Today is formally my last day as an MEP.

I have enjoyed (almost) every minute of it, including the discussions and debates with those whose views are radically different from mine, be they from other political parties or from the Eurosceptic brigade (who at least show some interest in European matters, unlike the apathetic multitude).

It has been a privelege to represent Yorkshire & Humber in the European Parliament and to do my best to ensure democratic scrutiny of those matters that we choose to decide jointly with our neighboring countries.

One advantage of a political death - as opposed to the real thing - is that one gets to read one's own obituaries and other comments. As one would expect of someone involved in political life, they are mixed.

I was surprised and delighted when the BBC website carried the following comment from their European editor, Mark Mardell:

"The saddest moment of the night: Labour MEP Richard Corbett lost his seat. Irrespective of party politics, there are some people who are good for politics as a whole. Mr Corbett, a decent, thoughtful politician, is also one of the few people who understand how the European Parliament actually works and explained it well. He'll be missed on all sides of the chamber.

Mark had previously referred to me as:

"an example of a conscientious and hard working politician if ever there was one"

which was very kind.

Meanwhile, The Economist's Charlemagne column/blog said:

"Mr Corbett and I hardly share identical views on the European Parliament, the EU, or the Lisbon treaty. But, like many journalists, I always enjoyed talking to him, because he was extremely knowlegable, decent and fair, and a shrewd observer of Britain's strange relationship with Europe"

The previous Chairman of the House of Lords European scrutiny committee (not from my party) said:

"I was physically sickened on learning of your defeat. The blows to you personally, to the EP and to the EU as a whole are hard to measure. You have been a rock of good sense, huge wisdom and unflagging dedication"

and I could go on, with quotes from across across the political spectrum and across Europe.

But not everyone had a positive view. The Eurosceptic "British Democracy Forum", for example, contained a few gems:

"Richard Corbett embodies all that is evil in this world. The man should be dispatched from this planet without delay. Simply voting him out of office is not enough .... he should be executed.."

and

"What a truly glorious moment that such a contemptible figure as Richard Corbett was voted out"

and

"This is the one result I wanted. Richard 'Lord Haw Haw' Corbett is the lowest of beasts"

Again, I could go on.

But it is in particular the thousands of individuals with no axe to grind who have written, phoned or emailed, whose views I particularly cherish and I would like to thank them all for their overwhelmingly generous comments.

Political balances in the new Parliament

As the dust begins to settle, what is the wider impact of the European election result on the European Parliament?

The most commented on aspect is the setback for the Socialists and the strengthening of the centre-right EPP - though the latter effect is negated by the loss of the British Conservatives, who hope to form their own, separate Group.

Yet the EPP cannot easily build a right-wing majority in the Parliament. The parties to its right are fragmented and are mostly people with whom they would not wish to be associated.

The fascist right, despite gaining the two BNP seats in Britain, lost seats in France and Belgium, gained some in Hungary and Romania, but overall cannot form a political group (a key to influence in the European Parliament), which requires at least 25 MEPs from a quarter (7) of the Member States, unless the Northern League of Italy joins them, which I hear is unlikely. Even if then, it is likely that their strongest common feature - hatred of foreigners - will make it difficult for them to work together for very long.

The eurosceptic right did not fare well in the elections. UKIP's "Independence & Democracy" Group failed to win enough seats to constitute a Group, having lost ALL its seats in Poland, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden. Even in Britain, despite the gift of the Westminster expenses scandal, it gained only a single seat. As to Libertas, it failed dismally, with even Declan Ganley's millions failing to win him a seat.

The Conservatives are desparately trying to build their own group - but finding it difficult to do so without taking on board some frankly embarrassing partners. Their flight to the fringes is still viewed as madness by most Conservative MEPs - see for instance Caroline Jackson's comments to the BBC yesterday (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8096297.stm). It is unlikely that the EPP will see them as a partner, given that they have just walked out on their former colleagues, slamming the door.

Finally, the UEN (Union for a Europe of Nations) Group could well disappear. Its mainstays, Fianna Fail is set to join the Liberals and the former Italian AN has been absorbed into the EPP member in Italy. Their main leftover, the Polish PiS, is one of the Tories potential new partners - though their overt homophobia might yet prove too embarrassing for the latter.

All in all, those to the right of the EPP have enough numerically to constitute one or even two political Groups (given that the European Parliament has a lower threshold than most national parliaments for constituting Groups), but actually doing so requires the creation of alliances that are highly problematic - and even if they are successful, they will not be natural allies for the EPP.

Instead, the EPP will have to deal with parties of the centre and the centre-left. Even with the Liberals, they cannot obtain a majority. They will have to bargain with the Socialists and/or the Greens. The left cannot by itself get its way in this parliament, but nor can it be easily circumvented.

EP reform package adopted

I was pleased that the European Parliament adopted virtually all my proposals to reform the Parliament's internal procedures yesterday, by an overwhelming majority.

Much of it is pretty technical (how committees deal with amendments from other committees, and such like), but some is aimed at making EP debates more lively.

Traditionally EP debates are a succession of monologues of successive speakers in a predetermined order, without much interaction. I had already introduced a reform to set aside a period at the end of each debate for members to "catch-the-eye-of-the-speaker" for short spontaneous interventions, not pre-allocated, and providing an opportunity for responding to points made by others. Now, I have gone a stage further and provided for all speeches to be subject to brief interruptions for short questions, a bit like what happens in the House of Commons, with the consent of the speaker.

Traditionally, speaking time is shared out proportionately among political groups according to their size. Groups choose themselves whether to have, for example, two speakers for ten minutes each or twenty for one minute each. UKIP often do the latter - and then complain that they have had only one minute each!

In any case, this reform is a small step towards more flexibility and spontaneity in Parliament debates (which exists already in its committees, where the detailed legislative work is done). I was therefore astonished to hear the extreme eurosceptic Tories Heaton Harris and Hannan describe it as dictatorial and an attempt to silence minority opinion. Our MEP colleagues from Eastern Europe, who know a thing or two about dictatorships, were aghast at this suggestion.

Iceland moves closer to EU membership

The resounding victory for Iceland's left-wing coalition at the weekend has brought Icelandic EU membership much closer. The Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has made it clear that her priority is to begin negotiations on EU accession, with the deal being decided by a referendum. Given that Iceland has access to single market, and has therefore adopted a large amount of the Community acquis, there is no reason why accession could not be concluded quickly.

It is truly an historic result in Iceland - the most novice MPs ever elected and the most women MPs in the country's history, and it also demonstrates how quickly things can change in politics. After all, it's less than a year ago that some British Eurosceptics were looking to Iceland as a country to emulate. Indeed, one increasingly prominent Conservative MEP, known for his unstinting Euroscepticism and commitment to privatising the NHS, proclaimed that:

"Being outside the EU, Iceland has been able to cut taxes and regulation, and to open up its economy. For 70 years the Althing has been dominated by the splendidly named Independence party, which has pursued the kind of Thatcherite agenda that is off limits to EU members... Icelanders understand that there is a connection between living in an independent state and living independently from the state. They have no more desire to submit to international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth."

I'm sure Dan won't mind being reminded!

Declining turnout is not exclusive to the European Parliament

Much ado in the media these last few days about the likely level of turnout in the European elections, with the inevitible Eurosceptic claim that a low turnout lessens the legitimacy of the parliament.

I think it is important to distinguish two aspects: the level of turnout and the trend.

It is perfectly normal that European elections, like local elections, have a lower turnout than national elections. After all, less is at stake, as the EU's responsibilties are far smaller than those of national parliaments. That being said, European Parliament elections have a higher turnout than most mid-term Congress elections in the United States.

As regards the trend, the turnout has declined from 63% in 1979 to 46% in 2004 – a fall of about 17% in a quarter century (though accentuated by the accession of the eastern European countries, several of whom have an extraordinary low turnout in all elections). It is this decline that is siezed on by Eurosceptics.

However, this decline is not peculiar to the European Parliament. There has been a similar decline in national parliamentary elections in many countries over the corresponding period. For example, turnout declined by over 16% in Germany from 1972 to 2005, 27% in France between 1973 to 2007, 19% in Portugal from 1979 to 2005 and almost 20% in the UK between 1974 and 2005.

In other words it is a challenge for democracy at all levels, not a phenomenen particular to the European Parliament.

Non-debate with Declan Ganley

Last week, I had a discussion on BBC TV about democracy in the EU with Declan Ganley, the Anglo-Irish businessman who financed the “No” campaign in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty and who is now trying to field candidates in the European elections in every Member State under the banner of “Libertas”.

“Discussion” is a term that might be applied to the first five minutes, but can scarcely be used for the remainder, (it is still up for a few days on the BBC website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7982217.stm if anyone wants to see), as his tactic in the latter part of the discussion was to interrupt, heckle and shout to make inaudible any point he disagreed with.

What stands out is the breathtaking hypocrisy of the man.

In the discussion, he sometimes claims not to be anti-EU at all (he said, “I like the European Union”, “I have particularly benefitted from the European Union as a businessman”, “It is essential that this European project succeeds”), yet the allies he has selected to fight with him in the European elections are invariably anti-EU groups, usually on the extreme right, and the arguments he uses draw heavily on the clichés of the eurosceptic British tabloids and the more sophisticated lines drafted for him by Jens Peter Bonde. When he gave a press conference last year in the EP, he was flanked by MEPs from UKIP, the French Front Nationale and Dan Hannan.

Of course, he knows that, in Ireland at least, he has little chance of success if he is classed as anti-Europe, so he will try to keep his alliances quiet and shout from the rooftops that he is simply for a more democratic EU – and deny that the Lisbon treaty actually makes the EU more democratic. Indeed, EU legislation must pass a double democratic check: acceptability to elected governments in the Council of ministers and acceptability to the directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament – the only case of an international structure with such a degree of accountability. But don’t expect him to highlight that!

His allies will be a severe embarrassment. But, as with questions about the source of his finance, instead of answering, he will attempt to smear anyone who questions his actions. When I mentioned Libertas’s links with the League of Polish Families, he accused me of lying (a bit rich coming from the man whose No campaign said the Lisbon Treaty would lead to children of 3 being incarcerated!) and claimed that “we have nothing to do with these people”. Yet Libertas’s own website shows the League’s former minister Daniel Pawlowiec as the head of Libertas in Poland.


Talking of lying, his website also claims that the European Parliament “is spending 9 million euro of taxpayer’s money on an aqua gym for its members and employees”. It is doing no such thing, and the BBC interviewer (the fiercely impartial Shirin Wheeler) took him up on this (in a part of our discussion that sadly wasn’t be fitted in to the broadcast programme). She pointed out that Ganley had already been told some time ago that this was untrue, yet he has kept the lie on his website. This illustrates his tactic of spreading myths of the sort that lazy journalists will lap up if they are looking for sensation and aren’t too bothered with facts.

So, what actually bothers him about the treaty of Lisbon? He says it is “what the treaty takes away from national parliaments” (nothing – it strengthens their role). Apparently “Brussels” or “bureaucrats” want to seize more power from the Member States. Yet it is the Member States, not the EU institutions, who decide on the EU’s remit and then anyway authorize any EU action within that remit. The Lisbon Treaty was agreed by the Member State governments, not the European Commission, and in any case is not so much about increasing the EU’s remit (on the contrary, it delimits it more carefully than in the past) as about improving the way it handles its existing responsibilities, with a more efficient structure but with more checks and balances.

As to what kind of reformed EU Ganley would like to see, he remained extremely vague. He seems to have dropped his idea of an American style elected President of Europe, but has no concrete suggestions for the reforms he would want instead of Lisbon, simply saying in our discussion that “We need to rid [the EU] of a system of governance which is undemocratic and unaccountable” (same old cliché), “I would like to see a lot more accountability and power given to the European Parliament” (which, of course, is what Lisbon does), and “I would like to see real political parties in the European Parliament” (maybe parties with actual members and democratic internal structures, like most of its current member parties, instead of a businessman’s appointees, as Libertas is offering?).

He remains confused as to how the EU actually works, repeating the old canard that “well in excess of 70 percent of new laws in most Member States originate from this town [Brussels]”, yet saying also that “they can’t initiate law, here”. He complains that “The European Parliament doesn’t function like national parliaments normally do in their legislative role” (its legislative role is precisely like national parliaments, voting for or against or amending proposals for legislation put before it, with the one difference that it is not a parliament controlled by a governing majority which accepts everything its government proposes – something one might have thought that Ganley would approve of) and that “for it to function properly, it needs to have real political parties” (has he never seen or read about the parliament?). He also says “We would like to see the Commission ‘opened up’ … it’s very secretive right now…we don’t know who these people are, we don’t know what they look like” (eh? membership of the Commission is secret? Granted, he is so ill informed that he appears not to know that the Commission is elected by Parliament and is dismissable by it too, but to claim that the Commission’s membership is secret is wilfully misleading).

When caught out in the debate, he occasionally beats a hasty retreat. The Lisbon Treaty, he eventually admits, “marginally increases the powers of the European Parliament”. “I haven’t called the EU unelected and unaccountable”. “Even its harshest critic would have to admit that this has been the most successful peace process in the history of the world” (the last an unacknowledged quote from Nobel Peace Prize winner John Hume).


Not an illuminating discussion, but at least it illustrates some of the tactics of Ganley’s anti-Europe “Libertas” campaign, which plans to have candidates standing in every EU country in June.



P.S. For anyone interested in finding out more about the mysterious Mr Ganley and some of his past political and business dealings, the following wevbsite looks interesting: http://www.whoisdeclanganley.blogspot.com/

The Tories simply cannot stomach even moderately pro-European talk

The following was put up by a Tory on the Conservative Home website - who has been labelled a "Traitor for Being a Pro-European Conservative"!

"As a Conservative campaigner, (I am already working hard to get our London MEPs, headed by Charles Tannock, re-elected. Unlike Mr Helmer, I'll be focussing of the many positive aspects that membership of the EU brings to member states like Britain. Here's a recap of what they are:

Safer and Cheaper Flights

The EU has provided us with not only safer flights but also cheaper flights and increased competition between carriers registered in the Member States. Cheaper flights are the knock-on effect of a huge improvement in air traffic management and increased competition.

Student Exchange Programmes

Within the last 10 years the EU has created different education programmes in order to give students the possibility to experience different national cultures and broaden their personal horizon. Up to now 1.2 million students have benefited from the ERASMUS Programme and many more are expected to experience it in the future.

The Single Market

The Single Market is one of a kind as it guarantees ‘free movement' of people, goods, services and capital. At a practical level, it provides the possibility for EU citizens to live, work, study and do business throughout the EU, as well as enjoy a wide choice of competitively priced goods and services.

Protection of Intellectual Property

Intellectual property deals with two areas: industrial property and copyrights. Basically, it means that you are not allowed to use somebody else's ideas, for example, if your best friend has written lyrics to a song, you can not publish it in your name. The EU's efforts in this area have resulted in laws aiming at protecting company's or individual's knowledge.

Peace

Peace in Europe was first created when an alliance was made between Germany and France and the European Coal and Steel Community was founded. Europe has come along way since with a lasting peace amongst its Member States. International security is now a major issue for the EU: with increasing threats to a peaceful society in different areas of the world, the EU has put in place many policies to combat such problems.

The Euro

The single currency, the Euro, is now part of our everyday life but not all of its benefits are well known. From the practical advantages of travelling with a single currency, to the benefits of economic growth, to the strengthening of the EU international role and its political integration, the introduction of the euro has achieved much more than people expected.

Regional Funds

Unity and solidarity are some of the most significant aims for the EU. One important reason why the European regional policies have been created is because the EU is of the opinion that equal standards and rights should be provided to all citizens.

Cheaper and Better Phone calls

The liberalisation of the telecommunication markets in 1998 and the ongoing development in the field of technology have resulted in a steady decrease in prices within the EU. This means that it is cheaper to call your friends and family and choose between different operators.

Consumer Protection

NEW: Consumer protection and the safety of food in the European Union are two issues that have always gone hand in hand. The Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General's main responsibility is to provide laws and regulations on the safety of food and consumer rights.

A Healthier Europe

The public health issues dealt with by the EU are numerous and cover a number of different areas. They concern both men and women, young and old. The EU has also introduced the European health insurance card that is your guarantee if you should fall ill when going abroad.

Environmental Protection

In the EU, environmental issues including initiatives concerning protection have been underlined as some of the most important points not only for discussion but also for action. For instance, the EU is leading the "Kyoto" drive to reduce the air pollution that causes global warming.

Equal Opportunities - Against Discrimination

The promotion of equal opportunities and the fight against Discrimination are considered some of the most important issues within Europe and many directives have been put in place to combat inequalities that occur in the Member States. 2007 is officially the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All. Additionally the "Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010" was launched outlining 6 priority areas for EU action on gender equality.

External Trade

External trade for Europe has always been very important to the success of the European Union. In recent years our level of trade has increased and we are continuing to grow as major players in the world of trade. Today, the EU accounts for 20% of global imports and exports and is now the world's biggest trader."

How to celebrate a book on waste? Throw a champagne party!

Delicious irony today when my staff and I were invited to a champagne reception this evening in one of the Parliament's salons….by, you've guessed it, the Taxpayers' Alliance to launch their book subtly titled "The Great European Rip-Off"!

So the Taxpayers' Alliance are going to highlight what they claim is billions of pounds of waste by profligate EU institution by, erm, splashing out a couple of grand on champagne and nibbles for some parliamentary assistants and lobbyists.

Certainly one for the 'you couldn't make it up' school.

Dishonest Taxpayers' Alliance again miss the point

Another week, and another dishonest and misleading ‘report’ about the costs of the EU by a right-wing pressure group. This time the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance has published a book in which they claim that EU membership costs every citizen £2000 a year. Typically, it bases its figures on papers written by Patrick Minford and Ian Milne – both supporters of the Bruges group and both in favour of Britain withdrawing from the EU. Unsurprisingly, given the sources, the figures they claim are rather high. The frustrating thing is that these ‘studies’ are a complete waste of time – they are not designed to find the truth about the cost of regulation, but about feeding eye-catching figures to eurosceptic tabloids (as I pointed out in my reply to another such "study" last week by Open Europe.

Back the real world, the European Parliament yesterday voted to adopt legislation on type approval requirements for motor vehicles. This legislation includes a number of measures that will make cars and roads safer, including tyre pressure monitoring systems, wet-grip requirements for tyres and standards for tyres that will reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. Costs will be outweighed by the benefits. Moreover, in this case (and many others), EU regulation means cutting red-tape for business by replacing the 50 or so existing type-approval certificates with just one.

So, will the Taxpayers’ Alliance or Open Europe report this example of ‘good regulation’? Yes, and pigs might fly.

Is there a link between climate change denial and Euroscepticism?

I was interested to see the speakers list at a conference in Chicago doubting the danger of man made climate change. Among them were Tory Roger Helmer, Czech President Vaclav Klaus and the Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker. Apart from being climate change deniers, these men are united by another thing: namely their visceral hatred of the European Union.

There seems to be some correlation between Euroscepticism and climate change denial. Almost the only climate change deniers in the European Parliament are the hard-right of the Tory party – Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan - the entirety of UKIP and a handful of right-wing French and Czech MEPs. These members are also the most vocal Eurosceptics.

It is fascinating that there is a link between these matters. Off the top of my head, I can suggest a couple of theories:

Perhaps it is because tackling man-made climate change has emerged as an issue that cannot be tackled effectively by nation states, but where international or EU action is most effective. It may be that their opposition is not to tackling climate change, but because they worry that it will give the EU more legitimacy.

Another theory is that they are just naturally paranoid. In the same way that they believe the EU to be a massive conspiracy to destroy nation states and replace them with an all-powerful centralised super-state, perhaps they believe that tackling climate change is another attempt by wild-eyed left-wingers and environmentalists to bring capitalism to its knees.

Or, they don't really care about either issue - they just like to be in a controversial minority, against mainstream opinion, because they know this will get them attention and media coverage.

Maybe someone should write a university thesis about it.

Come to think about it, I wonder whether flat-earthers are also Eurosceptic? If so, I expect they will soon be given lavish coverage in some of our newspapers!

It is ridiculous to rubbish all regulation

Following in Open Europe’s footsteps, their fellow bastion of right-wingery the Institute of Directors (IoD) has brought out a paper claiming that Britain’s labour market is becoming much less flexible as a result of regulation at national and EU level.

The IoD cites 10 major employment regulations which have been introduced by Labour since 1997. No doubt they would like to repeal them all. These include the minimum wage, rules on maternity and paternity pay, rights for part-time and fixed-term workers, increased employee involvement under the EU Works Council Directive and anti-discrimination legislation.

But these rules prevent exploitation at work and ensure some level of work/life balance. Put bluntly, they should exist in any society worth the name.

However, the IoD's claims about the damage such rules are causing to our economy are somewhat undermined by the tables they publish which reveal that the British labour market has a far higher score on the Indicator of Labour Market Adaptability (ILMA) than it did in 1997 and three times higher than 1992 when the Tories were in power. Meanwhile, there is a corresponding increase in the flexibility of the supply of labour.

The IoD, of course, revels in its role as an 'unacceptable face of capitalism', but they share the same blinkered attitude as Open Europe: regulation = bad, deregulation = good. But objectively, regulation is not a zero-sum game. It is about finding a balance between work-place rights and social protection and flexibility for businesses and employees. And regulations don't always cost money and can sometimes even save money. Unintentionally, the IoD research indicates that this balance, with the odd exception, has been found.

Some much needed balance to Open Europe's claims on regulation

Further to my post yesterday on dubious stories about the EU, Open Europe has recently launched a paper called 'Out Of Control' which focuses on the costs of EU regulation.

It of course produces some juicy statistics which they know the right-wing papers will eat up, but much of their research is flawed.

The European Movement has published my own briefing on regulation and Open Europe's claims, which you can read here.

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?

Klaus's rant raises the noise level but loses the argument

The Czech President Vaclav Klaus today spouted a set of standard eurosceptic clichés in his disappointing and frankly embarrassing diatribe to the European Parliament today. While some MEPs (including Czechs)left the chamber in disgust, most sat in astonished silence, while only the far-right and some of the Tories applauded.

In claiming that the EU deals with matters that should be left to the national governments, he seemed blissfully unaware that no EU policy or legislation is adopted without the agreement of those same national governments in the EU Council of Ministers.

By making ludicrous and offensive comparisons to communist parliaments of Cold War eastern europe, which had no opposition to the government, he brought laughter from a European Parliament most of whose members are indeed from opposition parties in each Member State. Unlike other international structure such as NATO, the WTO and the UN, which are all run solely by governments, the EU, by having an elected parliament, chosen by proportional representation, has members from across the political spectrum, both in government and opposition.

Thankfully, the (ceremonial, not executive) President was disavowed yesterday by the lower chamber of his own national parliament, the Czech chamber of deputies, when it approved the Lisbon treaty by 125 votes to 61 despite his efforts to oppose it. Klaus may be attempting to style himself as the next icon around which eurosceptics can rally, but cliché-ridden rants won't win him any arguments.

Libertas a pan-European political party? What a farce!

The handling of whether Declan Ganley's private company Libertas, already masquerading as a pressure group in Ireland, should be allowed to register as a European political party and gain public funding, has been completely farcical.

On Monday, the European Parliament’s Bureau, made up of the President and the 14 Vice-Presidents, examined their application. To qualify for funding as a European political party, an organisation must have elected representatives in he national parliaments or in the European parliament in at least one quarter of the member states. Libertas claimed to have that, producing signatures from just 7 countries - all elected originally for other parties.

The bureau decided to approve the application. Although it seems perverse to award public money and recognition as a pan-European party to an organisation that has no members and has never put up candidates in an election before, the bureau presumably felt that they Libertas met the formal criteria. The decision at least allowed the Parliament to avoid any charges of bias against eurosceptics.

Since then, the waters have been distinctly muddied. First, an Estonian Liberal MP, Igor Grazin, who was one of the signatories to establish Libertas, and whose party is already affiliated to the European Liberal Party, denied having signed any such papers. Yesterday, he was joined by Bulgarian MP Mintcho Hristov. So far only one of the alleged supporters (Finnish MP Timo Soini) has admitted to having joined Libertas, stressing that he had joined in a "personal capacity" and that his national political party were definitely not affiliates!

There are also questions about the other alleged signatories. One, Lord Alton of Liverpool is a (crossbench) peer in the House of Lords and is therefore not elected, while the three MEPs (Phillippe De Villiers, Jean Marie Couteaux and Georgios Geourgiou) are all currently members of the IND-DEM in the European Parliament and,will, presumably be campaigning under that banner in the European elections this June.

The leaders of the political groups (Conference of Presidents) today took the only sensible decision and requested the Bureau to suspend the decision, pending an investigation of the signatures. If they are indeed false, it would amount to an attempt to defraud the taxpayer.

But the controversy over the signatures is still only part of the problem. In my mind, there is clear conflict if members who are affiliated to one party can simultaneously affiliate to another to get extra funding. It would effectively mean that, if I wanted to, there is nothing to stop me and a six colleagues from other countries, maybe all from the Socialist Group, setting up our own "party", and instantly gaining access to some 200,000 euros of taxpayers’ money for campaigning purposes, even if we intended to stand for our original party and not the new one!

It would be astonishing if the Bureau had approved Libertas’s application without verifying that signatories were genuine and without taking legal advice on whether a member affiliated to one party is able to count as an affiliate for another. If this is the case, then they have let down parties with genuine members and potentially wasted public money on an organisation that is really nothing more than a phoney pressure group.Post date and time

Has the snow caused Hannan to abandon democracy?

It’s good to see that Dan Hannan spent his Monday enjoying the February snow that has brought much of Britain to a standstill this week, while his fellow MEPs fought their way through the blizzards to Strasbourg. But slightly less impressive is the product of the ‘blue-skies thinking’ the time off allowed him to do.

In it, Dan extols the virtue of replacing the democratically elected European Parliament with an assembly of appointed national politicians tasked with meeting for a few days a month. He adds that when this operation existed (up until direct elections were introduced in 1979) it was cheaper than the current Parliament and would be “considerably less likely to generate unwanted laws” - an odd remark for a Parliament that does not propose legislation, but approves, amends or rejects legislation proposed by the Commission or Council.

The argument that the EU is not democratic enough, so let's abolish the one EU institution that is directly elected, is bizarre, especially for someone who makes great play out of his claims to be a great democrat.

The European Parliament brings political pluralism (comprising MEPs not just from the governing parties in each country, but also, even mainly, opposition parties) providing a different perspective from governments in the Council of Ministers. Without the European Parliament, there would indeed be a danger of the EU being dominated by bureaucrats and diplomats.

The pre-1979 model of the Parliament was ineffective, because it was part-time and because whole countries could be un-represented if there was a key event in their national parliament keeping those members away.

As to holding the the Commission to account, a part-time Parliament that only met for three days per month would be a complete waste of time. Just as was the case in the 1970s, it would be marginalised and ignored by the Council of ministers and the Commission.

So much for enhancing democracy!

Iceland's EU membership grows more likely

It looks increasingly as though Iceland is going to apply to join the European Union, with this fascinating report that they expect to do so within the next couple of months with a view to membership in 2011. Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn has even gone as far as suggesting that Croatia and Iceland could join the EU at the same time.

Following the collapse of Iceland's ruling conservative government at the start of this week, a temporary centre-left government has taken over until elections take place in May. The new Social Democrat government is pro-European and will make EU membership a central theme of their campaign.

The second question for Iceland is whether they will also apply to join the euro. Their currency, the krona, has been ruined by the financial collapse, and support amongst Icelandic public opinion is actually stronger for euro membership than for EU membership. However, while it is difficult to see any significant barriers to Iceland's membership of the EU - they are a country of roughly 300,000 and have a small economy which, aside from a sizeable fishing sector, would not be difficult to integrate (indeed, they already apply most EU single market legislation) - their interest rates are at 18% and they would fall foul of the strict rules laid down in the Maastricht Treaty that govern whether a country is able to join the Eurozone

If Iceland's membership would be popular with virtually all EU countries it would be a bitter pill for the staunchest British eurosceptics to swallow. It is difficult to believe that, until recently, the likes of Dan Hannan used to cite Iceland as an example that showed Britain could prosper outside the EU.

Open Europe and 'biased propaganda'

Dropping into my inbox this week was an invite to attend an Open Europe event called ‘EU communication policy: biased propaganda?’.

A bit rich!

Despite styling themselves as an ‘independent think tank’, Open Europe consistently produces what can only be described as biased propaganda. By misleading and using selective quoting Open Europe, with a helping hand from the media, very successfully manages to misrepresent EU policies and structures on a regular basis.

Its polls, normally designed to highlight how unpopular the EU is, are so loaded they are essentially worthless, something journalist David Rennie pointed out a couple of years ago when he was working for the Telegraph.

They are of course of course perfectly within their rights to do this (and they certainly do it very effectively) but when they are so far removed from balance and objectivity themselves it is absurd for them to call into question the balance and objectivity of anyone else.

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.

Clarke's return will re-open Tory wounds on Europe

The Conservatives’ apparent retreat from rabid euroscepticism has apparently continued today with Ken Clarke returning to the Tory shadow cabinet. Meanwhile, in a sign of the added importance the Tories are attaching to Europe, their shadow Europe spokesman Mark Francois has also been promoted to the shadow cabinet.

Clarke’s return to the front bench has been hotly debated by Conservative activists on Conservative Home, with many members dismayed that such an unabashed europhile is back. Among the choicest quotes are descriptions of Clarke as “divisive” and “overrated” while one describes the move as “two fingers to anyone in the Conservative party who is a eurosceptic". The Conservative affiliated Bruges group has also claimed that Clarke’s promotion signals David Cameron’s abandonment of a commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

The idea that Clarke will be silenced on Europe is surely fanciful, especially as shadow Business Secretary when most of of Britain’s trade is with its EU neighbours. Although Clarke has promised not to buck the party’s policy on Europe, he has consistently called for Britain to join the euro, is against Tory withdrawal from the centre-right EPP, and was one of just three Conservative MPs to vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty back in March last year. He is also forthright in front of a microphone and it is surely only a matter of time before he criticises party policy. As Gordon Brown put it this morning, “it’s good to have someone in the Shadow Cabinet who is supportive of our policies on Europe, on VAT and probably quietly supportive of a number of our other policies”.

While most Tory MEPs will be happy to see him back, the likes of Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan, and the majority of Tory party activists will be spitting feathers. If Ken can’t keep quiet, Tory infighting over Europe will continue unabated.

The real truth on bananas and Euromyths

Dan Hannan's recent blog on the Telegraph website discusses the scrapping of EU regulations on some fruit and vegetables and claims that many Europhiles have consistently denied the existence of these rules and are now therefore trapped in some kind of Orwellian double speak.

He uses my blog as evidence and quotes the following: "From silly stories (such as the EP legislating that all bananas be straight) to more sinister ones (that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would lead to armed foreign police patrolling British streets) no opportunity, no matter how far-fetched, is missed to portray the EU as an evil empire."

But the truth is that the European Parliament has indeed never legislated that all bananas be straight. Quite apart from the fact that it was the Council of Ministers (i.e. national governments of EU countries) rather than Parliament that requested the rules, those rules anyway simply gave various classifications to bananas and didn't, as was often claimed, require all bananas to be straight. As I said on my website, this was in fact an industry driven initiative introduced so traders could be certain as to what they were ordering. If anyone is any doubt, and is as pedantic as myself, they can read the rules for themselves here.

Now, I'm certain Dan Hannan and his fellow Eurosceptics will still argue that legislation on bananas was never necessary and that national governments should not have requested it. It is certainly true that the very existence of the rules has caused the European Union considerable and unnecessary embarrassment (so Hannan must be disappointed that they are to be abolished!). Indeed, the Commission has now agreed with them. Nonetheless, Hannan's accusations that I have been misleading people on this issue, actually reinforces the point I am trying to make about Euromyths.

Euromyths exist because Eurosceptics deliberately distort or mislead, exaggerate or omit, and do not bother with the whole truth, as was the case when Hannan quoted me on his blog. Some may think this is a trivial matter, but what of the other story in the quote (armed foreign police patrolling British streets)? What of the invented quotes about Jean Monnet or Godfrey Boom's attempts to convince people there was going to be a shortage of New Zealand butter? How about The EU banning Peking Duck, or changing the name of Bombay Mix or EU rules forcing paramedics to stop work to have breaks? The list goes on and on.

The point of highlighting these is not to undermine Eurosceptic arguments about more serious issues (as Hannan suggests) but to publish the truth and ask why, if Eurosceptics have any serious arguments against our membership of the EU, they have to resort to myth, invention and distortions of the truth?

Is Iceland going to become the next country to join the EU?

Well, stranger things have happened. Iceland's Prime Minister, Geir Haarde has announced the creation of a commission to analyse whether Iceland should join the EU, while the Icelandic Foreign Ministry has drafted an action plan that would see the country make a membership application early next year with a view to becoming a full member in 2011. Given that Iceland already implements EU single market legislation in order to have access to the common market, it should not take them long to adopt the rest of the EU acquis communautaire.
 
In a further sign of the government's determination to proceed quickly, Haarde has announced that his ruling Independence Party will hold its 2009 conference in January instead of next October as scheduled, purely to consider the question of EU membership.
 
Iceland has never before applied for EU membership, but the price of isolation has been brought home to them following the collapse of its banking sector and a massive run on its currency, the Króna. This has convinced many in Iceland that the country needs to join the euro. For this to happen, Iceland must be a member of the EU. Indeed, recent opinion polls show that 70% of Icelanders are in favour of EU membership.
 
All of which must have eurosceptics, and particularly Dan Hannan, (who frequently argue that Britain's relationship with the EU should be akin to that of Iceland), weeping into their drinks. It's been a bad few weeks for their arguments.

Have the Tories become pro-European again?

What an unthinkable thought just a short while ago, but after the events this week I'm not so sure.

Today the Tory MEPs selected as Leader, Deputy Leader and Chief Whip, three MEPs who are all opposed to David Cameron's pledge to withdraw the Tory MEPs from the centre-right EPP - and all with, as I understand, large majorities.

Indeed, while they elected fellow Yorkshire MEP Timothy Kirkhope as their leader in Europe, defeating James Elles, just as significant were the other results from their internal elections: the moderate Richard Ashworth defeated the eurosceptic Geoffrey Van Orden. Furthermore, Sir Robert Atkins, who penned this diatribe warning Cameron against allying the Conservatives with the Polish Law and Justice party and other extreme right parties in Europe, was appointed as Chief Whip. In other words, a clean sweep for the moderates.

Kirkhope has, of course, been leader of the Tory delegation before (between 2004 and 2007 before being ousted by Giles Chichester). He is also the author of this "Alternative Treaty", which contains virtually all the substantive reforms contained in the Lisbon Treaty which the Conservative leadership in London so bitterly opposed.

Needless to say, this news is a clear statement to Cameron that, to keep to his EPP withdrawal pledge, he will have to fight his MEPs to the death, and has met with a mixed reaction amongst the grass-roots activists on the influential Conservative Home site. One would expect that the notorious H-block of Chris Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan must be spitting feathers, but perhaps not - even Helmer seems to have performed a volte face on Europe this week, calling for EU legislation (on horses) to be more strictly enforced in member States!

All of which comes hot on the heels of Conservative MEP Christopher Beazley's speech yesterday in the Parliament, in which he declared that Britain should have been "a founder member" of the euro, and adding that he looks "forward to the next Conservative Government applying to join the eurozone really quite shortly."

Just two days into a Strasbourg session one has to ask what more is set to follow. Maybe tomorrow the Tories will call for Britain to sign up to the Schengen agreement?!

Still, the bottom line from both of these stories is that, certainly as far as his MEPs are concerned, whatever edicts David Cameron tries to enforce from Smith Square, he is a leader who is not being followed.

Tory sleaze, yet again

The spectacular hypocrisy of the Eurosceptics - both Tory and UKIP ones - was revealed yet again with the disgrace of former Tory chief whip Den Dover MEP.

Eurosceptics often claim loudly that they will "clean out" Brussels, to which they attribute all manner of evils, yet they themselves keep on getting caught out for financial improprieties.

The belated removal of Den Dover (not Ben Dover as some papers wrongly called him) is only the latest twist. Earlier this year, the Tory MEPs lost both their leader (Giles Chichester MEP) and their chief whip following allegations about breaking the rules on claiming expenses.

At the time, Cameron sent his financial troubleshooter Hugh Thomas to investigate. He can't have investigated very far, as it's only now that firm action as been taken against Dover following the European Parliament's own investigation. What they found was overlooked by Cameron's man. Is this because some of the money found its way into Conservative party coffers?

All this comes on top of UKIP, who have seen no less than a quarter of the MEPs they elected in 2004 get into trouble, one (Ashley Mote) even serving time in jail.

If UKIP and the Conservatives had followed Labour's example and had their accounts reviewed annually by an external independent auditor, then maybe none of this would have happened.

Declan Ganley: more than meets the eye?

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

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

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

What is Libertas?

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

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

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

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

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

What is Rivada Networks?

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

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

Ganley’s other companies

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

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

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

Ganley calls for all out war against Iran

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

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

Is Declan Ganley actually Irish?

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

Bruges group anniversary highlights Tory divisions on Europe

I was interested by the coverage of the dinner to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Mrs Thatcher's notorious Bruges speech.

At the gala dinner organised by the arch-eurosceptic Bruges Group, and attended by a handful of the most eurosceptic Tory politicians and a few UKIP members, diners listened to Norman Tebbit call for Britain to completely re-negotiate its relationship with the EU, followed by a referendum on whether Britain should remain part of the EU.

It ties in quite neatly with my article in the Guardian at the weekend, looking at the Tories' continued divisions on all things European. One of things that has struck me is that many Tories, particular the younger breed, routinely claim to be eurosceptic, and argue that we should re-negotiate our EU membership, but are unable to identify or examine in any detail the policy areas they would like to see Britain opt out of. At the same time, however, they do not wish Britain to leave the EU and recognise the huge economic benefits of having access to the single market and its common set of rules.

But the diehard eurosceptics, focussed to the point of obsession on their hostility to Europe, dictate the pace. They have been appeased by Cameron since his election as party leader in 2005, through a combination of the pledge to withdraw the Tory MEPs from the mainstream centre right European People's Party in the European Parliament and his refusal to rule out a post-ratification referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, Dan Hannan, one of the most eurosceptic Tory MEPs, says he voted for Cameron in 2005 purely because of his promise on EPP withdrawal.

The Tory moderates and, indeed, Cameron would probably be happiest if all European controversies would just go away. If the Conservatives really were to win the next election, presumably with the world economy still in the process of recovering from the effects of the financial crisis, few senior Tories would relish the prospect of seeing their administration dominated by re-negotiating our membership of the EU followed by a referendum that they would probably lose.

But, while the europhobes remain such a vocal minority in the Tory party and feel that Cameron is the man to do their bidding for them, the Conservative leadership will be at their mercy. As William Hague has acknowledged, Europe is still a "ticking time bomb" for the Conservatives.

Flagging up the issue

More hullaballoo from Eurosceptics about the European flag and anthem.

Most of you will be thinking that the 12 gold stars on a blue background and Beethoven’s Ode To Joy have been around for some time and you’d be right. The symbols were originally agreed on by Mrs Thatcher and other prime ministers of EU countries way back in 1985 but have never been formally recognised by the European Parliament.

To tidy up this discrepancy, a European Parliament committee, on which I sit, today voted in favour of recognising these EU symbols. Despite my disquiet at the Thatcherite angle, I voted in favour in a spirit of cross-party consensus.

Curiously backing out of the consensus, Conservative Tim Kirkhope voted against this. He did so, he explained, because he has an interest in a flag company back in the UK. A strange decision, bearing in mind most people simply abstain from votes which they have an interest in.

Although the status of the symblols is just a decision of the relevant institutions (plans to put them in the treaty and have them ratified by Member States were abandonded last year), leaving their status somewhat akin to the Olympic flag and anthem - don't be surprised to see Eurosceptic media stories raging about superstates and suchlike in tomorrow’s newspapers!

Norway and the EU

Eurosceptics are fond are pointing to Norway as a rich prosperous country that is not a member of the EU and appears to be doing well. But even if we assume that what is good for a very small (population 4million) country sitting on vast oil reserves and with an unlimited supply of hydroelectric power would in some way be applicable to a nation of over 60 million that has to pay its way in the world by trade, closer inspection shows that Norway's relationship with the EU is not the bed of roses that eurosceptics would have us believe.

I have just read an article by Erik Eriksson, a professor at the University of Oslo, who points out that, in order to access the EU market, Norway negotiated the EEA agreement which required it "to agree to incorporate all future EU legislation for the areas covered" into its own domestic law. Yet Norway has no voice around the table when such EU legislation is elaborated by EU member states. It can, Professor Eriksson points out, second experts to over 200 EU committees. They have no voting rights, and there are no Norweigan ministers in the meetings of the Council of Ministers, nor MEPs in the European Parliament. As Professor Eriksson says: "when EU member states disagree, they have institutionalised procedures for settling their differences. Norway, though, has to rely on old fashioned diplomacy."

What are its cards in such diplomacy? Professor Eriksson points out that the bulk of Norway's trade is with the EU whereas from an EU perspective Norway represents only a very small part of its overall trade. This makes for what he calls "an unbalanced agreement between two very unequal parts". This would be exactly the same for Britain.

All in all, Professor Eriksson concludes that non-membership of the EU is "a democratic disaster for Norway" and that, through its regrettable decision to stay out of the EU, "it is democracy itself that has suffered".

Declan Ganley and the Irish No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New rules on groups, same old story from Hannan

My proposal to raise the threshold for forming political groups in the European Parliament from 20 to 25 MEPs was today adopted by a comfortable majority in Strasbourg.

This matters. Once a political group is formed they are provided with extra resources, in terms of finance and staff for their political campaigns. The current threshold of 20 MEPs amounts to just 2.5% of the European Parliament and is therefore considerably lower than what most national parliaments require. Very small, and possibly extremist groups can help themselves to taxpayers money for their political campaigns.

While the figure adopted today (25) is still below the average for national parliaments, it is a compromise that was supported by most of the smaller groups.

Modest reforms you might think, but I have been accused of being anti-democratic and of attempting to wipe out Euroscepticism in the European Parliament!

One of my accusers is Dan Hannan, who despite being an articulate and witty writer, consistently fills his Telegraph blog with untruths to back up his conspiracy theory that the European Parliament is seeking to become a dictatorial one-party parliament intent on destroying Eurosceptics. The headline in his blog today, “European Parliament bars Euro-sceptic groups”, is a prime example. This is patently untrue!

There have always been far more than 25 Eurosceptics in the European parliament and there have always been Eurosceptic groups. Euroscepticism is an important segment of public opinion which, especially in a proportional representation electoral system, is well represented in Parliament.

Any grouping of 25 MEPs elected at the next European elections, representing seven member states, will be able to form a political group. What’s more the new rules will actually benefit them if they are close to the threshold, because they allow an existing group to continue for up to two years if it slips just below the threshold! This of course isn’t mentioned in Hannan's blog because it doesn’t fit in with his conspiracy theory.

He also suggests that the adoption of my proposals broke European Parliament rules. Again this is not true. The report was adopted at Committee level and amended when it went before the whole house, a perfectly normal and regular occurance.

The amendment adopted by the House was a compromise (between the status quo and a proposal for 30) which was supported by small and large groups alike (the Greens, Left, Union for Europe of Nations, Socialist, Christian Democrat) and some of Hannan's fellow Conservatives. Even UKIP's Group wanted to raise the threshold (to 22) - if raising the threshold was a plot against Eurosceptics, as Hannan claims, then why did the most Eurosceptic Group in the Parliament support such an idea?

Increasingly every rule change in the European Parliament is being deliberately portrayed by Hannan and his friends as an attack on Eurosceptics but as the events of today show this is ultimately a paranoid and flawed theory.

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!

High Court rejects Stuart Wheeler's referendum bid

It was good to see that the High Court has finally thrown out the claims of spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler that the Government should hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, with Lord Justice's Richards and Mackay judging that there was "nothing in the claimant's case to cast doubt on the lawfulness of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum".

Wheeler, who is one of the leading donors to the Conservative party, famously giving £5m to the party when William Hague was leader, is the second high profile Tory to have a case thrown out. Last week the renowned Europhobe Bill Cash made similar attempts to stop the ratification of the Treaty in the High Court only for his claim to be thrown out. Indeed, Justice Collins described Cash's attempts as "totally without merit" and "an attempt to pursue a political agenda through the court".

Bill Cash's attempt to take the Government to court was particularly bare-faced. Cash, whose euroscepticism first came to real prominence when he helped 'lead' the Tory Maastricht rebels in 1993, always claims that the EU undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. Deeply ironic, then, that he would go to the High Court to try and get the judiciary to overrule the UK Parliament.

These judgements should mark the end of the Treaty's progress in the UK, and the EU (Amendment) Bill will now be formally ratified and the "instruments of ratification" deposited in Rome. However, Wheeler has refused to give up, saying that he will go to the Court of Appeal despite being refused an appeal by the court. Still, if he wastes his money on that, there may be less to give to the Tories and the eurosceptic pressure group that calls itself 'Open Europe'.

The way Eurosceptics work

If ever people needed proof that phoney 'think-tank' Open Europe is nothing more than a front for Better Off Out campaigners for UK withdrawal from the EU they should look at this opinion poll.

With great fanfare, Open Europe on Tuesday announced this poll undertaken by YouGov apparently showing that only 29% of people want the UK to remain a member of the EU. Needless to say, the Tory headbangers on Conservative Home have already loudly trumpeted the poll as proof that David Cameron should heed the Better Off Out brigade and pledge to negotiate British withdrawal from the EU.

Of course, polls such as these are designed to be spun by those commissioning them, but on closer inspection, the poll itself is based on a false premise, claiming that the EU was always based around "economic co-operation" but is now responsible for making decisions on "foreign policy, immigration and crime" (carefully ignoring the fact that the EU does not govern Britain's immigration or criminal justice systems, nor can it make foreign policy decisions without the agreement of Britain and all EU countries).

Therefore, the poll offers three choices - "the UK should stay in the EU", "the UK should stay in the single market but pull out of the political elements of the EU" or, "the UK should leave the EU altogether". Faced with this, 29% chose the first option, 38% the second and 24% the third. Notwithstanding the fact that the single market is political as well as economic (a market must have rules and regulations to ensure that it is free and fair, rather than be left free to unfettered market forces, and the adoption of such legislation is a political process), the option of remaining in the single market "but pulling out of the political elements" is virtually impossible to achieve. In other words, it is a meaningless choice.

Besides, the Europhobes don't seem to have commented on the statistic that only 24% want Britain to leave the EU - a lower figure than in virtually any opinion poll since the 1975 referendum.

So there you have it - loaded questions based on false premises with bizarre choices makes for a pointless poll that reveals nothing - but don't expect Open Europe to be asking for their money back. So much for the intellectual rigour and integrity you would expect from a genuine think-tank.

Staying with Eurosceptic nonsense, the Sun came up with an inspired scare story that the French presidency wants a British aircraft carrier to be at the heart of a new EU Navy.

This 'story' is similar to the Sun's claim on St George's Day that the EU was planning to destroy Britain by dividing it into five regions (lumping the South-East in with the North of France in new super-region). Needless to say the Sun were able to find a Tory politician desperate enough for publicity to lend the story some ill-deserved credibility, with Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox saying "the EU's military ambitions know no bounds" and "we should be told whether this madness emanates from Paris or Downing Street", and, surprise surprise, Open Europe's Neil O'Brien also adds his two penn'orth.

Whilst it would be churlish to say that they've not been imaginative, (a Sun hack has certainly earned his corn with this re-writing of the lyrics to the Village People's "In the Navy") the story is fabricated tosh. Indeed, buried at the end of the story lies a quote from the Ministry of Defence demonstrating that this story is a pack of lies. Still, there seems to be nothing you can do to stop Eurosceptic tabloids writing such nonsense. Maybe the Commission should tell the press that it intends to buy up News International - now that would be a story!

Lords seal ratification of Lisbon Treaty in UK

Last night the House of Lords brought to an end the to the long and careful parliamentary scrutiny of the Lisbon Treaty and approved it by giving a third reading to the EU Amendment Bill. The Conservatives made a last-gasp attempt to derail the process by tabling an amendment to delay the vote on third reading by four months, but this was comfortably defeated by a majority of 93. When the Bill is given royal assent today, the UK will become the 19th country to have ratified the treaty.

Our ratification of the treaty coincides with the start of the European Council meeting which will take place today and tomorrow. British ratification makes clear that our position is that the Lisbon Treaty is good for the UK and good for the EU. Whether or not the treaty can be salvaged will depend in part on the outcome of this Council meeting. While the impetus is on the Irish to take stock of last week's 'No' vote and assess whether an agreement can be reached, the views of the 26 other countries who also signed the Lisbon Treaty (and 19 of whom have now ratified it) should not be blithely ignored. This is a collective problem that requires a collective solution.

Some say that we should take the Irish 'No' vote as a hint to end the reform process and focus on policy delivery. Of course, we all, even those of us most closely involved in the process of drawing up the Lisbon Treaty, want to get away from institutional reform and focus on policy delivery. The most significant policy challenges facing the EU: tackling man-made climate change, the effects of globalisation on the most vulnerable in society, energy security etc will not wait for us to reform our institutional structure. As Gary Titley, the leader of the Labour MEPs, said this week, "globalisation continues apace".

But better institutions would make it easier to tackle these and other problems, and the checks and balances the reforms would bring in would reassure people that the EU is subject to democratic control.

Indeed, this week, the Parliament adopted the report by my colleague Eluned Morgan MEP to reform the electricity market in the Europe. In particular, it included proposals for full ownership 'unbundling', whereby companies would not be able to own both the production and distribution of electricity - good news for consumers, as the competition should prevent electricity prices from being distorted. This is a classic case of the "Europe of results" that a 21st century EU should aspire to be.

Getting beyond the self-serving hyperbole of, on the one hand, the Eurosceptics, who claim that any attempt to seek a compromise acceptable to Ireland is undemocratic, and , on the other hand, some ultra-federalists, who want a hard core of integrationist countries to go it alone, the reality is that the EU is still here and still needs reform.

The European Parliament's debate on Ireland's No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Hoping for a ban on seal products

On Wednesday, Parliament welcomed a very special guest to speak to the Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals. Sheryl Fink, speaking on behalf of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), had travelled all the way from her native Canada to drum up support for an EU-wide ban on the import of all seal products into Europe.

New regulations implemented by the Canadian authorities, supposedly to make the Canadian seal hunts more "humane", have done little to increase the welfare of the seals. Most hunters are ignoring the regulations and the authorities seem unwilling to take action. Indeed, the group was shown a highly distressing video filmed by IFAW proving that seals were not killed quickly or humanely.

The Eurosceptic Tory MEP Roger Helmer, who was in the audience, attempted to pass Sheryl Fink's presentation off merely as a "slick" gimmick from the animal welfare lobby. Helmer asked what effect a ban on the seal hunt would have on those who relied on the trade to make a living, and what effect would a ban have on Canada’s fish stocks. If Helmer hadn't left immediately after asking his questions, he might have heard the answers!

Canada's seal hunt is not economically viable. The C$11million industry would not survive without the subsidies paid by the Canadian government. In fact, no hunter relies on the trade for a living - the hunt only makes each hunter around £1000 extra income per year. It is merely an extra bit of pocket money for them. Add to that the fact there is no evidence that seals have any significant adverse effect on fish stocks, and there appears very little justification in continuing the inhumane seal hunt, and hopefully, an EU ban on seal products will finally see an end to it.

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.

A new myth being created

It has long been the tactic of Eurosceptics to continuously repeat untrue stories on the ground that if you say them enough times, people will begin to believe them.

From silly stories (such as the EP legislating that all bananas be straight) to more sinister ones (that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would lead to armed foreign police patrolling British streets), no opportunity, no matter how far-fetched, is missed to portray the EU as an 'evil Empire'.

A new one is that the European Parliament has decided to "to silence dissenting MEPs", reported in several newspapers which took at face-value the claims of Farage and Hannan to that effect.

According to Private Eye, this even led to a member of the audience at a recent lecture at the LSE by President Pottering to shout out, "you disciplined MEPs for showing dissent and claimed that dissent is not acceptable." Private Eye itself referred to Pottering as "a man who bullied dissenters when they protested against the Charter of Fundamental Rights".

This really is case of breathtaking cheek. The "dissenters" were those who tried to prevent the Portuguese Prime Minister from making a speech in the Parliament. When as in any Parliament, the Speaker or President takes action to prevent such anti-democratic behaviour, it is not bullying, but protecting Parliament from bullies!

Note that the speaking and voting rights of these members were not removed, and they have their say in all debates, as the European Parliament, which contains members with a very wide range of views as it is elected by proportional representation, allocates the bulk of speaking time to each and every political grouping in proportion to its size before finishing with a "catch the eye" free debate. The variety of positions expressed is greater than in most national parliaments.

To try and portray those who shouted down an elected Prime Minister as martyrs of democracy is both spurious and wilfully misleading. It's a shame that the normally excellent Eye chose to print a piece that even the most eurosceptic tabloid would turn its nose up at.

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

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

Predictably!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Hannan's calculated attack just an embarrassing stunt

There were controversial scenes in Parliament today as Conservative MEP, and Telegraph columnist, Dan Hannan stood up and compared his fellow EPP colleague, the Speaker of the Parliament, Hans Gert Pottering, to Hitler. Joseph Daul, the EPP leader, responded by telling the Parliament that he would propose to expel Hannan from the EPP.

This was a calculated attack by Hannan who will probably have already penned his Telegraph column which will accuse the Parliament of gagging him, and acting to ban any opposition to the EU.

Of course the reality is that anyone who stood up in any parliament would face opprobrium if they compared the Speaker to Hitler. Indeed, it was merely a petty stunt to support his claim that the European Parliament will not tolerate minority views.

This is simply not true. The European Parliament has a very wide range of political views and speaking time in debates is shared out proportionately among all the political groups - so all views are heard in the debates.

The incident which provoked his carefully choreographed outburst was a vote on an interpretation (by the relevant committee) of the rules of procedure of Parliament. The rules have not been changed, but it was confirmed that they already allow the President of Parliament to call an end to excessive use of points of order, procedural motions, etc where they are "manifestly intended to cause, and will result in, a prolonged and serious obstruction of the business of the House ."

This is a reserve power that has only once been used - by President Pat Cox some five years ago - but is there to protect Parliament, if necessary, from attempts to bring it to a complete halt. The President of the European Parliament anyway has far less drastic powers than the Speaker of the House of Commons

If Hannan and co are upset about that, it is probably because they are indeed intending to bring democratic debate to a halt, possibly next month when Parliament debates and votes on the Reform Treaty, which they oppose.

The interesting question now is whether Hannan will be disowned by his Tory colleagues in the EP (who, at committee stage, supported this interpretation of the Rule). It is certainly an embarrassment for the Conservative Party and it will be intriguing to see what David Cameron has to say about it. Probably nothing!

Better off out brigade are only lying to themselves

It was good to see the excellent points made in this week's Charlemagne column in this Economist refuting the arguments that Britain could enjoy the benefits of the EU without being a member of it.

Some Eurosceptics claim that the EU would continue to trade with us if we left it and re-joined the likes of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Indeed, they also spuriously claim that the EC was only ever supposed to be a free trade organisation, ignoring that Britain was in fact leaving a free trade agreement to join the EC which was always a political project as well as an economic one - a point which was spelt out in the White Paper by the Heath government which spoke of "an ever closer union among European peoples” not just of trade but "social progress".

Under its agreement with the EU, Norway, for example, has access to the internal market and most of the economic integration programmes. On a superficial level, this might to some to be an attractive prospect. But, as part of the terms of their agreement, each year, Norway transposes 400 EU internal market regulations into their national law, but have no say in shaping them. They have no Commissioners, no ministers in the Council to represent their national interests, no MEPs, no seat on the European Council and no civil servants in the EU institutions. They also have to make a hefty contribution to the EU budget, and receive no EU spending at all. Perhaps this is why Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has publicly stated that he would like his country to become a member of the EU.

The members of the "better off out" brigade like to think of themselves as being true patriots, defending the British national interest. But the reality is that if Britain were to leave the EU, and re-negotiate access to the common market our position would be very weak. The remaining Member States would set stringent terms for access to the common market and a big contribution to the EU budget. The notion that they would offer a favourable deal to a country walking out and slamming the door behind them is pie in the sky. As The Economist rightly puts it: "anyone who dreams otherwise is lying not just to others, but also to themselves".

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!

Bill Cash is utterly deluded

On 12 December, I quoted Bill Cash's European Journal when it described how their anti-treaty campaign was running into the sands, failing either to persuade a majority of MPs or to ignite public opinion. The holiday break allowed me to read through a long diatribe by Bill Cash in the same issue.

Cash tries to rewrite European history and to place himself as the hero of some great struggle against the might of the European superstate. Initially, he and Enoch Powell stood alone in resisting this, were gradually joined by others, and now he stands on the verge of his views becoming Conservative party policy, resulting in an immediate swing of more than 8% to the Tories, which would lead to an election victory, a "fundamental renegotiation of the existing treaties" in an Intergovernmental Conference with "Britain in the lead… at which point many other Member States would back us" and which would "unravel the undemocratic European superstate". Wishful thinking is something we are all prone to, but this must surely take some beating!

Cash’s central theme is that the EU started as benevolent economic cooperation focusing on trade with no political implications and has somehow surreptitiously been hijacked by those intent on creating a political union leading to a superstate. He says that the original aim of the ECSC and the EEC "can be described in two words: FREE TRADE" (his capitals) - blissfully ignoring the fact that Britain actually left a free trade area (EFTA) to join the EEC, which has always been a political project, but has never aimed for the mythical "centralised superstate".

The Wilson government's application to join stated that "Europe is now faced with the opportunity of a great move forward in political unity and we can - and indeed we must - play our full part in it". Similarly, the Heath government White Paper on the British application stated that "if the political implications of joining the Europe are at present clearest in the economic field, it is because the Community is primarily concerned with economic policy. But it is inevitable that the scope of the Community's policies should broaden".

Cash is so obsessed with the EU that he must know that – but deliberately ignores it. Indeed, he claims that he was the one who "uncovered" that "significant political ambitions were afoot in the 1990s" when the drive for a single European market (which, he says, "came largely from the Thatcher government", which will be news to those who recall Thatcher trying to block the IGC which negotiated the single market timetable) was, according to his conspiracy theory, hijacked by the European Commission which "abused its powers, accorded under article 100a and similar provisions, and tried to interfere excessively". Never mind that the Commission could only propose and it was up to the elected governments in the Council to actually take the decisions.

He embellishes all this with ex cathedra comments to the effect that "it can never be right for a democratic country to abandon its own self-government", that the EU means we are ruled by people "we do not elect and cannot remove" (as if Ministers in the Council and MEPs were not elected and are non-removable!) and all, apparently, with the connivance with the Conservative party leadership for which "there can be no excuse for this failure of nerve, abandonment of principle and the gross incompetence which it reflected" (a comment apparently directed at successive Tory leaders right up to the present day).

Cash takes great pride in the backbench revolt that he organised in the 1990s, describing in detail how he tabled 240 amendments to the Maastricht Bill, set up the Great College Street group of Conservative rebels to organise their own whip and briefings against their own government, and how he attempted to repeat this again by tabling some 400 amendments to the second reading of the bill on the Constitutional Treaty (which, by the way, the Commons approved by a majority of 250). Given his history as a rebel, it is somewhat hypocritical to moan, as he does, about Ken Clarke, David Curry and Quentin Davies for supporting the Constitutional Treaty despite the Tory line on that treaty - a line that his the party leader, Michael Howard, did not even turn up to support.

But then, he is a bit full of himself, describing his defeated minority report of this year in the European Scrutiny committee as "totally undermining the government's arguments for the Reform Treaty". His own arguments are themselves undermined by his distortion of facts, such as when he rails against Britain's share of the votes falling from 11.5% to 8.4% without mentioning that this was the result of the enlargement of the EU to 27 members - and also without mentioning that the Reform Treaty would restore Britain's share of the votes to 12.2% by linking them to population size.

The article also reveals some of his other political positions: that the Human Rights Act should be repealed on the grounds that it is impossible to reconcile human rights with "policies to enforce public safety". He believes that the "vast quantities of British coal could continue to supply us with virtually limitless energy" making us completely free from imported energy (and, presumably, damn the ecological consequences). He worships Enoch Powell: "only much later did most people begin to see that Enoch Powell was right", he says - without, apparently, having as a result been censured by the Tory front bench in the way that the recently sacked Tory candidate Nigel Hastilow was. He even fondly recalls tabling an amendment with Enoch Powell at the time of the Single European Act back in 1986.

To sum up, this long and rambling article does much to reveal the state of mind of Mr Cash, his obsession with destroying the European Union by any means and his self-belief as the hero who will save Britain from having to cooperate with its neighbours.

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?

European Journal admits defeat

Encouraging news from the opposition camp – Bill Cash MP’s European Journal – the magazine which attempts to give academic credibility to the Eurosceptic cause, reports in the leader of its latest edition that the campaigns in favour of a referendum in order to oppose the new Reform Treaty have "failed to rouse anything more than a minor public interest in the impact that this treaty will have". It goes on to say that "the effective opposition to this treaty does not look good".

Indeed, in his own article, Bill Cash points out that the I want a referendum campaign has so far mustered just 30,000 supporters while newspaper petitions have mustered a further 137,000 signatures compared to the anti-Maastricht Treaty campaign in 1993 which gathered 500,000 signatures.

All of which leads me to give them one piece of advice: give up trying to make people think this new treaty is the end of the world as we know it. Most people just don’t believe you!

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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

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

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

A good example of how eurosceptic media shamelessly and deliberately distorts stories was inadvertently provided by the Sunday Express. This concerned the so called "European Gendarmerie Force" (EGF). The Sunday Express duly reported that "there were no circumstances in which the EGF could be deployed in Britain" as it is in fact not an EU initiative but "an initiative of five EU Member States. It is not an EU proposal or agency and has been set up outside of EU structures. There is no connection with the European Reform Treaty". So, nothing to do with the EU, "Brussels", Britain or the new treaty, but a cooperation between five states which want to do this among themselves.

However, this accurate description came in the very last paragraph of an article with the headline "fears that Brussels riot squad could soon pound the beat on British streets" and which reported that "Brussels has set up a new EU police force" which is "the first police organisation to come under the direct control of the EU and is seen by some as another step towards the creation of a superstate". It quotes unnamed critics as warning "that the force could eventually patrol the streets of Britain".

It then goes on, totally unabashed, to say that "the best ways to stop these fellows demonstrating their skills on a high street near you is to make sure that people in Britain know what is going on, put pressure on politicians to hold a referendum before ratifying any EU treaty covering justice and home affairs."

Breathtaking hypocrisy!

All this week I will be debating Britain and the EU with Neil O'Brien of Open Europe on the Economist's website.

You can follow the debate by clicking here.

I have also had a column published on the Guardian's Comment Is Free website, which is particularly relevant to this week's TUC conference. You can read it by clicking here.

Back at work in the European Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Telegraph published a bizarre insight into the world of Euroscepticism recently in this article by Ruth Lea.

She wondered "who will raise the alarm" about Brussels "being out to clobber the City". Perhaps the reason no-one has, is that there is nothing to be alarmed about.

"Brussels", after all, is simply where we meet our fellow members of the EU to negotiate on common rules for our common market. The idea that the rest of them are out to get us is uttertly ridiculous, especially as they all benefit from a well-performing City!

By all means, work hard to get the details of the Financial Services Action Plan right. If we do, the City will reap substantial benefits. But to brand the whole idea as a "Brussels" plot on the basis of figures from "Open Europe" - an anti-EU campaign group - and to dismiss the constructive approach of the government as biased is standing the world on its head!

So, the Tories seem to have abandoned their short-lived, "moderate" strategy and taken a turn to the right and deeper into anti-European territory.

The move comes in a desperate attempt by Cameron to boost his lagging popularity. It might help him placate the right wing of his party, and save him from attempts by them to oust him, but it will not help with the wider public.

The manoevre comes via a report drawn up by former cabinet minister John Redwood who claims his “war on red tape” will cut £14 billion, in what he described as “a tax cut by any other name”. But this money isn’t going to magically appear out of thin air. It will come at a cost: less safety protection at work, no statutary paid holidays for employees, no guaranteed maternity or paternity leave, lower standards of consumer protection and more damage to the environment.

Such ‘magic money’ is guesswork as to how much it will really save companies, but it is extraordinary to focus on cutting health and safety legislation where any short term saving will be outweighed by long term costs to the Health service.

Will they spell out to people that "we’ll give you tax cuts, but by the way you might not be able to have any paid holidays any more at work"? A strange way to win hearts and minds!

As to the promise to opt-out of European legislation, they have (of course) totally ignored the point that many of these rules are intended to cut red tape. The fact that a small firm can now register a trademark once and it is valid across 27 European countries, instead of having to go through 27 different national procedures each with their own forms, fees and hassle, is a benefit from EU legislation. So is the ability of British lorries to take our exports to, say, Milan, showing only a single administrative document at frointiers instead of the dozen or so at each frontier that used to be necessary.

And unilaterally opting out of the common rules for the common market that we have agreed with our European partners is not so easy. Do the Tories really think that they will say "yes, by all means, play to a different set of rules from the rest of us, we don't mind"? Would they let British companies alone not abide by minimum standards for environmental protection, consumer protection, workplace safety, decent treatment of staff and so on?

Of course they wouldn't. It would mean the end of the common market. The Tory Eurosceptics know this. They see it as part of their strategy for leaving the EU, by making demands they know cannot be met, but they prefer not to spell that out openly.

All this is further evidence of a clear lurch to the right, even beyond traditional Tory values, to a new hard line approach that even traditional tories should find difficult to swallow.

The anti-EU campaign group that goes by the name "Open Europe" has taken issue with what I wrote in my last blog on Frank Field’s lie about Britain losing its seat on the UN Security. On their blog, they claim that the proposed EU Reform Treaty "will all too quickly be followed by the EU taking Britain's seat at the UN Security Council", and they challenge me to reply on my blog.

Well, the answer can be found in their own blog. They justify Frank Field’s lie by claiming that in his piece he was merely "predicting that this will eventually happen, rather than saying that it will immediately happen". So, that’s all right then – indulge in wild speculation about imaginary future decisions and let people think that they are an inevitable consequence of the Reform Treaty! And don’t let on that such future decisions would, if ever mooted, require Britain’s agreement anyway.

This seems to be a common tactic among the anti-european campaigners. That, and a tendency to make people believe that a particular issue is somehow a radical new development when it isn’t. Take Frank Field again: "Sovereignty is to be transferred in the most fundamental way. Under the treaty the EU will assume a legal personality. As a consequence it will be the EU, and not member states, that will sign international agreements on foreign policy, defence, crime and judicial matters. The EU will begin to take on the appearance of a separate country in all but name." That will no doubt stir reader’s passions – unless they take the trouble to check the facts.

A quick check of Wikepedia will show that "Legal personality is given to any organization which is a subject of legal rights and duties". The EU obviously is. Indeed it is perfectly normal for international organisations, such as the World Health Organisation, to have legal personality. The legal personality of international organisations was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1949 ( ICJ 174). The European Community itself has always had it.

But anti-European campaigners won't tell you that. No, they insinuate that legal personality is unique to states, that if the EU has legal personality it becomes a state, in place of its member states. Field’s wording, that "the EU, and not member states" will be able to sign international agreements will, presumably intentionally, make people think that member states, including Britain, will lose their right to sign international agreements. Nor will they point out that for the EU to sign up to an international agreement in the field of foreign affairs, it would require the approval of the governments of all EU countries in the Council of Ministers.

Similarly, coming back to the Security Council, Open Europe makes much of various alternative wordings that were suggested for the presentation of a common EU position, when there is one, by the EU’s representative. Again, they don’t mention that, for there to be a common position in the first place, Britain would have to have agreed to it.

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

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

The Telegraph and the Mail claim today that the BBC is to investigate "allegations that the Radio Four 'Today' programme is biased in favour of the European Union"! That will be news to most objective observers, as Radio 4 is widely held to be a bastion of euroscepticism. This is clearly an attempt by the eurosceptics to bounce the BBC into adopting a more eurosceptic position. They are of course, irritated that in the main, the BBC is normally a source of factual and objective information and does not come out with a constant one-sided diatribe against the EU that they would like.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a UKIP member, has apparently claimed that only one interviewee in five supports British withdrawal from the European Union. I suppose he will claim that BBC coverage of Westminster is equally biased as only a minority of interviewees support the break-up of the United Kingdom. Come to think of it, 'flat-earthers' don't seem to get anything like 50% of the air-time either.

It is curious to see Tony Blair lambasted in Conservative and UKIP circles for having "sold out to Europe". In much of the rest of Europe he is considered to have done precisely the opposite!

To read the Belgian or Italian press, for instance, you would have thought that Blair had single-handedly prevented the rest of Europe from carrying out the modest reforms it sought to the current EU system - or where he was unable to do so to negotiate instead an opt-out for Britain. Blair is, along with the Dutch, blamed for killing off the notion of an EU constitution. He blocked certain changes from unanimity to qualified majority voting. He has an opt-out of the Charter of Rights and kept Britain out of the euro and Schengen. He even opposed a reference in the treaty to the long standing primacy of EU law. I could go on - and many of the criticisms are unjustified. But they do illustrate how the Eurosceptic attacks on Blair in Britain are, to put it mildly, somewhat one-sided in their analysis.

Federalists are in despair. Far from being delighted with the outline for a Reform Treaty agreed by the European Council in June, as most Eurosceptics would lead you to believe, federalists have much to moan about.

The idea of a "constitution" has been abandoned. Ditto for the EU's Foreign Minister. The president of the European Council will become semi-permanent with a 30 months (instead of the current rotating six month) term of office - meaning that the president of the Intergovernmental European Council, chosen by the Prime Ministers of the member states, will become more prominent at the expense of the President of the Commission elected by the European Parliament. There is to be no qualified majority voting on tax, on foreign policy or on security. Foreign policy is to remain firmly intergovernmental. The Commission's "embassies" around the world are now to come under the joint responsibility of the Council and the Commission, allowing member states to have greater control over them and to place their own staff in them. The Charter of Rights has been partially neutered. There are more opt-outs for member states, not least the UK.

Either Britain's Eurosceptics are far too blinkered to notice this, or else they are deliberately ignoring it because they want to frighten people into believing that any changes to the current EU treaties mean a step towards a more federal system, which they anyway characterise as a centralised superstate. Don't expect any of them to dwell on any of the above subjects.

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!

British Eurosceptics, who let us not forget, are a highly organised and well financed network, are working themselves up into a frenzy over the European Council discussions on replacing the Constitutional Treaty with a pragmatic set of amendments to the current European treaties.

The Eurosceptic press is full of articles and leaders spitting bile about Europe, and claiming that “Blair is just hours from betraying Britain” (Express), “Blair to surrender” (Telegraph), that Blair could “sell us down the river to the faceless EU politicians and bureaucrats who run Europe. There is no middle road at this travelling road show of snake oil salesman and three card tricksters..” (Sun)

Charming!

Tory politicians are equally at it. Hague contributes to the Sun’s diatribe, while Heathcoat Amory tells outright fibs when he says that “80 percent of our laws are imposed by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels”. He knows perfectly well that “bureaucrats” don’t make European laws – ministers from national governments and elected MEPs do – and in any case the figure of 80 percent of our laws coming from Europe is contradicted by the House of Commons library estimates of nine percent.

The Telegraph reports “EU reform chaos as Blair and Brown fail to agree” while the Financial Times reports the opposite “Brown and Blair find rare unity on defending 'red lines' “.

Some pro-European voices are allowed a few lines in some papers:

• “Unless Europe gets its act together, the world will continue to ignore it (writes Timothy Garton Ash for the Guardian)

• "Come 2009, when the US gets a new president, the EU must be ready to speak in a voice that will actually be listened to.". "The presidency's reduced package of functionally necessary institutional changes is a pragmatic, not an ideological response to the present impasse. We can see nothing in the German presidency's approach to these issues that conflicts in any way with British national interests." (Letter in the Financial Times from Lords Dykes, Hannay of Chiswick, Kerr of Kinlochard, and Peter Sutherland – none of them Labour, by the way).

• "There is no doubt that some provisions of the old constitutional treaty were misconceived, but there are other measures which should be retained in a new treaty, which are sensible responses to the EU's expansion from 15 to 27 member states in the last three years. The proposals to end the rotating presidency, to merge the two foreign affairs roles, to reform voting weights in the European Council and to give national parliaments a greater role in the decision-making process are among the measures that should attract support from those who genuinely wish to see the EU work better." (Letter from Lord Brittan of Spennithorne QC, Mr Roger Carr, Mr Guy Dawson, Mr Niall FitzGerald, Sir Philip Hampton, Mr Vijay Patel, Sir Mike Rake, Mr Roland Rudd, Mr Bryan Sanderson, Ms Rosemary Thorne, Mr Bill Thomas, Lord Tugendhat).

But the Eurosceptic papers appear not to want to publish dissenting letters or even factual corrections. We are in for a battle between the unelected press barons and the elected government on an issue on which the former have prepared the ground for years with their relentless depiction of the Europe as akin to the bubonic plague.

Reading through the briefing by the Eurosceptic think-tank Open Europe on the proposals for a new treaty, I was struck by several glaring omissions.

It makes predictions on what is likely to be in the treaty, mentioning the replacement of the six month rotating presidency, merging the two EU spokesmen on foreign affairs, voting weights in the Council of Ministers and the proposal to reduce the number of Commissioners.

However, despite seeing fit to claim that a revised treaty will not increase democratic accountability and will give the EU more powers, both of which are palpably incorrect, it fails to mention one of the proposals that will form the core of any revised treaty - namely, making all European legislation subject to the double approval of national governments and the directly elected European Parliament. Indeed, a revised treaty would also give national parliaments far more influence over their ministers and enhance their ability to scrutinise legislative proposals from the Commission. Both of these measures would greatly enhance parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation, something which I am sure even the most rabid Eurosceptic would accept is a good thing, and it is most surprising that a supposedly reputable think-tank would see fit to completely ignore it.

Moreover, Open Europe claims that 54% of UK Chief Executives think that the benefits of the common market are outweighed by the cost of regulation. Yet this apparent dissatisfaction doesn't square with the stance of Business for New Europe, an independent group of business leaders, which cites a poll showing that 52% of business leaders support a new treaty, with just 31% opposed. In the words of Sir Philip Hampton, Chairman of Sainsbury's, "The key aim for business is the development of an effective single market. The main provisions of the amending treaty should help achieve that."

By the way, any sufferes from insomnia who want to see the issue of the new treaty debated by myself, Tory europhobe MEP Dan Hannan, Robert Evans and Telegraph correspondent, Bruno Waterfield should click here http://www.maramoja.tv/index2.html

How to switch sides when the facts don't match your line: The traditional Eurosceptic story is about small businesses being burdened by red tape from Brussels. Yet, when the Commission proposes to exempt small businesses from some of the regulations on food hygiene, the refrain switches to "an EU initiative that risks a dramatic rise in food poisoning". Instead of sticking to their usual line that it 'should be up to your own government to decide on how small cafes are run', the Times goes with the 'bash the EU' brigade for, this time, not being prescriptive enough!

So the EU is criticised for over-regulation and criticised when it exempts businesses from regulation!

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".

I see that relations between the pro and anti-European wings of the Tory party have deteriorated to the extent that one side wishes to airbrush the other out of history.

Media coverage of the election of Neil Parrish MEP as Chairman of the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee has been accompanied by the comment that this is "the first time that this important Chair has gone to a UK member" (comments by a Conservative MEP in the Western Mail, 27th February).

Yet this very same post was previously held by Sir Henry Plumb MEP (later Lord Plumb), former President of the National Farmers Union and David Curry MEP, later to become a UK Minister for Agriculture. These two were, of course, strongly pro-European. It seems that some of the new generation of Conservative MEPs would prefer that they had never existed.

Open Europe, the eurosceptic think-tank, has re-used the old gimmick of calculating the total volume of EU legislation by pages, pointing out that it would stretch 31.7 miles. This illustrates, they say, that "the growing burden of EU over-regulation is a serious problem for businesses and even voluntary groups".

Sounds fine, but they do not mention that a large proportion of this EU regulation is designed precisely to cut bureaucracy and red-tape for businesses by setting a common EU norm to replace 27 divergent national standards in the EU's single market. In calling for regulations to be repealed, "Open Europe" is rarely specific. For instance, do they want to repeal legislation that allows a company to register a trademark once, to be valid throughout Europe? Without that legislation, companies would have to register their trademarks 27 times over, going through different hoops and bureaucracies in 27 different countries, filling in 27 different forms etc.

No EU legislation can possibly be adopted without the agreement of a very large majority (and often unanimity) of the member states themselves, so the very idea that the EU has "imposed" unwanted and unnecessary legislation on member states is somewhat simplistic. Yet the eurosceptics go on trying to portray the EU as an all-powerful bureaucracy spewing out unwanted legislation that member states have no choice but to accept. Any attempts to counter this myth and to explain how the system actually works are denounced by them as "EU propaganda". Their lies and hypocrisy make you sick.

There is, however, one thing the EU can do - and is now beginning to do - to reduce the number of pages of EU legislation. This relates to when it adopts legislation amending pre-existing EU legislation (and the bulk of single market legislation nowadays is precisely that: an update or review of existing EU law, rather than new EU law). Rather than adopting countless directives amending another directive, it should recast the original directive, keeping a single text rather than a string of them on any one subject.

The Constitutional Committee of the European Parliament is at this very moment preparing a change to the Parliament's Rule of Procedure to facilitate the adoption of consolidated legislation of this kind. At least this will lessen the ability of eurosceptics to exaggerate the volume of legislation that emanates from the European Union.

Eurosceptics have long followed the policy of Goebbels who said that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it. One particularly insidious lie that they have been repeating since the 1970s is a fabricated quote from Jean Monnet to the effect that:

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation."

Anyone with a passing acquaintance of Monnet's work would immediately be suspicious of such a quote. I have asked the Jean Monnet foundation in Switzerland whether there is any record of Jean Monnet saying anything of the sort, and they confirm that he didn't - this was an invention first made up in a British newspaper in the 1970s.

On the other hand, they have sent me a real speech by Jean Monnet, delivered on the 28th March 1953 to the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, in which he said precisely the opposite -

"Our Community will only develop well if all the measures that it takes are made public, explained publicly not only to the peoples of our Community but also to those who do not belong to it"

[The French original - "Notre Communauté ne se développera bien que si toutes les mesures qu'elle prend sont rendues publiques, expliquées publiquement, non suelement aux peuples de notre Communauté, mais aux peoples qui n'en font pas partie."]

Phillip Davies has stooped to a new low in his latest ranting, and shame on the Yorkshire Post for continuing to give his rabid views such credence and prominence!

You may have seen yesterday’s “exclusive” story. In line with cubed strawberries, straight bananas and banning church organs, apparently the EU is now “trying to brainwash children in the classroom”

The issue that Davies, Godfrey Bloom and chums have highlighted is that the European Parliament has sent information packs (entitled “The European Parliament – What’s that?”) to teachers, to help them explain its purpose and role. Shock Horror! There is no politics here, just a simple and informative guide on how the European Parliament works, and what its MEPs – from whatever party they come from – can do.

Our schools have citizenship classes to teach young people how the world around them works. They learn about how local Councillors make decisions on their behalf, how MPs make decisions on their behalf, and now how MEPs make decisions on their behalf, as well as how they can get involved in the democratic process. Whatever you think about your Council, the government or the EU, people need to know how they actually work.

Let’s be absolutely clear on this. The exaggerated success of the Eurosceptics comes from their uncanny ability to run campaigns of misinformation. The sole reason why Davies is so upset with this move, is because he knows that education is his enemy. The more people know of the EU, the less they will believe his stories.

For purposes of openness, tomorrow I will put an electronic version of the information pack on to my website so that you can all make up your own minds.

UPDATE : You can now read the information pack for yourselves here.

As frustrating (and predictable!) as an England batting collapse is the Express and Mail’s predilection for publishing at face value any old garbage sent out in a press release by Europhobic Tories.

Considering these papers would probably print “Brussels bureaucrats eat babies” given the slightest chance, it came as no surprise to see them indulge Conservative MEP Philip Bradbourn by running his claims that the EU intends to force thousands of people to retake their driving tests.

This is of course utter rubbish.

The draft directive on EU driving licences provides for Member States to keep their own rules for testing drivers. There is no requirement for people to be retake their test every 10 years, only for them to update the picture on their licence once a decade (as is already a requirement in Britain now for the new plastic cards). There is a proposal that drivers with certain medical conditions (such as serious neurological diseases and some angina sufferers) should be tested every 10 years for their suitability to drive, which is something quite different from retaking their test.

Bradbourn, the Tory transport spokesman, said: "The EU is trying to dictate to Member States what they need to do in terms of driving tests and licences."

More nonsense - and he knows it.

Legislation that is actually wanted by every country - and has been approved by the EU Council of Ministers with ministers from every Member State - hardly amounts to "dictation"!

And why do countries want it? Because it will replace over 150 different types of driving licences across Europe with a streamlined set of.... just one.! Because it will make forgeries more difficult. Because it will stop drivers banned in their country from getting a new license in another. Because it will raise standards among those who drive on our roads across Europe.

As with so much Eurosceptic myth making, the story is warped to demonise the EU for what is merely a common sense proposal.

While I was looking at this on the Daily Mail’s website (I must make clear I don’t buy the thing!) I stumbled over a story from 30th September, with the headline “Lives at risk as driving test fraud hits ‘terrifying’ new levels". So you might think the Mail would welcome measures to combat driving licence fraud - but, no, their obsession with attacking anything to do with Europe outweighs their own assessment on the issue.

And, as to Phil Bradbourn MEP, I first met him years ago when he was active in European youth and student organisations. He seemed to be an enthusiastic pro-European. Now, he prefers to play that down and pander to the Eurosceptics in his party. I suppose he expects this to help save his skin when re-selection of Conservative candidates comes up. Will it help his conscience?

More on the Tories, I'm afraid.

I see that the pro-European wing of the Conservative party won a clean sweep of all the top positions in the (contested) election of their leader and officers of their MEP group in the European Parliament.

Bad news for David Cameron's plans to remove them from the mainstream Christian Democrat Group in the EP, which lunatic scheme most of his MEPs opposed.

Good news for the Tory party as a whole, showing a return to common sense on Europe?

Don't count on it - their dedicated Europe-haters are already complaining and scheming to unseat pro-european MEPs in their reselection ahead of the next European elections. As their choice of candidates is done, not by postal vote of all their members, but at an open meeting which few can attend, it is usually a matter of organisation and who can bus in the most supporters. The ultra-Eurosceptics are dedicated, organised and very well financed. They are already planning their move.

The comments on Iain Dale's post about Kirkhope's re-election illustrate, on a small scale admittedly, some of the depth of feeling against pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party. View them by clicking here

Arch Eurosceptic Tory MEP Martin Callanan seems to be mellowing in his views on Europe, now that he is gaining practical experience of how the EU actually works rather than his previous preconceptions. He is quoted in the Evening Gazette as welcoming a Commission initiative to ban the import and export of cat and dog fur in the EU, saying "this shows that where there is a will to effect change, coupled with a strong support for a shift in the law, the Commission is prepared to listen to a well presented case".

This comes on top of his victory with his amendment to allow the continued use of mercury in barometers. This is not an amendment that I agree with, but it certainly showed Martin that EU law is not dictated by the European Commission, as Eurosceptics are wont to claim, but adopted through democratic procedures involving elected governments in the Council and directly elected MEPs in the Parliament.

One man that is not for changing though is the moustachioed Member Roger Helmer, who has been quick to show his disgust at some of his fellow MEPs, and launched an astonishing attack on his leader David Cameron, for supporting a stronger version of the EU's chemicals legislation (known as REACH).

In a letter to a newspaper the right-wing rogue wrote: "Mr Cameron is quite reasonably seeking to enhance his party's green credentials, the proposed "stronger substitution principle" which he espouses makes Reach substantially more damaging. I first learned that Mr Cameron expected his MEPs to vote for a stronger Reach during his speech at the party conference in October, and I was shocked. As a life-long Conservative, I want to support industry, which delivers jobs, pensions and the taxes that fund our public services, and I will continue to do so. I am simply not prepared to vote for a green gesture that will do far more harm than good."


Despite the fact that the tighter chemical legislation will make the continent a healthier and safer place, industrial workers, and indeed the general public as a whole, the ones adversely affected by the myriad of chemicals we know little or nothing about in our environment, obviously do not receive quite as much support from him.

I have written to the Director General of the BBC Mark Thompson after reading his article in the Mail on Sunday which explained why the BBC had decided to give more coverage to UKIP.

He said: “When I joined the BBC as DG, I thought our coverage of Europe was deficient. There was too little - and too much of what there was tended to view Europe through the lens of Westminster politics.

By the stopwatch, Eurosceptics may have had their share of the debate but there was too little curiosity about the different shades of sceptical opinion and too little seriousness given to those who believed that the right thing for the UK to do was to leave the EU altogether.

We've responded by appointing Mark Mardell in the new role of Europe editor, by delivering more consistent coverage of the work of the European institutions and by exploring the views of UKIP and other shades of Eurosceptic opinion more regularly and thoroughly."

This seems utterly bizarre to me and suggests that the BBC’s coverage before Mr Thompson became Director General was biased in favour of Europe, which it clearly wasn’t.

He himself admits that Eurosceptics received as much coverage but does not really explain why he felt the need to give more credence to UKIP, a fringe party who still haven’t got close to winning a seat in the House of Commons, even in a by-election.

I have also enquired if he will balance the BBC’s increased coverage of “shades of Euroscepticism” by covering more shades of pro-European opinions including federalists, neo-federalist, intergovernmentalists, status quo supporters, wideners and deepeners.

I await his response with interest (which I will of course publish on here!).

Yet more tired anti-EU nonsense is being trotted out by the Centre for Policy Studies, in the Thatcherite thinktank's latest attempt to revive the policies of the 'Iron Lady'.

The chairman of the CPS, Lord Blackwell, has opined that Europe's 'outdated protected regional economic block is in danger of locking us into the slowest growth markets' while the European social market model is 'destroying' Britain's ability to compete. Indeed, the CPS urges the Government to change our relationship with the EU into something resembling that of Switzerland

Far from being a 'protected economic block', the EU is committed to open and fair trade. Indeed, it conducts more trade with the rest of world than does the USA, Canada, Russia and Japan, including accepting, without quotas or tariffs, exports from all of the least developed countries.

Meanwhile, Britons continue to enjoy the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in living memory whilst still benefiting from the fundamental workplace rights laid down in the European Social Chapter.

Some economic destruction!

Sections of the right-wing press have leapt upon the new EU Employment Directive (relating to age discrimination) as (yet another) example of a European Commission 'diktat' with a Sunday Telegraph leading article claiming that the law has 'no democratic mandate at all'.

Before hordes of Eurosceptics start foaming at the mouth, it's worth pointing out that our Westminster government which was, last time I checked, elected, agreed to the directive in November 2000.

Indeed, all EU legislation is issued by the Council, a body which is made up of ministers from democratically elected governments of the EU's member states. The Council works on the basis of creating consensus rather than imposing 'diktats' onto reluctant member states. Its decisions are subject to the extra safeguard of scrutiny by the elected European Parliament and by national parliaments (in our case the Commons and the Lords scrutiny committees).

The Commission has no powers to dictate anything, merely the ability to propose rather than enact legislation.

It is disappointing that the Sunday Telegraph chose to use their editorial to peddle myth and factual inaccuracy.

Paul Sykes has accepted my challenge to a public debate between him and me on the UK’s relationship with the rest of Europe.

This is much needed to re-balance his highly tendacious set of allegations that feature in newspapers across Britain yesterday when he launched his Eurosceptic campaign with adverts in many of the national papers. The Telegraph included a full page ad, with a half page in The Times, and quarter pages in the Mail, Express and Sun. Locally the Yorkshire Post had a full page ad with the Yorkshire Evening Post a half. Whether this is replicated across the country remains to be seen, but in any case it must have cost a fortune.

His advertisements make absurd claims, that I commented on in my blog last Tuesday (October 10). But to try to back them up, he quotes two opinion polls which he himself commissioned and which, unsurprisingly, comes up with results that he hopes will cause people to swallow his arguments.

The poll, conducted for him by YouGov, says that 87 per cent of people want a referendum on the EU’s powers. His full question is “Some people have called for a referendum on whether powers over fishing, farming, rules and regulations, law-making and borders being returned to the British Parliament from the European Union. Would you support or oppose a campaign to hold such a referendum?”

It is a well known feature of polls that a question “Do you think there should be a referendum on X [insert issue of choice]” tend to produce large majorities in favour, which inevitably gives Sykes the result he wants. On top of that, there is plenty of ambiguity in “rules and regulations, law-making and borders” - all rather loose descriptions, left open to interpretation. Of course, the fact that the British Parliament has anyway not relinquished powers over such matters, but simply agreed that Britain should act jointly with neighbouring countries on those aspects where we are interdependent, does not feature in his loaded question. Nor does he specify that there is more than one parliament involved: the European Parliament, (and, come to that, the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly) exercise scrutiny and rights to approve or not legislation adopted at their level – and it is the British Parliament that has determined which level is appropriate. It is also worth pointing out that 87 per cent of people support calls for a referendum and not the “return of powers”.

The same goes for the second questions in his poll – how much information have you received in the last 12 months from your MP or MEP about the European Union? Ninety five per cent have heard nothing or very little but again we don’t actually learn anyone’s views on Europe.

Sykes's whole campaign, along with the second question, implies that people are not properly informed about the European Union, which is true – but this suggests a lot of the answers to the first question will have been given using only the ambiguous knowledge they have gained from reading the question itself.

The latter question is also, intentionally or not, begging a very different question. If you replaced the “European Union” with almost any other subject you would get the same response. Unfortunately MPs and especially MEPs do have the money to contact each constituent every year – it is simply not in their budget.

I have around five million constituents in Yorkshire and the Humber and as much as I would like to keep all of them individually and directly informed about the European Union, it is simply not possible. I have to hope that the media will give me some unbiased coverage. I certainly cannot pay for a particular standpoint to be given blanket space in the way that Mr Sykes can! According to the Newspaper Marketing Agency, the cost for his ad in the Telegraph alone will have cost £45,000.

This is why I am glad Sykes has agreed to debate the issues with me. There is no way pro-Europeans can compete on a par with Sykes’s campaign financially but I know when I meet him head on I will have facts behind me rather than myth.

As to not hearing from your MEP, if you would like to hear from me four times a year you can sign up to my mailing list for my quarterly report, which will give you regular information on the EU, by emailing richard@richardcorbett.org.uk. You may also find interesting items on my modest website www.richardcorbett.org.uk.

The Daily Telegraph has revealed that Yorkshire millionaire Paul Sykes intends to spend £10million on a new Eurosceptic campaign which will be, according to him “an outbreak of truth”.

The “Speak Out” campaign will include a call centre, a website, adverts in national newspapers and a letter to every single household in Britain, with the intention of breaking the “conspiracy of silence” over Europe.

Apart from the disappointment of finding out Mr Sykes isn’t an avid reader of this blog – I’m not known for my reticence to discuss European issues – this is worrying news.

I too, would like the European debate to feature more prominently in this country but a debate is not what Mr Sykes has in mind. As the Telegraph explains, Speak Out accuses the government of surrendering to an “undemocratic and unaccountable” Brussels and reveals that the advertisements will include the following:

“Our MPs have betrayed us. They have given away powers that were not theirs to give. More than half our laws — some people say as much as 80 per cent — originate not in the debating chambers of our elected Parliament but behind closed doors in Brussels."

Despite the considerable wedge Sykes has thrown at this project, he has presumably not budgeted for basic research. If he had the House of Commons library will have told him that only nine percent of UK law originates from the European Union.

And of course, legislation from "Brussels" is in fact adopted by ministers from elected national governments in the Council and elected MEPs in the Parliament, which amounts to a double dose of democratic scrutiny. And not "behind closed doors" - the European Parliament has always met in public (including all its committees, unlike Westminster) and the Council does too now.

Somehow I doubt Mr Sykes will be correcting his advertisements in time for next Monday’s launch of Speak Out. Instead every single household in the country will presumably receive deliberately misleading mail-shots railing against the European Union.

Hardly an outbreak of truth!

Boris Johnson MP, prominent Tory, gives a sickening example of the hypocrisy of the Conservative Eurosceptics in his recent column in the Telegraph. In objecting to the recent legislation requiring the protection of children in cars through booster seats, he complains that:

“It is, of course, an EU directive, which means that elected British politicians have been given neither the means nor the opportunity to contest it – or even to debate it.”

What nonsense! And furthermore, he knows this to be a lie.

Was there no British Minister in the Council meeting when this was adopted? Of course there was, and Britain supported the measure, along with other elected governments.

Are there no British MEPs present in the elected European Parliament? Of course there are, even from Boris Johnson’s own party, who supported the measure.

Was it not discussed in the House of Commons? Of course it was, not least by the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, which, on Wednesday 5 July 2006, approved the measure in the form of the Draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, where even the spokesman from Boris Johnson’s own party welcomed the new regulations.

And as to the reasons for the measure, they are not, as Boris Johnson fantasizes, because “a few years ago some lonely and bored European Commission official was persuaded (no doubt by the booster seat industry) that in some circumstances children under 135cm would be safer with booster seats”, but because elected politicians in the EU Council of Ministers and the European Parliament examined and accepted what experts on road safety were saying.

Seatbelts in cars are designed for adults. Children, being both smaller and lighter, need an adapted form of protection. This measure will save lives and prevent injuries.

Boris says that this may only be one and a half lives saved per year. Even if it is so low, that would mean 15 children saved over the next 10 years – and far more spared from serious injury. Scarcely a case of evil intent by the EU! Yet Boris says he is “shocked by the depth of my own anger”. He describes it as a ”stupid and impertinent law” and says that there is a is a “perfect and justifiable reason for massive civil disobedience”!

I am used to froth and hyperbole from the Eurosceptics, but this ranks right up there with the silliest!

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.

As any policeman will tell you, those who change their story repeatedly will probably be lying. It’s no different in politics.

The percentage of our laws decided at a European level, causes such confusion amongst Eurosceptics. UKIP’s David Bannerman thinks it is 60%, Nigel Farage prefers 70% whilst Mike Nattrass, bizarrely, suggests it is 90%!

The Tories are slightly more reserved, with their spokespeople hopping arbitrarily between “just over half” (David Sumberg MEP) and around 80% (Dan Hannan MEP).

Surely the figure is a factual one, not a subjective one, because it is a figure borne out of actual statistics. That statistic is actually 9% (stated in an answer to a Parliamentary Question by John Redwood MP).

So, where have they got these figures from? Have they just randomly plucked them out of the air? Well, quite possibly, for some of them at least. One or two, I would suggest, are a little more sneaky.

If you look at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ figures, around 57% of the secondary legislation that has come from this department, has actually been agreed upon with our European neighbours. I would suggest that those who say “60% of our laws come from the EU” are working from this DEFRA figure and, of course, deliberately misinterpreting them as being representative of all subjects, whereas in fact, the environment and agriculture are, for good reasons, atypically high.

Notice that they fail to mention how 0% of our primary health, defence, education and culture/media/sport laws have come from the EU. This is hardly the “handing over of sovereignty” that they suggest!

An angry-sounding mumble of “federalists” or a shrill scream about “constitution by the back door” are the normal Eurosceptic responses to Europe-wide measures.

So it was with some surprise that I learned Chris Heaton-Harris, an arch-Eurosceptic Tory MEP, has called for Europe-wide measures to protect people against identity fraud.

He usually opposes European-wide measures of any sort, so I was curious to know what provoked this commendable U-turn. It turns out that he has himself been a victim of identity fraud, to the tune of £3,000.

Nothing like a dose of reality to change the mind of a self-styled "Euro-realist".

News reaches me that Newcastle city council have been compelled to remove an EU flag from the town hall. Current rules oblige councils to apply for planning permission before flying the EU flag (and presumably the UN one because it is not a national standard).

The EU flag, which has only come into common use over the past decade, is almost unique in that it is not a national flag but it clearly should not come under advertising regulations. Recognising this situation most citizens have been happy to see the EU flag flutter alongside flags without the formality of securing planning permission. Even the staunchly Eurosceptic Tory MEP Martin Callanan has been quoted as saying “ I do not have any problem with the flag being flown in principle.”

But not everybody has been so sensible. 24dash.com reveals Stephen Allison, a UKIP councillor in Hartlepool, has been revelling in the decision. If Mr Allison were only to refer to his own party’s website he would find that it clearly states that UKIP promises “freedom from bureaucratic politicians.” It is difficult to see how manipulating loopholes in the law to prevent councils from flying the EU flag can be seen as anything other than bureaucratic.

The government plans to liberalise the rules on flag flying later this year when perhaps the Eurosceptics will be forced to look for some arguments of substance.

I was interested to see that calling someone “pro-European” is seen as a spiteful act in the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election. UKIP’s Nigel Farage has called Tory hopeful Bob Neill “pro-European” on a recent campaign flyer, something which Neill has announced as being “defamatory”.

Surely the crime wasn’t calling Neill “pro-European”, but rather giving him undue credit for having some sense.

You can always tell that people are being “liberal with the truth” when their story changes. Over the years I’ve heard Eurosceptic MEPs claim that 90% of new UK laws have been decided at a European level. Sometimes that figure changes to 80% (as Conservative Dan Hannan was quoted the other day), sometimes it’s 75% etc etc – this figure depends, I’m assuming, on which number comes into their head first.

I see that this week, according to Godfrey Bloom, the figure is 65% (which means Hannan – a Tory, is even more wild in his allegations then UKIP!).

Well they're certainly getting warmer. I wonder how long it will take for them to get down to 9% (the actual figure - supplied by the House of Commons library).

It's also worth mentioning that Mr Bloom said, and I quote, "nobody knows anything about it [the European Union] and how it works. That's a great shame".

This is something that I CAN agree with him on wholeheartedly. Does this mean that Bloom will now become part of the solution and not the problem? Will aviatory pigs really be seen over his Selby office? Watch this space!

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.

It’s a real shame to see the Times’ Peter Briffa dismissing the NHS’ anti-smoking campaigns in such a negative way.

Cigarette packets already contain health warnings, an initiative which the Government is currently reviewing – a move which Briffa calls “sinister”.

The review involves the UK Government working with the European Commission to integrate pictoral packet warnings in addition to the current text format.

Unfortunately, if you wave the word “European” under the nose of Mr Briffa you seem to get a negative response regardless of the subject matter or the quality of the proposal. It is truly irresponsible of him to allow his Eurosceptic rantings to come before the health of his readers.

The words he used in his article are below:

“Perhaps it's the privations of childhood that explain the latest sinister twist in the Government's war on tobacco. I say Government, but inevitably the European Commission casts its grubby shadow over proceedings."

Three blatant examples of Eurosceptic lies came across my desk recently. Needless to say, no-one in the media picked up on the fact that they were lies and sadly many people will have taken them at face value.

First was an article by John Blundell in "The Business" who rants about European legislation "imposed on us by the Commission in Brussels. There was no Parliamentary scrutiny. There was no consultation. There was no discussion........." Either this man is painfully ill informed and cannot even be bothered to check basic facts before putting pen to paper, or he is deliberately deceptive. As I never cease having to point out, the European Commission does not adopt legislation: it proposes it to the elected European Parliament and the elected governments of the member states in the EU Council. They decide on it, and rarely adopt it without changes. There is always parliamentary scrutiny, both by the European Parliament and Westminster. Far from there being "no discussion" the examples he quotes are all discussed ad nauseum.

The second example is from a letter-writer to the Yorkshire Post who claims, in similar vein to Mr Blundell, that "MEPs are not allowed to vote to change any Commission decision". Same answer as above, but the prevalence of this false allegation in so many recent letters makes me think that it is a deliberate policy line of the europhobic organisations to ply this particular myth, sure in the knowledge that too few people understand the workings of the EU to be able to answer
them. And as Hitler advocated, tell a lie often enough and people will
believe it.

Third example was Thomas Wise, a UKIP MEP, who in the Parliament this week blamed the EU for changes to planning laws in English villages so that "we are now witnessing the erosion of the traditional communities and destruction of our landscape"! He goes on "you might ask who is responsible for this. Have a guess: the regional assemblies accountable directly to Brussels"!

Now, quite what the regional assembly may or may not said to influence local planning in his region, I don't know. But one thing I am quite sure of: regional assemblies are not "accountable directly to Brussels". How could they be? They are composed of elected local Councillors and other stakeholders in the region concerned. "Brussels", whoever that is, appoints no one to them. They have been established in the UK by UK authorities with a remit determined by the UK. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union.

Yet this has not stopped anti-European campaigners repeating their allegations that these regions have been created by the European Union. The flimsy evidence they cite for this is that the European Parliamentary constituencies established by the House of Commons follow the same regional boundaries. Wow! So do Government Offices of various kinds. So do many private sector companies. This does not mean the EU created them. The EU has no jurisdiction on how member states organise themselves internally. It simply recognises whatever internal regions member states may or may not have.

The Eurosceptics here are trying to link Europe in peoples' minds with something they consider to be unpopular, namely regional assemblies. This is the same tactic that they have followed in trying to blame the EU for metrication, which is similarly not caused by the European Union. I hope readers and newspaper editors are not gullible enough to fall for it!

I see that my own Shipley MP, the young right-wing Tory Phillip Davies, has launched a "Better Off Out" campaign urging Britain to leave the European Union. Now we know why UKIP didn´t put up a candidate against him in the General Election, which enabled him to win the seat by a very small margin with their support - and now it´s payback time!

I see that David Cameron has already ticked him off. He realises that their is a real danger to the Conservative attempts at revival from it´s lunatic fringe. I´m told that Mr Davies has also made comments sympathetic to the BNP and I have myself read his remarks attacking what he calls "political correctness" but most people would call politeness.

Quite how Britain would be "better off out" is hard to see. We would be leaving our "neighbourhood committee" where we cooperate with all our neighbouring countries. We would be walking away from our main export market (which takes nearly 60% of our exports on which nearly 3 million jobs depend). We would undermine a structure that has secured peace in our area for three generations. We would lose a voice around the table at which decisions that affect us are taken. Our citizens would lose their rights to travel freely, work and live in other EU countries. I could go on and on and on...

You’ve all read Eurosceptic claims that the European Parliament has no powers or simply “rubber-stamps” EU legislation. It’s one of those lies that they hope will gain currency by constant repetition.

So it was interesting to see their strategy undermined by no less a person than Nigel Farage’s partner as co-leader of UKIP’s Group in the European Parliament, Jens-Peter Bonde MEP. In a recent article in EU Observer he wrote:

“This week the European Parliament made a difference. We gave our Yes to a compromise regulation on fluorinated gases (F-gases) raising general standards and at the same time allowing Denmark and Austria to continue their bans on the use of F-gases…. the European Parliament proposed changing the proposal for total harmonisation into a minimum-regulation allowing countries to keep and insert stricter rules.”

Not only that, he admitted that the small groups in the EP can make a difference, something Eurosceptic MEPs generally deny, saying: “The amendment was proposed by Dutch MEP Hans Blokland and myself on behalf of our little group. It shows that members from small groups have the same possibility to influence legislation as MEPs from bigger groups”.

Indeed, the European Parliament is not a rubber-stamp parliament. It has no in-built automatic majority, unlike many national parliaments. To pass a proposal or an amendment, you need to build your majority case-by-case through explanation, persuasion and negotiation with colleagues from different parties and countries. As Bonde pointed out in his article: “We could not have won the battle without cross party cooperation.”

In short, if you get stuck in, work hard at talking to others and arguing the merits of your case, you will succeed. Perhaps we can now look forward to a change of attitude of the UKIP MEPs and see them actually doing some work and not just turning up only at votes to oppose everything without even reading the content.

I was reading some of the questions put to Douglas Alexander (Minister of State for Europe) on a BBC online forum today. Some people asked some interesting and probing questions regarding the future of the EU, the constitution and its relevance, and it was good to see such a level of engagement.

However, many contributions displayed a worryingly low level of basic information and knowledge about the EU actually works. It was also notable that the lower the information level, the more Eurosceptic the attitude (in most cases).

It is clear why Eurosceptic campaigers want to keep the level of information low. They have consistently opposed proposals to increase public information materials and to include teaching about how the EU works (just as we teach how national and local government works) in schools.

Until this happens, we will always have to deal with ill-informed rants about how “unelected bureaucrats in Brussels have replaced our own Sovereignty”.

I chuckled when I saw Nick Martinek’s latest letter in the Yorkshire Post complaining about my “low standards” of argument. Charming! Nonetheless it would be fascinating to see where he got his figures. “We do not elect 90 per cent of MEPs, or 90 per cent of the EU Council” he claims. Well, I’m sure that’s news
to the MEPs and Government Ministers who battled hard in elections to win their seats!

As for the idea that the EU is attempting to ban minor political
parties from entering elections, it really does make me wonder who cooks up
these bizarre attempts at scare mongering. Of course, any system of state funding for parties is limited. Joe Bloggs couldn’t set up a political party and expect to receive a fat cheque, signed by the tax-payers, to help him get started. It is absolutely right that state funding should be offered to real parties which actually have members and a degree of support from the public as shown in elections. That is how it works in Britain (where we do already have some state support through free TV party political brodcasts, free mailing of electoral addresses and "short" money given by the House of Commons to opposition parties). It is also how it works for the limited support given by the European Paliament to help with the work of political parties at European level.

That under no circumstances implies that smaller parties are excluded - they get their share. Nor are they banned from running campaigns or raising their own funds, and certainly not required to "toe the EU line" and I suspect that Mr Martinek knows it.

A recurring Eurosceptic argument is the supposed threat from European Union to Britain’s “ancient liberties”. This begs two questions: how well is liberty protected by British institutions and how much are European institutions a threat or a safeguard?

On the former point, I came across the following quote from Lord Hailsham, former Tory Lord Chancellor, in his article "Is it Time for Britain to Adopt a Written Constitution?”

“The constitutional law of this island is based on the ancient prerogatives of the Crown, and the various Acts of Parliament by which these have been modified or extended. We have always possessed a strong central government, and when the powers of Crown and Parliament are united under a strong administration, the legal powers of government are virtually unlimited. The limitations are not imposed by law. In theory Parliament is supreme. There is nothing legally that it cannot do, and practically nothing which, at one time or another, it has not done. It has prolonged its own life. It has taken away the lives and liberties of its fellow citizens without semblance of a fair trial. It has confiscated property. It has ratified revolutions. In this we are almost unique. Few democracies, including the Commonwealth, possess theses powers or anything like them. Their powers are limited by a Constitution which they have no right to exceed. Only the British live under the authority of a rule absolute in theory, if tolerable in practice. In our lifetime the use of the Parliament's powers has continuously increased, and the checks and balances have been rendered increasingly ineffective by the concentration of their deductive operation more and more in the House of Commons, in the government side of the House of Commons, in the Cabinet within the government side, and in the Prime Minister within the Cabinet."

In other words, there is no strong domestic protection of our liberties at all, let alone our “ancient liberties” (and only a few of our liberties are actually very ancient).

By contrast, all post-war (and many pre-war) European democracies as well as the USA and others all have written constitutions that cannot be changed at whim by governments or by a simple parliamentary majority. They generally entrench certain rights and provide checks and balances between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

The second question is what has been the European impact on this state of affairs? It has been twofold:

The European Convention on Human Rights (which contrary to popular belief has nothing to do with the EU) is a definition of fundamental rights drawn up after the war, largely inspired by Britain, to which over 40 countries now subscribe. It is a common yardstick by which these countries accept to be judged. Citizens can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting domestic legal remedies if they feel their rights under the Convention have not been respected. British citizens have won more cases against their own government than citizens of almost any other country, which is a telling comment on the low level of protection of fundamental rights in Britain. As a result, the UK decided in the late 1990s to incorporate the whole Convention into its domestic law to make the rights enforceable in domestic courts.

The European Union, through which Britain and its neighbouring countries have agreed to act jointly in certain fields. Is there any chance that the EU might act in a way that threatens our liberties? Well, the EU does have a number of safeguards that we don’t have at national level. First, any legislation the EU adopts is subject to judicial review and can be overturned by the Courts if it goes beyond the limited field laid down in the treaty, if it violates fundamental rights or if procedures have not been properly respected. Second, no significant legislation can be adopted without the approval of a very large majority (and sometimes unanimity) of the governments of the Member States. This ensures that everything is looked at and scrutinized by a wide variety of perspectives, by different ministries, by different political standpoints and by different interests. Third, EU legislation is also examined by a directly elected and full-time parliament that is not in hoc to any government majority.

All in all, the idea that Europe represents a threat to our liberties looks just like another Eurosceptic red herring. If anything, it is the contrary that is true!

I was amused to see that the "European Reform Forum" set up by arch-Eurosceptic Bill Cash MP has concluded that there is a "need to reform the existing European Treaties". They call for wide ranging debate and agreement on a set of reforms.

Isn't that exactly what the Constitutional Treaty - which they opposed vigorously - sought to do?

I'm speechless: a letter in the Yorkshire Evening Post defies further comment:

"A recent report quoted the value of the euro as 66p per euro. This proves that in no way could this be acceptable in this country as this would make the poor even poorer. £200 becomes £120! Everything would almost double in price. The entire economy would end in total chaos."

Interesting to see that Eurosceptics are focusing on a recent European Court of Justice judgement that confirmed that the EU is entitled to require member states to treat certain violations of European legislation as criminal offences. Needless to say, Eurosceptics have gone way over the top and referred to the European Commission being able to determine sentences, claiming that "Brussels" will determine criminal penalties.

If they thought a little bit further than the next tabloid headline, they might get involved in a sensible discussion about what this ruling actually means - and, who knows, they might even welcome it! Do they really think that, for instance, Spain should merely give token fines to fishermen who catch more than their quota in British waters? Or that people who put toxic substances into waterways, in violation of EU law, should not be subject to any criminal court proceedings in their country?

Essentially, the ruling confirms that member states can be required to get tough with those who violate the law. This is a good thing for everyone. When we agree common European laws with our neighbouring countries in the EU, surely it is our right to expect our partners to implement it properly, and to sanction those who violate the law in their country just as we would sanction those who violate it in our country? What would be the point in agreeing those common laws if our neighbours were free to leave violations unpunished?

Rather than welcome this positive feature of the EU - or even debate it - Eurosceptics would rather stir up unfounded fears that the European Commission, and not the national courts, will determine sentences or, at the very least, that we are going to have a "harmonised criminal law across the union" (to quote UKIP's press officer, Gawain Towler).

Mr Towler even berates a law firm for its supposed ignorance when they rightly say that "the European Court's ruling does not give the Commission powers to jail people…. Any laws involving criminal sanctions will have to be adopted and passed by the national Parliament's of each member state. All the Commission can do is to propose new laws for member states to adopt". Yet, the lawyers are exactly right and UKIP is completely wrong.

I see that Amanda Platell's diary in the Daily Mail last Saturday revives the old Tory tactic of massive criticism of Neil Kinnock - not of his views, but pure personal abuse. She calls him dishonest, without any attempt to back up the accusation with facts, and "one of the rudest men in politics". (The original piece isn't online, but it's selectively quoted here.)

As ever, a bit of innuendo about Europe is thrown in: "For years, his entire family has gorged on the EU gravy train."

Eh? Neil's salary as a Commissioner was comparable to that of a minister, and Glenys's, as an elected MEP, is identical to that of an MP, with broadly the same expenses. Yet one never hears the Mail or other Eurosceptic newspapers refer to anyone "gorged on the Westminster gravy train"!

Maybe politicians' salaries are too high, maybe not. But to attack just the European salaries is rank hypocrisy.

Another ill-informed Eurosceptic line of reasoning, this time in a letter in the Western Morning News on 24 February. Apart from a swipe at local (Conservative) MEP Caroline Jackson and at "unelected groups in Brussels and Strasbourg" (eh?!), it offers a suggestion as to how the EU should work:

"The ideal would be for the EU bureaucrats to make recommendations, offer advice, suggest improvements and best practice, and then leave it to the elected governments to listen and take action if they want to."

More by luck than judgement, this ill-informed writer has hit on a good description of exactly how things actually do work at European level! The "bureaucrats" do indeed propose and the ministers from "elected governments listen and take action if they want to". For good measure, they are subject to scrutiny by an elected parliament as well.

It's a pity that so many base their ideas on the EU on complete ignorance of how it actually functions!