UKIP's alliance with Geert Wilders proves a stark point

Another hole has been blown in UKIP's attempts to describe themselves as a non-racist party, with their invitation to the racist Dutch politician Geert Wilders who has been banned by the Home Office from entering the UK on the grounds that he would incite hatred and endanger public security.

Mr Wilders is the leader of the so-called Freedom Party in the Netherlands and has been ordered by the Dutch courts to stand trial against charges of inciting hatred by making the most inflammatory kind of anti-Islamic statements. He has compared the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf describing it as a "fascist book" and called for it to be banned. He was invited to show his film Fitna, which links the Koran to terrorism, at the House of Lords by UKIP peer Lord Pearson.

It is particularly sickening that UKIP and Mr Wilders are making themselves to be martyrs in this case, claiming that they are being denied the right to free speech. This is fatuous and they know it. In the same way that the likes of Abu Hamza have been arrested for inciting hatred and violence in Britain, so should Mr Wilders be barred from showing and then discussing a film that, in the words of Dutch Prime Minister Jens Balkenende, serves "no purpose other than to offend".

It is also revealing that Mr Wilders is that sort of character with whom UKIP would ally. Among his key policy platform include proposals to end the admittance of asylum seekers, ban Islamic schools, halt all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands and pay all settled immigrants to leave. These ideas would not be out of place in a BNP manifesto.

All of which provides further evidence that UKIP and their allies are anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and extremist. Lord Pearson has had the brass neck to describe the Home Office decision as "weak", "unacceptable" and, believe it or not, "appeasement". On the contrary, what is unacceptable is that UKIP should court such a man and then have the nerve to describe themselves as 'non-racist' and 'non-sectarian'. Such statements should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Obama's victory and meeting with MPs and Lords

I guess there's scarcely a blogger out there today who's not commenting on Barack Obama's election victory. And what a victory speech! Also impressive was John McCain's concession speech, a model in graciousness, that losing candidates in many other parts of the world would do well to emulate.

Meanwhile, I spoke today to the all-party Europe group of MPs and Lords at Westminster. Support for the reform of the EU, as embodied in the Lisbon Treaty, remains strong there. The large majorities approving it in both the Commons and the Lords have been emulated in 24 other countries. The sole rejection has been Ireland. How that might be dealt with was the subject of my blog last Wednesday, 29 October.

Baroness Ashton is the right choice for Comissioner

Baroness Ashton's nomination to replace Peter Mandelson in the European Commission is welcome. She will be the first ever female British Commissioner. She knows her stuff on Europe, having steered the Lisbon Treaty through the House of Lords, fending off Eurosceptic attacks on it. She is also a very amiable person. I'm sure she will sail through her confirmation hearing at the European Parliament.

Lords skewer Open Europe

It was interesting to read yet another authoritative report from the House of Lords EU committee, this time on the future of European Regional Policy, but with unusual entertainment values as it contained some magisterial rebukes of the eurosceptic pressure group Open Europe.

Amongst the Lords' conclusions were that the EU structural funds, though not without fault, were "effective and, in general, fit for purpose". One of the purposes of structural funds is to support projects in the poorest regions, so it was welcome to read the committee conclude that "the evidence we received suggests that the size of the funding distributed to the poorest regions under the Convergence Objective is approximately correct" adding that "the absorption cap in the poorest countries operates at an appropriate level to match the ability of regions to use the funds."

Eurosceptics often try to argue that the administration and award of structural funds is both costly and inefficient. However, the committee found that "objections about the cost of management of the funds are overstated" adding that "the funding and scope of the Convergence Objective, which supports the poorest regions, is appropriate and it should remain."

But equally diverting - and also amusing - was the way that the committee, which consists of experts on European policy from across the political spectrum, dismantled the 'evidence' submitted by Open Europe.

Even the Tory members of the committee were not receptive to Open Europe's arguments, with former First Minister of Northern Ireland and now Conservative peer David Trimble responding to O'Brien's statement that: "It is a question of whether you believe you can win the argument better in Westminster…or in Brussels. Where do you feel that Northern Ireland has more clout?" with "at least in Brussels they listen to you. I do not know that the Treasury does!"

Furthermore, Open Europe were so shameless as to cite a mere press report as the source for their outlandish claim that administering structural funds costs the UK £670m per year.

As cross-bench peer Lord Kerr put it: "the Press Association does not make up a number. They report somebody giving a number" adding that "I am sorry but it will not do to tell us that this is (from the) Press Association".

Indeed, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Watson was moved to comment that:

"I am now really startled that you provide this type of evidence. It is quite clear that you are saying that you cannot get disaggregated data. Nevertheless, you offer this enormous eye-catching sum and, as we have just seen, it clearly does not stand up".

Certainly, it is difficult to imagine that a reputable think-tank would source their 'evidence' using press reports. It's a bit like seeing a Sun or Daily Mail scare story (which is probably what Open Europe did) and then claiming that to be the truth!

With the Open Europe team admitting that their claims about the cost of structural funds were not entirely accurate, Lord Kerr offered this magisterial rebuke:

"I think that is a very interesting admission of defeat. There are a number of statements in the evidence and in the press releases about the evidence which are, I think we have established, guestimates; they are speculative. The list of horror stories is sourced to newspapers. I think one needs to be told facts rather than report like a very much fear will read perhaps in the Mail on Sunday that £670 million must be the UK cost of running the structural funds because it is in "evidence" to a House of Lords committee. I think that is very dangerous."

It seems that these rather feeble contributions, and the collapse of their so-called 'evidence' under cross-examination, were Mr O'Brien's last contribution as director of Open Europe. I understand that he has just been appointed director of the right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange which was, incidentally, the organisation responsible for the widely discredited report about Britain's northern cities, which David Cameron described as "nonsense from start to finish". Let's see how he fares.

Lords seal ratification of Lisbon Treaty in UK

Last night the House of Lords brought to an end the to the long and careful parliamentary scrutiny of the Lisbon Treaty and approved it by giving a third reading to the EU Amendment Bill. The Conservatives made a last-gasp attempt to derail the process by tabling an amendment to delay the vote on third reading by four months, but this was comfortably defeated by a majority of 93. When the Bill is given royal assent today, the UK will become the 19th country to have ratified the treaty.

Our ratification of the treaty coincides with the start of the European Council meeting which will take place today and tomorrow. British ratification makes clear that our position is that the Lisbon Treaty is good for the UK and good for the EU. Whether or not the treaty can be salvaged will depend in part on the outcome of this Council meeting. While the impetus is on the Irish to take stock of last week's 'No' vote and assess whether an agreement can be reached, the views of the 26 other countries who also signed the Lisbon Treaty (and 19 of whom have now ratified it) should not be blithely ignored. This is a collective problem that requires a collective solution.

Some say that we should take the Irish 'No' vote as a hint to end the reform process and focus on policy delivery. Of course, we all, even those of us most closely involved in the process of drawing up the Lisbon Treaty, want to get away from institutional reform and focus on policy delivery. The most significant policy challenges facing the EU: tackling man-made climate change, the effects of globalisation on the most vulnerable in society, energy security etc will not wait for us to reform our institutional structure. As Gary Titley, the leader of the Labour MEPs, said this week, "globalisation continues apace".

But better institutions would make it easier to tackle these and other problems, and the checks and balances the reforms would bring in would reassure people that the EU is subject to democratic control.

Indeed, this week, the Parliament adopted the report by my colleague Eluned Morgan MEP to reform the electricity market in the Europe. In particular, it included proposals for full ownership 'unbundling', whereby companies would not be able to own both the production and distribution of electricity - good news for consumers, as the competition should prevent electricity prices from being distorted. This is a classic case of the "Europe of results" that a 21st century EU should aspire to be.

Getting beyond the self-serving hyperbole of, on the one hand, the Eurosceptics, who claim that any attempt to seek a compromise acceptable to Ireland is undemocratic, and , on the other hand, some ultra-federalists, who want a hard core of integrationist countries to go it alone, the reality is that the EU is still here and still needs reform.

Tories in Lords sing treaty's praises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media ignores Lords report on treaty

The excellent House of Lords report on the Lisbon Treaty, which I mentioned last week, was also referenced by Peter Preston in this week's Observer.

He noted, that the press coverage of this report was meagre to say the least.

The Mail, Telegraph and Express all failed to acknowledge its existence but more surprisingly Preston couldn't even find coverage from the BBC, giving the lie to those who claim it is pro-European. The Guardian covered it briefly and Peter Riddell went into a little more detail on it in an opinion piece for the Times.

Always quick to give ample coverage to shrill, sensationalist and highly inaccurate Eurosceptic claims about the Treaty, most of our media just ignores an authoritative, detailed analysis by an expert committee of our national parliament.

Lords debate on treaty kicks off today

The House of Lords begins today its debates on the Treaty of Lisbon.

Anyone wanting a good, detailed and dispassionate analysis of the treaty would be rewarded by looking at the Report of the Lords EU Committee (here and here which goes through the treaty in considerable detail making an analysis of what impact it is likely to have.

Eurosceptics won't like it. Their views were given a good hearing by the Lords, who took evidence from Open Europe and several other anti-Europeans, but the Lords don't seem to have been impressed by their arguments.

I too gave evidence to the Lords and am pleased to see over 30 references in the first 80 pages of their report to documents I have written or to the oral hearing they held with me.

I am confident the that there will be at least as clear a majority for the treaty in the Lords as there was in the elected Commons, even if the minority opposing it will get the lion's share of the publicity to the extent that the media covers their debates.

Leon Brittan's article in today's Times is also well worth a read.

Lords of the Blog

A new collaborative blog site has been launched by the House of Lords, which is called 'Lords of the Blog' and is written by Members of the House of Lords (obviously). Its aim is to increase public engagement and it should certainly offer an interesting insight into the House of Lords.

For those of you interested in political blogs this I'm sure will make for interesting reading with Lords such as Labour Lords Soley and Lipsey amongst the many contributors.

The six-month project states:
"Find out why Lord Tyler decries the myth of a golden age of political reporting; Baroness D’Souza’s definition of a crossbencher and what Lord Norton has to say about Iain Dale’s request for nominations for the most fanciable political journalists."

The blog can be found at: www.lordsoftheblog.net

The government is about to take a position on the issue of switching to QMV (qualified majority voting, where the EU Council of Ministers can take decisions by over 71% of the votes) instead of unanimity (100% of the votes) for some types of EU decisions in the field of judicial co-operation. This would be a possibility if the so-called "Passarelle" (bridge) clause of the current treaties were used to transfer matters from the EU’s “Third pillar” to the “Community Pillar”. Under the latter, governments have the option of changing from a procedure requiring unanimity in the Council of Ministers and no parliamentary approval to one allowing QMV with parliamentary approval. It should also be pointed out that Britain anyway has the right to opt-in or stay out of measures adopted in this field of policy.

The House of Lords EU Committee has pointed out that there is a problem in resisting change to QMV in fields where, under the protocol for Britain and Ireland, we anyway have the right to opt-in or out of the decisions taken. The Lords report on this matter said that as “the UK would not have to participate in proposals brought forward, the Government will need to consider carefully whether the UK should stand in the way of other member states deciding to transfer criminal law competence to the Community”.

The Lords also point to the advantages of QMV in terms of decision taking. They point to the paralysis suffered by the requirement for unanimity among 25-27 national governments highlighting the time taken to agree the European evidence warrant and the failure to make progress on the framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings for people charged in other member states. The Lords report says – “we believe that the proposal deserves careful examination and caution against any knee-jerk reactions resulting from media coverage”.

The Law Society also considers that “the full incorporation of the Justice and Home Affairs pillar into the Community structure offers the best guarantees that the rights and freedoms that are in the interests of individuals will be balanced against the security concerns of the member states”.

It is therefore all the more shocking to read the language used by the Commons scrutiny committee. Granted, this committee has always attracted rabid Eurosceptics like Tory MPs Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory, but it has generally had a pro-Europe majority. Yet, it is now arguing against the proposal , describing the “passarelle” as a “gangplank” and questioning “whether it would be acceptable for the European Parliament to have the right of co-decision on measures (…) when most of its Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of the UK”?

This is a remarkable argument. By analogy, from a Welsh (or a Scottish) perspective, is it acceptable for the Westminster Parliament to take decisions when most of its Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of Wales (or Scotland)?

Whatever level a decision is to be taken, the Parliament of that level should be involved. If a matter is to be decided at EU level (which we should decide on objective usefulness or otherwise of having common decisions in these areas), then the European Parliament will be involved - and of course it contains non-Brits!

Michael Connarty MP, the (Scottish) Labour chair of the Committee, may find he is inadvertently giving succour to SNP diatribes against Westminster!

I was delighted to see Ed Balls's initiative today on EU financial management. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has taken up the European Parliament's suggestion that each Member State government take full auditing responsibility for its own EU budget spending (80% of EU spending is carried out by national governments).

He has announced that the UK will do this. It will in future provide a written statement on how EU funds have been spent in Britain. This statement will have to be cleared by the National Audit Office.

In doing so, Britain will lead by example. Other EU governments will find it difficult to resist pressure to do likewise. Indeed, Ed said he would urge all other member states to follow suit when he meets fellow finance ministers in Brussels on Tuesday.

He also warmley welcomed the House of Lords Report which I mentioned in my blog last Tuesday (14 November). This, he said, "serves to dispel some popular myths about fraud and corruption in the EU", which the Lords indeed said was minimal.

But financial management systems can be improved, especially at Member State level where most of the problems of not fully complying with procedures has occured. As Ed Balls said: "While we have been making some progress, it's not fast enough."

Well done, Ed!

For years, one of UKIP's main lines of attack has been that "the European Commission is so corrupt that its books have not been signed off by the auditors for the last 12 years".

With this in mind I'm looking forward to them giving a statement on this week's report from the House of Lords, which finds "no evidence to support this suggestion".

According to the Lords, the problems that have prevented the auditors from signing off the books, comes not from corruption but from other problems and an inadequate system of auditing that gives an inaccurate, negative impression.

Sir John Bourn, head of the UK National Audit Office, stated that he would not be able to sign off the accounts of the UK Government should he have operated the same system here.

The Lord's report calls upon the European Court of Auditors to:

- Make a clear separation between the audit of the Commission's accounts - which has always been positive - and the statement of assurance on the regularity and legality of underlying transactions - which has always been qualified in certain specific fields

- Give separate verdicts on each different category of spending, instead of one overall verdict

- Make a clear distinction between fraud and other kinds of irregularity, giving separate figures for each

- List member states which demonstrate poor management of EU funds


Far be it from me to contradict an in-depth report from the national parliament of a sometimes sceptical Member State. But I would expect UKIP to rubbish it. Yet maybe even they are backing off: only one UKIP MEP was present in the Parliament this morning to hear the President of the Court of Auditors present its report - usually something UKIP focusses on - and even he didn't stay to hear the reply to his question.

Is UKIP backing off? Are they running out of genuine things to criticise? Has even their vivid imagination deserted them?

One European issue currently being considered by the government sounds highly technical, but is none the less causing considerable debate. It is whether the ‘Passarelle’ clause should be used to change EU procedures concerning decisions on law enforcement and criminal matters.

What this means is that the member states can decide (unanimously)to transfer decisions in this field from the specific inter-governmental procedures laid down in the so-called ‘Third Pillar’ of the EU Treaty and switch them to the general decision making procedures of the European Community. If they do so, they have the option of switching to majority voting instead of unanimity, of giving the European Parliament the extra scrutiny powers of the ‘co-decision’ procedure, and enabling judicial review of decisions by the Court of Justice. It could also allow the European Commission to chase up Member States who failed to implement what they have agreed to in the Council of Ministers.

The tabloid headline reaction has been predictable, with screaming headlines alleging that Britain is going to ‘hand-over’ powers in this field to ‘Brussels’, ignoring some basic facts about the matter.

I gave evidence last week on this matter to the House of Commons and the House of Lords scrutiny committees. I drew attention to an excellent report of the House of Lords which is available to read by clicking here. The Lords cite a number of problems with the current procedures, which take up an enormous amount of time, and they conclude ‘that the proposal deserves careful examination’ and ‘caution against any knee-jerk reactions resulting from media coverage’ (paragraph 172). They consider that a gradual transfer from the inter-governmental procedure to the community procedure ‘merits exploration’.

But above all, they put their finger on a crucial point: this is a field in which Britain anyway enjoys the right to opt-into or opt-out of legislation adopted by the European Union. Decisions taken by a qualified majority in which Britain was out voted would not apply to Britain if we didn’t want them to. So, it is other countries’ vetoes (of things that we want) that could be circumvented without Britain needing to accept majority decisions that it would have vetoed.

The Lords report deals with this in its paragraph 178 where it says that ‘as a result, the UK would not have to participate in proposals brought forward, the overnment will need to consider carefully whether the UK should stand in the way of other member states deciding to transfer law competence to the European community’.

As to the merits of using Community, rather than ‘third pillar’ procedures, I note that the Law Society considers that ‘the full incorporation of the justice and home affairs pillar into the community structure offers the best guarantee that rights and freedoms that are in the interests of individuals will be balanced against the security concerns of the member states’ (quoted in Lords report paragraph 119)

I have just received the publication "The Work of the House of Lords" which gives an interesting overview of its activities.

It also contains figures on the cost of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, in total and per taxpayer. From it, I calculate the following costs per citizen:

 European Parliament £1.40 per citizen
 House of Lords £1.56 per citizen
 House of Commons £5.57 per citizen

Even allowing for a margin of error, it is clear that the European Parliament (despite the burden of interpretation and the obligation imposed on it to meet in two places) costs citizens far less than the national parliament, not least because its cost, is, of course, spread over far more citizens.

With all the current hyperbole surrounding the new EU constitutional treaty and how terrible it's going to be for Britain, I thought it would be instructive to revisit the calm, measured report produced by the House of Lords when its EU scrutiny committee examined the draft back in July 2003. Although there were some changes made to the final version of the treaty in 2004, these minor alterations don't affect any of the conclusions drawn by their Lordships in their report - which eurosceptics would do well to note. Here are some choice quotes from the abstract of the report - the full text is available here:

The draft Constitutional Treaty for the European Union is a significant document, meriting serious scrutiny and wide public debate. With ten new countries set to join the EU next year, it is necessary to agree a new Treaty now, as it is generally agreed that the present institutional structure would not function satisfactorily in a Union of 25.

Whether or not the draft Treaty is a "constitution" is of less importance than what it says and how it will affect all our lives.

The draft Treaty reforms the institutions of the EU.

The draft Treaty enhances the role of national parliaments.

…much of what [the Treaty] provides for is not new.

Does it confirm the EU as a union of Member States, rather than a state in its own right? The report concludes that the answer to [this] first question is yes.

…it is precisely because the EU is not a state that the Treaty does not provide some of the direct mechanisms (such as the power to remove a government) that would exist in a state.

Compare these last points to the following claim at eurosceptic.com:

The superstate is here!

The Treaty Establishing A Constitution for Europe, a draft of which has just emerged from the constitutional convention in Brussels, would, if adopted by the Council of Ministers, be the coup de grace for the European nation states. If the Government were to submit to such a constitution, it would be acquiescing in the abolition of our parliamentary democracy and the creation of a European superstate.

How can anyone justify such outrageous hyperbole - flying in the face not only of the content of the treaty itself, but also contrasting so sharply with the measured tones of our own House of Lords?