2008 - a good year for the EU?

Mark Mardell, the BBC’s Europe editor, said in his blog today that “For the European project's enthusiasts 2008 has been a good year.”

He focuses on foreign affairs, with the EU brokering the Georgia ceasefire, setting up its Kosovo mission and sending a joint fleet of warships to the Somalia coast to protect shipping from pirates. He also refers to the financial crisis and the fact that “the euro has weathered the storm better than the pound” and all EU countries eventually reached “agreement on a coordinated plan to stimulate the economy”.

In my view, the biggest EU achievement this year has been the climate change package, and he could have dwelt more on that. The package does not just proclaim targets, but brings in measures to achieve them. It creates binding Europe-wide laws on emission limits for vehicles, renewable obligations, carbon trading and so on. It finances pilot projects for carbon capture and storage. It brings aviation in to the Emission Trading Scheme, which it strengthens.
This is a good example of using the EU to do more than we can achieve just by ourselves, and where Europe is leading the world ahead of the Copenhagen climate change talks.

But, as ever in the BBC, Mark feels he has to give a sop to the eurosceptics. He buys their line on the question of the Irish response to the Lisbon treaty and does not even mention the fact that almost every other member country has approved the treaty. He refers to the Irish government’s plan to seek concessions and then hold a new referendum as “the leaders of EU countries and the commission deciding that Ireland should vote again” – sorry, Mark, neither the other countries nor the Commission have any such power, only the Irish parliament can decide, if it wants, whether to hold a new referendum.

He quotes approvingly (“a stroke of brilliance”) the phrase "They don't know the meaning of the word 'No'" and refers to the EU being "an unstoppable juggernaut". Come off it, Mark! The EU can only change its rulebook (the treaties) with the unanimous consent of every single Member State. The dice are loaded in favour of the eurosceptics, who only need to obtain one single 'No'.

As it turns out, Ireland, as the single 'No', has offered to reconsider (it's still their choice), in exchange for other countries trying to meet their concerns (e.g. on the number of Commissioners, on neutrality, taxation, conscription, etc). It is actually Ireland that can, if it wants, “bully” the other countries into making concessions, not the other way around!

In fact, as ever in a grouping of 27 sovereign countries, there will be an attempt to find a compromise, to bridge the gap, to meet halfway and to try and find a solution that is acceptable to all 27 countries. This is not to ignore the result of the Irish referendum - it is to respond to the result, look at the concerns that were expressed and try to meet them. I very much hope that will be sufficient to enable a positive result in a new referendum to be held in the autumn, when it will be up to the Irish people to make their choice. Is that so unreasonable?It was, after all, the leader of the NO campaign who said the result was a mandate to the Irish government to negotiate a better deal.

Ireland gains major concession

So, it seems that Ireland has scored a notable victory at today’s European Council in persuading the other Member States to revert to the system whereby every Member State has a member of the European Commission.

It will be recalled that this was a major issue in the Irish referendum, and any attempt to respond to the concerns expressed by the ‘No’ voters would have to address this issue, among others.

Nonetheless, I am surprised that every other country agreed to give up on this so quickly. All governments had agreed that the size of the European Commission should be cut down, as successive enlargements of the European Union turned the Commission from a compact executive into a miniature assembly. Several governments were reported as being reluctant to giving up on this reform.

However, at least it is a change that affects every country equally, and reverting to one Commissioner per country can be done without amending the Lisbon Treaty (whereas it cannot be done under the current treaties, which require a smaller Commission as of next year).

Meeting the other Irish concerns will require further negotiation, but at least the Irish government has come up with a list of demands. The other Member States must meet these concerns and show that they are not ignoring, but responding to, the ‘No’ vote in the Irish referendum.

Ireland latest

The special sub-committee of the Irish Parliament, set up to evaluate the options for Ireland following its rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, reported yesterday. Interestingly, its recommendations to the Irish government focus on the option of re-running the Lisbon referendum, but on the assumption that the Irish government "would respond to concerns expressed during the referendum campaign". Such a response might involve supplementing the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty with a range of declarations, protocols and decisions but "the committee has strong concerns about actions which may involve Ireland opting out of EU policy areas".

It remains to be seen how the Irish government will respond to its Parliament on this, but given that we are now approaching 26 ratifications by every other EU country, the most likely option for Ireland as the only member state to say 'No',is that it indeed seeks reassurance on those points on which it was unhappy, and then seeks the approval of the Irish people in a new referendum.

For all those eurosceptics who accuse the EU of "bullying" Ireland, it is interesting that this suggestion has come from the Irish Parliament itself, following widespread consultations, public hearings and debates. The hearings included both supporters and opponents of the Lisbon Treaty, parties from across the political spectrum and NGOs of all kinds as well as businesses and trade unions. It produced a considered and detailed report.

Other EU countries must now do their bit to meet Irish concerns and respond to any reasonable requests put forward by Ireland as a result of this process.

Declan Ganley: more than meets the eye?

It was interesting to be in Ireland on Wednesday discussing what may happen about Lisbon. I also learnt more about Declan Ganley, leader of the No campaign and his mysterious organisation “Libertas”. Links to information on him can be found at this most interesting site

It shows that far from being a small businessman from the west of Ireland, Declan Ganley appears to be highly involved in a network of big businesses with military interests, usually based in Britain, and closely connected to US defence and intelligence networks. Many of the personalities in these networks can be described as “neo-conservative” in the American sense, and hostile to any degree of European integration that might offer a different view to the most belligerent unilateralist wing of the American Republican party.

The company he keeps in Europe is also right wing and Eurosceptic. At his meeting of 2 September at the European Parliament in Brussels, he was flanked by UK Tory arch-eurosceptic Dan Hannan, most of the UKIP MEPs and MEPs from Jean Marie Le Pen’s Front Nationale and the Vlaams Belang.

What is Libertas?

In December 2003, Ganley mentioned in an article in the American publication Foreign Policy Research Institute entitled “Europe's Constitutional Treaty: a threat to democracy and how to avoid it” that he supported the creation of a new political party (“I will for the sake of discussion call it Libertas”, he wrote) to campaign for a new Europe that would be a “partner” for the USA rather than “try to define itself in contradiction to the United States.”

Libertas Institute Ltd. was set up in October 2006. Five of its seven members worked for a company called Rivada Networks, Ganley's firm in the field of military security technology. The other two were his brother Sean and Chris Coughlin of Hewlett Packard Ireland. Libertas presents itself as a think-tank, but until 2007 there was no sign of any intellectual activity. It seems to have had the same telephone number as Rivada Networks.

Yet this “think-tank” managed to outspend the three main political parties of Ireland (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party) in the Irish referendum according to the Irish European Minister, he spent some €2 million.

Where that money came from is a mystery. Under current laws, Libertas does not have to declare where money came from or even how much was spent, as it is not classed as a political party. Political parties on the other hand must declare detailed spending and donation returns. The Irish government, as a result, is set to change its ethics laws so that other groups must also declare the source of their funding.

Ireland’s ethics laws do set limits on the amount an individual donor can give to a political group, such as Libertas in any one year, which is €6,348.69. Ganley has admitted that he provided funds of €200,000 to Libertas’ campaign, but this was only a “loan”. Loans can be made as long as they are "bona fide", according to the Standards in Public Office Commission, who are now likely to investigate whether or not Ganley’s loan is legitimate.

What is Rivada Networks?

Declan Ganley’s Rivada Networks designs and operates communications and information technology networks for security forces. The multinational corporation has Declan Ganley as its chairman and chief executive. Other board members include a number of retired or active US military (a General, an Admiral, a Rear Admiral) and Bush administration members.

Rivada Networks boasts some high level American military and security organisations as major clients. Among them are the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), the National Guard Bureau, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Ganley’s other companies

Ganley appears to have set up at least 9 companies in the UK and 11 in Ireland over the past 18 years. Many of them have been renamed or dissolved. Why?

Ganley Group International is registered at 128 Mount Street, London, near the US Embassy and with an innocuous antique shop on its ground floor. At the same address was Paladin Capital, specialising in Homeland security investment and worth over $900 million. Chairman of its advisory board is James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA.

Also at this address, is the Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund. This was involved between 1995 and 1997 in the privatisation programme in Albania. It will be recalled that the second phase of Albanian privatisation featured significant criminal activity in the pyramids financing scheme which broke the back of the Albanian economy and caused civil unrest in which over 2000 people died.

Ganley calls for all out war against Iran

In 2006, when there seemed a possibility that British and American forces might be pulled out of Iraq, Declan Ganley, whose company Rivada Networks has lucrative contracts with the American military, argued that if Iraq and Iran were to be tamed “full mobilisation for war would have to be carried out, complete with drafts, rationing and all of what Churchill referred to as the ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat’ that it takes to secure overwhelming victory.” And on the diplomatic efforts to try and avoid war: “As the US and Europe start yet another round of dialogue with Syria and Iran, the Mullahs are rolling around laughing behind closed doors — they did not cave in when we had leverage, now they will declare ‘the Emperor has no clothes’.” According to the Irish Examiner, Ganley said that Iran was near guaranteed to acquire nuclear weapons with little resistance and that only all-out war could tame both Iraq and Iran.

Ganley’s apparent thirst for all out war with Iran and an increased effort against Iraq is made all the more curious by the fact that one of Libertas’ main anti-Lisbon Treaty themes was the incorrect claim that the Lisbon Treaty would lead to an increase in the militarisation of Europe. Now we find out that Ganley has been criticising Europe for exactly the opposite – not being militarised enough. So does Ganley want more or less militarisation in Europe, or does that depend on whether or not he’s trying to win political battles or secure contracts for his business?

Is Declan Ganley actually Irish?

The nationality of Declan Ganley has come into question after Irish Minister of State, Dick Roche, revealed that Ganley had stated that his nationality was British on company records for nearly a decade, before changing it to Irish in 2006 (coincidently just as the debate over the constitutional future of Europe was beginning). Ganley, who claims to be from Galway in the west of Ireland, also stated that his address was in London during this period. Mr Roche said Ganley, who was born in London to Irish parents "likes to wrap himself in the tricolour whenever he faces any form of query or interrogation on issues like this [the debate on the Lisbon Treaty] … if you look at some companies you [Ganley] register yourself as an Irish citizen when it suits and register yourself as a UK citizen in other cases.”

Europe must now work with Ireland to resolve its objections to the Lisbon Treaty

The other EU countries must stand ready to meet Ireland's concerns if they want Ireland to re-consider the Lisbon Treaty. But to do so, they need Ireland to articulate a list of demands.

That is the message I gave today to the special Oireachtas sub-committee on Ireland's relationship with the EU as part of a delegation of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs committee.

This is not an easy situation for anyone. We all know that any changes to the EU treaties require the agreement of every single Member state. But as we approach a situation where 25 or 26 will have said "Yes" and just one has said "No", it is neither unreasonable nor undemocratic to ask the one to reconsider - especially if a serious effort is made to meet its concerns.

Of course, Ireland would be perfectly entitled not to re-consider. In law, that would be the end of the Lisbon treaty. But Ireland's friends across Europe would be dismayed at such an attitude. In the EU, the give-and-take co-operation of all member countries is fundamental to the continued success of the EU. If there is a divergence of views, we attempt to bridge the gap. If Ireland were to reject the idea of even trying to find a solution acceptable to all Member States, without even trying, it would find itself losing the considerable sympathy it has always enjoyed across Europe.

Some leading "no" campaigners, such as Declan Ganley, said at the time that the result was "a mandate to the Irish government to seek a better deal". It is a pity that he now seems to want to oppose any such attempt.

Fifteen years ago, when Denmark rejected the Maastricht treaty, it told the other member states to continue with their ratification procedures. The Danes said to the rest of Europe that they didn't want to blow up the whole edifice, but would come back with proposals to find a way out. Denmark identified four items in the Maastricht package that it didn't like; the other member states were able to meet its concerns (without, by the way, needing to change the treaty to do so) and Denmark then approved the treaty by a comfortable majority in a new referendum. Ireland itself went through a similar process with the Treaty of Nice.

Will it be possible to do likewise with Lisbon? The findings from the research commissioned by the Irish government indicated that lack of knowledge and information were the single most important factor, both in abstention and in voting "no". Fear of conscription into a European army, threats to corporation tax, the lack of an automatic Irish Commissioner and workers rights were among the specific concerns that were confirmed by the research.

Several of these concerns can easily be met, not least because they were unjustified fears. The treaty does not change Ireland's ability to set its own tax rates, it does not oblige it to send troops to a European army and, perversely, workers' rights would actually be strengthened by the treaty. Such fears can be assuaged without needing to change the treaty, by clarifying declarations or, if necessary, additional protocols.

Other concerns might be more difficult. The loss of an Irish Commissioner (for one Commission out of three, as of 2014, as for every member state) was an issue, but special treatment for Ireland would be difficult. After all, Ireland and the other small countries were victorious on that point in ensuring equal rotation, irrespective of the size of countries, while the current Nice Treaty would anyway require a smaller Commission - but without an agreed rotation system.

Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns. If this can be done without having to alter the treaty - which would require a new IGC and renewed ratification in all other countries - then so much the better.

Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions, and achieving a solution acceptable Ireland and to all 26 other countries may not be easy. But an even worse solution would be to abandon all reform. A poorly functioning EU, failing to deliver on behalf of its citizens, is in no-one's interest, especially in this time of economic uncertainty. Sweeping the necessary reforms under the carpet because you can't even be bothered to explore the possibility for a compromise would do nobody any favours.

Naturally, other countries and the European Parliament would prefer to find a solution in time for the European elections. Whether this is possible is up to Ireland. As responsible players, the Irish government and the main opposition parties will want to proceed carefully but purposefully. Other European countries must do what they can to help, but while we all want a solution as soon as possible, we must accept that there are no shortcuts and the issues raised by the "No" campaign must be given a respectful answer

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.

So UKIP did interfere with the Irish referendum

Back in January, Nigel Farage wrote on his blog that IND-DEM had made a large donation to the Irish "No" campaign. This letter from Kathy Sinnott proves that UKIP's group paid for a leaflet to be sent to every Irish household arguing for a "No" vote. It is both amusing and astonishing hypocrisy that UKIP, which frequently makes shrill accusations about "Brussels meddling with Britain", meddled in a referendum campaign in another country.

However, at another level, this is a serious matter and potentially illegal. The rules governing donations for referendum campaigns in Ireland are very clear. Donations are illegal if they fall into the following categories:

"A donation, of whatever value, from an individual (other than an Irish citizen) who resides outside the island of Ireland" or,

"A donation from a body corporate or unicorporated body of persons which does not keep an office in the island of Ireland from which one or more of its principle activities is directed".

Of course, UKIP and IND-DEM knew this and no doubt tried find an indirect route to channel their money. Sinnott's letter is also interesting in that it asks the Taisoeach Brian Cowen to ensure that "each European Parliament group(s) and political foundation(s) be asked to make public the exact expenses they made for this referendum campaign in Ireland" adding that "my parliament group, IND-DEM is prepared to respond to this request in full". It would certainly be in the public interest, and highly revealing, for this information to be made available.

The Record, Europe debate on Ireland

Click here to see me debating what to do after the Irish referendum (against the Tory-Sinn Fein alliance) on BBC “The Record, Europe” programme.

You can also view or downlaod the programme on BBC iPlayer from here.

Declan Ganley and the Irish No

Declan Ganley, the Anglo-Irish millionaire who led the No campaign to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, spoke at a public meeting in the European Parliament today. The meeting was hosted by the Tory Eurosceptic, Dan Hannan MEP.

To the horror of the UKIP members present, Ganley presented himself as a pro-European, waxing lyrical about how good Europe was to Ireland, how the EU was the most successful peace process in history and how the last thing he wanted was for the EU to break up. The big smiles quickly disappeared from the UKIP faces as he said that.

Yet Ganley was stupendously vague as to what he did believe in and as to what he objected to in the Lisbon Treaty. He simply said that he wanted to replace Lisbon with a new Europe which would be "prosperous, democratic, free and legitimate" as if the supporters of the Lisbon Treaty wanted a Europe that was undemocratic and/or illegitimate.

He said he was against the Lisbon Treaty because having read it he didn't see how any democrat could support it, yet did not said what he found undemocratic in a treaty which seeks to extend the powers over the EU system of both national Parliaments and the European Parliament. He said he that the No campaign wants transparency, democracy and accountability to be at the heart of the European Union - precisely the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty - but offered no alternative way of achieving it.

He refused to answer questions as to where his "Libertas" No campaign obtained its massive financial resources. He peddled yet again the myth that the European Parliament had voted not to accept the result of the Irish referendum and that it had kept secret the plans to implement the treaty. (On this last point, he was particularly disingenuous as it was the Eurosceptics who had objected to the European Parliament discussing implementation before it was ratified, yet when such a postponement was agreed, they claimed it was an attempt to conceal.)

He refused to disassociate himself from the wild claims made by No campaigners to the effect that the Lisbon Treaty would impose on Ireland abortion, conscription to a European army, the death penalty and higher corporation tax. (Presumably what he meant when he said that in the referendum campaign "every angle was looked at"). Interestingly, in the same room I glimpsed an article by an American academic Andrew Moravcik, if anything a slightly Eurosceptical commentator on European affairs, whose verdict of Ganley's campaign is: "Libertas and like-minded groups specialise in spreading untruths by internet faster than they can be refuted".

He squirmed when reminded of previous writings of his calling for a fully federal European with a directly elected President.

When he rightly said that when a majority vote on a subject you have to accept the result, he was particularly reluctant to discuss the outcome of the Spanish, Luxembourgish and Romanian referenda which gave majorities for the Constitutional Treaty. When I questioned him on how to reconcile the divergent verdicts given by different European countries, in order to find a reform to the European Union acceptable to all, he simply avoided responding by repeating that Lisbon was dead - and presumably nothing it contained should ever be supported by Ireland or anybody else, even if it is ratified by the overwhelming majority of member states.

Well, if Mr Ganley is a Euroenthusiast, than I am a Eurosceptic!

The European Parliament's debate on Ireland's No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Ireland has said No

All the indications suggest Ireland has said 'No', but there are 26 other member states whose opinion matters too.

It is inconceivable that all of the others will simply say "too bad - one country has said ‘No’ to the package as it stands, so let's forget reform and stick with the current system for evermore."

All member states want reform. Even the ‘No’ campaigners in Ireland claimed they want to negotiate a better package.

So, what is to be done? First, Ireland must have a profound internal debate to identify precisely what it is they don't like about the Lisbon Treaty. Presumably it is not the extra powers for parliaments, nor the clearer focus on combating climate change, but some other aspects. If they can identify what those are, then they can ask the other member states for help in addressing their concerns.

This, after all, is precisely what Denmark did after their initial rejection of the Maastricht Treaty. They said to the rest of Europe that they didn't want to blow up the whole edifice, but that they would come back with proposals to find a way out. They identified four items in the Maastricht package that they didn't like, the other member states were able to meet their concerns (without, by the way, needing to change the treaty to do so) and Denmark then approved the treaty by a comfortable majority in a new referendum.

Several concerns raised in the Irish debate can easily be met, not least because they were unjustified fears. The treaty does not affect Ireland's abortion laws, it does not change their ability to set their tax rates, it does not oblige them to send troops to a European army and it does not change the EU’s negotiating stance on agriculture on the WTO. Such fears can be assuaged without needing to change the treaty, by clarifying declarations or, if necessary, additional protocols.

Other concerns might be more difficult. The loss of an Irish Commissioner (for one Commission out of three, as of 2014, as for every member state) was an issue, but special treatment for Ireland would be difficult. After all, they and the other small countries were victorious on that point in the negotiations on the treaty in ensuring equal rotation, irrespective of the size of countries. Note that the current treaties, if left unamended, would anyway require a smaller Commission - but without an agreed rotation system and already in 2009.

Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns. If this can be done without having to alter the treaty - which would require a new IGC and renewed ratification in all the counties (now nearly 20) that have ratified already - then so much the better.

Nor should we accept the bleating from Eurosceptics that there is somehow something undemocratic about a new referendum. It is perfectly reasonable to address a divergence in the positions of the 27 EU countries by asking the minority of one to think again - especially if its concerns have been addressed. What would be undemocratic would be to allow the one to prevail over the many.

Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions. Achieving a solution acceptable to all 27 countries may not be easy. But an even worse solution would be to abandon all reform. A poorly functioning EU, failing to deliver on behalf of its citizens, is in no-one's interest. Sweeping the necessary reforms under the carpet because you can't even be bothered to explore the possibility for a compromise would do nobody any favours.

Ireland votes tomorrow

So, Ireland votes tomorrow on the Lisbon treaty. It's their choice for their country's ratification, but I do hope they take account, in evaluating the arguments for and against, of the wider context.

All 27 countries in the EU agree that the EU needs reform. All have worked for several years to draw up this package of reforms, taking account of every country's concerns. A first attempt, replacing the current treaties with a new constitution, fell when two countries rejected it. This new attempt, amending the current treaties, has already been ratified by a majority of Member States, but needs the approval of all 27, including Ireland. If this attempt also fails, it would take years to agree on a new set of reforms. Some are hoping that there would never be such agreement and the EU would fall apart (the UK Conservatives, for instance, hope that a failure to approve the treaty now would give them a chance of being in power - they think - before any new package is agreed, which they could then block.)

That is why Eurosceptics from across Europe, but especially from Britain, have helped the NO campaign in Ireland. They have not hesitated to deploy the same lies as they have used in Britain, together with some new ones tailored to cause concern in Ireland such as claiming that the treaty will affect Irish laws on abortion. They tell workers that the treaty will undermine social standards and they tell businesses that it will increase their taxes, both patent lies. They try to stir up fears that small countries will lose out (so why have all the countries that are smaller than Ireland already ratified with large majorities, while some larger ones are among those considered difficult?).

Let us hope the Irish people will give short shrift to the myth-makers and endorse the treaty by a clear majority!

Who says the Lisbon Treaty is boring?

Who says the Lisbon Treaty is boring? This amusing 'Spoofers guide to how to not vote No' by Jason O'Mahony is well worth a read and a chuckle!

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?

Eurosceptics target Ireland

A few months ago UKIP leader Nigel Farage trumpeted on his blog that the Independence and Democracy group (that his UKIP MEPs are the main part of) had decided to "donate a substantial sum of money" to the Irish "No" campaign for the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

At one level, it is amusing to see UKIP, which frequently makes shrill accusations about "Brussels meddling with Britain", trying to meddle in a referendum campaign in another country.

However, at another level, this is a serious matter and potentially illegal. The rules governing donations for referendum campaigns in Ireland are very clear. Donations are illegal if they fall into the following categories:

"A donation, of whatever value, from an individual (other than an Irish citizen) who resides outside the island of Ireland" or,

"A donation from a body corporate or unicorporated body of persons which does not keep an office in the island of Ireland from which one or more of its principle activities is directed".

Of course, UKIP knows this and will no doubt try to keep their donations quiet or find an indirect route to channel their money. The well-heeled eurosceptics from across Europe are targeting Ireland. Anyone who gets wind of such donations should inform the Irish Commission on Standards in Public Office, the body charged with making sure that the referendum is fair and that Ireland's rules on spending - which gives equal amounts of public money to both sides - are not subverted.

Myth about not respecting Irish referendum result

Following my comments of yesterday, yet another myth has been drawn to my attention. This time it is that the European Parliament voted not to respect the results of an Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

The parliament did, of course, reject an amendment to add to my own report evaluating the treaty, a paragraph calling for it to respect the result of the Irish referendum, but it did so (1) because this goes without saying as the Treaty can only come into force if it is ratified by every Member State and (2) it was inappropriate to refer only to Ireland as it is every county's decision that has to be respected, not just Ireland's.

The authors of the amendment knew it would be rejected for those reasons, but tabled it anyway simply to be able to misuse its rejection and to make their absurd claim. It's known as manipulation.

A look at the media's reaction to the Commons vote

Over the past few months some of the papers, especially the Telegraph and Sun, have given a disproportionate amount of coverage to the Lisbon Treaty and particularly their campaign for a referendum, so how are they reacting now the country will not go to the polls?

Predictably!

The Mail complained that Wednesday's vote, "will go down in history as the day our politicians surrendered most of what was left of Britain's sovereignty and trusted the nation's future to a European superstate" while the Telegraph’s increasingly hysterical Iain Martin maintains that "when the entire story is told by historians, future generations will be surprised that the Euro-fanatics who plotted to sell out British sovereignty and democracy avoided being sent to the Tower for treason." - no less! Meanwhile, the Sun's George Pascoe-Watson is confident that, "it won't take long for the entire country to see just how much power has been surrendered to Brussels."

So no surprises but if their extravagant claims about the death of British democracy were true then surely it would be an issue of such extreme importance to our country that it would deserve to dominate their column inches and their websites for some time.

Well actually, the Daily Mail almost instantly returned to baiting women about their weight, digs at immigrants and a story about an England rugby union player being dropped for going to a nightclub. The Sun quickly dumped the story off the front page of their website and was far more concerned by Prince Harry, his girlfriend, Paul Burrell, and a quirky haircut at a fashion show. The Telegraph was just as swift to re-focus on Burrell and the rugby though it did also manage a nod to ID cards.

Could this return to other news be because the British public isn’t stupid enough to believe the nonsense they preach? Or are we simply not that interested in Britain's membership of the EU?

An article in the Times argues the latter point is especially true. It first considers the differing and difficult relationships Britain’s political parties have had with Europe and goes on to strongly argue that these concerns are not shared by the vast majority of the British public. It states that just 2 to 7% of voters list Europe as a concern, meaning it comes well behind crime, immigration, health, defence, the economy, environment, housing, drug abuse, tax, pensions and public morality.

This relaxed attitude to the EU is a mark of the failures of the Eurosceptics, as illustrated by this blog on the Telegraph website which praises Open Europe for playing a "blinder" adding "when it seemed that nobody cared, Neil and his colleagues worked overtime to devise ways of keeping the matter in the public eye."

So there you are, the Eurosceptics admit no-one is really interested in their cause and their campaign was little more than a marketing exercise which failed in its attempts to sell Europhobia to the masses, a view backed up by the media's own desire to stop banging on about Europe as quickly as possible.

Red lines beat red herrings, as Commons votes against referendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prospective Conservative candidates know how to copy & paste

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

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

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

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

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

Referendum campaign still flagging

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

Sun gives up on a referendum?

Another sign of the Eurosceptic anti-treaty campaign floundering: the Sun has apparently given up on its circulation-destroying obsession with a referendum on the EU.

Previously, its campaign for an EU referendum was flagged up throughout its website with the left-hand column of nearly every page linked to a dedicated site calling for a referendum. And while MRSA, Weird, Royals and even the US election primaries now enjoy the same treatment there is no sign of a link to their referendum page anywhere.

This of course follows the news that everytime the Sun led on its campaign for a referendum, droves of readers left the paper on the racks and relatively few people signed its petition.

Cameron still playing with fire over Europe

The new year has started but David Cameron is still equivocating over whether to pledge a post-ratification referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

This piece in the Daily Mail has been cleverly spun to make it seem as though a referendum will be promised – however, on closer inspection, Cameron parrots the same words as his Foreign Affairs spokesman William Hague did during a Commons debate a month ago, that an incoming Tory government "wouldn’t let matters rest there".

This ambiguous phrase is designed to appeal to the hardline Eurosceptics, whilst not quite committing the Tories to hold a retrospective referendum on a treaty already in force. As former Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke recently pointed out, the Tories had "always accepted treaty obligations accepted by previous governments" when they came to office. Former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind (by no means a Europhile) described demands for a post-ratification plebiscite as "silly and wrong".

By ratcheting up Eurosceptic fervour by implying that a post-ratification referendum would be held in the unlikely event of a Tory government being elected, Cameron is effectively digging a big hole and then throwing what remains of his credibility into it. A referendum on the Lisbon Treaty some years after its entry into force would, in effect, be a referendum on whether to renegotiate the terms of Britain's membership of the EU. The Tory hardliners are quite candid that they would view this as an opportunity to engineer British withdrawal. Cameron needs to stop playing with fire and state once and for all whether his Tory party would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty even after it has been implemented.

More Tory divisions on Europe

Tory divisions on the Lisbon (or "Reform") Treaty are hotting up. While the hardline Eurohobes are calling for a retrospective referendum to be held if the Conservatives ever return to power, this idea is repudiated by their wiser, senior figures. In the House of Lords debate on the treaty, Geoffrey Howe, who was Thatcher's Deputy Prime Minister, said:

"I say one word beyond that; a word to those who would urge leadership of my own party, when elected, after the treaty has been ratified by the parliamentary process, exactly as it was in 1972 and 1986, to set about having a referendum on the approval or otherwise of the treaty. That would be a profoundly mistaken move. It would be entirely wrong to consider embarking on that course which might involve deliberately repudiating an international obligation. It would be extremely damaging to our position in Europe since it would inevitably be interpreted as a first step towards withdrawal from the Union. It would be equally damaging to our own domestic agenda, to have the early years of a Cameron Government dominated by that problem, as the Labour Government of 1974 were, which is now some 30 years ago."

Danes set to rule out referendum

The Danes are set to become the latest country to rule out a referendum on the Reform Treaty, with the Danish ministry of justice publishing a report which concludes that a plebiscite is unnecessary because the treaty does not transfer new powers to the EU. This recommendation follows a legal review of the treaty.

Indeed, the report, which is influential but not binding on the Danish government, states that "it is the opinion of the justice ministry that for Denmark the Lisbon Treaty does not transfer new powers of the country's authorities to the Union", adding that "Danish ratification of the Lisbon Treaty does not raise additional questions in relation to the constitution". The final decision on whether to hold a referendum will be announced by the Danish government next week.

This is highly significant in that the Danish constitution states that any international treaty that transfers sovereignty from the national government must be agreed by a referendum before it can be ratified. The recommendations of the Danish justice ministry, which echo the views of the Dutch Council of State and the Czech government, expose the sheer inaccuracy of claims by Cameron's Tories and our Eurosceptic newspapers that the treaty represents a massive transfer of sovereignty to Brussels.

It is looking increasingly likely that Ireland, which is constitutionally required to hold referenda on any changes to the EU treaties, will be the only Member State to hold a referendum.

Tory comes out against referendum

With Timothy Kirkhope ousted as leader of the Tories in Europe, it has been interesting to read the response on the Conservative Home website (here and earlier here. Nearly all Conservative attitudes to Europe are represented and nobody seems particularly happy with the result, with new leader Giles Chichester considered too Europhile by some and too Eurosceptic by others. Some are even demanding that any MEP not in favour of leaving the EPP should be automatically deselected for the next European election which, considering Eurosceptics like Parish and Heaton-Harris are destined for safe Westminster seats and others like Kamall have similar ambitions, could mean an almost completely new group of Conservative MEPs in 2009.

With that in mind it will be intetresting to see the reaction to Christopher Beazley’s decision to speak out against a referendum on Europe in a radio debate with my colleague Richard Howitt and the Lib Dem’s Andrew Duff. Not only that, Beazley actually requested that the debate focus on the contents of the treaty rather than on calls for a referendum. It’s a bold move by Beazley and should be welcomed, though it clearly won’t be by Tory Eurosceptics who will be baying for his blood.

The Tory's jumbled mess of referendum promises

The Tories are in complete chaos over whether to call a post-ratification referendum following the speech by Foreign Affairs spokesman William Hague in the Commons on Monday, in which he stated that the treaty ratified by Parliament without a referendum would "not be acceptable to a Conservative government and we would not let matters rest there". He started to expand beginning, "in such circumstances" before deciding not to complete the rest of the sentence.

As Ken Clarke noted several moments later, Mr Hague had "given a helpful new statement of Opposition party policy, although it came to a rather vague conclusion". Clarke added that the alternatives were either "repudiation of a treaty that this country has ratified; an attempt to renegotiate or reopen that treaty; a parliamentary process of some kind; or a referendum" and pointed out that the Tories had "always accepted treaty obligations accepted by previous governments" when they came to office.

Meanwhile, the highly Eurosceptic Tory MEP Martin Callanan claimed yesterday in the Northern Echo that "David Cameron has even committed to a referendum after the treaty has come into force". This, presumably, will come as news to Cameron, who has so far refused to pledge a post-ratification referendum. Indeed, after Hague's speech, Cameron's spokesman told the press that that had been "no change" to party policy.

Once again the Tories are divided on Europe. Less than two weeks ago former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind (no Europhile he) urged Cameron not to allow the debate on the Reform Treaty to be "dominated by the small group of hardline Europhobes" and described demands for a post-ratification plebiscite as "silly and wrong".

Let us be clear - a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after its ratification would, in effect, be a referendum on whether to renegotiate the terms of Britain's membership of the EU. The Tory hardliners are quite candid that they would view this as an opportunity to engineer British withdrawal. No amount of sophistry from Cameron can hide the fact that by refusing to take on the Europhobes he reveals his parties complete lack of credibility on Europe.

To add to the confusion (or maybe to deflect attention away from their dilemna over a European referendum), Cameron is now promising local referendums on council tax rises. He has vowed to make councils offer a referendum if they want to raise their council tax beyond a certain threshold and said, "I want to replace bureaucratic accountability with democratic accountability".

He seems to think local councillors are bureaucrats (much as he seems to think MEPs are) and not elected. In most areas there are council elections three years out of four - plenty of opportunity to vote out an administration you don’t like. A referendum each year added to this is preposterous.

But what about this? Cameron went on to say, "Council tax referendum ballots would be sent out with the annual council tax bill". Does this mean people who don’t pay council tax, like students, will not get a vote? If so that also spells the end to universal sufferage!

As poorly put together as this idea is, it is merely a sideshow to the real argument do we want a parliamentary democracy or do we want a plebiscitory democracy? By offering a series of referendums the Tories would fundamentally change the way Britain is governed, surely a bigger threat to Britain’s tradition of parliamentary democracy than either a new treaty being ratified through the Commons and Lords, or elected Councillors deciding a budget for a council.

David Cameron is dithering in the face of attempts by right-wing Tories to bounce him into pledging a post-ratification referendum on the Reform Treaty, refusing to answer when challenged by Gordon Brown in this week's Queen's speech debate. But while he fails to give leadership, others around him are trying to force a decision.

The idea to hold a post-ratification referendum is being pushed by the fiercest Eurosceptics in the Tory ranks who see it as a way to engineer British withdrawal from the EU. Indeed, the Early Day Motion on the matter that has been tabled in the House of Commons by John Redwood has been supported by 47 Tory MPs.

Meanwhile, former Thatcherite Cabinet minister Norman Tebbit (also a member of Better Off Out) has stoked up the fire, claiming that Cameron has already promised a post-ratification referendum in the Sun. Similarly, a Conservative poster released last week promised that a referendum on the treaty had been "delayed until the election of a Conservative government", although Tory central office later backtracked.

During the Queen's speech debate Gordon described the Tories' proposals as "confused, contradictory and not thought through". Quite.

Amid a fairly quiet weekend for the British media, one event was conspicuous for its failure to attract press coverage - the Pro-Referendum Rally in central London. Even sympathetic newspapers (i.e. most of them) could not bring themselves to talk up a poorly attended flop.

Not even the Sun gave the rally much of a mention, preferring to do a front page splash on another royal family scandal. This may have something to do with concerns that the Sun's circulation has, so I hear, fallen by 160,000 each day it has led with demands for a referendum.

It was interesting to see the speakers list: Nigel Farage, Bob Spink MP (a Tory member of Better Off Out), Roger Helmer MEP, Neil Herron of the so-called Metric Martyrs and Councillor Steve Radford of the “Liberal party” (not the LibDems). In other words, a rag-bag of assorted cranks, all of whom are committed to Britain leaving the EU. Save for Mr Spink, not a single MP attended, although a sizeable contingent from the BNP were present amongst the demonstrators – who numbered a few hundred instead of the hoped-for thousands.

The high hopes of the Eurosceptics that they would be riding on a wave of popular protest seems to have fizzled out in a damp squib. Most people just aren’t screaming for a plebiscite on whether to replace the rotating presidency and reduce the number of commissioners! And perhaps people have realised that most campaigners for a referendum are not interested in the Reform Treaty, they just want Britain to leave the EU.

Further to what I reported last Wednesday, the Dutch government has ageed with the judicial advice from the Council of State and decided that a referendum is not justified for ratifying the Reform Treaty, which will be ratified by parliament, as in the UK.

The Reform Treat merely amends previous treaties and the modest reforms to the EU institutions it does make have been deemed not significant enough to warrant a national referendum.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende said that "the new treaty gives answers to the worries of the Dutch population", referring to the concerns the Dutch people had over the shelved European Constitution.

I was delighted to speak, along with David Miliband, Gary and Mary Creagh (with an impromptu contribution from Neil Kinnock) at a packed LME meeting at Labour Party Conference yesterday.

The thrust of the debate was on how Europe could help achieve environmental targets, fight climate change, amplify the effectiveness of development policy, boost economic growth, help combat trans-national crime and so on. The proposed Reform Treaty was also mentioned, but aroused little controversy, with no-one opposing it or calling for a referendum. The Sun's bus, spouting fumes and causing traffic jams as it drives up and down the road outside the conference centre, and displaying posters predicting the end of the world as we know it if the treaty is approved, has not impressed delegates.

I wonder how much The Sun has spent on its attempt to sabotage the reform of the EU. Double decker advertising hoardings, thousands of leaflets and the first six pages of today's issue, must constitute one of the most blatent attempts ever to bounce a government into following the agenda of a media baron.

I was interested to see that the Dutch Council of State, the highest judicial authority in the Netherlands, has ruled that the Reform Treaty is sufficiently different from the draft Constitutional Treaty rejected by the Dutch people in June 2005, and does not amend the existing EU treaties as dramatically, so that it will not be necessary to hold a new referendum.

This ruling from the high judicial authority from a country that actually had a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty should give cause for thought to those loudly proclaiming the need for us to have one here on the grounds that the Reform Treaty is the same as the Constitutional Treaty. Even the Dutch don't think that this is the case.

It was disappointing to see the TUC conference back calls for a referendum, albeit for opposite reasons to the bulk of the treaty’s opponents, namely that they oppose what they consider to be a British “opt-out” from the Charter of Rights.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was agreed by member states in 2000 and sets out the civil, economic and social rights that define European citizenship. It is a complex issue but essentially Britain’s "opt-out" is a special protocol providing that the charter cannot be used in British courts unless British law itself guarantees the same rights - which is almost always the case anyway.

Contrary to scaremongering by the CBI, article 137 of the treaty of Rome, expressly excludes EU-level legislation with respect to pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose lockouts, which will remain subject to national law, whether the charter is there or not.

Given all of this, it is important for trade unionists to recognise that, even with the UK protocol on the charter, the social dimension of the EU is better off with the Reform treaty than without it. The draft treaty not only makes explicit mention of the social model, it also commits governments to strengthening it and enshrines the principles of full employment and social progress. Similarly, the treaty emphasises that the EU must work to "combat social exclusion and discrimination", and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. The treaty also requires the EU, in all policy areas, to take account of "the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health". Similarly, the treaty emphasises that the EU must work to "combat social exclusion and discrimination", and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. It contains a new provision protecting public services from inconsiderate application of competition law.

Dissatisfaction about the protocol on the Charter, even if it were justified, is no reason to oppose the Treaty. Indeed, a resolution to campaign against it was defeated.

Alexander Stubb, a Finnish MEP, has spent some of this Strasbourg week producing a video on the proposed new treaty.

He interviews MEPs from across the political and national spectrums, asking them what they think of the new treaty and whether, particularly in the UK, a referendum is necessary.

You can view the video by clicking here.

David Cameron and his Tory Party are really plumbing the depths in the debate on the Reform Treaty. Cameron's article for this morning's Sun was rabid and riddled with untruths.

In particular, his claim that the Reform Treaty would "transfer power from our elected Parliament to the EU's unelected bureaucrats" is a flat out lie. In fact the opposite is the case. The Reform Treaty specifically increases the power of elected parliaments not bureaucrats by increasing the role of national parliaments and the European Parliament. It strictly limits EU action to the policy areas agreed by Member States in the treaties. Mr Cameron has either not read the Treaty or has no understanding of its contents - perhaps not surprising since he is too arrogant to meet with his right-wing counterparts in Europe.

He talks about Gordon Brown's "shameless arrogance" as being a "big cancer eating away at trust in politics". On the contrary, it is Cameron who is displaying shameless arrogance by telling lies to the British people.

Cameron's dishonest assertions follow on from William Hague's barmy claim that the Reform Treaty would see the EU take Britain's seat on the UN Security Council. This is simply not true.

Cameron thinks that he is a "euro-realist" and pledged to create a new-centre right group in Europe which would include the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topalenek's Eurosceptic Civic Democrat Party. But the Czech PM is refusing to hold a referendum on the Reform Treaty as it does not create any new powers for the EU. Topolanek's stance speaks volumes about the Tories' opportunism and obsessive Europhobia.

David Cameron and his party seem to be pursuing a policy of 'little Englander' isolationism that would greatly damage Britain's national interests. For a man who hopes to become Prime Minister, his tactics and arguments on the Reform Treaty have been gutter politics of the highest order.

While the Tories have been loudly demanding a referendum on the proposed EU treaty, they have also released an alternative treaty of their own, though without so much fanfare.

Their “Simplifying Treaty”, is written by Timothy Kirkhope MEP, the Conservatives’ leader in the European Parliament, and is warmly endorsed in the preface by William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Having read it, it quickly becomes clear why the Tories have not been shouting from the roof tops about their “Simplifying Treaty”: because it includes the bulk of the proposed new treaty Tony Blair agreed to in June.

So, senior Tories know the EU needs reform and agree with much of what is already proposed but they also know that calling for a referendum wins them easy headlines in a period when positive coverage of their party has been at a premium.

It also highlights the Tory’s usual divisions over Europe. The extreme Eurosceptics are discontent and very vocal and, while leading figures in the Conservative Party know reform of the EU is essential, they are too scared to back the treaty (even though they largely agree with it) because it would cause an ugly spat between the two sides.

There is a detailed analysis of Kirkhope’s Simplifying Treaty on my website. You can read it by clicking here.

Shame that a couple of Labour MPs, who lost their ministerial jobs several years ago and are no doubt disappointed at not returning to ministerial office under Gordon Brown, have sought to embarrass him by calling for a referendum on the proposed EU Reform Treaty.

They made their calls in the Eurosceptic Tory press (Frank Field in the Sun and Gisela Stuart in the Sunday Telegraph), knowing that, there at least, they would obtain a headline or two. I somehow doubt Gordon will be impressed by such disloyal tactics, but there is always a danger that it might influence the odd party member, especially if they believe the nonsense that they wrote on the subject, which could well have been drafted for them by Bill Cash or UKIP. Frank Field even tells the outright lie that the new treaty would mean Britain giving up its seat at the UN Security Council.

David Cameron's desperate calls for a referendum on the Reform Treaty have been dealt another blow.

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who launched the Movement for European Reform with Cameron this year, and whose Civic Democrat Party is one of the parties with whom Cameron plans to set up a break-away party from the EPP in the European Parliament, has said that the proposed treaty is not significant enough to require a referendum.

Topolanek told the Czech Senate last week that the planned reform of the EU institutions did not create any new framework or powers for the EU, but only modified the existing treaties. He added that a referendum on the new Treaty would be "impractical" and would see the Czech Republic marginalised from the mainstream of the EU.

The fact that even Czech eurosceptics are happy with the Reform Treaty again demonstrates just how extreme the Tories still are on Europe.

The leading anti-European campaigner Dan Hannan MEP, who moonlights as a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph, has attempted to avoid the awkward fact (from his point of view) that the amendments agreed at the European Council to replace the Constitutional Treaty amount to very little indeed in the way of major constitutional change for Britain, by arguing that we should have a referendum instead on the accumulated changes to the EU that have taken place since we first joined.

This is akin to saying that the changes to the composition of the House of Lords should trigger a national referendum on the whole of the British constitution. After all, this too has evolved by incremental changes, none of which have been subject to a referendum.

Such a vote - also mooted by those arguing for the British constitution to be codified in a single document - would have some interesting parallels with the French vote on the now abandoned Constitutional Treaty. A vote on the British constitution as it stands would have no guarantee of it being approved. Some would vote against it because they object to a hereditary monarchy, others because they disagree with the electoral system for the House of Commons, still more because they don't like the House of Lords (as it is or as it is mooted). Some might vote against because they think their part of the UK should leave and become an independent country. And yet others would ignore all these issues and relish the opportunity just to vote against the government or the "establishment".

This coalition of "noes" would not get us anywhere in solving any of the individual issues currently being discussed in terms of reforming the British system. But it does illustrate the inherent dangers of holding single Yes/No referenda on an amalgamation of complex inter-related issues.

It's now been several days since the outline of an EU Reform Treaty was agreed at the European Council summit, and the Open Europe/Tory/UKIP campaign against it has got off to a bad start. Despite being loud and shrill it is clearly not convincing many people.

Although Open Europe are fond of claiming that British businesses are sceptical about the EU and the benefits of the internal market, this is not borne out by the evidence. A poll released by Business for New Europe showed that 52% of business leaders supported the new Treaty with just 31% opposed. The Confederation of European Business (Business Europe), which includes the CBI, is the latest organisation to welcome the proposed new treaty, saying that "the European Union comes out reinforced and reinvigorated".

Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, Tony Blair used his penultimate appearance as Prime Minister to demolish David Cameron in a debate over the new treaty. While the usual suspects on the Tory benches, led by Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory, made their outlandish claims about 'Brussels' taking over Britain, Ken Clarke pointed out to his hapless 'leader' that the provision in the new treaty to increase the role of national parliaments in EU legislation was one of the recommendations made by the Conservative party's "Democracy Taskforce". Cameron could not produce a single substantive reason why a referendum should be held on the treaty and was, as Blair pointed out, just "going through the motions".

So, the deal has been done - in the early hours of this morning. Many of us in the Council building feared that Polish intransigence would last throughout the night and longer, but eventually they too compromised at about three a.m.. I've lost count of the number of interviews I've done for British, French, German, Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg TV and radio throughout the long day and night, but hopefully there will be no need for another summit on these issues for many years to come.

The Constitutional Treaty has been replaced by a practical set of reforms to the current European Union. They will make it work more efficiently and will improve parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability. This is a result to be welcomed. Euro-obsessives that want Britain to leave Europe (and, presumably, become part of America) will try to scare people with their ususal froth, but any objective look at the agreement shows that their complaints are fibs or exaggerations. Indeed, UKIP leader Nigel Farage was looking distincly forlorn, not sure what he could complain about, when I debated with him on BBC this morning - he fell back on quoting an article that has been in the treaty since Maastricht, 15 years ago.

Indeed, of the issues that the Eurosceptics focussed on, almost all have disappeared or been neutralized:

* The term "constitution" has been abandoned.

* On the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a new clause says "In particular, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in title 4 of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom."

* On the Foreign Minister, the role stays as High Representative, as it is called already now, and EU foreign policy will be decided by "The European Council and the Council acting unanimously", without the European Courts having a say over it. It is specified that none of this will effect the "existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each member state,"

* In the field of justice and home affairs, where there is a switch from unanimity to majority voting, there are opt-outs for Britain.

Curiously, two items which Eurosceptics continue to criticise are things that, if they thought about them for a few seconds, they might appreciate.

* One is the longer-term president of the European Council (30 months instead of six months). This could lead to a strengthening of the intergovernmental European Council presidency at the expense of the Commission presidency. That is certainly why the anti-federalist French support it.

* The other is the "External Action Service". At present, EU external representations across the globe are run by the Commission. This change is designeed to give Council (i.e. national governments) a say in running and staffing them. Another step away from, rather than towards, a federal system.

However, Tory and UKIP critics just don't want to know and are simply focussed on finding fault with any change.

On the other side, federalists will be disappointed. The Italian and Belgian governments are muttering about too much having been sacrificed to placate the Brits, the Dutch, the Poles and the French. The European Parliament will be unhappy, as will the 22 countries who wished to retain the Constitutional Treaty intact.

BBC Europe chief and blogger Mark Mardell's assessment is interesting. Although BBC impartiality means he has to treat the Eurosceptics seriously and give them coverage they don't deserve, he clearly proclaims a victory for the government, saying: "Tony Blair can claim that he has won all his red lines. Of course, many will feel this was utterly predictable and of course Conservatives and other will say that there is plenty here that deserves a referendum. But Mr Blair has made their job that much harder."

Indeed a referendum seems hard to justify. Britain has never had a referendum to ratify an international treaty, and it would be odd to start with a minor one. We similarly have never had a referendum on issues that are far more important and that really interest the public, like the creation of the national health service, compulsory education, university fees, the death penalty, the monarchy. We are a parliamentary democracy - a British tradition we are generally proud of. To argue that a referendum is justified because the president of the European Council will have a 30-month instead of 6-month term of office is ludicrous.

But I predict that it won't stop the Torygraph, the Mail, the Sun, the Express UKIP, the Conservative party and the BNP demanding one!

Today I took part in very constructive discussions with members of the House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords EU Committee in the bi-annual meeting they jointly have with British MEPs.

Part of the discussion focussed on what is likely to replace the EU Constitutional Treaty. Although actual negotiations will only begin in a new ICG in the autumn (if one is called by next week's European summit), the outline of the likely scenario is beginning to emerge.

Only one MP present, Heathcote-Amory, took the line of the extreme Europhobes claiming that it is somehow illegitimate to try to bridge the gap between the majority of states who want to retain the bulk of the Constitutional Treaty and the minority who have reservations about it, including the two that rejected it outright. After all, the latter two are now saying they wish to negotiate a new treaty.

The idea of a set of amendments to the current treaties, which would focus on practical improvements to the current EU system, generally found favour - certainly among the Lords, but also MPs present at the meeting.

If the new amending treaty focuses on measures such as changing the term of office of the Council Presidency from six months to 30 months, extending majority voting in areas where this is acceptable to member states, enhancing parliamentary scrutiny, merging the positions of the Commissioner for External Relations and the High Representative for External Relations, clarifying that the Charter of Rights has no implications for purely domestic legislation and cutting the size of the Commission and the European Parliament, then it should, in principle, be capable of having wide-spread support in both the Commons and the Lords - not withstanding the temptations of some Eurosceptics to frighten people into thinking that it would mean the end of Britain as a country.

It would also be difficult to justify having a referendum on such changes. Britain has never ever ratified an international treaty by means of a referendum. Indeed, it has never had a nation-wide referendum on any political issue, however important or controversial except for once in 1975. Why on earth we should have one on changing the term of office of the chairmanship of one of the EU institutions from six months to 30 months is beyond me!

Eurosceptics harp on about us "never having been asked" about Europe, because Britain has only had one referendum on it. But, we have never had a national referendum on any aspect of our domestic constitution (monarchy, electoral system, Lords reform) or on any other international body we belong to (UN, NATO, WTO, to name just some that have major implications for our sovereignty) or any policy decision (death penalty, immigration, nuclear power, university fees, health service, pension system, etc) - all of which are subject to as much or more public interest as the EU.

The reason, of course, is that we have a proud tradition of being a parliamentary democracy, where issues are deliberated on in all their comlex detail, by our elected representatives. Long may it remain so!