The Record Europe and parliamentry scrutiny

I'm on this week's edition of the BBC's Record Europe with the Chair of the Commons EU Scrutiny commitee, Michael Connarty MP and a Danish MEP, Dan Jorgensen. We were discussing how to improve national parliamentry scrutiny of EU legislation.

You can watch the whole programme on this subject (we come in at the end) online by clicking here of if you have digital it will be on the BBC Parliament channel once a day all this week.

Unruly MEPs deserve their fines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murphy ends Commons debate in good humour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red lines beat red herrings, as Commons votes against referendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tories a bundle of contradictions on climate change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eurosceptics admit they are "a small hardcore going nowhere"

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

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

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

The debate begins!

The first hurdle to the parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was easily cleared in the House of Commons last night. Despite extravagant claims in some newspapers that up to 100 Labour MPs would defy the government by voting against the treaty, the bill's second reading was passed by 362 to 224, with 19 rebel Labour MPs, (a small group with a history of being Eurosceptic), voting with the Conservatives.

Let us be clear - leaving aside the hyperbole, the Lisbon Treaty amounts to a set of modest adjustments to the EU's institutional framework such as replacing the rotating six-month presidency with a full-time one on a 30 month term, reducing the number of Commissioners to 18, altering the voting system in the Council to be based on population and increasing the role of elected parliaments in EU law-making. But in terms of what the EU can and cannot do, it changes little. Unlike the Single European Act or Maastricht, there are no new subjects added to the EU's field of responsibility - put bluntly; the Lisbon Treaty is about reform, not new powers.

The Tories' opposition to this treaty is nakedly opportunistic and lacks credibility. As David Miliband put it: "Left of centre parties in all 27 European countries support the treaty; liberal parties in all 27 countries support the treaty; and Conservative parties in 26 countries support the treaty. Only in Britain do we have a major party opposed to the contents of the treaty."

Indeed, William Hague's speech for the Conservatives was long on jokes (no one can accuse Mr Hague of lacking a rhetorical flourish) but fell short on substance. At one point, he defended his party's opposition of the treaty on the grounds that it would "weaken democracy" by taking "more decision making away from democratic control". This argument simply does not stand up. In fact, the Lisbon Treaty, by making virtually all EU legislation subject to the prior scrutiny of national parliaments (with the power to object to a proposal) and to approval by both the Council of Ministers (representing national governments) and directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament. This would amount to a level of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability that exists in no other international structure. To claim that this is a diminution of parliamentary democracy is no more than intellectual laziness.

My analogy that, just as the Lisbon Treaty is estimated to be 90% the same as the Constitutional Treaty, human beings and mice are 90% the same in terms of their DNA but the difference is pretty important, also made an appearance in Hansard, being quoted approvingly (and with acknowledgent) by the new Lib Dem Foreign Affairs spokesman Ed Davey, who also made a fine speech. It was also cheering to hear Nick Clegg's interview on Radio 4 this morning, during which he appeared to state that the Liberal Democrats would not support any Tory attempts to defeat the Government in demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Although the Lib Dems have a reputation for saying different things to please different people, voting in favour of a treaty that they support rather than voting against it in a bid to embarrass and score points against the Government, would be an honourable approach.

Mote affair highlights an absurd situation

One welcome result of former UKIP MEP Ashley Mote's stint in jail for multiple benefit fraud, could be a change to the law that has allowed him to be paid as an MEP despite being unable to carry out his function as an elected representative. The Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, who is responsible for the payment of MPs and MEPs, is now in the process of reviewing the legislation.

The law was introduced back in 1981 after IRA hunger-striker Bobby Sands was elected to the Commons despite being in prison, to stop others from doing the same. It disqualifies anyone from being an MP if they are facing a prison sentence of more than a year. These were somewhat exceptional circumstances - I don't think that the then Tory government thought that the law would lead to the farcical situation whereby a politician continues to receive his taxpayer-funded salary, while in jail at the expense of the taxpayer and all for defrauding the taxpayer in the first place. It is outrageous that politicians can continue to be paid when they are in prison for defrauding their electorate and, self-evidently, cannot represent their constituents.

There will be some who say that Mr Mote never did much work when has was allowed to attend Parliament sessions - we shall see what happens when he returns to Brussels in the New Year.

Yesterday's Commons debate on the European Council was marked by the pompous and unconstructive Euroscepticism of every Conservative that took part in the debate, with the sole exception of David Curry. David Cameron's speech made absolutely no reference to the future agenda of the EU - in stark contrast to Gordon Brown's presentation of a paper looking at the way that the EU can contribute to economic prosperity, security, job creation and tackling climate change. This paper serves as Britain's agenda for the future of the EU in the 21st century. Indeed, as Gordon put it, "it is right that Europe now focuses not on more institutional change, but on the reforms that are needed to meet the challenges of the global era".

It was interesting to hear Michael Connarty's contribution to the debate. The Conservatives have made much of the report by the European Scrutiny Committee (chaired by Mr Connarty) on the treaty, citing a passage in the report stating that "the new Treaty is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty", conveniently forgetting to include the previous half of the sentence which states that this is only the case for countries that "have not requested derogations or opt-outs from the full range of agreements in the Treaty". This is yet another example of the way Eurosceptics use selective quotation to mislead and distort debate on the EU.

Indeed, as Michael Connarty pointed out, Britain does have derogations and opt-outs which mean that, as far as Britain as concerned, the Lisbon Treaty is significantly different from the Constitution.

I was particularly struck by David Winnick's comment that most of the Tory objections to the treaty "amount to little more than xenophobia". It is a sad indictment of the Conservative leadership that, even though they have quietly drafted an "Alternative Treaty" that is very similar to the Reform Treaty, they none the less give free reign to the obsessive Eurosceptics in their party, An example of how they are losing control of their extremist wing is the Early Day Motion tabled by Bill Cash and John Redwood. It calls for the Government to reject the Reform Treaty and for a referendum to be held on it either before or AFTER ratification.

This implies that, in the (albeit unlikely) event of the Tories winning the next election, they would hold a referendum after the treaty entered into force, and campaign for a 'no' vote. If they won it, the other 26 EU countries would almost certainly refuse to agree to re-open the treaty and completely re-write it. Britain would be offered a simple choice - are you in or out of the EU. This, of course, is what Messrs Cash and Redwood know and want. It will certainly be interesting to see which Tories sign this EDM.

Bill Cash MP - whose sole activity in the House of Commons seems to be to campaign against everything to do with Europe - has had some success on the Conservative benches with his plan for a Bill that would oblige British courts to give primacy to British statutes over European law whenever there may be conflict between the two.

No doubt this is appealing to those who do not give much thought to the issues involved. But its effect would be to undermine the primacy of European law, which is one of the foundations of the European legal system.

The reason for the primacy of European law is that there is actually not much point in us agreeing with other countries on common rules if each country is then free to ignore them. What would be the point?

The whole purpose of having common rules for the common market or common environmental standards is that we all live up to what we agree in the European context. Divergent national rules would soon end the single market which successive British governments have proclaimed to be vital to our prosperity. Allowing countries to ignore agreed environmental standards and free-ride on the efforts of others is also not something to commend.

Nor should we forget that we rely on the primacy of European law in other countries. Britain won its our court case against France over its ban on British beef thanks to the primacy of European law. If French law had primacy, then they could have continued to ban our beef in complete violation of the rules we had agreed for the common market.