Integration and fragmentation in Europe

Following on from yesterday, the question of whether Kosovo and South Ossetia should be recognised as sovereign states is only the latest in a trend that has seen the number of sovereign countries in Europe more than double in the space of a century, with every possibility that this trend will continue. But in the living memory of our most senior citizens, there were only 22 states in Europe prior to 1918, (and two of these, Albania and Norway, were only recently independent).

The break up of Austria-Hungary and the Tsarist Empire at the end of the First World War saw this rise to 29, soon reaching 30 with the establishment of an independent Ireland. At the end of the Second World War, however, this had fallen to 28, with the disappearance of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania hardly compensated for by the creation of the GDR. This figures remained stable during the entire Cold War period, increasing only with the independence of Malta and Cyprus, bringing the total to 30.

Since the end of the Cold War, the break ups of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, saw this jump, within a decade, to 46. Recognition of the independence of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia would bring us to nearly 50 sovereign states on the territory of Europe. And, of course, some would argue that the independence of Flanders, Scotland, the Basque country and Catalonia is not beyond the bounds of the impossible.

So, from a continent of 20 sovereign states in 1900 we could well have one with over 50 in the coming years. Of course, the majority of the states will be in the European Union. Fragmentation will have been balanced by a degree of integration. Indeed, it is this very integration that has made it plausible, in some cases, for smaller units to be viable. Arguing, for independence within Europe sounds far less isolationist when you are simply making the case to upgrade your status rather than go off into the wilderness. But, as I said yesterday, that scenario is not without problems. And what about other parts of the world where there are countless ethnicities and other groups who could seek to aspire to independence?

A world fragmented into several hundred small countries along with just a handful of giants would not necessarily be a better place in terms of getting world level agreement on global issues - not least environmental ones, it might prove even more difficult than now. There could also be an arms race as such countries seek to develop their own armies and defend themselves against real or imaginary threats from their neighbours. Much would depend on the multilateral frameworks created for integration and cooperation. And here Europe certainly remains a model.

New crackdown on airline's hidden costs

Amid the Conservative's infighting and the adoption of my parliamentary rule change on groups, I haven't had time to mention the new regulations governing how air-fair prices are advertised, which was adopted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg this week.

Many people will have come across airline advertisements promising bargain flights only to find the price rising substantially as they go through their booking. The final cost then bares little resemblance to the price which encouraged you to travel with them in the first place. The European Commission's investigation into the phenomenon found that well over a quarter of air travel websites indulged in such practices.

The new rules will put an end to these false prices by ensuring that advertised prices include all airport taxes, fees and charges. In a further attempt to improve transparency, airlines must also make clear the cost of any optional extras (luggage, booking a particular seat etc) at the start of the booking process. This is of course good news for consumers who can now feel confident they are getting the best value for money and can make an informed choice without having to sift out hidden costs and extra charges.

The rules will come into force by the end of the year.

EU plans for health tourism

Health tourism has hit the headlines over the past week with the Commission unveiling their proposals designed to clarify the rules for people to get treatment in different EU countries, potentially making it easier for them to do so.

While there has been some concerns that the NHS would be weighted down with extra costs, the fact is only one percent of health care budget is currently spent across borders. One of the things the new measures intend to do is regulate the current system so people can be certain that the health care they will recieve will be of a certain standard.

The Daily Mail is surprising pleased with the news as it has discovered dental care will be included and this exactly the sort of reason these proposals are being introduced. Different countries have different areas with spare capacity and different shortages and, by allowing people to travel for care, Europe can share a far bigger pool of resources, whilst each health service remains in charge of its own system and in control how much is spent.

As the BBC explains, "If the cost of treatment abroad exceeds the cost of similar treatment at home, the patient will have to pay the difference, under the Commission's scheme."

And should a country not be able to afford funding a significant amount of patients travelling abroad then they will be able to apply an emergency break.

You can read more about the details of this in this article in the FT.

Sunday sceptics praise EU legislation

It was pleasantly surprising to see stories in several of the more eurosceptic Sunday papers giving a favourable write up to proposed European legislation.

The Sunday Telegraph praises the proposed EU cross-border enforcement rules of speeding and parking fines. The inability of British authorities to be able to trace foreign drivers costs us £10m per year in unpaid fines from around 180,000 offences. These proposals will enable police to chase foreign transgressors, who currently violate our laws with impunity, who have committed offences such as speeding, jumping traffic lights, drink driving and driving without wearing a seatbelt. It's an example of when a common set of rules and enforcement mechanism is eminently sensible.

Elsewhere, the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday favourably reported the proposed Small Business Act which would increase the role of small businesses in framing European legislation and include measures to have common starting dates for legislation affecting firms and an annual statement of legislation coming into force. Surprising, but welcome, to see that they are praising EU measures to cut red tape and business burdens rather than recycling the usual scare stories about 'meddling Brussels bureaucrats'.

Although the Mail was less fulsome, pointing out that the Federation of Small Businesses feels the proposals are "too weak", if you were a Commission press officer you'd be forgiven for asking for a lie down at all the praise!

Finally, real progress for agency workers

I was delighted to hear today that the Government has reached an agreement with the TUC and the CBI on equal treatment for agency workers. This agreement, which would give agency workers equal treatment with permanent workers after 12 weeks, breaks a six year deadlock.

This proposed European directive has caused a great deal of controversy between Government, unions and industry. Of course, temporary agency work contributes to a dynamic and flexible modern economy and can often be a bridge for long term unemployed to get back in the labour market. But agency workers should not be treated as second-class workers and agencies should not be able to distort the labour market by undercutting the wages and conditions of other workers.

Indeed, support for the Temporary Agency Workers directive was one of the key planks of the 2004 Warwick Agreement between Government and unions and the impasse in resolving its future has caused great frustration for unions.

However, this agreement at UK level is not the end of the story. A further agreement will have to be reached in the Council of Ministers, hopefully at the next meeting of Employment ministers on the 9th and 10th of June. The directive will then return to the European Parliament (which had supported equal treatment for day one at first reading) for second reading, with a view to hitting the statute book in advance of next year’s European elections.

EU legislation on agency workers will establish one common set of rules for the common market and remove the possibility of having a multitude of divergent legislation from different Member States that would still leave the problem of transnational agencies undercutting wages as well as creating legal uncertainty. Domestic legislation would create as many problems as it would solve and today’s announcement demonstrates that Government’s priority is, rightly, to agree a compromise at European level.

Moreover, the debate on agency workers has demonstrated that will be clear dividing lines on European social legislation between Labour and the Conservatives at the next election. The Conservatives have already promised to restore Britain’s opt-out from the Social Chapter and bitterly oppose this directive which will protect some of the most vulnerable workers in the labour market. In contrast, today’s agreement shows that the Government is committed to a social Europe in which workers rights and social protection stand alongside economic growth and enterpreneurship.

CBI should stand up for Europe at home and abroad

In the British debates on Europe, the CBI often keeps its head below the parapet. For example, during the debate surrounding the Lisbon Treaty, they were happy with the UK protocol relating to the Charter of Rights but refused to publicly endorse the treaty despite getting what they wanted.

But at European level, with its sister organisations from across Europe, it's less reticent. Their recent publication, "Successful companies for a successful Europe", comments that "ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is important to ensure it [the EU] remains operational".

It goes on to state that European companies, "want to convey a political vision to strengthen Europe by pursuing its integration process" adding that "Europe is the right dimension for addressing tomorrow's big challenges in trade, energy, environment or immigration, and for creating the best conditions for economic growth".

It also points out that:

*In 1957 the six founding countries of the EEC represented 15% of global GDP. Today, even with the rapid economic growth in India and China, the EU accounts for 20% of total GDP.

*The EU is the largest economic market in the world and the largest exporter.

*The EU-27 is characterised by "wealth creation created by European companies, high level social protection, political stability and strong democratic institutions".

Let's hope the CBI breaks its vow of silence on Europe by saying this more loudly at home, not just abroad.

Cameron talks up the importance of Europe

Having spent the first 18 months of his leadership appeasing his Eurosceptic wing by pledging to withdraw from the centre-right European People's Party and being the only non-fascist right-wing party to oppose the Lisbon Treaty, David Cameron appears to have had a road to Damascus style conversion.

In the words of Cameron, during an interview for the Yorkshire Post:

"I don’t want to leave the European Union and I'll tell you why. This is a trading nation. Yorkshire relies on traded goods and on businesses which can trade all over the world and particularly in Europe. We export more per head of the population than America, Japan or other countries. We are a trading nation and Europe is a very important market for us. If we are not in the European Union, we would not be able to have a say over what the rules of the single market are. That is the primary reason for being a member of the European Union."

All pretty sensible stuff, and light years away from the reactionary nonsense and baseless scare-stories trotted out by himself and his front-bench colleagues over the Lisbon Treaty. However, it is unlikely that such an approach will find favour with the likes of John Redwood, Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory.

When I give talks about the reasons for our EU membership to constituents and visitors to the Parliament, I often point to three sets of reasons: the idealistic, pragmatic and selfish. Cameron has at least taken up the latter. Though, even that will be too much for his right-wing MPs.

Bushill-Matthews fights a Euromyth

I nearly fell off my chair when I saw that a Tory, Philip Bushill-Matthews, MEP has written to the Birmingham Post to rebut a Eurosceptic myth about transport policy. Normally stridently Eurosceptic, Bushill-Matthews rightly points out that a driver whose vehicle is registered in another EU country can evade prosecution for traffic offences in the UK because of the difficulty in verifying his/her home address. Common EU rules could be part of the solution to this problem.

I wonder what Dan Hannan (the Conservatives' chief myth-maker in Europe) thinks of his colleague's efforts!

More good news for phone users

More good news for mobile phone users this week, as EU communications commissioner Viviane Reding set phone companies a July deadline for cutting the price of SMS and data transfer (which includes the internet and mobile email) charges in line with the drop in roaming call charges, which have fallen 60% since the EU introduced price caps for operators last year.

As it stands, operators charge up to 20 times more for roaming customers than domestic customers, with prices ranging widely throughout EU countries. Operators have been given until July 1st to reduce prices, at which point Reding says she will assess the situation again, with regulation being considered if necessary.

Mobile phone roaming is a clear example of an area where EU-wide action can really benefit the consumer – let’s hope that the phone companies listen to Viviane Reding’s concerns and act accordingly, making the ‘mobility’ of our phones a little less costly!

Brown highlights importance of Europe to business

A timely reminder from our Prime Minister at the Business for New Europeconference this morning about the importance of Europe to Britain:

"What is clear is that at this time of global economic uncertainty, we should not be throwing into question - as some would - the stability of our relationship with Europe and even our future membership of the European Union - risking trade, business and jobs. Indeed, I strongly believe that rather than retreating to the sidelines we must remain fully engaged in Europe so we can push forward the reforms that are essential for Europe’s, and Britain’s, economic future.

The EU is key to the success of business in the UK:

Europe accounts for nearly 60 per cent of our trade;

700,000 British companies have trading ties to Europe;

And 3.5 million British jobs depend upon Europe.

And even in the face of rapid globalisation, our trade with Europe continues to rise, meaning Europe is as important to the future of Britain than ever.

So European Union membership is good for Britain and British membership is good for Europe"

EU shows its influence in Bali

The unlikely deal agreed at the UN summit in Bali at the weekend was a welcome surprise after two days of bitter wrangling, not least a bitter stand-off between the European Union and the US, with the US delegation refused to sign any text until the eleventh hour.

The "Bali roadmap" will initiate a two-year negotiation process to finalise a set of emissions targets to replace the Kyoto protocol by the time of the 2009 UN climate change conference to be held in Denmark.

The process is an example of the clout of the EU when we have a united position. Already committed to unilateral emissions cuts of 20% by 2020, European countries were able to speak with authority and a common voice - making a deal more likely.

We did not achieve the holy grail of binding targets for cutting emissions but getting the US, who never ratified Kyoto and have, until recently, even denied the need to cut emissions to tackle climate change, to agree to a text stating that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required" is a damn good start.

Good to see this story about the impact of the EU’s Objective 1 regeneration programme on the South Yorkshire economy. Employment rose by 14% in the region between 2000 and 2005, a rate that is three times higher than the national average.

The tangible effect of regeneration programmes on economic competitiveness - through training and developing skills, job creation and support for local businesses and entrepreneurship, should not be understated. Objective 1 research has shown that employment in the financial services sector in South Yorkshire has increased by 93% since 2000, while the creative and digital industries have grown by 58%. Indeed, since 2000, Objective 1 programmes have resulted in £800 million of funding to regenerate South Yorkshire and have helped create around 26,000 jobs.

In a meeting with Flood’s Minister John Healey yesterday, MEPs were told the good news that Britain is due to receive £115million pounds from the European Solidarity fund, following this summer’s flooding.

It will constitute the second largest payment in the fund’s history with the money going towards paying for the expense of the emergency operation that followed (shelters, temporary accommodation, and restoring utilities) and rebuilding damaged infrastructure like bridges.

It is not yet known how much our region will receive but large parts of South Yorkshire and much of Hull were severely affected by the flooding and I’m sure they will receive the money they need.

The news also vindicates the government’s decision to make a patient and careful analysis of just how much damage was done rather than rushing in with a quick application just to win a few easy headlines.

On another matter of European funding, I have received an answer from a parliamentary question I asked in September concerning congestion in Hull.

Anyone who has used the A63 will know that Castle St in Hull is regularly gridlocked, partly because it is part of the Limerick to St Petersburg Trans-European Network, which carries the bulk of northern England and Ireland’s trade to the continent.

Because of its importance to trade I asked the Commission whether European money would be available to improve the current situation (a short tunnel is one idea), as the road also hinders Hull’s development somewhat by cutting the waterfront off from the rest of the city.

The Commission has since responded and have made clear that Hull could potentially receive some funding or failing that a loan from the European Investment Bank.

The much heralded new roaming charges were introduced for all mobile phone users across Europe at the weekend.

The new tariffs, approved by the European Parliament in May this year, mean there are now caps in place which mean it will cost a maximum of 17p a minute to receive a call and 34p a minute to make a call when abroad, with the cost set to continue dropping over the next three years.

Perhaps the most important measure in the regulations are that mobile networks must now be transparent about the cost of making and receiving calls in another country.
Prior to the regulations few people were clear about the cost of using a mobile abroad and with many were left stunned to learn that it could cost over a pound a minute merely to receive a call abroad.

Networks will now have to inform mobile users about the costs of using their phones everytime they enter a new EU country.

However, there is still work to do, as text messages and data charges are currently not covered by the tariffs but MEPs and the Commission are already pressuring networks to change this before regulation is needed.

The BBC has followed the progress of the roaming charges from beginning to end. Click here for more.

Click here for questions and answers on the new tariffs.

Following this month’s earlier story concerning the plight of Scarborough’s MV Coronia – the passenger vessel docked due to new UK maritime legislation – I have been made aware of another Yorkshire passenger vessel facing similar problems. Bridlington’s Yorkshire Belle has been told by the MCA that due to new "EU legislation" it is no longer able to make its traditional voyage between Bridlington and Scarborough.

As I revealed last month, these restrictions are not EU laws – they are existing British maritime laws that the MCA now want to enforce with no exceptions. These British regulations mean that vessels such as the MV Coroniaand the Yorkshire Belle can sail no further than 15 miles from their departure point, but the rules contained in the EU directive on maritime safety restrict vessels from sailing no more than 15 miles from the nearest harbour, meaning that should the MCA apply these rules that the British government agreed at European level, both the MV Coronia and the Yorkshire Belle would be able to continue to make their traditional voyages along the Yorkshire coats with no restrictions.

I have already written to the MCA to request they apply the EU rules that will save these two pleasure boat companies from going out of business, and am awaiting their reply.

To show your support for these vessels, and similar vessels around the country facing the same problems, please sign the petition urging the MCA to apply the restrictions contained in the EU directive on maritime safety.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/pleasureboats/

Euromyths are not always a media invention – they are sometimes made up by those who have a vested interest in shifting the blame away from themselves. Such is the case with the current controversy over the MV Coronia – the ship that defied the Nazis during World War II to rescue soldiers from Dunkirk, which has now been told it can no longer make the 17 mile journey from Scarborough to Whitby because of “new EU restrictions” limiting the distance a vessel like the MV Coronia can travel to just 15 miles.

Conservative MEP Edward McMillan-Scott has championed the cause, writing a letter to Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, demanding to know “why British laws are being cast aside in favour of an EU directive.” But perhaps Mr McMillan-Scott should have checked his facts first and then he wouldn’t be left with egg on his face.

It turns out that the restrictions preventing the MV Coronia from making its traditional voyage are not EU laws, but in fact UK laws. Not only that, should the UK simply implement the European directive on maritime safety without adding its own restrictions, the MV Coronia would be able to make its traditional voyage.

The Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA), the organisation tasked with implementing British maritime policy, has deviously suggested that new restrictions placed on passenger vessels have been imposed by the EU because the MCA adopted new EU classifications of vessels in order to apply their existing regulations more stringently than before.

But as well as containing new classifications of vessels, the EU directive also contained new more appropriate restrictions for these classes – but these restrictions have been ignored by the MCA. According to British regulations, the MV Coronia may not travel more than 15 miles from its point of origin, but under the new EU regulations, the MV Coronia may travel within 15 miles of the nearest harbour. This means that should the MCA simply implement the EU maritime safety directive, the MV Coronia would be able to make its traditional voyage with no restrictions.

But Tory MEPs and the anti-EU media don’t care about the facts. All they care about is spreading lies and false fear about the EU. In this case, their desire to criticise the EU has ruined any chance of gaining support for the very thing that would prevent the MV Coronia from going out of business – the rules we jointly agreed with other EU countries.

Following the devastating floods that hit many parts of Yorkshire in June, many people are asking me what the EU is doing to help.

When floods hit Austria, Germany, and the Czech Republic in the summer of 2002, the EU stepped in to offer assistance to those countries to help them recover from the crisis. That precedent led to European countries agreeing to set up a European Solidarity Fund, which the EU uses to help countries struck by similar natural disasters, as it did in 2005 for Romania and Bulgaria.

This fund IS available to the UK, and the government have announced they will apply for EU assistance. This means that flood-hit communities in Yorkshire could take a share of up to £125 million in EU aid to help them recover from the floods.

An interesting pamphlet, prepared by a group of academics, chaired by Professor Jo Shaw of Edinburgh University (and formerly of Leeds) looking at EU cooperation in the field of Justice & Home Affairs, came across my desk today. In its conclusions is a comment which could apply generally to some British attitudes to the EU. Referring to the advocates of retaining vetoes on EU decisions, it says they give the impression of "European partners apparently eager to legislate against British interests wherever the national veto is lost. In fact, the UK is often a quiet champion of law-making in JHA and in many cases stands to benefit from the greater ease of decision-making brought by qualified majority voting."

I have welcomed an initiative by the European Union to introduce a new, and much needed, common missing children hotline.

The new EU hotline number 116-000 would be free of charge and would be operational in all of the 27 states of the EU. This would mean that should a child go missing in any one of the member states, parents can be reassured that a child may phone this number irrespective of their location and access people who could help to locate them.

My Labour colleagues and I fully support such a measure, but it would reassuring to know that this hotline would be up and running soon, now that the summer holidays have started, as so many families will be taking holidays within Europe. It would be an additional help for the well-being of our children.

The expansion of the EU to incorporate 27 countries, with the free movement of persons throughout most of the internal borders, has meant that the issue of missing children within Europe is frequently a trans-border phenomenon which is in need of a co-ordinated Europe-wide response.

The EU’s Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini has sent a survey to the EU capitals asking them how they deal with violent radical interpretations of Islam so ideas can be pooled and methods shared. This was in response to the failed car-bomb attempts at London and Glasgow. The 18-question survey asks what policies are being used by EU member states to ensure that education establishments are not vulnerable to radical interpretations of Islam, what policies are adopted on funding and supervision of religious schools and also asks how EU member states are trying to diminish the threat of a radical having access to any form of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear scientific knowledge.

EU states are expected to reply by the end of September and the answers will then feed into a Commission document, due for publication in 2008, which will then help form an EU-wide strategy on violent radicalisation.

This is a great opportunity for the UK to have a huge influence on an EU initiative that could bring so many benefits home. The UK is one of the main targets of Islamist terrorism in Europe, and therefore, has the a lot to gain from an EU-wide strategy to combat radical Islam.

It also highlights why we are fully-fledged members of the EU, and serves as a warning to those like UKIP who would withdraw us from the EU into a simple trade association. This is a policy area where the UK needs to have influence. The terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11th were part of what was called the “Hamburg cell” in Germany. Who is to say that terrorist cells hidden away in cities across the EU are not planning attacks on UK soil? If we want fellow EU governments to take similar measures to the UK in order to combat this threat, then we can use the EU framework to achieve this.

Equally, Britain can underline that the majority of Muslims are, of course, not radical or violent and highlight its experience in integrating Muslims successfully into our diverse society.

While much of the talk around the parliament is about this week’s summit, which kicks off in Brussels tomorrow, we are still in the midst of a normal parliament session in Strasbourg.

This week has seen the parliament again demonstrate that it deserves its reputation as a world leader on animal welfare welfare by voting to ban the import of dog and cat fur in the EU.

There are some ghastly statistics about the use of dog and cat fur, with a single coat costing the lives of 24 cats, while millions of dogs and cats are slaughtered each year because of the trade.

Labour MEPs actually started campaigning for a ban over eight years ago, and with some tremendous support from EU citizens the issue was recognised by Parliament and the Council.

Meanwhile, the intensely fought battle over vodka in the parliament, ( a political one rather than some form of drinking competition in the Swan Bar) that really took off during Finland’s presidency looks like it has finally been resolved.

Poland, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia all joined Finland in demanding that only vodka made from grain and potatoes could be described as vodka, a situation other countries who made vodka from fruit or sugar (like Britain) were deeply unhappy with.

Long meetings had failed to break the deadlock while angry emails have flown across cyberspace with the war of words at one point desending into wild accusations about some vodkas not made from potatoes or grain, containing cow slurry!

However, finally the parliament have adopted a compromise which means vodka may indeed be produced from things other than potatoes and grain, but must say so prominently on the label.

Importantly for Britain, the new rules also state that whisky cannot contain flavourings or sweetners, a measure which will protect Britain’s huge whisky industry from inferior imitators.

I stumbled across this interesting take on Europe from a Latin American writer.

"I visited Europe for the first time in 1950, sent to study at the University of Geneva and to sit in on courses at the ecole D'Hautes Etudes International. Switzerland was intact. But as I traveled the continent I saw the urban chasms left by the Blitzkrieg in London and by the R.A.F. in Dresden. Vienna was occupied by the three then‑allied powers (the U.S.A., Britain, France and the USSR). Large effigies of Lenin and Stalin covered the Hofsburg. The great hotels, occupied by the occupiers, were unavailable and one would look for rooms in boarding houses. Leaving Vienna was a more hazardous event than coming in: only the good offices of a friendly French diplomat gave me an exit permit and I was on my way to a devastated Italy. Shoeless children offered sciusa shoeshine. Theft was rampant, men in very shabby clothes cluttered in third class cartridges with bags held together by rope. It was the world pictured by De Sica and Rossellini, while in France my friends lived in unheated apartments as the collaborationist debate heated up a world of ambiguous innocence and guilt, but all related to the Bosch, the German enemy. You needed coupons to buy almost everything in Britain and the magnificent cathedral at Cologne was badly hurt.

Half a century later, Europe is the largest economic and commercial bloc in the world. With 500 million inhabitants, it possesses the highest level of education, communications and general well‑being in the planet. In population, wealth and trade, it surpasses the U.S.A. The pain of the postwar period I lived in 1950 is gone. Today Europe, in general terms, breathes satisfaction.

When Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman joined Konrad Adenauer that very year of my student days in 1950 to plant the seeds of the European Community, they were moved by a fervent desire: that there would never be another war between France and Germany. That the periodic catastrophes of 1870, 1914 and 1939, should never again happen.

Built on the axis of good will between France and Germany, today Europe is, in a large measure, a success that its citizens take for granted. Nonetheless, the historic will that lead to the creation of the E.E.C, precisely because it was so successful, tends to be forgotten. There is a European youth that doesn't think twice about the past. The present is pleasant and comfortable. Frontiers are open, popular culture does not require a passport, the past is over, history is forgotten."

From Carlos Fuentes, Latin America and Europe, Conference 1 June 2007

A Dutch television programme, in which a terminally ill patient chooses a contestant to receive her kidneys upon her death, has caused controversy across Europe but it has at least awakened the debate on an EU-wide organ donor card.

Whilst an opinion poll carried out by the European Commission in 2006 found that 81 per cent of EU citizens think that carrying a donor card is a good idea, the proportion of people that actually carry a card is much lower. As the BBC website highlights, 40,000 patients in the EU are on waiting lists for a transplant, with up to ten people a day dying waiting for an available donor.

As a result, the EU’s Health Commissioner yesterday put forward proposals to introduce a Europe wide organ donor card that would be valid in all member states. It is hoped that an EU donor card would help tackle transplant waiting lists and increase the number of organs available for transplant operations across all member states.

People (or at least certain newspapers) think EU laws are dreamt up by Brussels bureaucrats on an idle day. In fact, most of the proposals are in response to suggestions from Member States, MEPs and ordinary citizens.

An example was in the press last week. Police in this country have raised concerns over the driving habits of citizens of other countries when they come to the UK. Different road laws in other EU countries mean that other EU nationals may not be aware of our own driving laws, and be more likely to break them. Some even use it as an excuse to break our road laws according to the police, using ignorance to justify dangerous driving.

Because of these concerns, British police have called for road rules to be standardised across the EU. Eddy Greif, of the European Traffic Police Network said that, "I do not believe that drinking alcohol and driving is less dangerous in the United Kingdom than in other parts of the European Union, and I am very sceptical that a driver has more chance to survive a high speed crash on a German motorway than on similar well built roads in other Member States. It would certainly help drivers to know that traffic regulations applied all over Europe are the same, it is the first condition they must comply with."

Of course, to become law, a response from the Commission is not enough. Any proposal drafted by them must secure the agreement of the EU Council (of ministers of the national governments) and the European Parliament.

So an idea like this one, coming for our police, will only become a European law if they can obtain widespread support for it.

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?

A major concern of the British public right now is illegal immigration. Therefore, Eurosceptics attack the EU on this, even though the UK is not subject to the Schengen open-borders agreement and has retained the right to control its own borders. Because of this, I thought it would be of interest to talk about an EU agency that is helping to tackle illegal immigration into Europe.

The EU’s "Frontex" external border agency has recently seen remarkable success. Frontex has been patrolling the waters between the northwest coast of Africa and Spain’s Canary Islands (one of the most popular, but also dangerous, entry points into the EU for illegal immigrants, often duped by traffickers). The right-wing media like to portray this entry point as a stop-gap before they attempt to enter the UK. Although for the most part this isn’t actually true, I’m sure they will be pleased to know that Frontex successfully reduced the numbers of illegal immigrants arriving at the Canary Islands by 60% in the first three months of this year. Not only that, Frontex has helped save over 1,000 lives so far on a route that claimed some 6,000 lives in 2006.

This week the EU agreed to deploy rapid reaction units, under Frontex, which will be made up of some 450 national experts, made available at short notice of up to five working days to any member state whose borders are under urgent and exceptional strain by illegal migration, notably when trafficking gangs are involved. Frontex now has at its disposal over 20 aeroplanes, nearly 30 helicopters and more than 100 vessels as well as a variety of other equipment.

Now, this is the sort of measure that the Daily Mail and suchlike would normally applaud. So, why aren't they? Because, of course, it's an EU agreemenst, and it wouldn't do to welcome anything done at European level!

For more information about Frontex click here.

Following on from this month’s earlier decision by the European Commission to take legal action against Apple’s iTunes brand for their discriminatory practices against British consumers, the EU has again this week demonstrated its relevance for consumer protection.

Last week, the EU released figures showing a large increase in the number of dangerous goods withdrawn from sale across Europe. Children’s toys now form the biggest category of banned products, the vast majority of which were made in China. Products banned thanks to ‘Rapex’, the EU’s new rapid alert system, include a Superman figure that contained poisonous high-lead paint, a teddy bear which a child could take apart and choke on the parts and a skin cream that contained a fungus which presents a serious bacteriological risk.

Elsewhere, the EU handed out fines to three brewers for breaking competition laws. Heineken and Grolsch, two brands popular in the UK, along with Bavaria were fined by the European Commission for stifling competition by colluding to fix prices. Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said the brewers had “carved up” the market between them, adding that such behaviour was “unacceptable.” Heineken has been fined €219m, Grolsch €31.7m and Bavaria €22.9m.

Great to see EU regional funding being put to good use in developing the University of Hull's Business School (now with some 2000 students) and its new Logistics Institute which is attracting interest across Europe. The EU funding is contingent on them reaching out to help local businesses improve their operational efficiency, thereby bringing added value and extra jobs to the local economy.

The school, in a sensitively restored building, features state-of-the-art modern equipment. University lecturers can saunter into the lecture theatres carrying no more than a memory stick: notes, graphs, pictures et al can be projected on to screens and students' laptops. Instead of old blackboards, there is a high-tech screen to write on, which can immediately turn even the worst handwriting into printed text. I must tell Francis Jacobs (one off my co-authors)!

The EU won glowing headlines after European Parliament committees agreed to adopt caps on mobile phone roaming charges earlier in April.

It is particularly positive news for the people who believe the EU must start showing its relevance more visibly to its citizens, as it is an issue that affects the pockets of a large number of people.

Picking up on the public’s interest in the story, the BBC have decided to follow the process of following this particular bit of legislation from beginning to end.
If you click here, you can read how and why roaming charges became an issue for the Commission, and how Member States and MEPs will bring the legislation into existence, through committees, council meetings and parliament votes.

A useful little guide to co-decision procedures and on a piece of legislation which will probably end up saving you some money!

The European Commission is preparing to start legal action against computer giant Apple and major record companies over the way they are discriminating against British consumers.

The Commission says that the way music is sold via iTunes violates consumer freedom as customers cannot buy music from countries other than the one they are residing in. Currently, customers living in the Euro-zone are charged €0.99, customers living in the UK are charged €1.17 and customers living in Denmark (which uses the Kroner) are charged €1.07.

The Commission has notified Apple and its music partners of its concerns and the firms have two months in which to respond. They can also request a face-to-face hearing before the Commission to present their case. The ultimate sanction available to the Commission is to fine guilty firms 10% of their annual global turnover. However, this is only likely to happen in the most extreme cases. Apple recorded sales of more than $19bn last year.

To read more click here.

Sat in Bolivia awaiting the start of another busy day. Through a surprisingly good phone line, I check in with my office and am told the Independent is a sight to behold! Placed around a huge EU flag on the front page are 50 reasons to love the EU, with page two and three also dedicated to its benefits.

Denis MacShane has a column entitled “Why I’m an unashamed enthusiast for Europe” while the paper’s editorial also sings the EU’s praises.

The current edition of Time (using a very similar approach to the Independent) and the Economist also have a special 50th anniversary editions out now.

My friend John Monks, General Secretary of the European Trade Union Congress, gave an excellent speech to the All Party EU Group last night to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.

Some of his remarks about the need to emphasise the benefits or our EU membership were highly pertinent. It is easy for Pro-Europeans to be cowed by the shrill "little Englander" brigade who label anyone who questions their distortions and prejudices about the EU as a euro-fanatic. Instead we must put across the message of the many (too often unrecognised) benefits the EU has delivered for our citizens. Just in terms of work place rights, some obvious examples include: four weeks paid holiday, protection for migrant, fixed term and part-time workers, worker participation, equal pay for women and anti-sex discrimination legislation. These are now enshrined in common rules for our common market and apply across Europe.

As John points out, the EU has been a positive force in enshrining the values of social inclusion and solidarity alongside economic growth in a way that is clearly differentiated from the US model which allows private wealth and public squalor. The social vision of Europe is too important not to be fought for.

The LME website has full text of John's speech, which you can read by clicking here.

The first European summit of the year concluded today with national governments agreeing bold targets to combat climate change.
Member States have ambitious plans to generate 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

EU countries will also aim to reduce carbon emissions by 20%, increase the use of bio-fuels to 10% of transport fuel and will also consider banning filament light bulbs in private homes and offices by 2010.

The deal allows for flexibility so the less developed countries will not have to contribute as much as those in the western half of the continent.

This is, by any standards, an important breakthrough on an issue in which Britain has been at the forefront. Securing EU-wide agreement on such a programme will not only make it more effective but will also help gain leverage to persuade the rest of the world to do like wise.

For more on the summit you can read the BBC’s report while the Guardian and the Times also have coverage on ther websites.

I came across this excellent article by Ivan Massow this morning. In it Mr Massow describes his conversion on the single currency and calls for the party of which he is a member, the Conservatives, to reconsider their hostility to the euro.

In it he rightly points out that the euro has become the predominant and most stable currency in the world, while the French have not become less French, nor the Spanish less Spanish for having adopted it.

He also explains the economic sense of consumers not having to change money when they travel, commenting that if only half of us visited mainland Europe once a year at an average exchange commission of three percent, this amounts to conversion costs of £5.4billion.

Moreover, the beneficial impact of the single currency on British business must be emphasised. Massow, who is a millionaire businessman himself, asserts "I cannot think of a business that would not benefit if exchange commissions and fluctuating currencies disappeared", pointing out that the euro has rapidly surpassed the dollar in becoming the world's number one choice.

Let us be quite clear that in the case of the UK and the single currency, staying out means missing out.

An interesting article in Tuesday's Financial Times (20 February) says "European single market rules have inspired global standard-setting in areas such as product safety, the environment, securities and corporate governance. Increasingly the world is looking to Europe and adopts the standards that are set here"

All the more reason for Britain to be part of the Union setting those standards, rather than just having to accept them with no say in the matter, as countries outside the EU do.

Bradford Council yesterday launched a booklet celebrating the city’s achievements with the European Union money it was granted through its Objective 2 status.

Between 2000 and 2006 Bradford received £47million which it spent on 195 different projects, helping to regenerate some of the most deprived parts of the city.

What the Objective 2 team in Bradford has done so well is to identify exactly what the city needs and then help provide it. One example is Bradford Youthbuild Trust, which has used its European grant to redevelop its training centre and now provides young people with comprehensive training in the construction industry and the city with highly skilled youngsters.

There is also the University of Bradford’s Institute of Cancer Therapeutics, that not only researches new techniques and treatments into cancer but also promotes high-technology start-up companies with its excellent facilities, leading to more employment opportunities in the city and attracting new businesses.

It is impossible to do justice to just how much European funding has benefited Bradford but the Telegraph and Argus do a good job and I would also highly recommend getting hold of the booklet, which is called European Impact. If you would like a copy please email my office at richard@richardcorbett.org.uk.

Of course it is not just Bradford which has benefited from the European Regional Development Fund in Yorkshire and the Humber. The communities of Hull, North East Lincolnshire, Wakefield, Kirklees (Objective 2) and South Yorkshire (Objective 1) have also seen just how crucial the ERDF is and how it gives businesses and individuals opportunities to develop, which were previously inaccessible.

As I’m sure many of you know, 2007 is the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. To celebrate heads of governments will issue the Berlin Declaration, a text which will contain the Union’s values and aspirations.

I have set up my own 50th anniversary page on my website where I will compile readers’ thoughts and feelings about what should be in the text and what the EU’s ambitions should be over the next 50 years. There is also a dedicated set of links to other websites commemorating the anniversary.

Many thanks to Una O’Dwyer who is the first contributor. If you would like to take part please get in contact by emailing your ideas to richard@richardcorbett.org.uk

Another European institution that is celebrating this year is Erasmus, the student exchange programme which is now in its 20th year and has allowed over half a million young people to study abroad.

It provides students with a wonderful opportunity to expose themselves to a different culture, and new cities and countries. Just as importantly they develop their language skills which, while obviously benefiting them personally, also gives them the ability to work abroad when they graduate, which consequently encourages unity, understanding and integration.

You can read several articles on Erasmus on the Café Babel website, which also reveals the EU’s ambitious plans to expand the programme over the next few years.

Between 2007 and 2012 3.1billion euros has been pledged to Erasmus, who hope to see another million and a half people take the chance to study abroad in this five year period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every year there are thousands of fires, caused by cigarettes left smouldering or thrown away without being extinguished, often causing fatalities. Yet it is now technologically possible to make cigarettes that put themselves out if they are left smouldering - a self-extinguishing cigarette! A law to make this compulsory in Britain would be quite useful, but its effect would be lessened by the fact that many cigarettes are brought in from abroad, notably from other European countries. So a Europe-wide law to this effect would be highly beneficial, wouldn't it?

Well, yes, and indeed, one is being considered. Yet has this received any media coverage whatsoever? All I have seen so far is one solitary article in the Independent on Sunday. The rest of the media have obviously chosen not to associate a good news story with Europe.

Congratualtions to Clare Burke, of Bradford Grammar School, who won this year’s British Council’s competition “What the EU has done for me”.

The competition is in its second year and Clare’s excellent essay means Yorkshire once again has a winner, after Simon Quarrell from Notre Dame High School, Sheffield claimed one of the prizes last year.

Along with three other winners from the UK, and three from Finland, Clare’s prize was an all expenses paid trip to this week's EU summit as a young journalist.

You can read Clare’s essay, along with the other winners of the competition on the British Council’s website here.

For anyone used to the politically motivated diatribes against the European Union that pervades so much of our national press, it comes as a refreshing surprise to browse through written specialist and trade press where a quite different attitude to Europe is often on display.

Thus, I noticed that Electronics Weekly (8th Nov) says that:

"With the coming into force of the RoHS directive this year, the European Union can be proud that its electronics industry has, for the most part, responded admirably… electronic equipment now being produced will not have a harmful legacy for future generations. Europe's determination to implement green policies, when the easy option is to do nothing, also benefits the entire world as other countries try to follow Europe's lead and environmentally aware multinational companies are standardising on RoHS compliant products to sell worldwide'.

The journal Public Private Finance says (13th Nov) that, as regards recycling, EU pressure on Britain is highly beneficial - indeed, the UK "deserves to be punished. The UK's record on recycling is shameful. It dumps more rubbish on landfill sites than virtually any other EU country. Some 75% of local authority rubbish, about 26m tonnes, was land filled in the UK in 2003-4, compared with 38% in France and just 20% in Germany."

New Scientist, in a leading article (11th Nov), criticises the Common Fishing Policy, not on the usual grounds that it has restricted fisherman fishing by imposing tough quotas, but on the grounds that it has not been tough enough. It says:

"Early one morning next month, bleary-eyed European ministers will probably allow fishermen to take just enough of the few cod left to allow the depleted fishery to stagger on. If they followed scientific advice for a ban on cod fishing, the number of cod would grow, and after a few years catches would boom. But that would involve short-term sacrifice, and no minister will bite that bullet. We need mechanisms to make them. Europe pays farmers not to farm but to be stewards of the countryside. Why not do the same for fishermen?"

The Grocer magazine also carries an article on the Common Fishing Policy, contending that it is actually working, at least for some stocks, albeit not yet for cod.

Computeractive (9th Nov) praises EU plans to lower carbon emissions and cut the EU's energy consumption by a fifth by 2020. It supports suggestions that manufacturers should be - 'forced to label the energy efficiency of their products so consumers can decide to opt for low-energy models. The proposed regulations would impose EU standards globally because manufacturers seeking to sell their products in the EU would have to comply with these "minimum energy performance standards".'

Lloyd's List (8th Nov) praises plans to redefine sea voyages between EU member states as national rather than international as a 'huge step forward for the protection of EU seafarers jobs'.

Yet, not all is bliss for the EU in the specialised press. Marketing Week (9th Nov) quotes the European Automobile Manufacturers Association as campaigning to stop the EU from tightening laws reducing carbon emissions from new cars. It says that consumers prefer 'larger, safer vehicles' to 'fuel efficient' ones. And, "rather than have the EU regulate anything, let's have some more global warming", they might well have added.

It is fashionable in some pro-European circles in Britain to attribute the recent rise of popularity of the EU in opinion polls in Britain to the fact that two tricky issues seem to have been removed from the agenda: accession to the euro, and the Constitutional Treaty.

It was indeed an uphill struggle, at times, to argue the case on these important but complex matters. But pro-Europeans should not for one moment think that these issues have disappeared forever.

We can certainly stay out of the euro in the short-term but in the long-run staying out means losing out. And now that the euro appears to have overcome some teething problems, the terms of this debate may well alter over the coming years.

Similarly, for the Constitutional Treaty. It may have been kicked into the long grass following the French and Dutch referendums, but the 'period of reflection' comes to an end next June when the European Council summit is due to examine a way forward on this issue. Meanwhile, various countries have continued the ratification process and by next June eighteen are likely to have done so. They will want to keep the constitution intact, or as intact as possible. But even if that is not possible, the issues that the Constitutional Treaty was intended to resolve have not disappeared and Member States will have to return to the questions of how to make the EU function more effectively as it approaches 30 Member States, how to improve its democratic accountability and how to make it easier to understand for citizens.

In theory there remains a wide range of possible options, and it is certainly premature now to decide which one of them might be politically feasible next year or later. But two main variants are emerging in the debate. One is re-negotiating the draft constitutional treaty (simply adding protocols to it seems to be an option that is fading). This would take some time and the negotiations would be protracted and complex.

The alternative is to adopt quickly a 'mini-treaty' focusing on the less controversial institutional changes that are necessary to pursue the further enlargement of the European Union. These would be modest and would not rise above the threshold that would trigger referenda in certain countries. In other words, they would give no new responsibilities or competencies to the European Union, whose remit would remain unchanged, but would streamline the institutions (notably a smaller Commission), reform voting procedures and the rotating presidency in the Council and improve democratic accountability.

Interestingly, the items contained in this second option are all issues that would, in any case, have to be addressed in the context of the next accession treaty - presumably with Croatia. The current treaties (as last amended by the Treaty of Nice) contain no provisions for new member states beyond Romania and Bulgaria. If the issues haven't been solved before that, the Croatian accession treaty will anyway have to settle how Croatia will be represented in the institutions. This means that the voting system in the Council will have to be reviewed, (with many countries advocating the system all governments agreed to in the constitutional treaty), reviewing the size of the Commission (which has to be reviewed anyway in 2009 under the current treaties) and the rotation system for the Presidency of the Council and the European Council.

Of course, ratifying an accession treaty will be less controversial than a general Constitutional Treaty, even if the later was no more than a collection of about a dozen useful reforms. There is no reason why an accession treaty should not contain 'emergency repairs' to the EU system, while leaving more fundamental reform to a more long-term process.

Previously, on my blog (here and here to be exact) I have mentioned a couple of examples of journalists or newspapers caught in the act of fabricating totally untrue stories intended to make the EU look bad.

The latest paper caught out is the Daily Mail. Not so long ago they pictured a queue outside the British visa office in Sofia, Bulgaria. At the time I can remember thinking that it was a pretty short queue, certainly a lot shorter than anything you would expect to find at the British passport office, or at any pub in the country on a Friday. However, with trademark scaremongering the intrepid Mail journalists managed to whip up a front page story out of it.

Now though, Peter Preston, writing for the Guardian, reveals the picture was taken the day after a UK bank holiday, meaning the office was processing twice as many visas than on an ordinary day. So despite the