Westminster scandal leaves fringe parties to spread Euromyths unanswered

As the campaign for the European elections draws to a close it is apparent that the three main parties have been embroiled in the appalling Westminster expenses scandal leaving the field open to the minor parties who see this as their great opportunity to make headway. Not only have they benefitted directly from the expenses scandal but they have also found that no major party is focused enough on the European campaign ro effectively rebut the myths and lies they continuously spread about Europe.

Thus we have heard in recent weeks, without any effective rebuttal, that:

*70 to 80 percent of our legislation comes from the European Union, when according to the House of Commons library it's only nine percent

*MEPs are on an even bigger gravy train than MPs in Westminster, when in fact they are well ahead of Westminster in cleaning up their act

*That Britain pays £41 million a day into the EU budget, when our net contribution is a third of that and this figure anyway takes no account of the wider economic benefits which dwarf any such figures.

*That EU rules are "dictated by bureaucrats", when in fact bureaucrats only propose rules and it is elected and accountable MEPs and ministers that make the decisions.

Yet few people in the media are informed enough to counter these wild claims and Labour, Liberal and pro-European Conservatives have their minds elsewhere. It is to be hoped that, despite this, the UKIP-BNP axis does not gain seats in the European elections.

A step closer to a ban on seal products

Yesterday MEPs on the Internal Market and Consumer Rights (IMCO) Committee agreed to a ban on the import of seal products deriving from commercial culls.

A majority of 25 MEPs to seven on IMCO voted to strengthen the Commission's proposal calling for an outright ban of products imported from commercial sealing.

Notwithstanding an attempt by Yorkshire & Humber Liberal Democrat MEP, Diana Wallis, who in a failed attempt tried to water down the proposal pushed for a mere labelling scheme, only seven MEPs voted against the report, siding instead with the Canadian hunting and sealing lobby.

This is a sensitive issue, which is close to the hearts of many constituents. It is vitally important for the EU to take a strong stance against this cruel practice and set a global precedent for the banning of seal products from the spring cull.

Indeed, with such a large majority in favour in committee, we can hope that support for the ban will be reinforced when it reaches the full parliament vote next month.

Thank you to all of you who have written to me on this matter and please be assured that I will continue to support a ban in the final vote in the Parliament.

Another swing to Labour in Yorkshire by-election

I popped over to Hull yesterday to help Labour’s Gary Wareing in his Drypool by-election campaign, which was caused after the Conservative councillor (who had previously been Lib Dem) resigned.

Just like in December’s by-election in Bingley, Labour’s share of the vote once again rose as the Conservatives (who finished last) and Liberal Democrat’s both fell.

In the end, Gary finished second behind the Lib Dem candidate but gained a swing of 9.8% from the Lib Dems to Labour since the local council elections last May.

Here are the figures (pinched from Luke Akehurst’s ever reliable blog) Drypool Ward, Hull City Council. LD regain after their cllr defected to Con. LD 1306 (52.3%, -11.6), Lab 891 (35.7%, +8), NF 184 (7.4%, +7.4), Con 117 (4.7%, -3.6). Swing of 9.8% from LD to Lab since 2008.

Tories, the Lib Dems and their attitudes to sexual services

There was some press consternation at a report by the European Parliament's Women's Committee debated last week, with some Tory MEPs going apoplectic at some of the ideas it contained.

It is not that many years ago that the very idea of women having equal rights to men, being able to open a bank account separately from their husband, not having to give up their job when they were married and so on, were met with similar disdain from the Conservatives.

Of course, a report from the Women's Committee, which was not legislation but simply a report analysing the situation, floating ideas and making a number of suggestions, contains a variety of ideas with which one might agree or disagree. But to treat it with contempt and disdain tell us much about the general attitude of the Conservatives.

On top of that, some of their votes were quite astonishing. The report looked at the problem of local newspapers being filled with adverts for local brothels and other sexual services. Interestingly, one local newspaper chain in the UK, Newsquest, recently took the decision to ban such adverts from their papers because of "concerns regarding the appalling issue of human trafficking" which it linked to the sex trade.

Probably most citizens would agree that, if brothels are to advertise at all, it would be better that they did so in publications that are not as likely to fall into the hands of children as local newspapers, delivered to every household, are. Yet the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats, voted to try to remove the paragraph on advertising sexual services in publications accessible to children from the report.

Come and meet your MEPs in Sheffield

I and my colleague Linda McAvan will be attending this along with the Tory and Lib Dem MEPs from Yorkshire & Humber.

I hope to see you there!

Tories and Lib Dems follow our lead

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

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

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

BBC's report on MEP's expenses unbalanced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trend of grandiose titles

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

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

Watch out for more imaginative descriptions as the elections approach!

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.

Lisbon Treaty overwhelmingly adopted by European Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Was it Watson wot won it?

The nailbiting finish to the Lib Dem leadership race has kept Westminster hacks on their toes up until Christmas. Congratulations are due to Nick Clegg on his victory.

I knew both as MEPs, but also Chris at university when he was in the Labour club on the anti-European far-left!

Interestingly, the result is close enough (511 votes, or less than one per cent) to suppose that the comments made by Graham Watson MEP, leader of the Alliance of Liberal and Democrat parties (ALDE) in the Parliament, in which he praised Clegg but worried that Huhne was not a team player, might have made the difference!

Karim crossing the floor

Interesting to see Saj Karim's defection from the Lib Dems to the Tories this week, which may not have been for entirely altruistic reasons.

It appears that rather than a principled decision, Saj's defection is the result of a fit of pique after only securing second place on the Liberal Democrat list for the next European elections in 2009. The maverick Chris Davies took 63% of the votes cast by party members across the region, and Saj Karim was the best of the rest. The North-West is set to lose one of its nine seats at the next elections due to enlargement, putting Karim in danger of losing his seat. One can safely assume that the Conservatives will ensure that this does not happen now (to the annoyance of other Tory hopefuls in the North-West, including former MEP Jackie Foster).

Still, I presume that Saj, who strongly supported the constitution, will set about converting the likes of Dan Hannan, Chris Heaton-Harris and Martin Callanan of the benefits of Britain's EU membership and will convince his new colleagues to support the Reform Treaty!

The European Parliament was yesterday lucky (?) enough to be treated to a hilarious spat between arch Eurosceptic Tory Roger Helmer and the former leader of the Conservative MEPs (turned Lib Dem) Bill Newton-Dunn. Both aired their dirty washing in a series of reply-to-all emails that dropped into the inbox of every British MEP and their increasingly amused assistants.

For your enjoyment I'll re-print the row in full (to make clear who's saying what I've italicised Roger Helmer's comments):


"It makes me proud to think that we have to go cap-in-hand to the EU Commission for permission to spend our own money."


"But, as even Roger knows but is unwilling to admit, it is not UK money. Years ago the UK parliament made over part of its VAT revenues to the EU to be the EU's own resources."


"Yet another reason why we should be Better Off Out".


"Which is not your party's policy. Why not be honest, just for once, and join UKIP?"


"Dangerous ground, here, Bill. You may accuse me of many things, but dishonesty is not one of them. I have been absolutely clear and direct about my views on Europe -- which is what gets up your nose."


"Not at all. You twist, distort, sail close to the wind implying things...you are deeply dishonest - not least with yourself, since everybody knows you should be in UKIP"


"As I have frequently observed, Bill, you need a dictionary, as you seem to have a poor grasp of the plain meaning of words".


"Your self-delusion is that you are honest - like fundamentalist religious preachers who preach one thing but are really something very different. Ring any bells ?"

Don't just take it from me: even the Lib Dems concede that Tony Blair's presidency of the European Council was a success! So says Andrew Duff MEP:

Credit to Blair for a successful presidency

"…The prime minister’s most admirable performance came not at the start of his presidency but at the end, on December 20, when he reported back to MEPs after the critical meeting of the European Council the previous week.

"On this occasion Blair had to explain and justify the agreement on the EU’s multi-annual financial framework for the period 2007-13. For Blair it was much more than a public relations outing because the parliament has the power to approve or reject the package proposed by the European Council and, within certain parameters, to adjust figures between headings.

"His presentation – which skilfully mixed confidence and contrition - was admirable, not just for its content, but also for the way in which he bashed ‘reactionaries’ and derided ‘commentators’."

Lib Dem MEPs are back from their Conference aglow with the victory they scored over their party leadership after the latter tried to shift the party into a more Eurosceptic position.

It was sad to see Nick Clegg, until recently an MEP but now a Yorkshire MP, opportunistically aligning himself with the leadership to prove he hadn't 'gone native' during his stint in Brussels. But the grass roots delegates voted for the line taken by the MEPs rather than that of the party leadership. Not something that happens in every party!

Via New Statesman's Conference weblog, I picked up this shrewd observation from the Independent (you need to subscribe to read the full article):

“Charles Kennedy is the most successful leader his adolescent party has ever had. He has now come to sufficient prominence for people to want to get rid of him.”

The Guardian yesterday summarised the opening of the Lib Dems' conference as follows:

The rising star Nick Clegg MP will kick off the agenda with a motion on Europe, seeking to steer Europhile activists towards a more hard-headed approach. As a former MEP, he is well-placed to persuade them that reform does not mean rejection of the European project.

Mr Clegg is indeed a rising star in the Lib Dems, as well as being a good writer and a Yorkshire MP. But as a former MEP, he presumably thinks he has pro-European support in the bag and is trying, like Laurent Fabius, to reach out to the Eurosceptics in his party.

He needs to be careful: this is a tactic that many pro-Europeans have succumbed to in the past, and it's backfired on them. Some, hoping for cheap gallery applause from the Eurosceptic media, put career before principle and end up helping the cause they oppose. They reap the whirlwind.