election result

Thanks to all those who have been calling or emailing with sympathy for my losing my seat in the European election count yesterday. Losing is one thing - ceding a seat to the BNP is another.


Local elections and European elections always see a proportion of the electorate voting on national issues. This time, there was next to no European content - just one issue in the press and on the doorstep, that of the Westminster MPs expenses scandal.

Of course we knew that all the main parties would be hurt by the scandal, and Labour perhaps more than others as it is in government. People are rightly indignant about it and the main parties must be vigourous in dealing with their rotten apples if we are to restore trust in the democratic system.

What we did not expect was the additional hit to Labour's vote caused by Hazel Blears, choosing the day before polling to have her tantrum and resign dramatically from the cabinet, ensuring blanket media coverage of a Labour split just as people were preparing to vote. At least others waited until the close of poll. Hazel's actions treated with contempt not just her colleague Labour MEPs, but also kicked in the teeth the thousands of volunteers out campaigning to get the best possible result for Labour in already difficult circumstances. Given the closeness of the result in Yorkshire, it certainly gifted the BNP one of their two seats.

Silver linings? There was no surge to the BNP, which got fewer votes than last time (it was Labour's fall that helped them get past their target of more than half Labour's score in Yorks & Humber). UKIP's vote rose by a mere 0.3 percent - they would have lost most of their seats had it not been for the Westminster MPs expenses scandal. The Tories, looking to the next general election, are far from the sort of figure they would be wanting (their 28 percent is well below the 44 percent Labour were getting in the last European elections befor the 1997 general election).

In any case, we must now fight back. It will need lots of hard work, at all levels, but it can be done.

Westminster scandal leaves fringe parties to spread Euromyths unanswered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expenses, fringe parties and the Euro elections

For three weeks, the news has been dominated by the MP expenses debacle. This sombre chapter in UK political life seems likely to continue for some time. Analysis of its implications and how our political systems should be reformed is now starting to emerge.

As a result, the elections to the European Parliament on 4th June risk becoming an ‘anti-election’ – a rejection of all political parties. Some, like Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative minister, seem to relish this, urging voters to use their European vote to express their disgust at the mainstream political parties. So MEPs look set to become the collateral damage of this sorry national affair.

There is, to say the least, some irony in this. For many years, the only stories written about MEPs and the Parliament itself were the vitriolic and frequently inaccurate accounts of the “gravy train”.

These stories successfully obscured the fact that Parliament had become a serious player in EU lawmaking, voting through the pan-European laws that have, to name a few examples, set various targets for the fight against climate change, developed a Europe-wide energy policy, and created a framework for the use of chemicals that ensures health and safety across Europe.

But behind the scenes and unreported, Labour MEPs decided, as early as 2000, to set an example in how they handled their finances. We took the decision to introduce their own measures to ensure that their expenditure was beyond reproach, by deciding to voluntarily send every item of expenditure from both their office and staff accounts to an independent qualilfied accountant for review.

Furthermore, Labour MEPs elected in the new Parliament on June 4th are committed to publishing a breakdown of expenditure, with receipts, from their European Parliament office allowances every six months on the European Parliamentary Labour Party’s website as well as on their own sites.

No other party in the European Parliament made these reforms so early and so comprehensively.

By contrast, eight years after the Labour MEPs introduced their own measures in addition to those of the European Parliament, the Leader of the Conservative MEPs resigned and the Chief Whip was forced to resign after they were found to have been abusing and misusing their allowances for years, leading to them being required by the EP to pay back sizeable sums.

Most notably, the flash in the pan success of UKIP in the last European election was quickly marred by the behavious of its MEPs. One UKIP MEP Ashley Mote was found guilty of housing benefit fraud in the UK and was sent to prison for nine months, while fellow UKIP Member Tom Wise has recently been charged with counts of money laundering and false accounting following an account by the EU fraud office. Yet, UKIP Members still have no reporting or auditing of their expenditure.

Lord Tebbit could be forgiven for not knowing the details of Mr Mote’s conviction or of Tom Wise’s alleged financial mismanagement. But his exhortation to the electorate to boycott the mainstream parties is careless and unforgiveable. Perhaps it doesn’t really matter to Lord Tebbit if Conservative voters choose more extreme right-wing options such as the BNP.

In the end, efforts to marginalise the UK’s role in Europe are politically irreponsible. However indifferent many may feel, the European Parliament will make decisions over the next five years that will affect us all. No-one should opt-out and allow these decisions to be made by extremists.

The reality is that we live in a global society with opportunities and challenges unrecognisable from those we faced a generation ago. Responding to these needs progressive policies at local, national and European level. To undermine or opt-out of any of these levels is to undermine our British interests.

Europe is not about back room deals and treaty changes, it is about how we work together the improve the lives of our citizens. It is about working together, where possible, to pull out of this recession; it is about making the air we breath cleaner; securing our borders and preventing global warming. To think that any of these major issues can be tackled solely at national level is, at the very least, misguided and naïve.

The truth about EU regulation

An argument I’ve always taken on with eurosceptics is the effects on business of EU regulation. Open Europe took umbrage at an article I wrote in the Yorkshire Post a few weeks ago, which questioned their wild assertions that EU regulation was out of control and crushing British business, in particular their claim that EU regulations will cost the UK £356 billion by 2018, the equivalent of £14,300 per household.

However, new analysis by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) indicates that EU regulation actually accounts for a tiny proportion of regulatory costs on business (0.1% in 2007-8). Indeed, according to the BCC, who should know a thing or two about how regulation affects businesses, the net cost to business of EU regulation was only £1.9bn, i.e. about £31 per person.

The BCC research also indicates that the ‘better regulation’ drive by both the European Commission and Government have, although derided by the Tories, had an effect. Having analysed 246 impact assessments on regulation affecting business in 2007-8, the BCC research states that the Government managed to cut more than £1bn in administrative costs on business.

Even hese figures, of course, don’t factor in the massive benefits to business and consumers of the European single market, estimated by the European Commission to be as much as 2% of national GDP.

The point is that, to misquote Stephen Fry’s General Melchett in TV’s BlackAdder, regulation isn’t a dirty word. Firstly, having one single set of common rules, instead of 27 different sets of national regulation, can actually cut red tape for business. Moreover, a sizeable proportion of EU regulation on matters ranging from water quality to vehicle licensing would exist at national level if the EU did not exist. The other point is that some regulation saves lives (such as banning the use of asbestos in buildings) or, in the case of the Temporary Agency Workers Directive, provides extra rights and social protection for workers,

As legislators, we don’t always get it right, and there are many ways in which the European Parliament, Government and our national parliament could improve the scrutiny and development of European law – from the initial Commission proposal to the final legislation. But research by such an authoritative business voice as the BCC (which, incidentally, also shows that EU regulation accounts for about 20% of regulation on British business, a far cry from David Cameron’s comment that “almost half of all regulations imposed on our businesses come from Brussels”) should certainly knock eurosceptic scare stories on the head.

Nonetheless, it would great to think that, faced with the evidence, the Tories, Open Europe, and Taxpayers’ Alliance will now admit that they were talking nonsense. Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath, though.

Gloomy weather on the campaign trail

I usually enjoy being out campaigning, putting arguments to people, entering into discussions, countering euromyths and arguing my case. This time, however, the mood is somewhat dampened by the weather: soaked in Sheffield, drenched in Dewsbury and even hailstones in Hull!

Of course, there is also another matter that has put a dampener on the elections – the question of the expenses of our Westminster colleagues. Public opinion has been rightly outraged by some of the revelations.

Clearly, the House of Commons system of allowing members to meet the cost of running a second home by claiming seemingly any household expenditure – without a tight definition of what qualifies – needs radical reform. Clearly, the judgement of many MPs in making claims within this system has to be questioned. It is also clear that those – from all parties – who have broken the rules or made inappropriate claims must be dealt with visibly and severely - as the Labour party has by immediately suspending certain MPs.

The system must be corrected and higher standards applied if public confidence in our elected representatives is to be restored. No doubt there are also rotten apples in the European Parliament too – and let us not forget that Ashley Mote, elected as one of the 12 UKIP MEPs at the last elections, actually went to jail for fraud during his term of office while another, Tom Wise, is currently facing prosecution. Last year, the Tories lost both their leader and Chief Whip in the European Parliament following allegations of financial misconduct.

But when all is said and done, when all the parties have cleaned their stables – as they must – there are still stark differences between them in what they stand for, in what they would do in government, or what they would do with their seats in the European Parliament. It is to be hoped that people will not lose sight of what elections are about: choice between competing policy options for the future – and not focus exclusively on the rotten apples, as long as the latter are being dealt with and if the system is being reformed.

Above all, a rush towards minor parties without duly checking what they stand for could subsequently be a cause for regret among many voters. Voting for the BNP is not voting for a squeaky clean, moderate alternative – it is voting for a Nazi party, which is no better demonstrated by their top candidate in Yorkshire, whose history of involvement in the extreme right and with neo-Nazis is clear for all to see. Voting for UKIP is voting for a party that is almost as extreme and would seek to tear Britain apart from its neighbouring countries and main export market (not to mention the MEPs elected for UKIP who have actually been jailed for fraud and charged with fiddling expenses). The Greens offer an apparently serious alternative, but their constant attempts to outdo every other party in terms of alleged “greenness” has often led to espousing some pretty untenable positions and, anyway, in most regions they do not have a chance of winning a seat. Certainly in Yorkshire & Humber, voting for them is a wasted vote in the battle to exclude the BNP.

I am finding on the doorsteps that once you get beyond the rightful indignation about some of the shenanigans in Westminster and come back to policy choices, the response to Labour’s message in the European elections becomes more positive. Not enthusiastic in all cases, but nonetheless, a recognition that it is clearly better than the alternatives.

UKIP employees give up the ghost on their party

I was surprised to be sent an interesting paper by two former UKIP researchers looking, amongst other things, at the possible outcome of the European elections: John Petley, who worked for the UKIP delegation in Brussels before resigning in mysterious circumstances last years; and Gary Cartwright, who is Tom Wise's researcher in the European Parliament. 

If these UKIP researchers are right, then UKIPs chances are disappearing down the toilet. They accuse Farage of a "spectacular failure to seize the initiative in leading the opposition to Lisbon in the UK", and then add, with more than a little hyperbole, that this was "one of the most calamitous errors in recent political history."

Moreover, they claim that UKIPs credibility "is at rock bottom, except in their South-West stronghold, where many members try to avoid mentioning their leader by name if they can help it". They conclude by asserting that "this June is likely to be Farage's - and UKIP's - swansong".

This is explosive stuff. It seems that even professional UKIP workers think that their party is a busted flush.

Intriguingly, Cartwright and Petley are pretty kind to the fascist British National Party. In their words, (and totally wrong - just check out their Yorkshire top candidate Andrew Brons), the BNP has "shaken off its neo-Nazi trappings, and has struck a chord with its focus on the dangers of Islam and immigration". Although they predict that the number of europhobic MEPs will be few in number, they predict that the BNP will win more seats than UKIP.

All the more reason to get out on the campaign trail to stop both these vile parties.

Isolation vs co-operation

The European elections are shaping up to a battle between those who believe that Britain's future lies with isolation and those who believe that it lies in co-operation with other countries, in particular with its neighbours in Europe.

With the increasingly isolationist and extremist Conservatives competing with UKIP, Libertas, the BNP and sundry others for the ultra eurosceptic vote - and fighting like dogs while they're at it - the way should be clear for Labour to make a clear principled case for engagement and participation in the European Union.

The world economic crisis has shown clearly how interdependent countries are in the economic field - particularly so within Europe where we share the world's largest single market. Climate change has similarly underlined how interdependent we are on environmental matters. International criminal gangs trafficking drugs and people can only be tackled through co-operation. On all these and other matters, the EU is the framework where we and our neighbouring countries come together to seek common solutions to common problems.

Yet, instead of addressing these problems, the Conservatives want to re-open last year's decision by our national parliament to ratify the Lisbon Treaty - a set of reforms designed to make the EU work better and to subject it to more parliamentary scrutiny. Revoking Britain's support for this treaty - now ratified by almost all our partners - is scarcely a way to help us co-operate on the economic and environmental challenges that we must focus on. It would plunge the EU into turmoil and take Britain to the exit door at a moment when we need co-operation in Europe more than ever. And quite how it would help us deal with the world economic crisis is unclear - most of our trade is with the rest of the EU, and most inward investment into Britain from abroad is from our fellow EU countries. 2 million British people live or work in other EU countries. Yet the Conservatives propose to stick two fingers up at the rest of Europe.

Tom Wise charged with money laundering

UKIP have been dealt a severe blow this week following the announcement that the Crown Prosecution Service is charging Tom Wise with money laundering and false accounting.

Wise will appear in court next week. The allegations that Wise had claimed just under £40,000 to pay an assistant, but then funnelled most of the money into his own bank account, came to light in 2005, prompting a lengthy investigation by the Parliament's anti-fraud office OLAF, before the case was passed on to Bedfordshire police.

Wise is, of course, not the first UKIP MEP to face criminal charges. Ashley Mote was convicted on multiple counts of benefit fraud and jailed for nine months in 2007.

Wise has not been convicted of anything and, needless to say, remains innocent until proven guilty. But for a party that often decries EU 'corruption' to have two of its elected MEPs charged with financial irregularities looks like more than carelessness. To have lost no less than one third of the 12 members elected under its banner in 2004 is shambolic.

EU scare stories coincide with Euro election build-up

First, Bruno Waterfield, Telegraph correspondent in Brussels, fills in a lull in interesting stories coming his way, by reporting that "MEPs" want to build a swimming pool in the parliament at taxpayers' expense. Never mind that the idea has already been rejected bt the Parliament's bureau. It is sufficient that one French Green party member continues to support it, for Bruno to generate his headline, which has inevitably been taken by many readers as meaning that the parliament has decided to waste money on a luxury - the opposite of what it really did. Already, newspapers across Europe, from Athens based "New Europe" to Scotland on Sunday repeating and embellishing the story.

Then, of course, several British tabloids report that MEPs could become millionaires if they were to divert their expenses into their own pocket. Never mind that Labour MEPs, recently followed by the Conservatives and the LibDems, have their accounts reviewed by independent auditors to make that impossible. Never mind that this story is a re-hash of one last year, about an alleged abuse by a number of MEPs, which spurred on a reform of the Parliament's own system. The key thing is to implant in the public mind the image of MEP = corruption. Expect more of this as Eurosceptics seek to discredit the whole Parliament ahead of June's elections.

Not to be outdone, UKIP indulged in their own distortions this week by saying that Parliament's President Pottering had endorsed their claim that 75 percent of legislation in our countries is EU law. He did nothing of the sort. EU law is, according to most studies, a much lower proportion (9 percent according to the House of Commons library, 6.3 percent according to the Swedish parliament, 12 percent according to the Finnish parliament and between 12 and 19 percent according to the Lithuanian parliament). But such low figures undermine UKIP's claim that we are creating a centralised superstate.

So they have misinterpreted a comment by Pottering that 75 percent of EU legislation (i.e. of the proportion that IS adopted at EU level) is adopted by the European Parliament (through the co-decision procedure with the Council of Ministers) and that this will rise to (nearly) 100 percent with the Lisbon treaty, to imply that he said that 75 percent of legislation in Europe is EU legislation.

UKIP (unless they are even more stupid than most people think) obviously know that that is not what Pottering was saying - it is clear from the context and in his original German (though not in the English subtitles used on UKIP's video). But again, why let the facts spoil a scare story?

UKIP's alliance with Geert Wilders proves a stark point

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

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

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

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

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

Eurosceptics block reform so able to continue attacking EU

Sadly, the Written Declaration (the European Parliament's equivalent to an "Early Day Motion" in the House of Commons) calling on governments to allow the EP to hold all its sittings in Brussels, just failed to gather the target of 300 signatures that its authors had set themselves.

I was dismayed to discover many British MEPs had not bothered to sign the Declaration to reduce the time-wasting and costly junket to Strasbourg. Whilst British Labour MEPs supported the Declaration, the other UK political parties remained divided on the issue. A number of Tories, some Liberals and one of the two Greens failed to sign the Declaration. Most surprising of all, the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage, refused to sign (despite emailing me personally to say "for once, I think you may be right") as did four of the other 11 MEPs elected as UKIP in 2004.

UKIP is always quick to accuse the EU of wasting taxpayer's money, but given the chance to press for an end to the costly monthly travel to the French city, Farage and nearly half of his following prefer to retain the junket! It would appear that UKIPs claims to oppose waste in the EU are empty. They would prefer to retain the two seats in order to continue accusing the EU of waste!

Less surprising is that the elusive Kilroy-Silk was one of those who failed to sign the WD. Kilroy's absence from the Parliament is legendary, so he is probably of the opinion that this won't affect him too much.

Although this WD is of course not legally binding, if it had been adopted by the Parliament it would have sent a clear message to the Member States (who have the power take this decision). It is high time national governments revise the 1992 decision (at the Edinburgh European Council chaired by John Major) obliging Parliament to shift twelve weeks of the year to Strasbourg.

Parliament supports report to outlaw directory scams

After years of campaigning the European Parliament has finally adopted a devastating verdict against directory scams like the European City Guide. Maltese MEP Simon Busutill's report was adopted by a massive majority of 632 in favour and just 4 against, with only 12 abstentions.

The report strongly condemns the methods of directory scams and called on all EU countries to follow Austria's example in specifically outlawing the practises used by groups like the European City Guide. This can be helped by the Commission presenting draft proposals to extend the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to specifically prohibit advertising in business directories unless these entries warn prospective clients that they are being offered a contract against payment. It also demands that the European Commission ensure that the all countries are correctly implementing and enforcing the Misleading Advertising Directive, which these scams clearly fall foul of, and include a "black" list of misleading practices - a measure which would help increase public awareness of these scamming organisations.

But this vote is just the start. We still need to convince the European Commission and Member States to play their part and I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe the scamsters will simply give up. But it is, hopefully, the start of a co-ordinated effort to ensure that such fraudulent business directories are put out of business.

Nonetheless, there may be still a lot of work to do but the message from the European Parliament is clear: scams like the European City Guide are unacceptable and illegal.

I must also pay tribute to Jules Woodell, who runs StopECG, and has worked tirelessly for years against the scams and deserves plenty of recognition for the huge part he has played in organising victims into such a strong group that they successfully campaigned for a report into the scams by the Petition's Committee.

Away from the issue itself, the 12 MEPs elected for UKIP in 2004, astonishingly for even them, managed to take four different positions on the Busuttil report. Ashley Mote abstained, Kilroy and Tom Wise voted in favour, Roger Knapman voted against and the rest didn't vote at all (though I understand Godfrey Bloom was kept home by a serious family commitment). I was also disappointed to see that Tory Edward McMillan Scott abstained on the report, although I hope that his vote was a case of just pressing the wrong button.

Yorkshire brewers are a big hit in Brussels

Yesterday I was delighted to attend a reception organised by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), and the British Beer Club in the European Parliament of which I am Chairman.

Some 60 beers from across the North of England were on display, and I am delighted to say that the lion's share were from Yorkshire. The Black Sheep brewery, Coors, Great Heck brewery, Morissey Fox brewery, Tiger Tops brewery, Wold Top brewery, the York brewery and the Yorkshire Dales brewery all brought their beers sample.

While the event was very well attended, with a number of Labour and Tory MEPs (though a distinct lack of any Liberal Democrats) it was particularly interesting to see three different classes of UKIP MEP at the event: ex-UKIP, suspended UKIP and a couple of remaining UKIP members (and equally surprising to see so many of them in Brussels but beer at least attracted them in a way that parliamentary debates rarely do!).

Although the reception itself was a fun and convivial occasion, there are several serious issues at the heart of the event. The British pub industry is in difficulties, not least because of the increasing availability of very cheap alcohol sold in supermarkets and corner shops, a practice which, apart from driving many small brewers out of the market, irresponsibly encourages binge drinking and damages the reputation of the drinks industry as a whole.

The All-Party Beer Group at Westminster, chaired by my local colleague, Selby MP John Grogan, has conducted a lengthy and detailed inquiry into the future of pubs and brewers in Britain and has just published its Community Pub Inquiry. One of their recommendations is for the introduction of a differential between the tax levied on draught beer and that on packaged beers. Consequently, John and the group will be meeting with the Commission today to discuss this and other ideas.

Last night's event should also serve as an eye-opener to our brewers of the massive export opportunities in other European countries. If you go into your local, you will probably find several Belgian beers available: yet only a few years ago, most of these beers were sold only locally in parts of Belgium. They have since managed to take full advantage of the common market and sell across Europe. British brewers have not yet managed this, despite the exceptional quality of many of our beers and, as was amply demonstrated last night, the sheer quantity and wealth of choice. Let's hope that last night which, in addition to British MEPs, researchers and lobbyists, was also attended by several Belgian and Dutch MEPs and drinks industry representatives, will help to change this.

European Parliament votes to give fruit to all children

Yesterday the European Parliament voted to give millions of children across the EU access to free fresh fruit in school. This is the first time that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget has been used in such a way to directly benefit the public health needs of European citizens.

This new scheme will effectively extend across Europe the existing successful Free School Fruit programme created in 2000 by Britain's Labour government which has already benefitted thousands of children in England, and will also go a long way to helping in the creation of similar schemes in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Although I and my fellow Labour MEPs believe a larger budget for the scheme would be more helpful (it is currently set at €90million per year), this encouragement from the EU for governments to support the health and wellbeing of our children will help to tackle obesity, diabetes, and other serious illnesses, as well as providing immediate benefits for child health and shaping young people's views on nutrition.

Unsurprisingly however, the increasingly erratic and dysfunctional Eurosceptics in UKIP opposed this report's conclusions, and the very real health benefits they will bring to our children, on the basis that this scheme would make the EU look good! Maybe they should try thinking more about the needs of their constituents than opposing every good idea they come across for their own political indulgence.

UKIP struggles to get anything right

An irate constituent has passed on to me a leaflet she has received from the so-called UK Independence Party which, she says, contains a dozen lies on the front page alone. She points out that it says:

• That the European Union "has its own army". Oh yes? Could you please name a single general, colonel or major in that army?

• That the EU has its own police force. Eh? Europol, like Interpol, helps national police forces to co-ordinate, but is not a separate police force, as UKIP well knows.

• That the EU "is trying to seize even more powers in order to create a centralised European super-state". But the EU only has powers that are conferred on it by unanimous agreement of all the member states. That is why the "centralised superstate" is myth, as illustrated by the facts that the entire EU budget is less than 1% of GDP and the European Commission has fewer employees than Leeds City Council. Some superstate!

• That "when the UK government first signed us up to the fledgling EU back in the 1970s they assured us it was all about free trade and free travel". No they didn't. The government white paper back then was very clear that it was about more than free trade (We were actually leaving a free trade area (EFTA) in order to join!) and was an important political project.

• It says "they told us nothing about all the extra political powers which Brussels was set to grab from Westminster", quoting as examples the EU’s legal system, judiciary and legislature. Yet these all pre-existed our accession to the EU and are, actually, welcome parts of it, implying as they do the rule of law (rather than the rule of the most powerful), and democracy (an elected parliament).

• They say that "Britain should be ruled by our parliament in Westminster not by an undemocratic bureaucracy in Brussels". But Britain is indeed run by a parliament (one chamber of which is elected) in Westminster, albeit one dominated by the executive. And the EU is run by an elected parliament and the Council of Ministers (composed of the elected governments of each country), not by its bureaucracy (which is anyway quite small compared to Whitehall).

The leaflet also goes on to crow about the 12 seats UKIP gained in the 2004 European elections (as many as the Liberal Democrats), but remains totally silent on what happened to these 12 members: one going to jail for benefit fraud (Ashley Mote), one leaving UKIP to found another party, which he then also left (Kilroy Silk), one being suspended pending a police inquiry into misuse of parliamentary expenses (Tom Wise) etc. etc. Wonder why?

Why UKIP is just not credible in distancing itself from BNP

For all of UKIP's attempts to distance itself from the BNP, the latest being the high-profile announcement that it would not enter into an electoral pact with them, the fact remains that the two parties have overlapping membership, and similar philosophies.

It was telling that the electoral pact was proposed by UKIP activist Buster Mottram, whose links with the BNP are well known and long-standing. Indeed, Nigel Farage, when questioned about Mottram's past as a campaigner for the BNP's forerunner, the National Front, flippantly batted away the question, saying that these were no more than "youthful indiscretions". So much for Farage's claims to be watchful over BNP "infiltration" of UKIP if he can't even spot one in his ranks!

It seems that UKIPs indecision about their links with the BNP has reached the level of their National Executive. Although UKIP have claimed that the BNP pact offer was rejected 'unanimously' by their NEC, tucked away at the bottom of their press release was a note announcing that that two members of UKIPs NEC, Eric Edmond and David Abbott, were removed from their positions yesterday - presumably because they supported the pact. As UKIPwatch said yesterday, this is either a spectacular coincidence or yet another example of Nigel Farage's particular interpretation of the phrase 'party democracy'.

But this is no surprise to anyone who takes more than a superficial look at UKIP. After all, UKIP and the BNP have a habit of swapping members and candidates. For example, at the last European elections, four BNP candidates were former UKIP members or candidates: Dr Peter Lane - BNP candidate in the South East region, Dr Alan Patterson - BNP lead candidate in the North East region and a former UKIP parliamentary candidate in Hexham at the 2001 general election, Roger Robertson - BNP candidate in the South East region and Matt Single - BNP lead candidate in the Eastern region.

Two of UKIPs current MEPs, Jeffrey Titford and Mike Nattrass, are
former members of the far-Right, anti-immigration New Britain Party, which urged the repatriation of immigrants. It's also worth pointing out that a number of UKIP officials and candidates, for example, Andrew Moffatt (former UKIP parliamentary candidate in Beaconsfield at the 2001 general election) and Martyn Heale (Chairman, UKIP Thanet South), are, like Buster Mottram, former activists of the BNP's forerunner, the NF.

So closely intertwined are the two parties that, in 2004, John Brayshaw was found to be serving as the Chairman of UKIPs Vale of York branch (since October 2003) while simultaneously serving as BNP National Treasurer! Indeed, according to Andrew Edwards, a UKIP official who was expelled from the party for trying to publicise the links between the two parties, Brayshaw was also UKIP-BNP “pact liaison officer for the north”.

In some ways, UKIPs links with the BNP were neatly illustrated at last year's UKIP conference, when their fascist comrades paid a visit to hand out leaflets and literature to the several hundred delegates. According to a BNP spokesman at the time, "a substantial proportion of BNP activists are themselves former UKIP members". Meanwhile, Nigel Farage continues to parrot that UKIP are a 'non racist' party. Pull the other one Mr Farage, it has bells on it.

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.

More UKIP shambles

Just met a disgruntled UKIP MEP (or should I now say ex-UKIP?) who told me he would not stand for election again for this shambles, after their bun-fight in Bournemouth last week, described in glowing terms by the Independent. Mind you, his view was that Farage himself had planted this article to stir up party members against his (many) internal enemies. Who knows?

All talk and little action from UKIP and Tories on workers' safety

Surprising news from Personnel Today, who report that UKIP’s Derek Clark and the Conservatives’ Chris Heaton Harris have joined a campaign to reduce the amount of youngsters injured at work.

All very laudable of course, though Derek Clark and the rest of his UKIP colleagues have never been too concerned about the safety of workers before, consistently voting against measures which protect workers.

Less than 12 months ago my colleague Glenis Wilmott’s report on Health and Safety at Work expressed concern at the "excessively high rate of accidents among temporary, short-term and low-qualified workers" and suggested measures that should be taken to prevent workers from exposure to dangerous and carcinogenic chemicals. UKIP voted against it.

And while Heaton Harris did support this measure he has previously criticised legislation which seeked to protect workers from hearing damage. He might also choose to have a word with some of his fellow Tories over their attitude to safety at work. A fellow member of the Conservatives’ right-wing H block, Dan Hannan, voted with UKIP on the Health and Safety at Work report, while Struan Stevenson mocked Labour MEPs for our avid support of the Working at Heights Directive, legislation which has and will continue to save workers’ lives.

Of course this could all be a road to Damascus-styles conversion, or Clark and Heaton Harris merely adding their name to a list. The next time a vote on health and safety comes round we shall see if they back up their talk with actions. I hope they do because Derek Clark in particular certainly hasn’t ever before.

The European Arrest Warrant should be supported

UKIP and the Tories are now arguing that suspected criminals should be immune from prosecution in other European countries for crimes committed there, if they are British.

A young British lad, Jonny Hiles, died just over a year ago after being punched in a nightclub in Greece. Under the European Arrest Warrant, which Britain and its European partners agreed a few years ago, Greek police spent a year putting together their case, presented it to magistrates in Athens, obtained their approval and asked British police to arrest their suspect, one Andrew Symeou of London, so that he can face trial.

Yet UKIP MEPs and disgraced former Tory MP Neil Hamilton have come out against it, much to the dismay of the friends and family of the victim in Wales. Both Hamilton and UKIP argue that a case should be presented in a British court first (although the crime was committed in Greece, where most evidence and witnesses are located).

I wonder what they would have said if the suspected London bomber, sent back from Italy under a European Arrest Warrant to face prosecution in Britain, could not have been sent back without first going through the lengthy process of an Italian court hearing plus appeal (by which time he would have been held for years on remand or, more likely, scarpered)

Anonymous letters and split opinion from UKIP

Having lost a quarter of the MEPs elected on their ticket four years ago (the latest being Tom Wise after his arrest in connection with alleged expenses fraud) the wheels now seem to be coming off UKIP at staff level too - judging by the number of leaked documents that desperate UKIP staffers are sending to me anonymously. In recent weeks I have received a number of these, and I have reason to believe that some of their staff have gone to the Belgian police, alleging that their computers have been tampered with to allow officials from UKIP's group in the European Parliament to read their emails. There are also rows about how they use their Group money.

I hear that there are also political schisms. Rumours that Nigel Farage intends to moderate their position and no longer call for British exit from the European Union are causing consternation amongst his colleagues.

Interesting in this context is the publication 'EU Watch' put out by UKIP's group in the European Parliament. The latest edition contains a 10 page analysis of the issue of the "primacy of community law". It concludes that: "The Lisbon Treaty strengthens cooperation between the EU Member States and simplifies the present confusing EU structure. On the other hand, in the area of state sovereignty there are no major changes to the status quo. There is no major extension of the EU's competences."

This is not quite what UKIP and other Eurosceptics were telling us during the ratification debates on the Lisbon Treaty but, hey, better late than never to admit that you told a load of fibs!

The true reasons behind the proposed new rules on Groups

It was not a surprise to see the Telegraph print this story on my proposal to raise the threshold needed to form a political group in the European Parliament, nor dress it up as a sinister plot to “eliminate Eurosceptics”.

My proposal, which was discussed in the Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday, was a response to concerns that, currently, just 20 MEPs (only 2 1/2% of members in the European Parliament), drawn from a fifth of the member states, can form a political "Group" and obtain significant extra resources such as staff and money.

My proposal is to raise the number of MEPs needed to form a group to 30 (4%), with a quarter of member states represented - still lower than the percentage required to form a Group in most national parliaments.

The Telegraph and some blogs have swallowed Nigel Farage's line that this is is a direct attack on UKIP as there are currently just 23 members in their Independence & Democracy Group. But my proposal, if adopted, would not come into effect until the next parliament. By then, UKIP and its allies will surely either have more seats (their view) reaching the new threshold, or fewer (my view) meaning they won't even qualify under the current rule. In any case, MEPs who do not sit in a Group are guaranteed all the normal parliamentary privileges and cannot be silenced.

Farage flatters himself that he and the pipsqueek remanents of UKIP are my target. No, the true purpose of the rule change is to diminish the chances of creating - and giving taxpayers money to - a neo-nazi style far-right Group. Already last year, we saw the debacle of the Independence Sovereignty & Tradition Group, when the far-right managed to cobble together 20 MEPs from a mixture of fascists, holocaust deniers and xenophobes (including Ashley Mote, elected as UKIP) to become eligible for a million euros of funding in 2007. The ramshackle nature of the group was exposed when they collapsed this year after several Romanian MEPs left it following deogatgory comments about Romanians from their colleague Alessandra Mussolini.

Maybe Nigel Farage supports giving money to neo-nazis, but I don't. Certainly, dressing up my proposal as an attempt by the two big Groups to squash the small ones is nonsense.

On the contrary, my proposals actually include a provision that would help small Groups. Previously, smaller groups could often be held hostage by a few MEPs or even individuals who know if they leave the group it would collapse. It was the former leader of UKIP's Group, Jens Peter Bonde, who drew my attention to this problem. I have attempted to address it in the way he suggested, by proposing that if an existing Group loses members and falls below the threshold of 30, they can continue to exist for two years. This would actually help smaller groups work better and give them more stability, as they would not have the fear of collapse continually dangled over them.

Tories and Lib Dems follow our lead

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

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

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

The likes of Wise mean reform of expenses is essential

Anyone who flicked through the News of the World on Sunday will have seen the report on various MEPs - none of them Labour - who allegedly abuse their expenses.

The one who featured the most prominently was UKIP MEP Tom Wise, who was even caught bragging to an undercover reporter about the amount of money he says he makes from his expenses. You can read the story here but perhaps what is most embarrassing is his attitude which, for a man who remains under investigation by the anti-fraud office OLAF, is one of breathtaking arrogance.

The News of the World highlights a loophole in the European Parliament’s rules which is exploited by some people who claim the maximum amount they can for plane tickets (which is fully flexible economy tickets) but actually travel on a budget airline to Charleroi airport 50 miles from Brussels, pocketing the difference. Wise told the reporter: "When I fly Ryanair I say 'Thank you very much!' I could actually put the Ryanair ticket in and just get that back— but that would be denying me a legally, well I say legally, a genuinely available funding."

So despite appearing to acknowledge what he is doing is wrong he boasts about the amount of money he is claiming while admitting he doesn’t have a clue what he is supposed to do as an MEP. What a shower!

The good news is that the particular loophole Tom Wise is so fond of will be closed shortly but this is not enough. Rarely do I find myself nodding in agreement with the News of the World but their demand that "every member should provide receipts for everything they claim" is a must.

Of course, the News of the World did not mention that every Labour MEP is already required to have their office and staff expenses audited and approved by an independent auditor each year and I can see no reason why this isn’t replicated by UKIP and other parties.

It is a simple measure that would go some way to repairing the damage caused by the greedy minority like Wise.

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.

Jens Peter Bonde to retire

The veteran Eurosceptic MEP, Jens Peter Bonde, who leads the “Independence and Democracy” Political Group in the European Parliament, of which UKIP is the largest component, has announced his forthcoming retirement.

One of only five MEPs to have served continuously since the first European elections in 1979, he is a well known figure in the Parliament, and for more than half his period has served on the internal management body of the Parliament. He has been the most prominent euroesceptic across Europe for many years, is hugely energetic and is a prolific writer.

His euroscepticism is now very different from the nihilistic vision of UKIP. Granted, when he was first elected, he too wanted to destroy the EU or at least see Denmark leave it. But as he wrote himself in last week’s Parliament magazine:

“At first I worked to withdraw from the EU and, since 1992, have worked mainly to reform the European institutions with transparency, proximity and democracy.”

Indeed, he often said that he could make common cause with federalists on these issues. He was certainly not averse to consulting me on his publications, some of which focussed more on facts and documentation, in the cause of transparency, than on political point-scoring.

Clearly, as he got to know the EU better, he realised that his initial hostility was misplaced and he evolved to join the ranks of reformers rather than destroyers. His retirement press release refers to his desire “to focus on building a better European Union”. A lesson UKIP has yet to learn! Indeed, I know that Bonde was increasingly uneasy about the UKIP members of his Group, both in terms of their extremist positions and about their recent tactic of trying to disrupt the Parliament.

Bonde’s problem was that he was a prisoner of his own supporters. To keep his position, he needed to play up his scepticism and exaggerate the defects of the Union. His attempts to lead his movement in Denmark to a more realistic position led to it splitting in the early 1990s, but there was only so far he could go without being disowned by the more extreme elements. Similarly, in Parliament, he was a prisoner of the more extreme elements of his Group, including UKIP.

I wish him well apon his retirement.

UKIP bloggers rattled

I was alerted to a couple of blog sites run by UKIP officials, who seem to devote a surprising amount of time to rebutting the material I post here. In particular, England Expects, responding to this flippant piece I did joking that veteran Danish Eurosceptic Jens-Peter Bonde had come out in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, posted this detailed rebuttal.

If they think it worth taking so much trouble to monitor my blog and to try to rebut it, then they must think it is having an effect, which I will take as a compliment.

Unruly MEPs deserve their fines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eurosceptics admit they are "a small hardcore going nowhere"

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

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

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

Lisbon Treaty overwhelmingly adopted by European Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eurosceptics at sixes and sevens

The old saying about not being able to organise a piss-up in a brewery now has a new version: not being able to organise a political event in a parliament!

Showing that there is seemingly no limit to their talent for incompetence, some hardline Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP MEPs have organised a "demonstration" against my report on the Treaty of Lisbon - but managed to choose the wrong day! Intended to coincide with the debate on my report (Wednesday), they have invited the media to come to watch their antics today (Tuesday), the day before it is to be debated.

Meanwhile, I gather that the expulsion of Tory malcontent Dan Hannan is on the agenda of the EPP Group later this evening. Today, Hannan got up in Parliament to apologise to President Pöttering for his comments last month when he compared the Parliament's President to Hitler. It is deeply ironic that an arch-Eurosceptic like Hannan who is desperate for the Conservatives to leave the EPP, is now trying to squirm his way out of being expelled from it. Has he done a U-turn, or has he been lent on from on-high to avoid further embarrassment for the Conservative party?

Later, not a single British Conservative MEP was in the chamber to hear the speech of the Swedish Conservative Prime Minister. Tory leader Giles Chichester did turn up briefly towards the end of ther debate, made a short speech, but didn't even have the courtesy to wait for the reply from the Prime Minister.

Why this striking absence? Can't they stand hearing from a Conservative leader about how good the Lisbon Treaty is? About how an effective European Union is the only way to meet common transnational challenges? Or are they embarrassed about how a Conservative Prime Minister dismisses out of hand arguments claiming that this treaty has constitutional implications or transfers sovereignty and therefore warrants a referendum?

.

So much for the British Conservatives wanting a wider and deeper debate on the future direction of Europe! They prefer to hide outside the chamber (presumably in the bar with the equally absent UKIP MEPs) than hear arguments that many of them recognise as correct, but which their public position precludes them from applauding. Another step in their self-imposed isolation from mainstream centre-right parties in Europe!

Bonde embraces treaty

The leader of UKIP's political group in the European Parliament, Independence & Democracy, has moved an interesting amendment endorsing the Lisbon Treaty.

Jens-Peter Bonde, perhaps the most influential Eurosceptic in the Parliament, has tabled an amendment to my report on the Lisbon Treaty in the Constitutional Affairs Committee saying "endorses the Treaty and hopes that all Member States of the Union will be in a position to achieve its ratification by 1 January 2009, by involving their peoples, through referendums, in this fundamental stage in the European
intergration process."

Whether it's an amusing error or Bonde finally embracing the treaty, it is
one I doubt UKIP will be supporting!

Tories and UKIPs in cahoots once again

A month after bringing the tactics of football hooliganism to the European Parliament, four or five Tory Eurosceptics and UKIP have again worked in cahoots to undermine the work of the European Parliament.

They hit on two tactics. The first was to demand a full roll call votes (instead of a show of hands) on every paragraph and every amendment before the house. (Imagine that the House of Commons had a division on every paragraph of a bill). This slows down voting and costs £300 per vote (but they don't really care about taxpayers money).

The second was to use the procedure of "Explanation of Votes" which allows Members to speak after a vote, even if they have already spoken in the preceding debate, to explain why they voted in a particular way, for instance if they change their mind following the debate. Usually, only a few members avail themselves of this possibilty, and often do so in writing, which is also allowed. But yesterday, every UKIP member and several Tories asked to explain their vote verbally on every item on the agenda, whether or not they had already spoken in the debate. This would have held up the next scheduled debates for several hours, so the President proposed to take these explanations after those debates. This was agreed by the House, but UKIP and Dan Hannan protested that they were being "censored", that minority views were being crushed and that they had an absolute right to delay proceedings if they chose to do so.

Let one thing be clear, this is not about their freedom of expression. The European Parliament has a very wide range of poitical views and speaking time in debates is shared out proportionately among all the political groups - so all views will have been heard in the debates.

Most MEPs take their role as elected representatives seriously, working to deliver legislation and policy outcomes for their voters. In contrast, some Tories and UKIP are apparently only interested in disrupting the work of the elected Parliament either through behaving like football hooligans or procedural jiggery-pokery. The sheer contempt they show to democracy is breathtaking.

Facetious Farage ignores the facts

I laughed when I saw that Nigel Farage had put out a press release complaining that there was insufficient television coverage of his attempt to disrupt the ceremony signing the Charter of Fundamental Rights last week in Strasbourg. He considers this to be an act of censorship - though from what I saw of the written media, his little protest got ample coverage, even on some front pages. In terms of censorship, let us not forget, it was he himself and his allies (including Mr Le Pen's Front National, various right-wing Polish parties and several British Conservatives) who were trying to shout down the Portuguese Prime Minister so that he couldn't be heard and to disrupt parliamentary proceedings - behaviour that in any national Parliament would have led to their suspension.

In a similar vein, it was strange to see that Bill Cash has complained of "the deliberate playing down of these arguments in the media" - referring to Eurosceptic arguments in the British media! Does the man live on another planet?

A new low

The Parliament plenary session was marred today by some disgraceful scenes during the signing of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Presidents of the Commission, Council and Parliament with a handful of (sadly, British led) MEPs behaving like hooligans.

Led by (needless to say) UKIP (clad in black shirts with banners calling for a referendum on the Reform Treaty) and joined by the Tory hard-right including Dan Hannan, Roger Helmer, Martin Callanan and Nirj Deva, this group shouted down and booed the Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates and President Barroso as they tried to deliver speeches on the importance of respecting basic human rights. In any national parliament (not least the House of Commons) such behaviour would have resulted in instant expulsion from the Chamber and suspension.

Such behaviour was both a disgraceful way to treat a visitor to the Parliament and also deeply embarrassing to myself as a British MEP to see the image of Brits abroad tarnished by a group of malcontents acting like football hooligans.

Vice-President of Parliament and fellow Yorkshire MEP Diana Wallis injected some welcome rationality to proceedings poining out that the Parliament had, the previous month, endorsed the Charter by over 500 votes to 84. The Charter sets out a range of civil, political, economic and social rights which, largely speaking, already exist at national level, but will, if the Reform Treaty is ratified, be binding on the EU institutions when formulating European legislation.

It is perhaps unsurprising that UKIP, who frequently resort to such bully-boy tactics when the democratic will goes against them, but shameful that MEPs from a supposedly serious party like the Conservatives would act in such a contemptible way.

Godfrey and his fistful of euros

Following this week’s part session I dashed back to Yorkshire to go head to head with my favourite curmudgeonly UKIPer Godfrey Bloom, in a debate at the University of York on Britain’s place in the EU.

Godfrey imparted his usual mix of myths, allegations and outrageous statements to the audience, culminating with him calling for an end to all aid to Africa because it was holding the continent back.

So no real surprises until Godfrey led the charge to the bar for the post-debate drinks. Kindly offering to get a round in, Godfrey dipped into his pockets but found, to his consternation, that he only had euros! "No Problem" said the students -we accept euros here..

Tory sleaze

Cameron's astonishing appointment of former minister Jonathon Aitken to head a Tory working party shows how desparate the Tories are to bring back wayward former Conservatives to the fold.

Aitken, who supported UKIP at the last European election, was not only jailed for perjury (having initially tried to sue the journalist who blew his cover!) - he has to this day not revealed what he was up to in the Paris Ritz as a guest of the Saudis while he was defence procurement minister.

I was reminded of some of the other sleaze cases of the last Tory government - far more spectacular than any of the supposed sleaze allegations made nowadays - when Neil Hamilton popped up the other day to accuse the EU of... fraud. Coming from the man who received cash in brown envelopes in return for favours in parliament, this is a bit rich. Hamilton is also UKIP - is there something that magically attracts discredited Tories to them?

But, if they want him back, why don't the Tories appoint Hamilton as head of a working group on parliamentary standards? And Jeffrey Archer on prisons? Cecil Parkinson on child support by absent fathers? John Wakeham (of Enron fame) on corporate social responsibility? And Piers Merchant (of teenage mistress fame, but now Chief Executive of UKIP) on teenage sex?

Interesting point by Peter Preston in today’s Guardian: if UKIP and some Tories got their way and Britain were to withdraw from the European Union, then the "route to the exit is littered with obstacles: four decades' worth of directives to unscramble and replace, funding promised or under way to be reappraised, fishing and agriculture deals to be haggled afresh, trade and immigration understandings to be understood again. This won't be like breaking your tennis racket and storming off court. This has to be a long, deadly serious business"

Not to mention that there would be precious little goodwill from our partners if we were to storm out slamming the door of the house we have helped to build over several decades. Nor could we rely on economic muscle: we represent a smaller percentage of their trade (under 10%) than they do of ours (62%). And once we were out, we would no longer have a voice around the table in making the common rules for the common market - our main export market which our producers have to adapt to anyway.

Seems to be a no-brainer – maybe that explains who is supporting it!



PS I see Mark Mardell has also blogged on this today for the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/

It looks like UKIP are in trouble with the law again, although this time they have an opponent who they may think twice about before criticising - the Queen!

For the past few years UKIP have sold souvenir passport covers displaying the royal coat of arms. However, the Lord Chamberlain, representing the royal household on behalf of the Queen, has ordered an end to these sales as the coat of arms is protected under law and cannot be reproduced without permission.

Rather than accept the judgement, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has vowed to appeal, describing the decision as "another step to an integrated Europe" and accusing the Lord Chamberlain of "promoting the EU". I'd be surprised if the Lord Chamberlain has ever been accused of being an EU stooge before!

UKIP are busy trying to distance themselves from Ashley Mote, found guilty last week of several fraud charges relating to false benefit claims he made before he became an MEP.

Mote was elected as a UKIP MEP. Indeed, he was their top candidate in the South East. Did they really not check his character and financial background before they selected him to represent the party in the European elections? Of course, when the news came out that he was facing so many criminal charges, UKIP kicked him out of the party (though they have not done this yet to their MEP Tom Wise following the allegations against him of financial irregularities over the use of office funds - if they do, they will have lost a quarter of the MEPs elected as UKIP in 2004!).

Ashley Mote has now joined the far-right neo-fascist "Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty" group, which gives you an idea of the type of political views UKIP seems to attract.

Ironically, Mote spent most of his time as an MEP making allegations about the EU accounts. Now it is he who has been found guilty of eight counts of false accounting. The other crimes Mote was found guilty of include eight charges of obtaining a money transfer by deception, four charges of evading liability and one charge of failing to notify of a change of circumstances.

So, after three years of trying to dodge the Crown Prosecution Service by spuriously claiming immunity as an MEP, Ashley Mote finally appeared in court to face charges of multiple benefit fraud.

It was disappointing to see that elements of the press chose to cover the story without mentioning that Mote was elected as UKIP and spends most of his time hypocritically denouncing the EU as corrupt. Instead, Eurosceptic newspapers turned a story about an opponent of the EU into an anti-EU story, with headlines such as "£70,000 MEP con" and "MEP fleeces taxpayers", trying to use Mote's behaviour to bring all MEPs into disrepute.

(Incidentally, Mote is not the only MEP elected on the UKIP ticket to face investigation for misappropriation of public money. His former UKIP colleague Tom Wise is under investigation for allegedly misappropriating public monies.)

At the start of this year, Mr Mote was one of the founding members of the neo-fascist Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty group in the European Parliament (which unites Mussolini's granddaughter and Jean Marie Le Pen's National Front). Mr Mote's brass neck also extended to giving 'evidence' to a House of Lords enquiry into the EU's financial management in 2006.

Let's hope that Mr Mote's case is swiftly resolved and that other MEPs are not tarred by his brush.

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!

UKIP are constantly on the look-out for real or imagined cases of financial mismanagement in the EU, though their credibility in this field was recently undermined by the fraud office investigation into Tom Wise MEP, a UKIP member accused of misusing his parliamentary allowances.

Another instance has now arisen: UKIP member Mike Nattrass is one of only two MEPs who – some five months into 2007 – has still not updated his declaration of financial interests for 2006 which all MEPs are required to register. He was named and shamed in Parliament last month, but to no avail as Monday’s minutes – naming and shaming him again – testify.

The media is buzzing following today's decision by MEPs to adopt measures that will place caps on mobile phone roaming charges. Labour MEPs have spent the last two years campaigning on behalf of consumers for these rip-off charges to be capped, and today our hard work paid off as the new law was passed.

Currently when you use your mobile in another EU country you will be charged by your phone company extortionate fees not only for making calls, but also for receiving calls. Today’s decision will put a limit on those fees across the EU, so now when you make a call on holiday in another EU country, that fee will be capped at approximately 39p per minute (falling to approximately 34p per minute after two years) and when you receive a call, the fee will be capped at approximately 19p per minute (falling to approximately 15p per minute).

So one more of many victories for consumers thanks to European legislation applicable across the whole of the European market. But why then did Conservative MEPs oppose this? Tory MEPs voted against caps on mobile roaming charges, championing the cause of big businesses to charge their customers what they like – so no change there then from the Tories.

No change from UKIP leader Nigel Farage either, who unsurprisingly stated his opposition to the new law by saying it was merely a "giant publicity stunt" – presumably because the EU that introduced this law . Yet, it would not have been possible to introduce a law of this kind at all without the EU, but we can’t go around praising the EU can we Nigel?

I had the pleasure today of attending the launch of the Centre for Women in Democracy - a new organisation based in the North of England working to increase the representation of women at all levels of public life. The Centre for Women in Democracy is the first think tank of its kind to be based in the North of England, whereas such things are traditionally based in London.

The event began with a fascinating speech by Jill Liddington, whose recent book, Rebel Girls: Their Fight for the Vote, tells of the struggle women from the Yorkshire region faced in their fight for suffrage in the beginning of the twentieth century. Next to talk was the Centre for Women in Democracy’s director Nan Sloane. Nan highlighted just how under-represented women still are at all levels of government and public life, quoting some very disturbing figures. Only 19.5% of MPs are female, 25.6% of UK MEPs are female, 27% of local councillors are female and perhaps more worryingly, just 2% of councillors are black and ethnic minority women. Last up was Hilary Armstrong MP, Minister for Social Exclusion, who spoke of the importance of women in politics and the barriers they face.

The European Parliament, which has over 30% female MEPs, is at least better than Westminster. Labour is well above average with 42% female MEPs. Unfortunately, the UK is let down by the Conservatives, who have just one female MEP (who has just announced her retirement), and UKIP who have none at all, together bringing the UK average down to just 25.6%.

For further information on the Centre For Women & Democracy please click here.

The recent defection of two maverick Tory peers (Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the magnificently named Lord Willoughby de Broke) to UKIP led to some rather extravagant claims that the Tories were about to haemorrhage support to UKIP. Lord Pearson added that his defection was in protest at the Conservatives' lack of a "sufficiently Eurosceptic policy".

However, although it is true that a section of the Tory party are angry at David Cameron's failure to deliver on the only promise he made during his party's 2005 leadership race - namely, withdrawal from the centre-right European People's Party grouping in the European Parliament - the reality is that more Conservatives have been unhappy with their party's hostility to Europe.

This has been reflected in the pattern of defections of Tory politicians during the past decade or so with far more defections from disillusioned pro-Europeans than Europhobes. Whilst two unelected peers have gone to UKIP, no fewer than 12 elected MPs and MEPs have switched their allegiance to Labour or the Liberal Democrats. Furthermore, during William Hague's tenure as Conservative leader, two of its MEPs (John Stevens and Brendan Donnelly) and a former candidate for the party leadership - Sir Anthony Mayer - set up a breakaway Pro-Euro Conservative group in protest at their party's rabid Euroscepticism.

Switching to Labour were MPs Peter Temple Morris, Alan Howarth, Shaun Woodward, Peter Thurnham and, most recently, the highly respected former Minister Robert Jackson. The latter defected to Labour shortly before the 2005 election in view of his party's "dangerous" views on Europe, adding that "the Conservative Party's hostility to Europe has hardened to the point at which it advocates the unilateral denunciation of Britain's treaty obligations." Shaun Woodward and Alan Howarth have since served as government Ministers since abandoning a party that had become increasingly right-wing and extreme on Europe.

The Liberal Democrats have also been a haven for Europhile Tories. This trend was started by Emma Nicholson's defection in 1995 and she has since been followed by Keith Raffan MP (who later served as a Liberal Democrat member of the Scottish Parliament between 1998 and 2002), John Stevens MEP, Bill Newton Dunn MEP, Hugh Dykes (now Lord Dykes and a front bench Lib Dem spokesman on foreign affairs), Peter Price MEP and James Moorhouse MEP.

Moreover, UKIP's failure to attract Conservative politicians is not because of a lack of effort. UKIP has assiduously courted defectors, sending emails to local councillors of all parties and has written to all MPs in a desperate bid to attract new supporters. They have consistently attempted to convince disillusioned Tories to defect. Although some Tories don't hesitate to work closely with UKIP (to the extent that their loyalty to the Conservative party is sometimes questioned) Bill Cash, Douglas Carswell and Philip Davies in the House of Commons and Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan in the European Parliament, have not wanted to risk losing their seats.

Comparing the number and abilities of the pro-European defectors with those attracted by UKIP, which, incidentally, include disgraced former MP Piers Merchant who is now UKIP's Chief Executive (!), merely reveals the hollowness of Farage's claim to have attracted "many senior Conservatives".

It maybe grudging, reluctant and rather embittered but UKIP have apologised for repeatedly using the Jean Monnet quote that I pointed out to them (see blog entry 31 January) was completely fabricated (to the effect that Monnet advocated developing the EU in secret, keeping the public in the dark).

In a letter to the Western Morning News, UKIP’s Graham Booth, a regular user of the quote, apologised for his “mistake” and accepted to remove references to it in UKIP material. We’ll see if they do – Nigel Farage, their leader, has not even acknowledged a similar request.

Anyway, it’s good to get an admission from UKIP that they were telling lies. Not that the apology was anything but grudging. Booth goes on to claim that the fabricated quote effectively represents Monnet’s real views – despite the fact that I furnished him with a quote in which Monnet says precisely the opposite.

As his evidence Booth quotes a passage in a book by one Adrian Hilton, “The Principality of Power". But what is this supposed to prove? This is a single author’s opinion of what he thought Monnet believed, not what Monnet ever said.

I’m still slightly bewildered by Booth’s letter (which you can read in full here) but it is certainly an intriguing insight into the warped logic of UKIP (to the effect of "If he didn’t say it, he probably meant it anyway even if all his deeds and sayings show the opposite")

I'm sure there isn't a reader of my blog who isn't aware that UKIP are currently in complete disarray with allegation after allegation stacking up against them.

In short there are serious financial allegations against Tom Wise, while the party has also been accused of misusing European Parliament money. They also face losing over £300,000 of donations which were deemed impermissible by the Electoral Commission.

There is also the controversy of a party member reportedly refused a key seat because he was disabled while the Sunday Telegraph reported this weekend that a UKIP official had made a donation to the BNP.

I would be here all week if I went through all of UKIP's problems but suffice to say the following links portray the party in perhaps an even worse light that I thought possible.

The Guardian and Times both offer succinct and enlightening articles on UKIP's variety of problems while the Sunday Telegraph has a well linked series of reports on the current scandals. The Sunday Times also reveals UKIP attempted to cover up Tom Wise's embezzlement.

As for blogs UKIPwatch is on the money as ever, letting nothing get past its beady eye, while I also recommend the mysterious UKIP@home which pulls no punches in taking UKIP to task in a highly entertaining manner.

I was greatly amused to see the results of last week's council by-election in Croydon.

The Conservatives' campaign slogan for the Bensham Manor ward was "Send a message to Mr Blair!", which the locals promptly did by voting in Labour candidate Alison Butler by over a thousand votes, a swing of 10% to Labour!

You can view all the results here which reveal a couple more interesting issues. The UKIP candidate stood as a UKIP candidate and not as an Independence Party candidate and registered 40 votes; that's just 25 more than the Monster Raving Loony Party. There was also no BNP candidate which will not help UKIP fight the allegations that the parties have a deal not to stand for the same seat.

On a lighter note, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the People's Choice candidate who was anything but after managing just nine votes.

Interesting to see again (following Mike Nattrass's suggestion that the EU should abolish bull-fighting) to see that another member elected under UKIP's banner is now calling for the adoption of EU measures instead of their repeal. Robert Kilroy-Silk has called for a system whereby health professionals who are banned from working in their own countries be put on a list so that they can be banned by all EU countries.

Sounds reasonable, but again hardly tallies with the usual diatribe against any EU legislation that comes from Kilroy and his ilk.

So UKIP are going to cut and run from their name and call themselves “Independence Party”. I suppose “UKIP” has built up too many bad connotations. “Independents” sounds better, and perhaps they are intending to claim the several hundred Independent councillors across the country as theirs!

Their leader, Farage, is quoted in the Telegraph saying it is “time to campaign on more than just immigration and withdrawal from the European Union and move to wider themes of national and local independence, deregulation and tax cuts”.

"Local independence"?! For where? Dulwich? Liverpool? Hull? Perhaps the Scottish nationalists are not, after all, the main threat to the unity of the UK!

Hypocrisy knows no bounds among UKIPs MEPs!

UKIP was, of course, set up to oppose everything the EU does and to object as a matter of principle to the EU having any powers whatsoever. Yet here we have one of its MEPs, Mike Nattrass, calling for the European Union to ban bullfighting in Spain and saying that he will fight for that in the European Parliament!

Perfectly respectable to oppose bullfighting. Perfectly respectable to urge Spain to ban it (as Catalonia has already done) but a bit rich to ask the EU to override Spanish law on this matter (which could only be done by a massive increase in the EU's powers) whilst claiming to be against the EU in the first place!

Going up in the lift in Strasbourg with Nigel Farage, he tells me that the Labour Party should be delighted with him and the inroads UKIP is making into the Tory party. I concured that even the darkest of clouds (UKIP) can have a silver lining.

Last week's defection of two Tory peers to UKIP, the revelation that nine Tory MPs have signed up to UKIP's 'Better Off Out!' manifesto and the announcement that two huge party donors (Stanley Kalms & Stuart Wheeler) may now throw their support behind UKIP, do indeed seem to be causing Cameron to panic.

He has told the Telegraph that he's the heir to Thatcher and promised to resist any European integration, to opt out from the Social Chapter, Keep the Pound, and oppose any new EU Constitution

So much for what he said in Brussels scarcely a month ago (see here.

But of course, he's caught in a cleft stick. Appear too reasonable on Europe, and lose some of his rabid eurosceptics to UKIP. Appear too eurosceptic, and lose credibility as a serious leader and lose votes to Labour or the Lib Dems.

That's why Cameron hopes Europe will go away as an issue, allowing him to ignore it. Unfortunately for him, the debate on the Constitutional Treaty, with the large majority of European countries having now ratified it and wanting to salvage as many as possible of the reforms it contains, will ensure that European issues will not go away.

And Farage is right to say that, in electoral terms, it is Labour that stands to gain.

UKIP have spent the past few months attempting to convince people that they are not just a one issue party and take an interest in domestic matters. However, in doing this they have not lost the capacity for spreading myth and outrageously distorting the truth.

The latest example is their Yorkshire MEP Godfrey Bloom "uncovering" that 11 schools in York use fingerprint recognition and getting his knickers in a twist that this is indicative of Orwellesque totalitarianism. With characteristic understatement, Godfrey said "it's like 1984", adding that "we really have reached a low when we are fingerprinting children at primary schools". The Daily Express described this as "a scandal" and an attack on civil liberties, while the Daily Star reported the 'story' under the lurid headline "Terror test for 5 year olds". All this conjurs up images of a police state.

The problem is that if Godfrey, the Express or the Daily Star had bothered to check out the facts behind the 'story' they would merely learn that the 11 schools are using electronic fingerprint recognition, instead of membership cards, for their library services. Moreover, all but one of the schools in question had informed parents in advance of implementing the system, while the school in question, Manor CE, introduced the thumbprint recognition scheme on the recommendation of the pupils themselves! Indeed, Manor's head, Brian Crosby, responding to the furore in the York Press, expressed amazement that anybody could be so upset by a school using such a library system, pointing out that it is much easier and quicker for pupils who don't have to worry about always carrying (and possibly losing) library cards and that the school's library system is not connected to any other network.

Mr Crosby adds that this new technology has allowed the school's learning resource centre to be transformed, is popular with students, and has helped them to achieve excellent literacy results, while the education authority in York has sent out a letter to schools supporting the system so long as parental approval is sought.

This is simply a case where modern technology is being used to assist children in their learning rather than a sinister attempt to condition them to hand over their privacy. Bloom's attempt to distort what is good news for schools, parents and pupils is yet another example of his party's breathtaking cynicism.

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!

Tory MPs who pander to hard-line Eurosceptics in the hope of dissuading UKIP from putting up candidates against them in the next election are set to be disappointed. UKIP leader Nigel Farage has just announced on 18Doughty Street that UKIP will put candidates up against Tories whatever their views on Europe.

Previously, Farage had stated that UKIP would not stand against signatories to the anti-European "Better Off Out" campaign, contrary to the wishes of a substantial proportion of his party. Had his U-turn taken place 18 months ago, then, in my home town of Shipley, Labour's Chris Leslie would have defeated Better Off Out signatory Philip Davies at last year's general election.

UKIP estimates that there were 21 constituencies where the decision of UKIP to stand resulted in the Conservatives failing to win the seat.

Whatever the accuracy of these estimates, the deision to stand everywhere means that there is no point in Tory MPs pandering to them. Rather, they will need to stand up to them and demolish their arguments. But don't count on it: many of them have spent so long parroting UKIP that they wouldn't know how to put a reasonable fact-based pro-European argument together!

Perhaps that is why Farage boldly claims that UKIP will be the largest party after the 2009 European Elections, based on the (rather questionable) logic that, having doubled its share of the vote in the past two European elections, achieving this again would give it 32 per cent of the vote in 2009.

This is slightly at odds with the party's declining membership (down from 27,000 at the height of the Kilroy media frenzy to a mere 16,000). This averages at a mere 20 per constituency and would seem to indicate that, with Europe not currently at the top of the political agenda, UKIP's strategy is basically to attract disaffected right-wing Conservatives.

Still, he did at least have the honesty to admit that "UKIP is good at raising money for campaigns" - but Paul Sykes's millions won't turn UKIP into a credible political party!

I was interested, if that is the right expression, to hear UKIP leader Nigel Farage on Radio 5 Live yesterday.

He usually claims that the European Union is responsible for 70% of the UK’s legislation; this time, however, he fancied a change and decided that it was 75%.

Thankfully, a listener put him right asking the following question:

“Mr Farage claims that 75% of our laws are made at European-level, even though his own website puts the figure at 70%. His UKIP colleagues put the figure at anything from 50% to 80%. Isn’t part of UKIPs problem that they can’t keep their stories straight? Incidentally, the House of Commons research department put the actual figure at 9%”.

His response was fascinating. He dismissed the 9% figure by saying that the House of Commons research department can’t be trusted, “that paper was an entire fabrication”. So, is everyone a liar?! He doesn’t trust the European Parliament. He doesn’t trust the UK Parliament. Who exactly does he trust?

His argument to back up his 75% claim was equally as revealing. "Well in Germany, the figure is 80%, so to say 75% is probably quite accurate". Nothing like sound research eh Nigel?!

I have written to UKIP MEP Nigel Farage after he pledged to spend as little as six days a month in Brussels and Strasbourg if he wins the current UKIP leadership contest.

I await his response with interest!

Below is a copy of the letter I have sent to Mr Farage.

Dear Mr Farage,

As the UK Independence Party’s leadership contest draws to a close, I am writing to ask you to publicly clarify a manifesto pledge you have made to your membership.

On your website – www.votenigel.org – you state:

"As the elected Leader of UKIP I would cut my time over there [Brussels and Strasbourg] to 6 or 7 days a month, and the rest of my working time I would devote to UKIP affairs."

I would hope that you do not need to be reminded that it is the British taxpayer who pays for you to carry out your duties as an MEP. Your constituents expect you to be representing their needs in Parliament on a full-time basis, and they do not expect you to reduce your working hours in order to follow your own personal political agenda.

You often speak, unfairly I might add, of the EU as a “gravy train”, with those elected to serve the people being involved purely for their own financial gain. On this basis, and should you be elected Leader, may I assume that you will not be receiving your full salary, as a result of the reduced representative service that you will be offering your constituents? I would hope that we both agree, receiving your full salary would be an act of astonishing hypocrisy and contempt for the hardworking tax payers of the United Kingdom.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Corbett MEP

British Sugar’s decision to close its factory in York down is obviously a blow to the region and particularly unwelcome to those who will be made redundant.

However, many people have been quick to blame the EU and the Common Agricultural Policy for the closure but as David Wilmott-Smith pointed out, in a letter to the Yorkshire Post, this is wide of the mark.

Godfrey Bloom and other opponents of the EU have consistently complained about surplus farm products as a consequence of high quotas yet, when the cuts are made - as they demanded - they are the first to condemn them.

The Common Agricultural Policy is problematic but it is an issue the EU is working hard to reform. To criticise the EU for making changes long called for is both hypocritical and insincere.

A few weeks ago I blogged on Newcastle City Council being forced to take down the EU flag because it required planning permission to be flown.

Despite their apparent abhorrence to bureaucratic nonsense, UKIP were positively revelling in the decision.

But angry fist waving in UKIP’s north east offices will be back on the agenda after it was confirmed that the outdated laws on flying flags will be abandoned next spring.

The current law means flying a national (or EU) flag is illegal unless it is fluttering from a vertical flag pole, meaning much of the country spent the entire World Cup breaching planning laws.

New regulations, which come into force in April 2007 will mean any flag, can be flown in any manner, by anyone.

So, Newcastle City Council better dust off their EU flag ready to fly in the face of the Eurosceptics.

In the aftermath of the May local elections, I wrote about the
interesting, if that is the correct word, relationship between UKIP and
the British National Party, and how it appeared that a deal had been
done between them to keep out of each other’s way.

Nationally, there were very few occasions of the two right wing parties
going against each other in a battle for council seats – in fact, UKIP
fielded very few candidates at all. This deal, it appears, was
reciprocated in the Bromley & Chislehurst, and Blaenau Gwent by-elections.

The facts are that UKIP stood, and the BNP did not – the BNP chose not
to field a candidate because it “did not want to split the anti-EU
vote”, choosing instead to actively encourage people to vote UKIP.

So watch out to see how explicit UKIP will be in encouraging people to
vote BNP in next year’s round of local elections.

Today’s session in Strasbourg was briefly interrupted by UKIP staging a walk out during a vote on a resolution on the future of the EU’s “Period of Reflection” on the Constitutional Treaty, with their departure warmly applauded by MEPs intent on doing some proper parliamentary work.

UKIP’s website claims their MEPs exited when the “Committee on Legal Affairs was presenting to Parliament the Commission's proposal for re-activating the EU Constitution” – wrong on all counts (not a Commission proposal, not presented by the Legal Affairs Committee, and not proposing to “re-activate” the constitution).

It is quite shocking that even after two years in the European Parliament, that UKIP members still don't even have the slightest notion of how Parliament works in general or of the Rules of Procedure in particular - yet are very quick to accuse everyone else of violating the procedures.

They claimed that the Parliament was violating its own procedural Rule 35, which refers to "Commission proposals and other documents of a legislative nature". A resolution addressed to the European Council is obviously neither of these things. If their MEPs are unable to distinguish, one of their Group's many assistants should be able to advise them – but that would assume that they recruit their staff on the basis of competence rather than on the basis of the degree of xenophobia necessary to be a member of their party.

If it's unpopular, blame it on Europe. This is a tactic being followed by UKIP and Tory Eurosceptics in letter-writing campaigns to newspapers.

Latest example is Graham Booth, UKIP MEP, who writes to the Western Morning News (30 May) to complain about the proportion of British legislation that is adopted by statutory instruments instead of by government bills. Fair point for discussion. However, without explaining any link, he blames this purely internal matter on the European Union. Saying that "It would be difficult to think of a more stupid way of legislating in a democracy - but then the EU model is not aimed at democracies but at totalitarian regimes and subservient populations."

They really will have to start doing better than tagging on a few gratuitous and unfounded insults about the European Union to matters that concern subjects that don't have anything to do with the EU.

Sometime ago I published a pamphlet entitled “25 things you didn’t know when you voted UKIP“ highlighting the extensive links between UKIP and the BNP, especially their interchangable membership (and, for that matter, leadership).

At the time of publication, the UKIP were up-in-arms. I suspect they will be distinctly quiet when I refer to my suspicions regarding their activities in the recent local elections.

Looking at the candidates list for each ward in each council in the region, I can only find one example of the BNP standing in the same ward as UKIP. Indeed, when I look at elections in other English regions, examples of BNP and UKIP going head-to-head are rare.

Indeed, it was particularly fascinating to see just how few candidates UKIP fielded. This undoubtedly allowed the BNP to pick up the far right vote without competition.

Could it possibly be that UKIP and the BNP shook hands over a deal? No matter how they package their policies, they are both on the far-right and it would clearly be in each other's interest not to split the far-right vote.

It makes me wonder what UKIP were getting in return for their {suspected} generosity. Could it possibly be a clear run in the European elections in 2009? Only time will tell…

I was delighted to see that a poll of women and younger people showed that most people believe “Britain’s future lies with Europe” (Populus and the Times, 20th April).

If women are becoming increasingly receptive to European issues, I can only presume that this is the reason why UKIP has no female MEPs and the Tories only have one!

No doubt you will have noticed the media attention given to David Cameron’s assertions that UKIP members are “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” on a London radio show. I couldn’t agree more, but in light of this comment it is only fair to raise concern about a blossoming friendship between the parties.

I happened to have a meeting in a restaurant, the night before last, where the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, was dining with UKIP colleagues and Tory MEPs Chris Heaton-Harris and Roger Helmer.

If indeed David Cameron is genuine in his claims of “compassionate Conservativism”, and thus disagreeing emphatically with UKIP policies, why are his MEPs working so closely with them?

I see that the "UKIPwatch" website claims that UKIP's parliamentary group are being investigated for allegedly mis-using taxpayers' money. UKIPwatch reports that the co-leaders of the IND/DEM Group, UKIP's Nigel Farage MEP and veteren Danish eurosceptic Jens-Peter Bonde MEP, are currently being investigated by the legal service of the Court of Auditors for diverting European Parliament money and staff resources, intended for their Group's parliamentary work, to a news agency that claims to be independent, namely "EUobserver.com - a website for the latest EU news". UKIPwatch reports that both Bonde and Farage are facing financial liabilities should this investigation reveal that cross subsidies have breached EU financial rules.

It also turns out that Lisbeth Kirk, the director of EUobserver.com is married to Jens Bonde MEP.

I have spoken to Jens-Peter Bonde and he tells me that there is no investigation and that all their co-operation with EUObserver has been duly authorized by the parliamentary authorities. I also know that claims of malpractice are easily made and frequently not true - indeed, some of the Members of the IND/DEM group specialise in making lurid allegations about the EU - so I'd better give Mr Bonde the benefit of the doubt.

I myself always found EU observer to be quite a useful source of information, but even if there is no financial impropriety, the revelation that they are closely linked to the most anti-EU political group does make one wonder about some of the slant they put on some stories.

A political party is only as good as its future, and with this in mind I was interested to see the writings of cameronleadership.co.uk, a website created by four young Conservatives to monitor the progress of David Cameron.

I noticed an entry on UKIP, and how they can be a "bunch of nutjobs". Fair enough I thought. That is until the following sentence read "but have also done some good work in Brussels".

Needless to say, the writer doesn't go on to explain what this "good work" is. While their absenteesism certainly makes the European Parliament a more pleasant place to be, ignoring the needs and rights of their constituents doesn't amount to "good work" in my view.

If this is the view of the Conservative's next generation, then the EPP will be glad to see the back of them.

Eurosceptics frequently complain that our newspapers' European correspondents are supposedly in bed with the European Union and therefore are not critical enough (!) of its activities. They sometimes even insinuate that such journalists are in the pay of the EU.

It was therefore all the more interesting to read in EU Reporter (pdf link) that UKIP's own political group in the European Parliament has been quietly subsidising the EUobserver website. This press website claims to be independent, but it now appears that it's in the pay of the highly Eurosceptic political group - which possibly explains why it also displays a prominent link to EUabc.com, another supposedly independent site that seems mostly to display the work of Danish MEP Jens Peter Bonde - the co-leader (with Nigel Farage) of UKIP’s political group, the Independence and Democracy Group. It also turns out that the owner and publisher of EUobserver is Lisbeth Kirk, who just happens to be married to Jens Peter Bonde!

According to EU Reporter, taxpayers’ money is being used by Eurosceptics to retain experienced journalists to write for EUobserver - which can "also rely on the salaried EU Parliament staffers to help produce a product that generates income in the private sector from advertising and sponsorship".

So it would seem the Eurosceptics are doing precisely what they complain that other parties do! Yet another example of UKIP's hypocrisy?

I nearly fell off my chair when I read what UKIP MEP Mike Nattrass wrote in a letter to the editor of EU Reporter, a magazine aimed at small businesses. Referring to an article I had written in the same magazine, Mr Nattrass wrote:

"What the Europhile Richard Corbett MEP describes as the euro sceptic attack on his vision in your 30th January issue is no such thing. In fact UKIP can agree with most of what he has written!"

He then goes on to list a few specific points over which he disagrees - leaving the majority of my article untouched.

So we are to infer that UKIP now agrees with the main thrust of my article, as follows:

• When we get it right, European legislation is an exercise in cutting red tape.
• European legislation is not adopted against the will of the Member States.
• The EU single market has brought us all financial benefits in the region of €2000 per family per year.

Needless to say, Mr Nattrass's letter was not entirely free of the usual UKIP froth.

He asks, "What has the imposition of a new driving licence on UK motorcyclists got to do with free trade?" This is a bizarre question. Why should it be anything to do with free trade if governments choose to require drivers to be licensed? Surely, all governments do this for traffic safety reasons. The only EU dimension is to cut bureaucracy and red tape by agreeing a single set of licence types rather than the 80-odd that used to be in force across Europe - thereby also making it easier for the police to check people actually do have valid driving licences. Now, would Mr Nattrass rather that were not the case?

He then asks, “Why do they want to make our ports more difficult to operate?”. Who does he mean by "they"? Surely not the European Parliament - which just threw out proposals for changing to the current system for ports.

He then asks why "our parliament" is "stopped by the EU" from debating capital punishment? Come on, Mr Nattrass. Surely, after nearly two years as an MEP, you must have picked up at least the basics of how things work? You must know that reason the UK and more than 40 other countries agreed to scrap the death penalty has nothing at all to do with the EU. It's the European Convention on Human Rights, which was set up at Britain's initiative shortly after the Second World War. Rather than admit the facts, Mr Nattrass is trying to recruit supporters of the death penalty to support his anti-European political ends!

Let's talk about chickens. Earlier this year, we debated and amended proposals designed to improve the welfare of chickens bred for meat in the EU. Animal welfare issues are very important in the minds of my constituents, and I know from my postbag that these EU-wide reforms are popular in Yorkshire.

Now let's talk about UKIP, who rejected these new measures and voted against amendments tabled to strengthen them. Specifically, UKIP voted against amendments designed to:

• control imports of chickens from third countries where farms don't stick to the same rules; and


• reduce the 'stocking density', i.e. how many chickens can be placed in a single area.

Now, I don't know whether they're eager for chickens to suffer or whether they just vote blindly without reading the text. Either way, it's hardly satisfactory for British MEPs to vote against measures which are designed to improve the health and welfare of farm animals.

Just to drive the point home, here's the justification put forward for reducing stocking density:

"From a stocking density of 20kg/m2 onwards, animal welfare problems increase. Behaviour and leg disorder studies clearly show that high stocking density above 25 kg per square metre leads to serious welfare problems, as the restriction of movement causes foot pad dematitis, leg problems, breast blisters, restriction of normal behaviour, and ultimately high mortality rates."

Surely this is something that UK MEPs should be at the forefront of tackling?!

Nicholas Watt, the Guardian’s European editor, has put together a very astute analysis of the mess the Tory MEPs have got themselves into over their will-we-won’t-we attitude to leaving the EPP. He brings up an extra problem I’ve so far neglected in this blog: how will Europe’s family of mainstream centre-right parties react to the decision to go renegade?

By all accounts, the answer is: very badly. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy has reportedly told Cameron that he is “weak”. Other leaders have said that they will downgrade links with the Conservative party. Cameron will be losing a lot of friends in parties of government across the EU — something he'll undoubtedly come to regret if the Tories ever make it back into government here.

The most astonishing observation of this kind came from UKIP’s Nigel Farage:

“If the Conservatives were to form the next government they would probably serve the national interest better by being part of the family of European governments rather than being on the fringes. If we are going to stay in the EU it would be better to have a government that was in negotiations with other governments in Europe rather than one that has distinctly frosty relations. …

“In the EPP they [the Tories] are banded together with other parties of government. If they leave the EPP and form their own group they will have to form a group with parties whose political culture will provide a huge embarrassment to David Cameron back home. Poland’s Law and Justice Party’s stance on abortion and homosexuality will provide Mr Cameron with the hugest embarrassments back home.”

I think I've cracked the mystery of how UKIP MEPs manage to keep such a grumpy expression no matter what, and mechanically vote against every useful proposal that comes before Parliament.

The answer? They're all robots.

I was browsing the European Parliament's transcript of debates (the hi-tech equivalent of Westminster's Hansard) the other day and spotted a remarkable similarity between the contributions to the debate made by several UKIP MEPs. First, Mike Nattrass:

"UKIP fully recognises the desirability of improving conditions for handicapped people, particularly in some states on mainland Europe. However, we reject the notion that improvements should be carried out under the competence of the Commission."

Next, Tom Wise:

"I fully recognise the desirability of improving conditions for handicapped people. However, I reject the notion that this should be done, by the EU on behalf of anyone, let alone sovereign Nation States."

Next, Gerard Batten:

"UKIP fully recognises the desirability of improving conditions for handicapped people, particularly in some states on mainland Europe. However, we reject the notion that improvements should be carried out under the competence of the Commission."

Anyone else smell a rat?

The BBC were yesterday trumpeting a Radio 4 poll which produced some very odd results. The poll, organised by the Today programme's 'Who Runs Your World' season, apparently found that 22% of listeners believed Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, to be “the most powerful man in the UK”.

Considering that most people in the country don’t even know who Mr Barroso is, this is a curious result. But then, it was a pretty curious poll from start to finish. Setting aside the usual doubts about what exactly counts as 'power', listeners were asked to choose the most powerful “person” from a pre-selected shortlist of ten, which included a number of quite definitely non-person entities, including 'Parliament' and even 'Google'. (In no less than 300 words, discuss the merits of comparing the Prime Minister with an internet search engine…)

The results were even more odd: a supermarket chief executive scored more highly than the supposedly ‘dictatorial’ Tony Blair, who only made seventh place; while Gordon Brown, the ‘Iron Chancellor’, the holder of the strings of Britain’s biggest purse, managed to come joint last, tied with Shami Chakrabarti, who works for a political pressure group!

Something was clearly very wrong with the whole affair. According to the Yorkshire Post on January 3 (I couldn't find the online version of the article),

"the BBC did not say how many votes it received and there were signs that the number might have been quite small. Voters had to be keen enough to check into the Today programme website and were encouraged to make their own comments when they did. The last messages left before the final count were five days old and only one person wrote in to comment on the result yesterday."

The plot thickens.

Of course, the Eurosceptics jumped on the bandwagon immediately. UKIP’s Roger Knapman crowed that Barroso is “a bureaucrat perceived as the most important man in this country and that is quite shocking”. (Wrong, as usual: Mr Barroso is no more a bureaucrat than Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten were. He’s a politician through and through, having previously been Prime Minister of Portugal! In his present post, he was proposed by the heads of 25 democratically elected governments and can remain in office only while he enjoys the confidence of the directly-elected European Parliament – just as our national ministers must enjoy the confidence of our House of Commons.)

Anyway, I was quite prepared to put this weird result down to a conflation of two euromyths in voters’ minds: the myth that the Commission makes laws (it can’t), and the myth that it is unelected (it isn’t). But then the final icing on the cake came in a report in today’s Guardian:

“The UK Independence Party admitted yesterday that it tried to rig the poll on the Today programme to find out who runs Britain. … UKIP and Dan Hannan, the fiercely eurosceptic Conservative MEP, both admitted to the Guardian that they had separately sent e-mails encouraging supporters to vote for Mr Barroso. … Mr Hannan said last night: ‘I had no idea UKIP were doing it. I was going to take sole credit for it.’”

So the mystery is solved, and another instance of UKIP’s media strategy lies exposed. All rather embarrassing for the BBC, of course, but sadly no surprise for those of us more accustomed to eurosceptic propaganda tactics. I won’t hold my breath for an apology from Mr Knapman, who, let’s not forget, claimed to find the results “quite shocking”.

But I’ll leave the last word to an indignant Ben Jones of the European Movement:

“Politics should be done through rational argument, not by manipulating the media.”

Today's Independent has a leading article on Europe that is well worth reading:

Just the previous day, Mr Blair had appeared before members of the European Parliament in Brussels. Confident, combative, uninhibited, the Prime Minister seemed to be in his element. It was a pleasure to hear a British politician speaking so unapologetically as a European. His exchanges with Nigel Farage of UKIP were especially choice. Although he sat "with our country's flag", Mr Blair scolded him, "you do not represent our country's interests". He followed up with the curt rebuke: "This is 2005, not 1945."

Tony Blair's report to the European Parliament on the budget deal went quite well. It was the UKIP MEPs who made fools of themselves, by their childish antics of coming in early to bag the second row of seats all to themselves, decorate them with large Union Jack flags and stage a walk-out just before the end of the debate on the grounds that only two of their MEPs had been called to speak. For the record, among the British parties, three Conservatives were called, three Labour (including me), two UKIP, two Liberal and one Scottish Nationalist - hardly unfair towards UKIP, given the numbers of MEPs from each party!

Anyone interested in reading a full summary of the debate should click here.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote in a blog entry that I'd noticed from a recent Parliament publication that UKIP don't have a representative on the Environment Committee. I went on to bemoan UKIP's inactivity in the European Parliament, especially in such a crucial area of legislation.

A week or so later, I received an undated letter on blank notepaper with no address, but which appears to have come from Tom Wise, a UKIP MEP. It complains that my blog entry on 15 November was inaccurate - in fact, that I "based the whole entry on incorrect information".

I found this rather odd. As I wrote at the time, my claim was based on an official publication of the European Parliament Information Office in London (to whose website I provided a link) on the work of the Environment committee. This publication gives a full list of UK members and I observed that there are no fewer than 13 members from the three main parties, plus the Greens, Plaid Cymru and even Sinn Fein - but not a single member from UKIP.

However, I now find that since this booklet was published (only three months ago), UKIP has taken measures to ensure that there is now one UKIP member on the relevant committee - still not a full member, but a substitute - namely Mr Wise. No doubt this is as a result of the embarrassment caused by Parliament’s publication - the timing is too significant to be regarded as a coincidence.

However, all is still not entirely well. I also note that, according to the minutes of the Environment Committee placed on Parliament’s web site (click here - scroll to page 14 of this document for a list of MEPs who attended), Mr Wise has not attended a single meeting of the committee, despite having put himself forward as a substitute member! (Unless, again, he has done so very recently, since the most recently available minutes.)

Any joy I may have in seeing UKIP MEPs finally beginning to do some work in this Parliament by taking up a place on a committee is somewhat tempered by the fact that this membership appears not to be an active one!

I have written back to Mr Wise, clarifying this and suggesting that he withdraws his allegations about how "misleading" he finds my blog entry. In fact, I rather think it is his protestations that more accurately fall under the category of "misleading"!

Browsing through a new publication of the European Parliament's information office for the UK in London entitled "What are your MEPs doing about the environment?" I notice that there are no fewer than 13 British MEPs on the European Parliament's committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Yet there is not a single member from UKIP!

This committee probably deals with more European legislation than any other - and rightly so. The environment is one of the areas where it makes absolute sense to have common laws and standards across Europe; pollution does not respect national borders and it would be next to useless for countries to try to address these problems on their own.

Yet UKIP has chosen not to place even a single MEP on this committee. Is this because they're work shy? After all, and they haven't taken up their full allowance of places across the board, and this isn't the only committee they ignore. Or is it because they don't want to be seen to be doing anything constructive in terms of European legislation, preferring to shout general obscenities from the sidelines rather than actually get to grips with the detail?

The UK Independence Party's latest scheme is to try and convince us that the great British public hasn't been consulted on our membership of the EU for thirty years — because the last referendum was in 1975.

This is peculiarly twisted logic. According to UKIP's reasoning, we have also never been consulted on the NHS, education, housing, taxes, the environment or anything else.

But of course this is complete rubbish. We live in a parliamentary democracy, and we have a general election every four or five years. If we don't like a government's policies, we can kick the government out of office and replace it with a better alternative. If that's not consultation, I don't know what is!

As every general election since 1975 has produced a pro-European government, maybe UKIP should take the hint?

Following a few conversations I've had with Labour party members recently, I thought readers of this blog might be interested to see an extract from a letter I sent to a constituent in 2004. My constituent had asked whether I felt UKIP, as a fringe group, were worth bothering with. Here's my reply:

"The wider point about why UKIP are 'worth bothering with', as you put it, is an interesting one. Their policies are indeed characteristic of a fringe group, and until this summer I think they were best handled in the same way as the BNP – we would rebut their specific claims, or the more ludicrous ones anyway, but not spend too much time proactively exposing them. However, the climate has now changed; UKIP were able to buy themselves a great deal of publicity before the most recent European elections, and they are now using this as a platform to spread their campaign of disinformation about the European Union. The fact that UKIP will never form a government in the UK does not make their influence any the less dangerous in this regard. They are in the public eye whether we like it or not, and I now believe it to be crucial that we engage with them.

I understand your views about the possibility that some people perceive debate among political parties as squabbling, and that it may therefore be counter-productive. That is always a risk. But I feel that the issue of Europe is so important, the distortions put about by groups like UKIP so dangerous, and the motivations underlying them so poisonous, that it would be a mistake not to both counter their claims and to expose their agenda."

Parliament held an afternoon debate today commemorating the anniversary of the end of World War II. It's quite moving in a Parliament with members from the countries that suffered most during the war. And German members, too, regard 9 May 1945 as a day of liberation.

Jean Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg Prime Minister and current President of the European Council, gave a an excellent speech. It was pitched at just the right level and won an unusual standing ovation, with all but UKIP's MEPs standing. (Is there nothing they can ever admit to finding positive in what they hear in the European Parliament?)

I was shocked to read a Eurosceptic website actually attacking UKIP because its MEPs voted in favour of a Parliament resolution condemning anti-Semitism! (Read the full article here.)

Just occasionally, I do feel a bit sorry for UKIP’s ragtag bunch of MEPs. Since being elected in 2004, they’ve barely made a positive contribution to anything. On the occasions they bother to turn up to Parliament at all, they invariably vote against everything. But on the occasions when even they can’t bring themselves to object – for instance, to a resolution condemning the Holocaust and expressing concern over the rise of xenophobia – they then come under attack from their own side for betraying their principles!

Some interesting pieces in the press this week!

The FT thinks that the new EU constitution would be “a damning indictment” of how far apart politicians and people have grown, if it fails to be ratified because one or two countries vote against. (The article is no longer available on the web.)

But there is overwhelming support for the European project across the EU. It's highly likely that the treaty will be endorsed by an overwhelming majority of member countries, whether by parliamentary scrutiny or by national referendum.

The catch is that an overwhelming majority is not good enough. We need the grand slam of 25 yes votes from 25 countries. But if nearly every country votes yes, and just one or two reject it, that would hardly be a sign of widespread hostility!

Elsewhere, I’m somewhat amused to read Nigel Farage, a UKIP MEP, complaining in the Telegraph: “The bias towards big money in politics is getting considerably worse. This is building up to being a big money election”. Now, who was it that spent more money than all three mainstream parties put together in the 2004 European elections? Wasn’t it UKIP?!