Lords skewer Open Europe

It was interesting to read yet another authoritative report from the House of Lords EU committee, this time on the future of European Regional Policy, but with unusual entertainment values as it contained some magisterial rebukes of the eurosceptic pressure group Open Europe.

Amongst the Lords' conclusions were that the EU structural funds, though not without fault, were "effective and, in general, fit for purpose". One of the purposes of structural funds is to support projects in the poorest regions, so it was welcome to read the committee conclude that "the evidence we received suggests that the size of the funding distributed to the poorest regions under the Convergence Objective is approximately correct" adding that "the absorption cap in the poorest countries operates at an appropriate level to match the ability of regions to use the funds."

Eurosceptics often try to argue that the administration and award of structural funds is both costly and inefficient. However, the committee found that "objections about the cost of management of the funds are overstated" adding that "the funding and scope of the Convergence Objective, which supports the poorest regions, is appropriate and it should remain."

But equally diverting - and also amusing - was the way that the committee, which consists of experts on European policy from across the political spectrum, dismantled the 'evidence' submitted by Open Europe.

Even the Tory members of the committee were not receptive to Open Europe's arguments, with former First Minister of Northern Ireland and now Conservative peer David Trimble responding to O'Brien's statement that: "It is a question of whether you believe you can win the argument better in Westminster…or in Brussels. Where do you feel that Northern Ireland has more clout?" with "at least in Brussels they listen to you. I do not know that the Treasury does!"

Furthermore, Open Europe were so shameless as to cite a mere press report as the source for their outlandish claim that administering structural funds costs the UK £670m per year.

As cross-bench peer Lord Kerr put it: "the Press Association does not make up a number. They report somebody giving a number" adding that "I am sorry but it will not do to tell us that this is (from the) Press Association".

Indeed, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Watson was moved to comment that:

"I am now really startled that you provide this type of evidence. It is quite clear that you are saying that you cannot get disaggregated data. Nevertheless, you offer this enormous eye-catching sum and, as we have just seen, it clearly does not stand up".

Certainly, it is difficult to imagine that a reputable think-tank would source their 'evidence' using press reports. It's a bit like seeing a Sun or Daily Mail scare story (which is probably what Open Europe did) and then claiming that to be the truth!

With the Open Europe team admitting that their claims about the cost of structural funds were not entirely accurate, Lord Kerr offered this magisterial rebuke:

"I think that is a very interesting admission of defeat. There are a number of statements in the evidence and in the press releases about the evidence which are, I think we have established, guestimates; they are speculative. The list of horror stories is sourced to newspapers. I think one needs to be told facts rather than report like a very much fear will read perhaps in the Mail on Sunday that £670 million must be the UK cost of running the structural funds because it is in "evidence" to a House of Lords committee. I think that is very dangerous."

It seems that these rather feeble contributions, and the collapse of their so-called 'evidence' under cross-examination, were Mr O'Brien's last contribution as director of Open Europe. I understand that he has just been appointed director of the right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange which was, incidentally, the organisation responsible for the widely discredited report about Britain's northern cities, which David Cameron described as "nonsense from start to finish". Let's see how he fares.

The Record Europe and parliamentry scrutiny

I'm on this week's edition of the BBC's Record Europe with the Chair of the Commons EU Scrutiny commitee, Michael Connarty MP and a Danish MEP, Dan Jorgensen. We were discussing how to improve national parliamentry scrutiny of EU legislation.

You can watch the whole programme on this subject (we come in at the end) online by clicking here of if you have digital it will be on the BBC Parliament channel once a day all this week.

Yesterday's Commons debate on the European Council was marked by the pompous and unconstructive Euroscepticism of every Conservative that took part in the debate, with the sole exception of David Curry. David Cameron's speech made absolutely no reference to the future agenda of the EU - in stark contrast to Gordon Brown's presentation of a paper looking at the way that the EU can contribute to economic prosperity, security, job creation and tackling climate change. This paper serves as Britain's agenda for the future of the EU in the 21st century. Indeed, as Gordon put it, "it is right that Europe now focuses not on more institutional change, but on the reforms that are needed to meet the challenges of the global era".

It was interesting to hear Michael Connarty's contribution to the debate. The Conservatives have made much of the report by the European Scrutiny Committee (chaired by Mr Connarty) on the treaty, citing a passage in the report stating that "the new Treaty is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty", conveniently forgetting to include the previous half of the sentence which states that this is only the case for countries that "have not requested derogations or opt-outs from the full range of agreements in the Treaty". This is yet another example of the way Eurosceptics use selective quotation to mislead and distort debate on the EU.

Indeed, as Michael Connarty pointed out, Britain does have derogations and opt-outs which mean that, as far as Britain as concerned, the Lisbon Treaty is significantly different from the Constitution.

I was particularly struck by David Winnick's comment that most of the Tory objections to the treaty "amount to little more than xenophobia". It is a sad indictment of the Conservative leadership that, even though they have quietly drafted an "Alternative Treaty" that is very similar to the Reform Treaty, they none the less give free reign to the obsessive Eurosceptics in their party, An example of how they are losing control of their extremist wing is the Early Day Motion tabled by Bill Cash and John Redwood. It calls for the Government to reject the Reform Treaty and for a referendum to be held on it either before or AFTER ratification.

This implies that, in the (albeit unlikely) event of the Tories winning the next election, they would hold a referendum after the treaty entered into force, and campaign for a 'no' vote. If they won it, the other 26 EU countries would almost certainly refuse to agree to re-open the treaty and completely re-write it. Britain would be offered a simple choice - are you in or out of the EU. This, of course, is what Messrs Cash and Redwood know and want. It will certainly be interesting to see which Tories sign this EDM.

It is a sad reflection on the state of debate in Britain on European affairs when the chair of the House of Commons EU Committee starts to compare negotiations on the details of the EU Reform Treaty with Neville Chamberlain caving in to Hitler at Munich in 1938. Munich was about appeasing a totalitarian dictatorship. The Reform Treaty is about us agreeing with 26 other democratic states in Europe on how we make adjustments to the voluntary co-operation we have established with each other over the past half century. To compare the two is insulting to the intelligence of any objective observer.

Of course, backbenchers in the House of Commons rarely get an opportunity to be in the limelight. They are tempted to gain their 15 minutes of fame by saying outrageous things or by becoming a temporary thorn in the side of the Government. This case seems to be no exception. Having scoured the draft of the new treaty for something to object to, he first made a song and dance about a new provision strengthening the role of national parliaments in the European Union (something Britain had wanted) by claiming that this imposed a legal obligation on the national parliaments to be constructive. Now, he is focusing on one of the most complex parts of the treaty to stir up unwarranted fears, knowing that the very complexity will be a barrier for most journalists and many of his colleagues to actually get to grips with the detail and contradict him.

The matter concerns Britain's opt in/out arrangement for the Justice and Home Affairs responsibilities of the European Union. To maximise Britain's right to choose not to opt in to legislation in this field, the Government had secured the right to re-consider its position should legislation that Britain has already opted in to, be amended in the future. This logically implies that Britain may, if it goes down that route, be excluded from legislation that it currently opts in to. For eurosceptics to now fret about Britain being excluded from European legislation, when they normally oppose its very existence, is of course new - but then they have never much worried about having logic on their side!

Similarly, the treaty contains a provision to cover the case of Britain having to cover the costs of opting out in certain situations. For instance, if Britain were to opt out of the Eurojust agency (for cooperation amongst prosecuting authorities in cases of trans-frontier crime and international investigations, such as on child abductions), then British officials in Eurojust would obviously lose their jobs. Not unreasonably, the other Member States say that, in such circumstances, Britain should pay the cost of their redeployment or redundancy. These will not be big amounts in the grand scheme of things, yet it is now being hyped up that Britain will have to pay a fortune to pay for its opt-outs.

Finally, Mr Connarty seems to object to the Court of Justice being given jurisdiction to settle disputes over the interpretation of texts that Member States have agreed to. This can only happen, of course, when the text in question is something that Britain has chosen not to opt out of. Just as in every area of EU law, such disputes are settled by the Court. This is in our interest, lest other countries simply ignore their obligations (in a different field, remember how we were able to bring France to book for continuing to ban British beef after it was safe, thanks to taking them to the Court). The Court cannot, of course, create law - it can only rule on disputes that are referred to it. Its members are appointed by the Member States, not by the Commission or the European Parliament, so it is unlikely to show bias in favour of the EU institutions as opposed to Member States. Yet, for some reason, British Eurosceptics have placed the Court in their sights, not because they are confident that all other Member States will always respect the agreements they reach with us, but because they know that eliminating a means of arbitration is likely to increase unresolved disputes within the European Union - a prospect they relish.

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

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

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

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

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

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