation

It was pleasantly surprising to see stories in several of the more eurosceptic Sunday papers giving a favourable write up to proposed European legislation.

The Sunday Telegraph praises the proposed EU cross-border enforcement rules of speeding and parking fines. The inability of British authorities to be able to trace foreign drivers costs us £10m per year in unpaid fines from around 180,000 offences. These proposals will enable police to chase foreign transgressors, who currently violate our laws with impunity, who have committed offences such as speeding, jumping traffic lights, drink driving and driving without wearing a seatbelt. It's an example of when a common set of rules and enforcement mechanism is eminently sensible.

Elsewhere, the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday favourably reported the proposed Small Business Act which would increase the role of small businesses in framing European legislation and include measures to have common starting dates for legislation affecting firms and an annual statement of legislation coming into force. Surprising, but welcome, to see that they are praising EU measures to cut red tape and business burdens rather than recycling the usual scare stories about 'meddling Brussels bureaucrats'.

Although the Mail was less fulsome, pointing out that the Federation of Small Businesses feels the proposals are "too weak", if you were a Commission press officer you'd be forgiven for asking for a lie down at all the praise!

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.

CBI should stand up for Europe at home and abroad

In the British debates on Europe, the CBI often keeps its head below the parapet. For example, during the debate surrounding the Lisbon Treaty, they were happy with the UK protocol relating to the Charter of Rights but refused to publicly endorse the treaty despite getting what they wanted.

But at European level, with its sister organisations from across Europe, it's less reticent. Their recent publication, "Successful companies for a successful Europe", comments that "ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is important to ensure it [the EU] remains operational".

It goes on to state that European companies, "want to convey a political vision to strengthen Europe by pursuing its integration process" adding that "Europe is the right dimension for addressing tomorrow's big challenges in trade, energy, environment or immigration, and for creating the best conditions for economic growth".

It also points out that:

*In 1957 the six founding countries of the EEC represented 15% of global GDP. Today, even with the rapid economic growth in India and China, the EU accounts for 20% of total GDP.

*The EU is the largest economic market in the world and the largest exporter.

*The EU-27 is characterised by "wealth creation created by European companies, high level social protection, political stability and strong democratic institutions".

Let's hope the CBI breaks its vow of silence on Europe by saying this more loudly at home, not just abroad.

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.

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!

More good news for phone users

More good news for mobile phone users this week, as EU communications commissioner Viviane Reding set phone companies a July deadline for cutting the price of SMS and data transfer (which includes the internet and mobile email) charges in line with the drop in roaming call charges, which have fallen 60% since the EU introduced price caps for operators last year.

As it stands, operators charge up to 20 times more for roaming customers than domestic customers, with prices ranging widely throughout EU countries. Operators have been given until July 1st to reduce prices, at which point Reding says she will assess the situation again, with regulation being considered if necessary.

Mobile phone roaming is a clear example of an area where EU-wide action can really benefit the consumer – let’s hope that the phone companies listen to Viviane Reding’s concerns and act accordingly, making the ‘mobility’ of our phones a little less costly!

Brown highlights importance of Europe to business

A timely reminder from our Prime Minister at the Business for New Europeconference this morning about the importance of Europe to Britain:

"What is clear is that at this time of global economic uncertainty, we should not be throwing into question - as some would - the stability of our relationship with Europe and even our future membership of the European Union - risking trade, business and jobs. Indeed, I strongly believe that rather than retreating to the sidelines we must remain fully engaged in Europe so we can push forward the reforms that are essential for Europe’s, and Britain’s, economic future.

The EU is key to the success of business in the UK:

Europe accounts for nearly 60 per cent of our trade;

700,000 British companies have trading ties to Europe;

And 3.5 million British jobs depend upon Europe.

And even in the face of rapid globalisation, our trade with Europe continues to rise, meaning Europe is as important to the future of Britain than ever.

So European Union membership is good for Britain and British membership is good for Europe"

EU shows its influence in Bali

The unlikely deal agreed at the UN summit in Bali at the weekend was a welcome surprise after two days of bitter wrangling, not least a bitter stand-off between the European Union and the US, with the US delegation refused to sign any text until the eleventh hour.

The "Bali roadmap" will initiate a two-year negotiation process to finalise a set of emissions targets to replace the Kyoto protocol by the time of the 2009 UN climate change conference to be held in Denmark.

The process is 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 - making a deal more likely.

We did not achieve the holy grail of binding targets for cutting emissions but getting the US, who never ratified Kyoto and have, until recently, even denied the need to cut emissions to tackle climate change, to agree to a text stating that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required" is a damn good start.

Good to see this story about the impact of the EU’s Objective 1 regeneration programme on the South Yorkshire economy. Employment rose by 14% in the region between 2000 and 2005, a rate that is three times higher than the national average.

The tangible effect of regeneration programmes on economic competitiveness - through training and developing skills, job creation and support for local businesses and entrepreneurship, should not be understated. Objective 1 research has shown that employment in the financial services sector in South Yorkshire has increased by 93% since 2000, while the creative and digital industries have grown by 58%. Indeed, since 2000, Objective 1 programmes have resulted in £800 million of funding to regenerate South Yorkshire and have helped create around 26,000 jobs.

In a meeting with Flood’s Minister John Healey yesterday, MEPs were told the good news that Britain is due to receive £115million pounds from the European Solidarity fund, following this summer’s flooding.

It will constitute the second largest payment in the fund’s history with the money going towards paying for the expense of the emergency operation that followed (shelters, temporary accommodation, and restoring utilities) and rebuilding damaged infrastructure like bridges.

It is not yet known how much our region will receive but large parts of South Yorkshire and much of Hull were severely affected by the flooding and I’m sure they will receive the money they need.

The news also vindicates the government’s decision to make a patient and careful analysis of just how much damage was done rather than rushing in with a quick application just to win a few easy headlines.

On another matter of European funding, I have received an answer from a parliamentary question I asked in September concerning congestion in Hull.

Anyone who has used the A63 will know that Castle St in Hull is regularly gridlocked, partly because it is part of the Limerick to St Petersburg Trans-European Network, which carries the bulk of northern England and Ireland’s trade to the continent.

Because of its importance to trade I asked the Commission whether European money would be available to improve the current situation (a short tunnel is one idea), as the road also hinders Hull’s development somewhat by cutting the waterfront off from the rest of the city.

The Commission has since responded and have made clear that Hull could potentially receive some funding or failing that a loan from the European Investment Bank.

The much heralded new roaming charges were introduced for all mobile phone users across Europe at the weekend.

The new tariffs, approved by the European Parliament in May this year, mean there are now caps in place which mean it will cost a maximum of 17p a minute to receive a call and 34p a minute to make a call when abroad, with the cost set to continue dropping over the next three years.

Perhaps the most important measure in the regulations are that mobile networks must now be transparent about the cost of making and receiving calls in another country.
Prior to the regulations few people were clear about the cost of using a mobile abroad and with many were left stunned to learn that it could cost over a pound a minute merely to receive a call abroad.

Networks will now have to inform mobile users about the costs of using their phones everytime they enter a new EU country.

However, there is still work to do, as text messages and data charges are currently not covered by the tariffs but MEPs and the Commission are already pressuring networks to change this before regulation is needed.

The BBC has followed the progress of the roaming charges from beginning to end. Click here for more.

Click here for questions and answers on the new tariffs.

Following this month’s earlier story concerning the plight of Scarborough’s MV Coronia – the passenger vessel docked due to new UK maritime legislation – I have been made aware of another Yorkshire passenger vessel facing similar problems. Bridlington’s Yorkshire Belle has been told by the MCA that due to new "EU legislation" it is no longer able to make its traditional voyage between Bridlington and Scarborough.

As I revealed last month, these restrictions are not EU laws – they are existing British maritime laws that the MCA now want to enforce with no exceptions. These British regulations mean that vessels such as the MV Coroniaand the Yorkshire Belle can sail no further than 15 miles from their departure point, but the rules contained in the EU directive on maritime safety restrict vessels from sailing no more than 15 miles from the nearest harbour, meaning that should the MCA apply these rules that the British government agreed at European level, both the MV Coronia and the Yorkshire Belle would be able to continue to make their traditional voyages along the Yorkshire coats with no restrictions.

I have already written to the MCA to request they apply the EU rules that will save these two pleasure boat companies from going out of business, and am awaiting their reply.

To show your support for these vessels, and similar vessels around the country facing the same problems, please sign the petition urging the MCA to apply the restrictions contained in the EU directive on maritime safety.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/pleasureboats/

Euromyths are not always a media invention – they are sometimes made up by those who have a vested interest in shifting the blame away from themselves. Such is the case with the current controversy over the MV Coronia – the ship that defied the Nazis during World War II to rescue soldiers from Dunkirk, which has now been told it can no longer make the 17 mile journey from Scarborough to Whitby because of “new EU restrictions” limiting the distance a vessel like the MV Coronia can travel to just 15 miles.

Conservative MEP Edward McMillan-Scott has championed the cause, writing a letter to Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, demanding to know “why British laws are being cast aside in favour of an EU directive.” But perhaps Mr McMillan-Scott should have checked his facts first and then he wouldn’t be left with egg on his face.

It turns out that the restrictions preventing the MV Coronia from making its traditional voyage are not EU laws, but in fact UK laws. Not only that, should the UK simply implement the European directive on maritime safety without adding its own restrictions, the MV Coronia would be able to make its traditional voyage.

The Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA), the organisation tasked with implementing British maritime policy, has deviously suggested that new restrictions placed on passenger vessels have been imposed by the EU because the MCA adopted new EU classifications of vessels in order to apply their existing regulations more stringently than before.

But as well as containing new classifications of vessels, the EU directive also contained new more appropriate restrictions for these classes – but these restrictions have been ignored by the MCA. According to British regulations, the MV Coronia may not travel more than 15 miles from its point of origin, but under the new EU regulations, the MV Coronia may travel within 15 miles of the nearest harbour. This means that should the MCA simply implement the EU maritime safety directive, the MV Coronia would be able to make its traditional voyage with no restrictions.

But Tory MEPs and the anti-EU media don’t care about the facts. All they care about is spreading lies and false fear about the EU. In this case, their desire to criticise the EU has ruined any chance of gaining support for the very thing that would prevent the MV Coronia from going out of business – the rules we jointly agreed with other EU countries.

Following the devastating floods that hit many parts of Yorkshire in June, many people are asking me what the EU is doing to help.

When floods hit Austria, Germany, and the Czech Republic in the summer of 2002, the EU stepped in to offer assistance to those countries to help them recover from the crisis. That precedent led to European countries agreeing to set up a European Solidarity Fund, which the EU uses to help countries struck by similar natural disasters, as it did in 2005 for Romania and Bulgaria.

This fund IS available to the UK, and the government have announced they will apply for EU assistance. This means that flood-hit communities in Yorkshire could take a share of up to £125 million in EU aid to help them recover from the floods.

An interesting pamphlet, prepared by a group of academics, chaired by Professor Jo Shaw of Edinburgh University (and formerly of Leeds) looking at EU cooperation in the field of Justice & Home Affairs, came across my desk today. In its conclusions is a comment which could apply generally to some British attitudes to the EU. Referring to the advocates of retaining vetoes on EU decisions, it says they give the impression of "European partners apparently eager to legislate against British interests wherever the national veto is lost. In fact, the UK is often a quiet champion of law-making in JHA and in many cases stands to benefit from the greater ease of decision-making brought by qualified majority voting."

I have welcomed an initiative by the European Union to introduce a new, and much needed, common missing children hotline.

The new EU hotline number 116-000 would be free of charge and would be operational in all of the 27 states of the EU. This would mean that should a child go missing in any one of the member states, parents can be reassured that a child may phone this number irrespective of their location and access people who could help to locate them.

My Labour colleagues and I fully support such a measure, but it would reassuring to know that this hotline would be up and running soon, now that the summer holidays have started, as so many families will be taking holidays within Europe. It would be an additional help for the well-being of our children.

The expansion of the EU to incorporate 27 countries, with the free movement of persons throughout most of the internal borders, has meant that the issue of missing children within Europe is frequently a trans-border phenomenon which is in need of a co-ordinated Europe-wide response.

The EU’s Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini has sent a survey to the EU capitals asking them how they deal with violent radical interpretations of Islam so ideas can be pooled and methods shared. This was in response to the failed car-bomb attempts at London and Glasgow. The 18-question survey asks what policies are being used by EU member states to ensure that education establishments are not vulnerable to radical interpretations of Islam, what policies are adopted on funding and supervision of religious schools and also asks how EU member states are trying to diminish the threat of a radical having access to any form of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear scientific knowledge.

EU states are expected to reply by the end of September and the answers will then feed into a Commission document, due for publication in 2008, which will then help form an EU-wide strategy on violent radicalisation.

This is a great opportunity for the UK to have a huge influence on an EU initiative that could bring so many benefits home. The UK is one of the main targets of Islamist terrorism in Europe, and therefore, has the a lot to gain from an EU-wide strategy to combat radical Islam.

It also highlights why we are fully-fledged members of the EU, and serves as a warning to those like UKIP who would withdraw us from the EU into a simple trade association. This is a policy area where the UK needs to have influence. The terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11th were part of what was called the “Hamburg cell” in Germany. Who is to say that terrorist cells hidden away in cities across the EU are not planning attacks on UK soil? If we want fellow EU governments to take similar measures to the UK in order to combat this threat, then we can use the EU framework to achieve this.

Equally, Britain can underline that the majority of Muslims are, of course, not radical or violent and highlight its experience in integrating Muslims successfully into our diverse society.

While much of the talk around the parliament is about this week’s summit, which kicks off in Brussels tomorrow, we are still in the midst of a normal parliament session in Strasbourg.

This week has seen the parliament again demonstrate that it deserves its reputation as a world leader on animal welfare welfare by voting to ban the import of dog and cat fur in the EU.

There are some ghastly statistics about the use of dog and cat fur, with a single coat costing the lives of 24 cats, while millions of dogs and cats are slaughtered each year because of the trade.

Labour MEPs actually started campaigning for a ban over eight years ago, and with some tremendous support from EU citizens the issue was recognised by Parliament and the Council.

Meanwhile, the intensely fought battle over vodka in the parliament, ( a political one rather than some form of drinking competition in the Swan Bar) that really took off during Finland’s presidency looks like it has finally been resolved.

Poland, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia all joined Finland in demanding that only vodka made from grain and potatoes could be described as vodka, a situation other countries who made vodka from fruit or sugar (like Britain) were deeply unhappy with.

Long meetings had failed to break the deadlock while angry emails have flown across cyberspace with the war of words at one point desending into wild accusations about some vodkas not made from potatoes or grain, containing cow slurry!

However, finally the parliament have adopted a compromise which means vodka may indeed be produced from things other than potatoes and grain, but must say so prominently on the label.

Importantly for Britain, the new rules also state that whisky cannot contain flavourings or sweetners, a measure which will protect Britain’s huge whisky industry from inferior imitators.

I stumbled across this interesting take on Europe from a Latin American writer.

"I visited Europe for the first time in 1950, sent to study at the University of Geneva and to sit in on courses at the ecole D'Hautes Etudes International. Switzerland was intact. But as I traveled the continent I saw the urban chasms left by the Blitzkrieg in London and by the R.A.F. in Dresden. Vienna was occupied by the three then‑allied powers (the U.S.A., Britain, France and the USSR). Large effigies of Lenin and Stalin covered the Hofsburg. The great hotels, occupied by the occupiers, were unavailable and one would look for rooms in boarding houses. Leaving Vienna was a more hazardous event than coming in: only the good offices of a friendly French diplomat gave me an exit permit and I was on my way to a devastated Italy. Shoeless children offered sciusa shoeshine. Theft was rampant, men in very shabby clothes cluttered in third class cartridges with bags held together by rope. It was the world pictured by De Sica and Rossellini, while in France my friends lived in unheated apartments as the collaborationist debate heated up a world of ambiguous innocence and guilt, but all related to the Bosch, the German enemy. You needed coupons to buy almost everything in Britain and the magnificent cathedral at Cologne was badly hurt.

Half a century later, Europe is the largest economic and commercial bloc in the world. With 500 million inhabitants, it possesses the highest level of education, communications and general well‑being in the planet. In population, wealth and trade, it surpasses the U.S.A. The pain of the postwar period I lived in 1950 is gone. Today Europe, in general terms, breathes satisfaction.

When Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman joined Konrad Adenauer that very year of my student days in 1950 to plant the seeds of the European Community, they were moved by a fervent desire: that there would never be another war between France and Germany. That the periodic catastrophes of 1870, 1914 and 1939, should never again happen.

Built on the axis of good will between France and Germany, today Europe is, in a large measure, a success that its citizens take for granted. Nonetheless, the historic will that lead to the creation of the E.E.C, precisely because it was so successful, tends to be forgotten. There is a European youth that doesn't think twice about the past. The present is pleasant and comfortable. Frontiers are open, popular culture does not require a passport, the past is over, history is forgotten."

From Carlos Fuentes, Latin America and Europe, Conference 1 June 2007

A Dutch television programme, in which a terminally ill patient chooses a contestant to receive her kidneys upon her death, has caused controversy across Europe but it has at least awakened the debate on an EU-wide organ donor card.

Whilst an opinion poll carried out by the European Commission in 2006 found that 81 per cent of EU citizens think that carrying a donor card is a good idea, the proportion of people that actually carry a card is much lower. As the BBC website highlights, 40,000 patients in the EU are on waiting lists for a transplant, with up to ten people a day dying waiting for an available donor.

As a result, the EU’s Health Commissioner yesterday put forward proposals to introduce a Europe wide organ donor card that would be valid in all member states. It is hoped that an EU donor card would help tackle transplant waiting lists and increase the number of organs available for transplant operations across all member states.

People (or at least certain newspapers) think EU laws are dreamt up by Brussels bureaucrats on an idle day. In fact, most of the proposals are in response to suggestions from Member States, MEPs and ordinary citizens.

An example was in the press last week. Police in this country have raised concerns over the driving habits of citizens of other countries when they come to the UK. Different road laws in other EU countries mean that other EU nationals may not be aware of our own driving laws, and be more likely to break them. Some even use it as an excuse to break our road laws according to the police, using ignorance to justify dangerous driving.

Because of these concerns, British police have called for road rules to be standardised across the EU. Eddy Greif, of the European Traffic Police Network said that, "I do not believe that drinking alcohol and driving is less dangerous in the United Kingdom than in other parts of the European Union, and I am very sceptical that a driver has more chance to survive a high speed crash on a German motorway than on similar well built roads in other Member States. It would certainly help drivers to know that traffic regulations applied all over Europe are the same, it is the first condition they must comply with."

Of course, to become law, a response from the Commission is not enough. Any proposal drafted by them must secure the agreement of the EU Council (of ministers of the national governments) and the European Parliament.

So an idea like this one, coming for our police, will only become a European law if they can obtain widespread support for it.

The media is buzzing following today's decision by MEPs to adopt measures that will place caps on mobile phone roaming charges. Labour MEPs have spent the last two years campaigning on behalf of consumers for these rip-off charges to be capped, and today our hard work paid off as the new law was passed.

Currently when you use your mobile in another EU country you will be charged by your phone company extortionate fees not only for making calls, but also for receiving calls. Today’s decision will put a limit on those fees across the EU, so now when you make a call on holiday in another EU country, that fee will be capped at approximately 39p per minute (falling to approximately 34p per minute after two years) and when you receive a call, the fee will be capped at approximately 19p per minute (falling to approximately 15p per minute).

So one more of many victories for consumers thanks to European legislation applicable across the whole of the European market. But why then did Conservative MEPs oppose this? Tory MEPs voted against caps on mobile roaming charges, championing the cause of big businesses to charge their customers what they like – so no change there then from the Tories.

No change from UKIP leader Nigel Farage either, who unsurprisingly stated his opposition to the new law by saying it was merely a "giant publicity stunt" – presumably because the EU that introduced this law . Yet, it would not have been possible to introduce a law of this kind at all without the EU, but we can’t go around praising the EU can we Nigel?

A major concern of the British public right now is illegal immigration. Therefore, Eurosceptics attack the EU on this, even though the UK is not subject to the Schengen open-borders agreement and has retained the right to control its own borders. Because of this, I thought it would be of interest to talk about an EU agency that is helping to tackle illegal immigration into Europe.

The EU’s "Frontex" external border agency has recently seen remarkable success. Frontex has been patrolling the waters between the northwest coast of Africa and Spain’s Canary Islands (one of the most popular, but also dangerous, entry points into the EU for illegal immigrants, often duped by traffickers). The right-wing media like to portray this entry point as a stop-gap before they attempt to enter the UK. Although for the most part this isn’t actually true, I’m sure they will be pleased to know that Frontex successfully reduced the numbers of illegal immigrants arriving at the Canary Islands by 60% in the first three months of this year. Not only that, Frontex has helped save over 1,000 lives so far on a route that claimed some 6,000 lives in 2006.

This week the EU agreed to deploy rapid reaction units, under Frontex, which will be made up of some 450 national experts, made available at short notice of up to five working days to any member state whose borders are under urgent and exceptional strain by illegal migration, notably when trafficking gangs are involved. Frontex now has at its disposal over 20 aeroplanes, nearly 30 helicopters and more than 100 vessels as well as a variety of other equipment.

Now, this is the sort of measure that the Daily Mail and suchlike would normally applaud. So, why aren't they? Because, of course, it's an EU agreemenst, and it wouldn't do to welcome anything done at European level!

For more information about Frontex click here.

Following on from this month’s earlier decision by the European Commission to take legal action against Apple’s iTunes brand for their discriminatory practices against British consumers, the EU has again this week demonstrated its relevance for consumer protection.

Last week, the EU released figures showing a large increase in the number of dangerous goods withdrawn from sale across Europe. Children’s toys now form the biggest category of banned products, the vast majority of which were made in China. Products banned thanks to ‘Rapex’, the EU’s new rapid alert system, include a Superman figure that contained poisonous high-lead paint, a teddy bear which a child could take apart and choke on the parts and a skin cream that contained a fungus which presents a serious bacteriological risk.

Elsewhere, the EU handed out fines to three brewers for breaking competition laws. Heineken and Grolsch, two brands popular in the UK, along with Bavaria were fined by the European Commission for stifling competition by colluding to fix prices. Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said the brewers had “carved up” the market between them, adding that such behaviour was “unacceptable.” Heineken has been fined €219m, Grolsch €31.7m and Bavaria €22.9m.

Great to see EU regional funding being put to good use in developing the University of Hull's Business School (now with some 2000 students) and its new Logistics Institute which is attracting interest across Europe. The EU funding is contingent on them reaching out to help local businesses improve their operational efficiency, thereby bringing added value and extra jobs to the local economy.

The school, in a sensitively restored building, features state-of-the-art modern equipment. University lecturers can saunter into the lecture theatres carrying no more than a memory stick: notes, graphs, pictures et al can be projected on to screens and students' laptops. Instead of old blackboards, there is a high-tech screen to write on, which can immediately turn even the worst handwriting into printed text. I must tell Francis Jacobs (one off my co-authors)!

The EU won glowing headlines after European Parliament committees agreed to adopt caps on mobile phone roaming charges earlier in April.

It is particularly positive news for the people who believe the EU must start showing its relevance more visibly to its citizens, as it is an issue that affects the pockets of a large number of people.

Picking up on the public’s interest in the story, the BBC have decided to follow the process of following this particular bit of legislation from beginning to end.
If you click here, you can read how and why roaming charges became an issue for the Commission, and how Member States and MEPs will bring the legislation into existence, through committees, council meetings and parliament votes.

A useful little guide to co-decision procedures and on a piece of legislation which will probably end up saving you some money!

The European Commission is preparing to start legal action against computer giant Apple and major record companies over the way they are discriminating against British consumers.

The Commission says that the way music is sold via iTunes violates consumer freedom as customers cannot buy music from countries other than the one they are residing in. Currently, customers living in the Euro-zone are charged €0.99, customers living in the UK are charged €1.17 and customers living in Denmark (which uses the Kroner) are charged €1.07.

The Commission has notified Apple and its music partners of its concerns and the firms have two months in which to respond. They can also request a face-to-face hearing before the Commission to present their case. The ultimate sanction available to the Commission is to fine guilty firms 10% of their annual global turnover. However, this is only likely to happen in the most extreme cases. Apple recorded sales of more than $19bn last year.

To read more click here.

Sat in Bolivia awaiting the start of another busy day. Through a surprisingly good phone line, I check in with my office and am told the Independent is a sight to behold! Placed around a huge EU flag on the front page are 50 reasons to love the EU, with page two and three also dedicated to its benefits.

Denis MacShane has a column entitled “Why I’m an unashamed enthusiast for Europe” while the paper’s editorial also sings the EU’s praises.

The current edition of Time (using a very similar approach to the Independent) and the Economist also have a special 50th anniversary editions out now.

My friend John Monks, General Secretary of the European Trade Union Congress, gave an excellent speech to the All Party EU Group last night to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.

Some of his remarks about the need to emphasise the benefits or our EU membership were highly pertinent. It is easy for Pro-Europeans to be cowed by the shrill "little Englander" brigade who label anyone who questions their distortions and prejudices about the EU as a euro-fanatic. Instead we must put across the message of the many (too often unrecognised) benefits the EU has delivered for our citizens. Just in terms of work place rights, some obvious examples include: four weeks paid holiday, protection for migrant, fixed term and part-time workers, worker participation, equal pay for women and anti-sex discrimination legislation. These are now enshrined in common rules for our common market and apply across Europe.

As John points out, the EU has been a positive force in enshrining the values of social inclusion and solidarity alongside economic growth in a way that is clearly differentiated from the US model which allows private wealth and public squalor. The social vision of Europe is too important not to be fought for.

The LME website has full text of John's speech, which you can read by clicking here.

The first European summit of the year concluded today with national governments agreeing bold targets to combat climate change.
Member States have ambitious plans to generate 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

EU countries will also aim to reduce carbon emissions by 20%, increase the use of bio-fuels to 10% of transport fuel and will also consider banning filament light bulbs in private homes and offices by 2010.

The deal allows for flexibility so the less developed countries will not have to contribute as much as those in the western half of the continent.

This is, by any standards, an important breakthrough on an issue in which Britain has been at the forefront. Securing EU-wide agreement on such a programme will not only make it more effective but will also help gain leverage to persuade the rest of the world to do like wise.

For more on the summit you can read the BBC’s report while the Guardian and the Times also have coverage on ther websites.

I came across this excellent article by Ivan Massow this morning. In it Mr Massow describes his conversion on the single currency and calls for the party of which he is a member, the Conservatives, to reconsider their hostility to the euro.

In it he rightly points out that the euro has become the predominant and most stable currency in the world, while the French have not become less French, nor the Spanish less Spanish for having adopted it.

He also explains the economic sense of consumers not having to change money when they travel, commenting that if only half of us visited mainland Europe once a year at an average exchange commission of three percent, this amounts to conversion costs of £5.4billion.

Moreover, the beneficial impact of the single currency on British business must be emphasised. Massow, who is a millionaire businessman himself, asserts "I cannot think of a business that would not benefit if exchange commissions and fluctuating currencies disappeared", pointing out that the euro has rapidly surpassed the dollar in becoming the world's number one choice.

Let us be quite clear that in the case of the UK and the single currency, staying out means missing out.

An interesting article in Tuesday's Financial Times (20 February) says "European single market rules have inspired global standard-setting in areas such as product safety, the environment, securities and corporate governance. Increasingly the world is looking to Europe and adopts the standards that are set here"

All the more reason for Britain to be part of the Union setting those standards, rather than just having to accept them with no say in the matter, as countries outside the EU do.

Bradford Council yesterday launched a booklet celebrating the city’s achievements with the European Union money it was granted through its Objective 2 status.

Between 2000 and 2006 Bradford received £47million which it spent on 195 different projects, helping to regenerate some of the most deprived parts of the city.

What the Objective 2 team in Bradford has done so well is to identify exactly what the city needs and then help provide it. One example is Bradford Youthbuild Trust, which has used its European grant to redevelop its training centre and now provides young people with comprehensive training in the construction industry and the city with highly skilled youngsters.

There is also the University of Bradford’s Institute of Cancer Therapeutics, that not only researches new techniques and treatments into cancer but also promotes high-technology start-up companies with its excellent facilities, leading to more employment opportunities in the city and attracting new businesses.

It is impossible to do justice to just how much European funding has benefited Bradford but the Telegraph and Argus do a good job and I would also highly recommend getting hold of the booklet, which is called European Impact. If you would like a copy please email my office at richard@richardcorbett.org.uk.

Of course it is not just Bradford which has benefited from the European Regional Development Fund in Yorkshire and the Humber. The communities of Hull, North East Lincolnshire, Wakefield, Kirklees (Objective 2) and South Yorkshire (Objective 1) have also seen just how crucial the ERDF is and how it gives businesses and individuals opportunities to develop, which were previously inaccessible.

As I’m sure many of you know, 2007 is the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. To celebrate heads of governments will issue the Berlin Declaration, a text which will contain the Union’s values and aspirations.

I have set up my own 50th anniversary page on my website where I will compile readers’ thoughts and feelings about what should be in the text and what the EU’s ambitions should be over the next 50 years. There is also a dedicated set of links to other websites commemorating the anniversary.

Many thanks to Una O’Dwyer who is the first contributor. If you would like to take part please get in contact by emailing your ideas to richard@richardcorbett.org.uk

Another European institution that is celebrating this year is Erasmus, the student exchange programme which is now in its 20th year and has allowed over half a million young people to study abroad.

It provides students with a wonderful opportunity to expose themselves to a different culture, and new cities and countries. Just as importantly they develop their language skills which, while obviously benefiting them personally, also gives them the ability to work abroad when they graduate, which consequently encourages unity, understanding and integration.

You can read several articles on Erasmus on the Café Babel website, which also reveals the EU’s ambitious plans to expand the programme over the next few years.

Between 2007 and 2012 3.1billion euros has been pledged to Erasmus, who hope to see another million and a half people take the chance to study abroad in this five year period.

It is interesting, from time to time, to get a completely different perspective on Europe from the one that tends to prevail in Britain, and where better to go than the newest Member State, Romania?

A well-known Romanian newspaper editor, Dana Spinant, has just penned an article on her country’s accession to the EU and why it meant so much to her fellow compatriots.

It concentrated on the freedoms and stability the EU can guarantee, attributes of he Union many of us in the western half of Europe take for granted. It is perhaps a sign of just how successful the EU has been, that its primary objective, to first create, then maintain and most recently to spread peace, stability and democracy, is rarely celebrated by the older EU members.

Spinant writes: “For Romanians, as for Bulgarians or others who lived behind the Iron Curtain, the chance to read more than one newspaper and the right [even!] to a fair weather forecast, let alone the right to hold a passport and travel abroad, are not to be taken for granted.

“So Romanians still do not find obsolete the arguments that the EU is good because it brought peace and contributes to spreading freedom and democracy. They see the point – since most of them were born in a world where none of those existed.”

In Britain for more than a hundred years, and even during the world wars, we have enjoyed a fairly democratic political system, something which makes us, with the Swedes, almost unique in Europe - and uniquely complacent about it! Dana Spinant points out that it is this stability, which the EU has gone on to foster across the continent that is craved so much by new EU members.

Spinant goes further: “The EU’s role was never meant to be just making Romanians richer. That would be a welcome side effect, but the EU’s primary role should be to provide a solid guarantee against bad governance of Romania by Romanians.

“A rather cynical conclusion would that the more strings there are attached to EU membership, the better for Romanians. Italians’ high enthusiasm for the EU is no different. Ordinary Italians have traditionally seen the Union as a welcome constraint on Rome’s volatile and untrustworthy politics…. Tying the hands of their politicians with EU rules that are good enough to be applied in Germany and Sweden sounds like a very good plan to most Romanians.”

Hmm! One certainly doesn't need to go that far as regards most Member States, including, one hopes, Britain. But Dana's general point remains valid.

She concludes: “The admission of these new EU citizens should lead older members of the Union to revisit their perception that the EU’s initial virtues – consolidating peace and spreading freedoms – are passé. As an earlier generation of Europeans, who remember war, who lost their parents or close family on the front between France and Germany, bows out, younger generations start to question, coldly and pragmatically, the EU’s existence.”

“The EU’s raison d’être is perhaps more fragile now as the generation of those who ‘know why’ the Union is good for them departs the scene. But Europe’s newest citizens still know why.”

Every year there are thousands of fires, caused by cigarettes left smouldering or thrown away without being extinguished, often causing fatalities. Yet it is now technologically possible to make cigarettes that put themselves out if they are left smouldering - a self-extinguishing cigarette! A law to make this compulsory in Britain would be quite useful, but its effect would be lessened by the fact that many cigarettes are brought in from abroad, notably from other European countries. So a Europe-wide law to this effect would be highly beneficial, wouldn't it?

Well, yes, and indeed, one is being considered. Yet has this received any media coverage whatsoever? All I have seen so far is one solitary article in the Independent on Sunday. The rest of the media have obviously chosen not to associate a good news story with Europe.

Congratualtions to Clare Burke, of Bradford Grammar School, who won this year’s British Council’s competition “What the EU has done for me”.

The competition is in its second year and Clare’s excellent essay means Yorkshire once again has a winner, after Simon Quarrell from Notre Dame High School, Sheffield claimed one of the prizes last year.

Along with three other winners from the UK, and three from Finland, Clare’s prize was an all expenses paid trip to this week's EU summit as a young journalist.

You can read Clare’s essay, along with the other winners of the competition on the British Council’s website here.

For anyone used to the politically motivated diatribes against the European Union that pervades so much of our national press, it comes as a refreshing surprise to browse through written specialist and trade press where a quite different attitude to Europe is often on display.

Thus, I noticed that Electronics Weekly (8th Nov) says that:

"With the coming into force of the RoHS directive this year, the European Union can be proud that its electronics industry has, for the most part, responded admirably… electronic equipment now being produced will not have a harmful legacy for future generations. Europe's determination to implement green policies, when the easy option is to do nothing, also benefits the entire world as other countries try to follow Europe's lead and environmentally aware multinational companies are standardising on RoHS compliant products to sell worldwide'.

The journal Public Private Finance says (13th Nov) that, as regards recycling, EU pressure on Britain is highly beneficial - indeed, the UK "deserves to be punished. The UK's record on recycling is shameful. It dumps more rubbish on landfill sites than virtually any other EU country. Some 75% of local authority rubbish, about 26m tonnes, was land filled in the UK in 2003-4, compared with 38% in France and just 20% in Germany."

New Scientist, in a leading article (11th Nov), criticises the Common Fishing Policy, not on the usual grounds that it has restricted fisherman fishing by imposing tough quotas, but on the grounds that it has not been tough enough. It says:

"Early one morning next month, bleary-eyed European ministers will probably allow fishermen to take just enough of the few cod left to allow the depleted fishery to stagger on. If they followed scientific advice for a ban on cod fishing, the number of cod would grow, and after a few years catches would boom. But that would involve short-term sacrifice, and no minister will bite that bullet. We need mechanisms to make them. Europe pays farmers not to farm but to be stewards of the countryside. Why not do the same for fishermen?"

The Grocer magazine also carries an article on the Common Fishing Policy, contending that it is actually working, at least for some stocks, albeit not yet for cod.

Computeractive (9th Nov) praises EU plans to lower carbon emissions and cut the EU's energy consumption by a fifth by 2020. It supports suggestions that manufacturers should be - 'forced to label the energy efficiency of their products so consumers can decide to opt for low-energy models. The proposed regulations would impose EU standards globally because manufacturers seeking to sell their products in the EU would have to comply with these "minimum energy performance standards".'

Lloyd's List (8th Nov) praises plans to redefine sea voyages between EU member states as national rather than international as a 'huge step forward for the protection of EU seafarers jobs'.

Yet, not all is bliss for the EU in the specialised press. Marketing Week (9th Nov) quotes the European Automobile Manufacturers Association as campaigning to stop the EU from tightening laws reducing carbon emissions from new cars. It says that consumers prefer 'larger, safer vehicles' to 'fuel efficient' ones. And, "rather than have the EU regulate anything, let's have some more global warming", they might well have added.

It is fashionable in some pro-European circles in Britain to attribute the recent rise of popularity of the EU in opinion polls in Britain to the fact that two tricky issues seem to have been removed from the agenda: accession to the euro, and the Constitutional Treaty.

It was indeed an uphill struggle, at times, to argue the case on these important but complex matters. But pro-Europeans should not for one moment think that these issues have disappeared forever.

We can certainly stay out of the euro in the short-term but in the long-run staying out means losing out. And now that the euro appears to have overcome some teething problems, the terms of this debate may well alter over the coming years.

Similarly, for the Constitutional Treaty. It may have been kicked into the long grass following the French and Dutch referendums, but the 'period of reflection' comes to an end next June when the European Council summit is due to examine a way forward on this issue. Meanwhile, various countries have continued the ratification process and by next June eighteen are likely to have done so. They will want to keep the constitution intact, or as intact as possible. But even if that is not possible, the issues that the Constitutional Treaty was intended to resolve have not disappeared and Member States will have to return to the questions of how to make the EU function more effectively as it approaches 30 Member States, how to improve its democratic accountability and how to make it easier to understand for citizens.

In theory there remains a wide range of possible options, and it is certainly premature now to decide which one of them might be politically feasible next year or later. But two main variants are emerging in the debate. One is re-negotiating the draft constitutional treaty (simply adding protocols to it seems to be an option that is fading). This would take some time and the negotiations would be protracted and complex.

The alternative is to adopt quickly a 'mini-treaty' focusing on the less controversial institutional changes that are necessary to pursue the further enlargement of the European Union. These would be modest and would not rise above the threshold that would trigger referenda in certain countries. In other words, they would give no new responsibilities or competencies to the European Union, whose remit would remain unchanged, but would streamline the institutions (notably a smaller Commission), reform voting procedures and the rotating presidency in the Council and improve democratic accountability.

Interestingly, the items contained in this second option are all issues that would, in any case, have to be addressed in the context of the next accession treaty - presumably with Croatia. The current treaties (as last amended by the Treaty of Nice) contain no provisions for new member states beyond Romania and Bulgaria. If the issues haven't been solved before that, the Croatian accession treaty will anyway have to settle how Croatia will be represented in the institutions. This means that the voting system in the Council will have to be reviewed, (with many countries advocating the system all governments agreed to in the constitutional treaty), reviewing the size of the Commission (which has to be reviewed anyway in 2009 under the current treaties) and the rotation system for the Presidency of the Council and the European Council.

Of course, ratifying an accession treaty will be less controversial than a general Constitutional Treaty, even if the later was no more than a collection of about a dozen useful reforms. There is no reason why an accession treaty should not contain 'emergency repairs' to the EU system, while leaving more fundamental reform to a more long-term process.

Previously, on my blog (here and here to be exact) I have mentioned a couple of examples of journalists or newspapers caught in the act of fabricating totally untrue stories intended to make the EU look bad.

The latest paper caught out is the Daily Mail. Not so long ago they pictured a queue outside the British visa office in Sofia, Bulgaria. At the time I can remember thinking that it was a pretty short queue, certainly a lot shorter than anything you would expect to find at the British passport office, or at any pub in the country on a Friday. However, with trademark scaremongering the intrepid Mail journalists managed to whip up a front page story out of it.

Now though, Peter Preston, writing for the Guardian, reveals the picture was taken the day after a UK bank holiday, meaning the office was processing twice as many visas than on an ordinary day. So despite the queue already being pretty small, had the picture represented a normal day there will probably been fewer than ten people applying for a visa, which isn’t really worthy of an inch in a newspaper let alone a front page.

Preston also wonders why we aren’t welcoming Bulgaria and Romania with open arms. After all, less than 20 years ago they remained communist states devoid of democracy. Had someone said in 1986 these staunchly communist states – Romania run by Ceauşescu and Bulgaria a loyal Soviet satellite state – would be embracing democracy, freedom and working together with their western European neighbours it would have been cause for celebration.

As I mentioned in my blog in Lithuania, some times it is easy to forget just what the EU represents in terms of democracy, stability and prosperity to nations that have been less fortunate than the UK.

Spending two days in Lithuania this week was a refreshing contrast from Britain. The enthusiasm there for the EU would make British tabloids go beserk.

Lithuanians approved EU membership in a referendum with over 91% voting in favour. It was the first country to ratify the constitutional treaty. It had hoped to be the first eastern European country to join the euro on 1 January 2007, but was pipped to the post by Slovenia. In its national Parliament, a leather bound original copy of its Treaty of Accession to the EU is prominently displayed in a glass case with an array of European flags behind it. (Should I suggest to Jack Straw, as Leader of the House, that the Commons do the same?)

I was there to meet national MPs to discuss what to do about the stalled constitutional reform of the EU, but I was invited to give a lecture while there to academics and MPs. I expected a small group of elderly specialists but found the room full of young people and the event transmitted by video conference to universities across the country, whose panels also put questions to me in the three-hour long session. It was also webstreamed over the internet. Somehow I can’t see the same happening if I gave a talk in Westminster!

Of course, in a town like Vilnius, they appreciate all the more the peace and stability that European integration brings. This town was Russian until 1917, part of Poland until 1940, occupied by Stalin's troops for a year until Hitler invaded, murdering the substantial Jewish community, until the Soviets returned in 1945. It became the capital of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania, and the capital of the newly independent state when the USSR broke up just 15 years ago.

Take something as mundane as street signs: within a single person's lifetime, they have changed from Polish to Russian (in cyrillic alphabet) to German to Russian again and finally to Lithuanian.

We often take the peace and stability aspect of the EU for granted. Yet it was and remains a fundamental motive for the whole project. As the recent Finnish Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponnen, said: "What value do you place on even one hour of peace?"

For some time, the European Union has had a firm commitment to medical research, and with some of the finest research scientists in the world, the United Kingdom was always going to benefit.

The EU has given a grant of £8m to Sheffield University to advance knowledge of stem cells and their potential.

As you may know, stem cells, when taken from an embryo, can be directed to grow into any part of the body, from bones to the brain. This technique could, in theory, be developed in to a new form of regenerative medicine which could cure a wide variety of diseases and disabilities.

I understand that this research is seen as controversial, and that is exactly why we need the tight regulations and ethical control placed upon it, but with this technology lives really can be saved and improved beyond measure – and Yorkshire scientists will be at the very heart of it.

The issue of immigration is dominating the front pages of the papers after government statistics revealed that 447,000 EU immigrants from former eastern bloc countries have come to live and work in the UK since 2004.

For the right-leaning media this number alone is enough to spark a plethora of “we’re full up” style stories and columns ahead of the expected accession of Bulgaria and Romania in January 2007.

Yet every other single statistic released about the Workers Registration Scheme demonstrates just how successful the immigration of such a large number of fellow EU citizens has been for the UK.

One of the most interesting was on Newsnight, where it was revealed that EU immigrants from former communist countries (known as the Accession Eight or A-8) currently make the biggest net contributions to the Treasury.

Over 80 per cent of A-8 immigrants are aged between 18 and 34. They are already educated and trained at no cost to Britain and almost all are healthy and working. This means that they are paying income tax, council tax, national insurance and VAT while claiming almost no money back from the government.

Indeed, the statistics (intriguingly printed by the Sun, though not in percentages) show, that out of 447,000 immigrants just 193 people have been awarded income support (0.04%), 574 people (after working for at least a year before losing their jobs) have been accepted for Job Seeker’s Allowance (0.1%), 110 have been given council houses (0.02%) and 453 awarded homelessness assistance (0.1%).Child benefit was awarded to 27,280 claimants but even this works out at a measly 6.1 per cent.

Of equal important is the amount of money being ploughed into local economies. Wages are not only being spent on obvious things such as rent and food but they are also providing welcome boosts to local infrastructures like public amenities and public transport.

Many of those calling for limits on immigration often argue that Britain’s resources simply can’t cope with the number of immigrants arriving. It is a given that immigrants will sometimes need the NHS, and the seven per cent who have brought their children here will use our schools, but all the evidence suggests that immigration will actually help improve public services, as their contributions will be greater than their demands.

With many of the A-8 immigrants expected to return home before they retire, the tax contributions they are making now and in the future will also help pay for our pensions.

I’m sure I am not the only one who can remember doom-laden leaders from the right-wing papers claiming that immigrants from new EU countries would travel to Britain to exploit the benefits system.

And the same newspapers are now rehashing the same old stories to print similarly inflammatory articles on the imminent arrival of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania, should their accession go ahead in 2007, and should they be granted equivalent access.

The right has long called for a serious debate on immigration and now it is here all they can do is point to one big number, whilst ignoring the startling facts that prove immigration of EU citizens to the UK has been a resounding success.

There is little doubt the summer is well and truly here. The sun is swelteringly hot here in Yorkshire and along with school children, the Parliament has broken up for recess.

I have yet to take a holiday and have so far used the break from Brussels to get around Yorkshire and see some of my constituents, including a very hot day campaigning for a Calderdale Council by-election.

With the vast majority of Britons taking their holidays within the EU (74 per cent of British holidays abroad are taken in just eight EU countries) the summer provides a timely reminder of the benefits membership brings.

Most recently the EU has made moves to reduce the cost of using a mobile phone in other member states, while it has helped ensure sun lovers know whether their suncream protects them from skin cancer as well as sunburn.

It is also important to remember that European legislation gives every worker in the EU, including temporary and part-time employees, 20 days paid holiday each year.

The EU’s blue flag quality standard has driven up the standard of beach cleanliness across the continent and means the majority of resorts, particularly in Britain, are now safe and a pleasure to swim in.

The European Health Insurance Card means all EU citizens are eligible for free emergency health care within member states. In also means we no longer have to fill in an E111 form every time we wish to travel within the EU.

Providing they meet strict health and safety criteria, pet passports mean dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, chinchillas and hamsters can all join you on your holiday in the EU without the need for quarantine.

What’s more, freedom of movement laws mean that if you like where you’ve been in the EU you are free to stay!

I welcome the discussion, brought forward by the European Commission, to investigate false advertising by airlines, notably (but not only!) “low cost” airlines.

The EC has recognised that many airlines advertise flights at extremely low prices, when in fact the actual price paid is much more expensive.

I’ve just done a quick search on the internet for a flight between Leeds/Bradford and Plymouth – having been attracted by initial offers of around £8 each way. As it turns out, once they have added the hidden costs of various taxes and surcharges, the round trip was almost £90, that’s almost 6 times the price of the initial offer!

One common wheeze is to add to your bill a fee for paying by credit card or debit card – the only two ways you can pay when buying online!

It is absolutely right that the consumer should be protected from these practices and I will support proportionate legislation put forward to that end.

I notice that today's Financial Times reports on the European Union's work in standing up to powerful multi-national companies, having fined Microsoft some £350 million and pharmaceutical giant, Roche, a similar amount, deterring them from operating price fixing cartels.

The EU also prevented the merger between GEC and Honeywell which would have created a monopoly situation in Europe and has forced Microsoft to open some of its products to competition.

Does anyone really believe that any of our countries alone would have had the power to stand up to these big multi-nationals? By acting together in Europe we can ensure a more balanced fair market on a level playing field.

Charles Clarke has returned to the news headlines since talking publicly about his dismissal from the cabinet, but on Tuesday night he spoke at a Socialist Group conference in Brussels.

The conference focused on fighting terrorism and how to ensure security without infringing on citizens rights – a common challenge for governments across Europe. In his excellent speech, Charles offered an insight into his immense knowledge on the subject.

He also sensitively covered the importance of better relationships with Muslim communities – a challenge that different European countries have addressed in quite different ways, but where comparing best practice shows that Britain has done far better than most.

On terrorism, there are some common measures that EU countries have agreed to take jointly, such as the European Arrest Warrant that enabled Britain to obtain rapid extradition of the suspected London bomber who escaped to Italy.

Shame that even such patently useful forms of co-operation are lambasted by Eurosceptics as being “too federalist” or an “attempt to get the constitution in by the back door”.

A new initiative to extend national restrictions on paedophiles across Europe won strong backing from the European Parliament earlier this month.

MEPs voted resoundingly for the proposal of the Belgian government which will mean EU member states will be able to cooperate more effectively to prohibit convicted child sex offenders from working with children.

The previous system only enabled European governments to exchange information about paedophiles without any guarantees that a ban from working with children in one country would be implemented in other member states.

The new laws adopted by the European Parliament earlier this year will change this situation meaning that a ban from working with children in any EU country will automatically disqualify child sex offenders from similar jobs across the EU as a whole. This new measure will prevent paedophiles from circumventing national restrictions by migrating to other EU countries.

This is another excellent example of how the European Union can achieve a safer Europe by working together, rather than as separate countries.

On Wednesday, Geoff Hoon (Minister for Europe) gave a speech on the benefits of being in the European Union and by all accounts it was very warmly received.

The lowering of mobile phone calls costs, environmental standards and cheap flights were all given prominence, but Geoff also pointed out that British people tend to take the benefits of being in the EU for granted.

Picking up on this point a Spanish journalist enquired why Britain does not give more credit to the EU for the positive things it does. The journalist pointed out that in Spain, a road built with EU money will be adorned with signs telling everyone who paid for it.

Perhaps if we followed Spain’s lead more of the British public would not take the EU for granted so much. Some things, like the positive effect the EU has on our economy, are difficult to highlight (especially with a sign!) but there are plenty of other opportunities to celebrate the EU. One good example is Britain’s beaches, which have improved drastically in the last 10 years, largely because of the EU. There are also areas in Yorkshire which have received large amounts of EU funding for business support.

If the EU is to become more popular in this country it is important what it does becomes more visible.

Perhaps the most high profile vote in the Strasbourg session this week was on funding for scientific research across Europe.

At first glance this may seem a fairly straight forward issue but it became a deeply contentious one because of the proposal to offer financial backing to stem cell research.

Despite the controversy surrounding research in this field I, and the Labour MEPs as a group, felt it was important to vote in favour of the proposal.

Stem cell research offers hope to people suffering from the likes of Alzheimer’s, cancer and Parkinson’s, all terrible diseases which we must do our utmost to discover new or improved treatments for.

Europe’s tight regulations and strict ethical codes mean that it is better for the research to take place here rather than countries with less stringent rules.

It is also good news for Yorkshire and the Humber. The University of Sheffield’s Centre for Stem Cell Biology has been at the forefront of these experiments, with scientists having already made a breakthrough on IVF treatment.

In general, British universities claim 20 per cent of all research money allocated by the European Union and with Sheffield, Leeds, York, Hull, Bradford and Huddersfield all hosting excellent universities the Parliament’s vote is great news for them too.

Click here for more details on the University of Sheffield's breakthrough on IVF treatment.

I read that the Luxembourg Prime Minister has just made a speech saying that we should be "proud of Europe". He points out that we have created the longest ever period of peace in Europe (at least within the EU area), created a common internal market which is now the largest free market in the world, set up (among most of the EU) a common currency, developed a common policy on most environmental matters and overseas development, and so on - and yet all we do is moan. Should we not celebrate this success, he asks?

Any British politician likely to make a similar speech?

One of the most satisfying results of this week’s Strasbourg session is the decision to crack down on misleading food labels.

Food companies can currently make claims on their labels which lack any real scientific basis and profess to be far healthier than they really are. For instance, a bag of crisps can be emblazoned with “low in salt” but still contain unhealthy levels of fat.

Now, under the new legislation passed by the European Parliament, food will have to meet certain criteria before it can make a claim such as “low in fat”. Food that is unhealthy in any aspect will not be able to brand itself as a healthy option, even if it does have low levels of one nutrient. Food manufacturers will also have to prove any health claims they make about their products.

With the Yorkshire Evening Post reporting that one in every eight children in Leeds is obese it is clear something needs to be done to combat this problem.

More truthful food labels may only play a small part in creating a healthier society but it is a step in the right direction. Now that manufacturers will be forced to print only facts on their labels consumers can at least make an informed decision about a product.

There have been interesting debates in both the Times and the Yorkshire Post about the comparative roles the European Union and NATO have played in helping peace prosper in the most of Europe over the last 60 years.

The difference between the two was very well surmised by a James Rodgers in the Times who said that NATO kept a “negative peace” while the EU has built a “positive peace”.

When the Treaty of Rome was set out in 1951 peace, along with social and economic prosperity, was one of its major objectives.

In the space of 60 years the EU has helped countries previously at war form excellent relationships and work closely together on a wide variety of issues.

Rather than simply work to avoid potential external aggression, like NATO, the EU has sought to ensure peace within its borders through profound economic co-operation, including a single market, and through encouraging exchanges of all kinds among citizens.

This contrasts with NATO, which, despite achieving its main goal of dissuading external aggression, failed to keep peace between its own members (the conflict between Turkey and Greece) and alllowed Portugal to be a member when it was a dictatorship.

There is no doubt that both have played a role, but that of the EU has been far more profound than that of NATO.

It is rewarding to see that the enlargement of the European Union is already paying dividends for new member states as well as our own country.

Two years since eight east European countries, and Malta and Cyprus, joined the EU the European Commission has released a report which details the economic benefits expansion has brought.

Britain’s decision to open its labour market to these new states was met with predictable tabloid scare stories promising waves of immigration but of course this has not been the case.

Instead we, along with Ireland and Sweden – the only other countries to lift labour restrictions – have reaped the benefits and have enjoyed a far stronger employment record than the countries yet to welcome workers from the east.

Many of the workers that have arrived in this country have been equipped with the skills to fill roles in which we have a shortage, an increase in tradesmen such as plumbers has proved particularly popular.

Encouraged by the success of the past two years Greece, Finland, Portugal and Spain have followed in our footsteps and will now drop their restrictions on workers from the east.

Germany, France, Italy and Austria remain reluctant to open up their labour markets but the commission’s report will hopefully begin convincing them of the positive aspects of doing so.

It was also pleasing to see that an EU success story was reported in our press. The Financial Times’ leader was particularly glowing in its coverage of the commission’s report while the Times stressed the importance of all EU nations accepting workers from the new member states.

There will no doubt be some readers out there who like a drink or two, there may even be some who have woken up cursing the activities of the night before, wondering just what exactly it was that left them in such a state.

Well, the obvious answer is too much alcohol but sometimes it is the other ingredients that can cause a headache. Soon, thanks to the European Union, drinkers will be able to discover exactly waht goes into their beer and wine.

The Telegraph reported this week that: “The Government is backing European Union proposals to force drinks companies to reveal hidden chemicals used in beer and wine.

“Commonly used chemicals in cheap beer can include betaglucanase, used to speed up brewing and propylene glycol alginate, added to help maintain a beer's head, even after months on a shelf”.

As the President of the British Beer Club in the European Parliament I applaud this news, which again shows the EU’s commitment to helping consumers make informed choices on products they wish to buy.

It is also a move which should help benefit smaller British brewers whose traditional methods typically include less chemicals than mass-market beers and lagers.

Bottoms up!

I have voted with enthusiasm in favour an excellent parliamentary initiative by my colleague Gary Titley. It proposes a pan-European automatic emergency call system. In the event of a road accident, the "eCall" device in the vehicle will automatically dial the nearest emergency call centre, also providing information on the precise location of the accident. This will result in a dramatic reduction in rescue time and make it possible to treat more injuries in the crucial 'golden hour' following the accident.

The advantage of this system is not only that it will help save lives but also that it will reduce congestion time and contribute to the efficiency of road transportation in Europe with a reduction of external costs.

It is an excellent example of the advantages of action at EU level, complementing the common emergency telephone number (112) which I was involved in suggesting when I was a junior civil servant many years ago.

A recurring Eurosceptic argument is the supposed threat from European Union to Britain’s “ancient liberties”. This begs two questions: how well is liberty protected by British institutions and how much are European institutions a threat or a safeguard?

On the former point, I came across the following quote from Lord Hailsham, former Tory Lord Chancellor, in his article "Is it Time for Britain to Adopt a Written Constitution?”

“The constitutional law of this island is based on the ancient prerogatives of the Crown, and the various Acts of Parliament by which these have been modified or extended. We have always possessed a strong central government, and when the powers of Crown and Parliament are united under a strong administration, the legal powers of government are virtually unlimited. The limitations are not imposed by law. In theory Parliament is supreme. There is nothing legally that it cannot do, and practically nothing which, at one time or another, it has not done. It has prolonged its own life. It has taken away the lives and liberties of its fellow citizens without semblance of a fair trial. It has confiscated property. It has ratified revolutions. In this we are almost unique. Few democracies, including the Commonwealth, possess theses powers or anything like them. Their powers are limited by a Constitution which they have no right to exceed. Only the British live under the authority of a rule absolute in theory, if tolerable in practice. In our lifetime the use of the Parliament's powers has continuously increased, and the checks and balances have been rendered increasingly ineffective by the concentration of their deductive operation more and more in the House of Commons, in the government side of the House of Commons, in the Cabinet within the government side, and in the Prime Minister within the Cabinet."

In other words, there is no strong domestic protection of our liberties at all, let alone our “ancient liberties” (and only a few of our liberties are actually very ancient).

By contrast, all post-war (and many pre-war) European democracies as well as the USA and others all have written constitutions that cannot be changed at whim by governments or by a simple parliamentary majority. They generally entrench certain rights and provide checks and balances between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

The second question is what has been the European impact on this state of affairs? It has been twofold:

The European Convention on Human Rights (which contrary to popular belief has nothing to do with the EU) is a definition of fundamental rights drawn up after the war, largely inspired by Britain, to which over 40 countries now subscribe. It is a common yardstick by which these countries accept to be judged. Citizens can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting domestic legal remedies if they feel their rights under the Convention have not been respected. British citizens have won more cases against their own government than citizens of almost any other country, which is a telling comment on the low level of protection of fundamental rights in Britain. As a result, the UK decided in the late 1990s to incorporate the whole Convention into its domestic law to make the rights enforceable in domestic courts.

The European Union, through which Britain and its neighbouring countries have agreed to act jointly in certain fields. Is there any chance that the EU might act in a way that threatens our liberties? Well, the EU does have a number of safeguards that we don’t have at national level. First, any legislation the EU adopts is subject to judicial review and can be overturned by the Courts if it goes beyond the limited field laid down in the treaty, if it violates fundamental rights or if procedures have not been properly respected. Second, no significant legislation can be adopted without the approval of a very large majority (and sometimes unanimity) of the governments of the Member States. This ensures that everything is looked at and scrutinized by a wide variety of perspectives, by different ministries, by different political standpoints and by different interests. Third, EU legislation is also examined by a directly elected and full-time parliament that is not in hoc to any government majority.

All in all, the idea that Europe represents a threat to our liberties looks just like another Eurosceptic red herring. If anything, it is the contrary that is true!

I received the following correspondence from a constituent who makes some interesting points, and as the matter is highly topical I thought I'd post it in full on here...

Hello Richard,

There’s a controversy about company mergers that seems to be getting out-of-hand. Here’s a view that might help.

According to both Marxist and Capitalist interpretations, it doesn’t matter whether businesses operating from a country are owned by local shareholders or by those who live somewhere else. From both points-of-view, the concept of ‘national champions’ and of protecting ‘national firms’ from their shareholders selling out to those from other countries, is of much less relevance than how they operate in relation to their employees, suppliers and customers.

‘National Champions’ and protection from bidders (including so-called locusts) is a right-wing idea that seeks to reinforce the control of the workers, and to preserve market hegemonies and national hierarchies. It is a paradigm opposed to the objectives of both the EU and Socialism. Such nationalism is consistent with the pronouncements of Le Pen, Nick Griffin and their well-known and hated antecedents.

Moreover, replacing national institutions with pan-European ones has helped to make our EU the most successful peace process the world has ever known.

Giving access to bigger product markets has enabled poorer and small States to catch-up with their richer neighbours, who’ve been rewarded by new and growing markets on their doorsteps. Sharing their national currencies with the big economies has enabled small countries to gain from the lower borrowing and trading costs that arise from more liquid markets. Graduated opening of service markets and eroding discrimination in culture, trade, sport, music and transport has encouraged the ever closer union of peoples and ideas, without more Euro-bureaucracy. These are wonderful achievements in a continent otherwise well known for its history of extreme prejudice and violence.

We need to enable more pan-European institutions including pan-European companies and Trades Unions. We certainly don’t need more protectionism standing in the path of greater solidarity.

Allowing company mergers across borders – and where appropriate, encouraging them - enables firms to acquire, and share with their workers, knowledge and relationships that pushes them both along steeper learning curves. So those European peoples are gaining economies of both scale and knowledge within a huge market that even giant firms cannot dominate. Our country has been a major beneficiary of inward take-overs and mergers and all States need more of the same, not less.

The way our country gains from acquisitions is that complacency and narrow vision is challenged by outside investors, and who plainly value the potential of our firms more highly. The experience is that inward investors invest in generating higher productivity and value for all of the stakeholders. I share Gordon Brown’s vision that some European countries are limiting the opportunities for Europe by espousing their right-wing approach of protectionism.

By protecting so-called ‘national champions’, governments simply reinforce inefficiency and domestic exploitation. It’s no surprise that Italy and France (for example) have such low participation in paid work and have high social exclusions that spillover into angry protests and violence. British national experience is that cross-border take-overs bring dynamism, investment and access to markets that create better-paid jobs.

Intervention by EU institutions has helped in other fields. Football clubs now promote new forms of international understanding because the EU ruled that players could be transferred across boundaries without restriction. That intervention has invigorated British football, and is helping to erode national prejudices everywhere.

Does it matter if other countries pursue nationalist causes that injure their own economic health? Well, yes it does very much. Because we rely upon our neighbours’ prosperity for our trade, we need them to afford to buy from us. And, as we found in the 1930s, economic fascism is an infectious creed that tears us all down.

What the EU needs to do is encourage even more pan-European institutions and especially non-government ones such as firms. Developing trans-nationals through mergers, and allowing financial markets to become pan-European, are an essential part of bringing people together in peace and prosperity. Ownership of large companies is already more often accrued by pension funds and other forms of common ownership, than smaller ones.

I very much hope that the Socialist Group in the European Parliament will use all deliberate means to enable our ‘Economic Europe’ to triumph over ‘Economic Patriotism’.

With kind regards,

Andrew Dundas

I nearly fell off my chair when I read what UKIP MEP Mike Nattrass wrote in a letter to the editor of EU Reporter, a magazine aimed at small businesses. Referring to an article I had written in the same magazine, Mr Nattrass wrote:

"What the Europhile Richard Corbett MEP describes as the euro sceptic attack on his vision in your 30th January issue is no such thing. In fact UKIP can agree with most of what he has written!"

He then goes on to list a few specific points over which he disagrees - leaving the majority of my article untouched.

So we are to infer that UKIP now agrees with the main thrust of my article, as follows:

• When we get it right, European legislation is an exercise in cutting red tape.
• European legislation is not adopted against the will of the Member States.
• The EU single market has brought us all financial benefits in the region of €2000 per family per year.

Needless to say, Mr Nattrass's letter was not entirely free of the usual UKIP froth.

He asks, "What has the imposition of a new driving licence on UK motorcyclists got to do with free trade?" This is a bizarre question. Why should it be anything to do with free trade if governments choose to require drivers to be licensed? Surely, all governments do this for traffic safety reasons. The only EU dimension is to cut bureaucracy and red tape by agreeing a single set of licence types rather than the 80-odd that used to be in force across Europe - thereby also making it easier for the police to check people actually do have valid driving licences. Now, would Mr Nattrass rather that were not the case?

He then asks, “Why do they want to make our ports more difficult to operate?”. Who does he mean by "they"? Surely not the European Parliament - which just threw out proposals for changing to the current system for ports.

He then asks why "our parliament" is "stopped by the EU" from debating capital punishment? Come on, Mr Nattrass. Surely, after nearly two years as an MEP, you must have picked up at least the basics of how things work? You must know that reason the UK and more than 40 other countries agreed to scrap the death penalty has nothing at all to do with the EU. It's the European Convention on Human Rights, which was set up at Britain's initiative shortly after the Second World War. Rather than admit the facts, Mr Nattrass is trying to recruit supporters of the death penalty to support his anti-European political ends!

Let's talk about chickens. Earlier this year, we debated and amended proposals designed to improve the welfare of chickens bred for meat in the EU. Animal welfare issues are very important in the minds of my constituents, and I know from my postbag that these EU-wide reforms are popular in Yorkshire.

Now let's talk about UKIP, who rejected these new measures and voted against amendments tabled to strengthen them. Specifically, UKIP voted against amendments designed to:

• control imports of chickens from third countries where farms don't stick to the same rules; and


• reduce the 'stocking density', i.e. how many chickens can be placed in a single area.

Now, I don't know whether they're eager for chickens to suffer or whether they just vote blindly without reading the text. Either way, it's hardly satisfactory for British MEPs to vote against measures which are designed to improve the health and welfare of farm animals.

Just to drive the point home, here's the justification put forward for reducing stocking density:

"From a stocking density of 20kg/m2 onwards, animal welfare problems increase. Behaviour and leg disorder studies clearly show that high stocking density above 25 kg per square metre leads to serious welfare problems, as the restriction of movement causes foot pad dematitis, leg problems, breast blisters, restriction of normal behaviour, and ultimately high mortality rates."

Surely this is something that UK MEPs should be at the forefront of tackling?!

A measure of success this week in the ongoing campaign against the cruelty of bear-bile farming. Parliament adopted a written declaration – equivalent to an early-day motion in the Commons – calling on China to end the abhorrent practice of extracting bile from moon bears. And the Chinese government sat up and took notice, holding a press conference to discuss the issue.

The declaration was launched by Labour MEPs and co-signed by me. In the end, we secured the signatures of over half of all MEPs (377 members) to adopt the declaration as the official position of the European Parliament. Few written declarations make the grade – this shows the strength of feeling on this issue.
China must realise that there is international abhorrence of bear bile farming and ban it once and for all. My colleagues and I intend to keep up the international pressure. Hopefully, they’ll be forced to close these bile farms before the eyes of the world turn to them for the 2008 Olympics.

(For those readers who aren’t familiar with the unpleasant details: Asiatic black bears, or ‘moon bears’, are incarcerated in tiny wire cages with rusting metal catheters implanted in their abdomens through which bile is extracted for use in traditional medicines. Despite the availability of herbal and synthetic alternatives, this bile is still used in traditional Chinese medicines. It’s banned in the EU, but occasionally found by police in raids on Chinatown in London. More details and some rather gruesome photos are on the website of the World Society for the Protection of Animals.)

The UK Presidency ended as the clocks chimed in the New Year, and it's worth evaluating what was achieved. The balance sheet is surprisingly positive; surprising, that is, compared to the assessments of many of the armchair commentators whose agenda precludes them from saying anything positive about the government or the EU.

The Presidency of the European Council is not an executive office, but the chairmanship of one of the EU institutions for a very short period. It has no decision-taking powers of its own, merely the opportunity to chair skillfully, to broker compromises, and to place items higher up the (largely inherited) agenda.

Within these constraints, the UK's achievements are not insignificant:

• Managed to get a deal on the budget. (Enough has been said about this elsewhere on this blog.)


• Secured agreement on the "European Consensus on Development" that will double EU countries development aid to $80billion per year by 2010, commits Member States to reach the UN target of 0.7% GDP by 2015, and re-orientates the EU's own programmes towards poverty elimination and meeting the Millenium Development Goals.


• Begun a further round of CAP reform, with agreement to end all export subsidies over the next 7 years, to fit all the 10 new Member States and the next two (Bulgaria and Romania) within the current CAP spending ceiling, which will itself be reduced by 7%, to radically reform the sugar régime now and to have a new overall review of spending in 2008.


• Got all 25 countries to agree to start accession negotiations with Turkey.


• Persuaded Council to agree that its meetings on EU codecision legislation should be held in public, with immediate effect.


• Made huge progress towards adoption of the REACH directive on protecting consumers and workers from dangerous chemicals.


• Secured agreement with the European Parliament (rather than an intergovernmental shortcut) on the data retention directive, vital for combatting terrorism and serious criminality.


• Persuaded Council to resume consideration of proposals to reform the "comitology" system of scrutinising the implementing powers of the Commission, in view of giving Council and the European Parliament equal rights to call back Commission decisions.


• Set an example of how Council presidencies should interact withn the European Parliament, with a record number of ministerial appearences in Parliament and no fewer than four visits of the Prime Minister.


• Hosted a highly successful meeting of the 104-country ACP Assembly in Edinburgh.


• Launched EU Security & Defence missions to Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt and to Aceh in Indonesia.


• Made progress on climate change, leading the EU delegation to contribute to the agreement at the Montreal conference and putting together a package of assistance to China to clean up its coal-fired power stations.


• Secured agreement in Council on the Capital Requirements Directive, an important part of the Financial services Action Plan.

Tribune, the left-wing British political journal, last week reviewed a new book by historian Tony Judt on Europe post-1945 (Postwar: a history of Europe since 1945). Under the headline 'A continent mortgaged to its terrible past', reviewer Robert Taylor describes Judt's analysis of the birth of the European Union out of the remnants of six years of war:

Judt, perhaps more than any other, sets out a stark, almost unbelievable picture of a shattered continent close to utter annihilation in what must have seemed to many millions of survivors as the start of year zero. It is estimated that about 36.5 million Europeans died between 1939 and 1945 from war-related causes and more than half of them were non-combatant civilians. … Epidemics and chronic malnutrition stalked the continent. Civil wars and social disorders threatened to inflict with further misery. Many cities were little more than piles of rubble by 1945."

Taylor also ties his review to the modern EU:

"At a time when Europe as an issue is being trivialised in the British political debate, Professor Tony Judt has written a masterpiece on the history of our continent since the end of the Second Word War. It deserves a wide readership, not least among the Little Englanders and sceptics who are now once more dominant in both the Labour and Conservative parties."

Two visits to Parliament this week provoked some thoughts: the Archbishop of Canterbury and representatives of ethnic minority senior citizens.

The Archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams, was making his first ever visit to the European institutions in general and Parliament in particular. He told MEPs that he saw a great moral purpose to the EU, namely the vision of reconciliation, understanding and peace that lay behind Schuman’s initiative in starting it all off, but felt that the moral purpose had been neglected as Member States had focused more on pragmatic cooperation. The recent enlargement to eastern Europe, however, brought the moral argument back to the fore.

If I understood him correctly, Dr Williams said that European society was a result of centuries of dialogue, discussion and argument between Christianity and the variety of societies that had existed and developed over the ages, and between the Church(es) and political authorities. This had resulted in the argumentative democracies we now enjoy. The interactive pluralism that has developed is fundamental to our shared Europeanism, and the different strands of this argument influenced each other. For instance, the secular/human rights/enlightenment culture had only emerged thanks to the Christian notion that all souls were equal, which, over time, had helped undermine the acceptance of slavery and infanticide.

But Europe is not exclusively Christian, and Dr Williams emphasised that it should not be claimed that the definition of Europe is linked to Christianity. He supported Turkish accession to the EU, provided it meets the conditions, including respect for its minorities (which includes religious minorities). He added that minorities, in current member countries too, must be given space to express themselves in the public sphere. Is that what's been lacking in France?

Meanwhile, the ethnic minority elders, whom I had the privilege of addressing and welcoming to Parliament, came from Leeds (with help from the City Council), Gothenburg, Gent, Bucharest and Dortmund. They had been meeting to compare their situations and the particular problems that many elderly people from ethnic minorities face in terms of isolation, language difficulties and particular illnesses. Their work involved two of the most important challenges facing all European countries over the next decades: ageing population and integration of ethnic minorities. Even when no common European legislation is involved and the issue is largely one for national policy-makers to deal with, the EU can still provide a framework for learning from each other, comparing best practice and contrasting successes and failures.

The group was also a reminder that the EU’s moto of “Unity with diversity” refers not just to the diversity between countries, but the even greater diversity within countries too.

A constituent challenged MEPs from Bradford "to write to the Shipley Target and assure local voters that they are backing amendments to the proposals on chemical testing that will reduce the testing of such chemicals on animals". I am happy to write in and provide some assurance.

The whole point of having a common Europe-wide programme of testing the safety of chemicals (REACH), rather than 25 countries each duplicating each other with their own programmes, is to reduce the amount of testing necessary - saving costs and preventing unnecessary animal suffering.

We do need to find ways of testing chemicals. Recent medical evidence shows that each one of us has 300 more chemicals in our bodily tissues and blood than our grandparents did. We also know that there are increasing rates of asthma, cancer and other diseases which probably originate from chemicals.

Some in the chemical industry argue that such testing is costly. But anyone who recalls the asbestos tragedy will know that without money invested in the testing now can save thousands of lives and millions of pounds downstream. With the burden shared with our fellow countries in the European Union, this is well worth doing. And if it can be done while minimising animal testing, so much the better.

As I've pointed out before, the debate about the type and extent of regulation we need in the EU is an important one - important enough that we should be careful to avoid scoring cheap party-political points, or over-simplifying arguments for rhetorical effect. We can get regulation right or wrong; it can be good or bad, restrictive or liberating. In an attempt to encourage some of my colleagues to recognise the positive side of regulation in our single European market, I recently put this question to the European Commission:

"What are the latest figures available to the Commission on the total economic benefits to European citizens of the existence of the European single market?"

The reply came back today:

"A comprehensive study on the total economic impact of the Internal Market was carried out in 1996 and published in 1998. It concluded that in 1994, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was between 1.1% and 1.5% higher than it would have been if the Internal Market did not exist. For the same year, the employment gain was estimated to have accounted for over 300,000 jobs.

"Since then, there have been partial assessments. Among the latest are:

• "The Communication on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Internal Market included a new round of macroeconomic estimates of the impact of the 1992 programme. According to these estimates, EU GDP in 2002 was 1.8 percentage points, or €164.5 billion, higher thanks to the Internal Market. In addition, about 2.5 million jobs had been created in the EU since 1992 as a result of the opening up of frontiers between Member States;


• "A study by Commission services based on accounting data of EU firms has found evidence of a significant impact of the Internal Market programme on productivity. Efficiency, as measured by the productivity of assets, increased by approximately 25% between 1993 and 2001;


• "In the field of Public Procurement, a study for the Commission estimated the economic benefits from the application of EU Directives. Results show that the application of the transparency procedures required by the Directives could reduce prices of goods, services and works contracts by approximately 30%. The study also showed that the success rates of foreign firms operating in other Member States to win contracts are actually comparable to those of domestic firms bidding in their home countries."

I was the keynote speaker at a regional conference today on Europe. I stayed on for the rest of the conference and was struck by the strength of support for the European Union expressed by a wide variety of participants.

A local government leader from a South Yorkshire district spoke of how, when the coal mines closed and his area was hit by mass unemployment, only the European Union seemed interested in doing something to turn around the situation with its regional funding – something the people in his area would never forget.

A council leader from a West Yorkshire district (not Labour) praised EU programmes to alleviate poverty and regenerate her patch - and even a Conservative leader of yet another Council praised the economic benefits of belonging to Europe. Similarly, speakers from business, universities and others were positively gushing in their praise for the EU.

This underscored something I have been struck by in the past: outside the arena of national politics and the media, those who actually deal with the European Union tend to have a positive view of it. Those who don’t, and those whose views of the EU are shaped only by what they read in the newspapers, tend to be more negative.

The Foreign Policy Centre and Community, the union, have jointly published an excellent brochure designed to contribute to the left's debate on Europe and the EU. I can heartily recommend it.

From the introduction:

"The insight that the peoples of the World are united by common interests and a common humanity is obviously not a recent product of the global era; it has been central to the socialist idea since its birth. Yet the democratic left has often failed to translate its internationalist values into the practical reality of a progressive World order built on strong and effective institutions. The European Union is certainly not perfect, but it is the most advanced and successful international organisation that has ever been created. For all its faults, it is living proof of humanity’s capacity set aside deep national differences and order its affairs in common. That is too precious an achievement to be squandered lightly or eve jeopardised by neglect.

"Europe must be more than a marketplace for the free movement of goods, services, labour and capital. It must be an instrument for regulating markets in the public interest and restoring human values to the economic life of our continent and the wider world. This is Europe’s rationale and its real achievement: not simply the promotion of free trade, but the creation of a framework that allows trade to be managed in accordance with rules and institutions that are politically determined by elected governments. In the real world this is something that even the largest European countries can no longer hope to achieve on their own and must now do by acting collectively. Real progress has already been made on consumer standards, environmental protection, social rights and much else. But Europe has the potential and the need to do a great deal more simply because the greatest challenges, opportunities and threats it faces today are transnational in scope.

"The purpose of this statement is therefore twofold: to restate the democratic left case for the political and economic integration of Europe and to set out a vision of how the European Union could be reformed to make it a more effective instrument for social and economic progress. No one imagines that this will be easy, but the alternative of disillusionment followed by disintegration would be a catastrophe for progressive politics and the security of nations."

Responding to my discussion of the European arrest warrant, I received the following e-mail from a somewhat regular Eurosceptic correspondent (reproduced in full, minus the writer's name):

"Your latest blog offering - European Arrest Warrant.

"You wrote:-

"'Without the European Union, fleeing to Rome might have been beneficial to Osman Hussain. But thankfully, we live in a world where there should be no hiding places for terrorists - especially not in our neighbouring European countries.'

"Mr Corbett. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or is all this tosh merely wishful thinking?

"You know as well as I do that Osman Hussain won't be extradited from Italy for years.. if ever.

"So much for 'EU Co-operation'!!"

It's good to know that this blog is prompting discussion. My reply was as follows:

"Dear [name],

"Thank you for your e-mail.

"I think it is best to wait until due process has run its course before we judge whether Mr Hussain will be extradited. That is why I avoided speculating on that in my blog entry.

"In the meantime, I note that this seems to be the first time you have complained to me about a lack of EU co-operation. Surely you can't have it both ways?

"Either the European arrest warrant facilitates rapid extradition from one EU country to another, or it does not. If the scheme works, then Eurosceptics complain that it infringes our civil liberties (as in the Bruges Group piece I linked from my blog). But if it doesn't work, then Eurosceptics complain that European co-operation is not what it should be and we are powerless to extradite suspects quickly (as in your e-mail to me). These two complaints are mutually incompatible. Which is it to be?

"Best wishes, Richard"

Monday will see the end of tobacco sponsorship for major sporting events right across Europe.

This is a blow not only to the tobacco industry, but also to those people who like to pretend that passing laws at EU level is a bad idea. The usual argument is that we could just as well take these decisions at national level; but the issue of tobacco sponsorship is a lesson for eurosceptics about the benefits of taking decisions collectively with our neighbours at European level.

For years, many governments have been convinced of the need to end tobacco advertising, but ran into a problem when it came to big sporting events: Unilateral action banning sponsorship in one country could easily lead to the sport in question simply relocating elsewhere. We all remember the saga of Grand Prix sponsorship, when Formula 1 responded to the first countries to contemplate banning tobacco advertising by saying they would pull the Grand Prix out of that country and hold it elsewhere. The same potential problem applied across many sports.

But by agreeing to act at EU level, governments have ensured that European countries cannot be played off against one another in this way. Standing together, EU countries have enough clout to ensure that international sports federations have to comply with our decision, rather than looking for cynical ways around it. Another one in the eye for the europhobes!

Something I missed last week: tobacco advertising became illegal across the EU on radio and television, and in print.

The UK has also managed to convince its European neighbours that the association between perceived "sexy" sports like Formula 1 and the tobacco industry is doing more harm than good, and so the new law aims to ban tobacco sponsorship of such sporting events, something we did a while ago in this country.

Following yesterday's vote on software patents, I've now had a total of 36 e-mails into my Leeds office from constituents expressing their delight at the way we voted in Parliament. I can't remember having ever received such a message of support about any single issue before - just as I can't remember ever having received so much lobbying from private individuals in advance of a vote.

A particularly enthusiastic e-mail made me smile:

"Dear Richard,

"What can I say? This is truly marvellous news - and with such a majority! I am so delighted I can't quite express myself properly! Thank you so very, very much for notifying me of the outcome and for voting against the software patent madness.

"Through having to face up to the threat that this proposal posed, I have gained a better insight into the political machinations of the European Parliament. More importantly, I have greater respect for the elected individuals that comprise the European Parliament, and also for the power of the individual in lobbying for change.

"What more can I say?"

Another constituent, who represents a Linux users' group in Scarborough, wrote to let me know that he'd blogged the result, and seemed to be quite enthusiastic about it:

Fantastically, awesomely, tearfully, happily, wonderfully, we appear to have won the software patents argument. I got this at 12:07 today from Richard Corbett… How absolutely fantastic is that! The people won over the corporation.

EU ministers surprised and delighted aid agencies around the world this week when they agreed a dramatic increase in financial assistance to countries in Africa and the rest of the developing world. (BBC News story here.)

The deal comes just 6 weeks ahead of the G8 industrialised nations' summit at Gleneagles, and will mean a virtual doubling of the EU's combined aid by 2010. This unexpected success in Brussels will intensify pressure on other rich countries, notably the United States, to increase their own efforts to make poverty history.

There's an interesting piece in yesterday's Telegraph, reporting that we're close to an EU-wide common approach to help crack cross-border organised crime.

"The European Commission believes that a failure in one country to deal with organised criminals has an impact elsewhere, because international gangs simply look for the easiest place from which to operate.

"'They appear to be able to operate easily and effectively both within the European area and elsewhere in the world, responding to illegal demand by acquiring and supplying commodities and services ranging from drugs and arms to stolen vehicles and money laundering,' said the commission in its proposal sent to the Government.

"The proposed new offence would make it possible to target crime chiefs who have made themselves almost untouchable by hiding behind a network of legitimate businesses.

"This approach has been adopted in America for many years under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organisations law that has put several senior gangland figures behind bars.

"The Home Office estimates that about 1,000 organised criminal groups are operating in Britain, run by about 150 bosses backed by a group of around 750 lieutenants. Between them they control assets worth hundreds of millions of pounds."

Obviously, it would be next to useless for Britain alone to try to target cross-border organised crime - but, acting together with our EU neighbours, we can make a difference.

I'm in France to join in the referendum debate on the constitution.

First I visit a group of 30 journalists, then an association of mayors, and finally I go to the picturesque half-timbered village of Scheibenhardt (link in German) on the Franco-German frontier at the northern end of Alsace.

Few villages could better illustrate the benefits of the EU. The village was split into two in 1815 when the Congress of Vienna drew the frontier straight through the middle of it. Suddenly, neighbours, siblings, cousins and friends found themselves belonging to different states - and, when war came, fighting each other in different armies.

Not surprisingly, the mayor described the development of the European Union as a liberation - in fact, a series of liberations. First, it eliminated the threat of war and made it easier to develop commerce accross the whole village. Then the Schengen agreement (which abolished frontier controls between EU countries) made it possible for the inhabitants to walk through their village without having to show their passports. Indeed, our event was held at the spot where the customs post used to be, now an attractive little park (and the customs house has now been sold and is now a private house). Finally, the euro has meant that they can now go to both cafés in the village and use the same currency instead of having to walk around with two wallets!

Not surprisingly, the locals are enthusiastic supporters of the European Union!

Going against the general tide of pro-European business, the Institute of Directors has historically been a bit sceptical about the EU. Not so in the latest policy paper from the UK's SME representatives, reviewing the Lisbon Strategy from the point of view of small and medium-sized enterprises. In fact, they make many constructive suggestions about how ministers and Parliament can improve the effectiveness of EU lawmaking:

It is imperative that individual member states implement EU legislation promptly if SMEs, in particular, are able to buy and sell goods and services across borders. The Commission must ensure even transposition across the EU and consistently take measures against member states that fail to comply with their obligations.

Review clauses should be built into EU legislation by the Commission. The Parliament must thereafter play a greatly enhanced role: re-examining the original aims of the legislation, assessing its effectiveness in meeting those aims and analysing any unintended consequences for SMEs and, indeed, other stakeholders.

It is business – employers and employees alike – that will ultimately deliver the economic dynamism necessary to meet European citizens’ social expectations and environmental obligations. However, responsibility lies with politicians and officials from the EU institutions downwards to create a legislative framework that encourages enterprise and innovation and allows SMEs to drive Europe’s growth and employment.

The new website for the European Unit of Kirklees (Huddersfield) Economic Development Service is now live: www.kirklees.gov.uk/european

The new site includes an overview of the EU, a summary of the different types of European funding, and a list of links to other websites to help with applying for funds.

Every year, a staggering 100 million citizens of the European Union travel, live or work in a member state other than their own. This opportunity for the free movement of people is one of the principle benefits that membership of the EU has brought to all of us – and one that is widely recognised.

What is less widely recognised is that this free movement of peoples is supported by a number of measures designed to make our lives easier and safer. For instance, did you know that it’s possible to dial the emergency services anywhere in the EU by using a single number? The number is 112.

If you dial 112 in the UK, you get patched through to the emergency services exactly as if you had dialled 999. In other countries, you get similar assistance from the country’s own emergency services. No national numbers are being replaced – 999 and other national numbers will continue to work as normal – but the extra number guarantees that you don’t need to memorise 25 different numbers for the 25 countries of the EU. It makes sense.

So why choose 112? The answer is simple. 999 was originally selected as a number in the days of old-style telephones with circular dials. To dial 9, you simply turned the dial all the way around until it stopped – which made it much easier to dial in the dark than any other number. These days, modern touch-tone phones make it much more difficult to locate the 9 key in the dark, but it is very easy to find the upper left-hand corner of the keypad – the digit 1. So the number selected for the emergency services was 112.

The website of the European Emergency Number Association is here.

My colleague Linda McAvan MEP helps to raise public awareness of an MEP’s day job with this letter in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph:

The EU legislation Ronny Jillings refers to (Viewpoint January 27), is designed to stop misleading health claims being made about food. Should companies market products as 90 per cent fat free, implying they are good for you, when they are full of sugar? Should high salt, high sugar foods, be targeted at children? These are the kind of questions MEPs are looking at.

Good news – EU-wide compensation rules for airline passengers came into force this week. Labour MEPs were at the forefront of pressing for these new rules, which guarantee that passengers who are deliberately “bumped off” their flights, or who suffer severe delays or cancellations, are entitled to financial compensation, hotel accommodation, meals, and the option of alternative flights or a refund.

While most organisations welcome these moves, predictably, some of the budget airlines aren’t too happy. Why, they ask, should they have to compensate passengers to the tune of several hundred pounds when their ticket only cost a tenner in the first place?

The two responses to that complaint are obvious. Firstly, if you’re bumped off a flight, the price paid for the ticket is often the least of your worries. The compensation is not meant to be just a refund - it also takes into account the inconvenience of missed connections, missed package tours, reneged-on hotel bookings, messed up holidays etc which all follow from serious flight delays. And secondly, bumping off happens as a result of deliberate and mischievous overbooking by airlines - if they stopped doing that, they would stop having to compensate people for it!