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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With blatant irresponsibility, the BBC website gives prominence to a trip to Romania by their European editor, Mark Mardell with, of all people, the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage.

Giving such prominence to the leader of a fringe party with not a single seat in the House of Commons might in itself be questionable, but to do so and swallow his arguments lock stock and barrel, without even the basic checks, is inexcusable.

The thrust of Farage's argument is that, although Romania is due to join the EU next month, they plainly have no intention to play by the rules. Mark Mardell falls for this argument, reporting that "The first Romanian butcher Mr Farage talks to, enthusiastically cleaving pork chops on top of what looks like a large tree stump, is unaware that any hygiene standards will change when his country joins the European Union on New Year's Day."

Yet, even a cursory reading of Romania's accession agreement reveals that Romania is not due to apply EU phyto-sanitary standards for another two years. And surely the BBC should know not to accept as gospel stories about the EU coming from UKIP, a party whose very existence is founded on stirring up fears and telling tall stories about Europe.

Mark Mardell's account has a "comments" section where people are invited to place their views on his trip. I tried myself to make this very point, but the BBC moderator did not see fit to post my comment up. After all, let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good story!

The government will this week announce its decision on whether to allow Bulgarians and Romanians the right to seek employment in the UK as of 1 January, the day of their accession to the EU, or whether to postpone the right for a transitional period.

We all know that more people than expected came to Britain when 10 other countries joined the EU two years ago. But in the main, this has been a positive experience. They have filled gaps in our job market, paid far more tax than they have received benefits, and given an extra boost to our economy.

Of course, there have been some problems too. A few struggle with their English which can obviously cause safety problems while large numbers of young men in particular locations can cause difficulties. Although most have not brought families, those that have tend to congregate in the same areas and are inclined to use the same (normally catholic) schools.

Unfortunately there have also been cases of unscrupulous employers who have exploited migrants by pressuring them to accept poor conditions and low wages. But as I have said recently on the blog, this is something the trade unions have been quick to realise. The TUC’s guide to employment rights for migrant workers is particularly useful and is available in several languages. It also puts the traditional workforce and new arrivals on the same side, defending their common rights.

In these circumstances, it would be a pity if the government were to cave in to the tabloid clamour and postpone the access of Romanians and Bulgarians to the UK labour market. Access has proven to bring considerably more benefits than disadvantages. A (relatively) small extension to two more countries won't change that equation.

But above all, the consequences of restricting access should be thought through. It would not stop Romanians and Bulgarians coming to Britain - they have that right anyway. It would simply stop them taking official employment. The likelihood is that many will take unofficial employment, unregistered, unregulated and unprotected. They will be wide open to abuse and exploitation. They will not contribute taxes. Any media kudos gained in the short term will quickly be lost when the press inevitably exposes illegal workers from Bulgaria and Romania. Far better that they be officially registered. It would minimise the problems and maximise the benefits.

In reality, this is not so much a Home Office matter as one for the DTI, the Dept of Work & Pensions and not to mention the Foreign Office for its EU repercussions. In other words the government must take a collective decision and not be bounced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accession to the European Union should not be a mere formality.

If any country could join irrespective of whether they meet basic standards as regards democracy, the rule of law, the functioning of the state, of their economy, and so on, we could quickly find ourselves on a downward slope into chaos.

It is absolutely right, therefore, that the European Parliament has today reaffirmed that Bulgaria and Romania must meet tough targets before they can join in 2007.

If the Parliament had given their respective applications a straight "No", there would have been no incentive for them to reform. If we'd have offered them a "Yes" without imposing any conditions, there would still be no incentive to improve. These conditions are varied, but amongst the most important is to root out the corruption which has plagued their judicial systems for too long.

If these improvements are made then I have no doubt that they will play an important role in the democratic processes of the EU.

Making a success of the enlargement of the European Union helps ensure stability, security and continued economic prosperity for our continent, but without the "tough love" enforced on candidate countries, we will never truly drive out low standards of human rights, law enforcement or corruption. EU enlargement can help drive these reforms, and also, when completed, give us the scale to compete economically with the USA, China and India.

If you actually wade through the details of the EU budget deal, there are some interesting points which make the deal look even better:

• On agriculture, spending will actually fall by 7.3%. And the new member states will be fitted in under that ceiling - not just the ten who joined last year who are currently being phased in to the CAP, but also Romania and Bulgaria! This amounts to a large reduction (about 20%?) in agricultural spending in the 15 old member states.
• Contrast this with the overall rise in spending in other areas: spending on research (to boost our economic competitiveness - part of what Tony Blair wanted in calling for a more future-oriented budget) will rise by 75% between 2006 and 2013.
• Economic help to less prosperous regions (which will continue to include some UK regions) will rise by about 6%. This means that it, and not the CAP, will be the largest item in the EU budget. Spending on police and judicial cooperation will more than double. External aid will rise by about a third.

Meanwhile, the announcement in Hong Kong at the WTO talks that the EU has agreed to phase out all remainig agricultural export subsidies by 2013 is also welcome news. Coming straight after the summit, it shows that the commitment to further agricultural reform is indeed serious.

Finally, I see that the much-commented-on adjustment to the UK rebate will be phased in over two years in 2009-10, giving the Treasury plenty of time to plan ahead. And as to the equity of the UK's contribution, I note that it will increase by 63%, while French contributions will rise by 116% and those of Italy by 130%. These two countries have the same population as Britain, and the deal means we will henceforth make broadly equal net contributions. As they have slightly smaller economies than Britain, it means their net contribution will be a higher proportion of their economies than Britain's.