A trio of Danish Rasmussens

I enjoyed Hugh Muir's piece in the Guardian today noting Denmark's fondness for electing people called Rasmussen, and the potential savings it might make.

"Tonight, the world leaders' cavalcade rolls on to Germany, and Baden Baden, for celebrations of the 60th anniversary of Nato. On Saturday, following ceremonies in Kiel and Strasbourg, either side of the Rhine, the 28 heads of state of Nato spend the day in a working session, seeking consensus on the choice of the new general secretary. The favourite is Denmark's right of centre prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who is popular here, with the French and in the US, and who succeeded Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, now a leading member of the European parliament. His replacement is likely to be Lars Lokke Rasmussen. All three are unrelated, but if the seers are right, consider what the country saves in name badges and stationery."

Academic Perspectives

The weekend is a good opportunity to escape from some of the glib, superficial coverage of the European Parliament in our press and to look at what the academic world is saying.

One piece that caught my eye was The Myth of Europe's 'Democratic Deficit' by Prof. Andrew Moravcsik of Princeton University, USA, which is a good antidote to some of the wilder claims by Eurosceptics. I don’t always agree with Andy, but his articles are always thought provoking and well worth a read.

I was also flattered to see that Professor Juliet Lodge of the Jean Monnet Centre names me in an article as one of five MEPs who 'have brought the European Parliament from being a mere talking shop to a legislature with genuine power'. Of course, there are many who have been involved in the long battle to make sure that no EU legislation can be adopted without parliamentary approval, thereby making the EU based not just on inter-governmental co-operation, but on parliamentary democracy. But in recent years, she says, five have stood out: 'The first three are the co-ordinators of the three largest political groups (and have led their Groups on these matters for a decade). They have thus negotiated on behalf of their Groups virtually all of the positions adopted by the Parliament on these issues over the last decade. They have at the same time taken on several other key roles, notably key rapporteurships. It is striking that two of the three are British - Andrew Duff and Richard Corbett.'

Maybe – but it is worth recalling that none of the treaty changes we have put forward could come into force without the approval of each and every national parliament.

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.

Join the 8 hours campaign

I have joined forces with Danish MEP Dan Jørgensen to launch the 8 hours campaign to put a maximum limit on the transport of animals for slaughter.

Animals for slaughter are currently protected by some EU legislation which does require that they are given suitable amounts of water and breaks but it is not enough. Of particular concern is the trend of transporting animals for slaughter for days at a time. This is completely unnecessary and a maximum limit of eight hours is a reasonable objective that stands a realistic chance of being made into law.

But if this is going to happen we need your help! Please sign up to the eight hours campaign on the website (www.8hours.eu) and show your support by joining the Facebook group.

Labour4yorkshire.eu

We have now launched our campaign website for the 2009 European elections, which you can view at www.labour4yorkshire.eu.

You can see our full team of candidates as it results from the ballot of all Labour party members in Yorkshire & Humber. You can also learn more about the work Linda and I do for Yorkshire & Humber in the EU and the benefits membership brings to our region and country. There is also information about how the election works and why it's so importnat that you take part. You can also learn more about each candidate.

Happy surfing!

EuroparlTV

The European Parliament has launched an online TV service to help make EU matters more accesible, particularly to younger people.

You can check the site out by clicking here

There is already a video about the problem of the European City Guide online. It's in the Your Voice section of the site.

The Record, Europe debate on Ireland

Click here to see me debating what to do after the Irish referendum (against the Tory-Sinn Fein alliance) on BBC “The Record, Europe” programme.

You can also view or downlaod the programme on BBC iPlayer from here.

Some interesting links

I took part in this week's Record Europe in which we discuss the relationship between sport and the European law. You can catch in on the BBC Parliament's channel or watch it on the internet here. The debate starts just under five minutes into the programme.

Another link well worth taking a look at is Nosemonkey's EUtopia post on the media and why he thinks that he was shortlisted for UACES-Reuters Reporting Europe Award for his blog on the EU. Far from being chuffed with being up for the award Nosemonkey worries he was shortlisted because of the distinct lack of any journalism from the major papers on the EU. It's a thoughtful piece that all too easily highlights the UK media's weakness of reporting the EU and the ignorence this then leads to.

Two other bloggers, Jon Worth and Jan Seifert, have set up a website which is campaigning for just one president of the EU, called Who Do I Call, in tribute to Henry Kissinger's infamous question "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?". It's online at www.whodoicall.eu and argues that appointing the same person to be President of the Commission and President of the European Council would offer greater democracy and efficiency while obviously offering one clear figurehead of the EU to the rest of the world.

Annotated treaties on my website

For anyone still interested in the differences between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, I now have a consolidated version of the treaties on my website, which has been annotated by Peadar ó Broin at the Irish Institute of International and European Affairs.

The whole text is colour coded so you can identify which parts of the text have been introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, which parts are from previous treaties and importantly which parts were in the Constitution but have been dropped from the Lisbon Treaty.

While the consolidated text still weighs in at a hefty 386 pages long, it will certainly be a useful tool for academics and specialists, while just a quick glance at it proves that there are plenty of differences between the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution.

Click to read.

Lords of the Blog

A new collaborative blog site has been launched by the House of Lords, which is called 'Lords of the Blog' and is written by Members of the House of Lords (obviously). Its aim is to increase public engagement and it should certainly offer an interesting insight into the House of Lords.

For those of you interested in political blogs this I'm sure will make for interesting reading with Lords such as Labour Lords Soley and Lipsey amongst the many contributors.

The six-month project states:
"Find out why Lord Tyler decries the myth of a golden age of political reporting; Baroness D’Souza’s definition of a crossbencher and what Lord Norton has to say about Iain Dale’s request for nominations for the most fanciable political journalists."

The blog can be found at: www.lordsoftheblog.net

Cameron's Euroscepticism loses more friends of influence

There’s an interesting post on the Times blogs by Sam Coates, about the awkward relationship between David Cameron and Republican front-runner John McCain.

In 2006 McCain was invited to speak at the Tory conference (it was less than thrilling) yet in the same year he criticised Cameron’s plans to pull out of the EPP, saying "I would hope they [the Conservatives] would appreciate the support they received from the EPP when they were wandering in the wilderness."

The Times blog quotes McCain as saying, "Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union. The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, and institutionalising our co-operation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance and democracy promotion."

Which perhaps explains the warm glow Dan Hannan feels everytime he mentions Obama’s name here and here

A couple of links about the Reform Treaty

If you want some detailed objective analysis of the new treaty and you're in London on February 8th, Kings College London is holding a conference on the EU Reform Treaty.

The full programme is available here.

I'll also shamelessly point you towards my article in today's Yorkshire Post, which argues genuine Eurosceptics should be in favour of the new treaty.

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".

Toynbee calls Cameron's bluff

Polly Toynbee's excellent analysis of the current state of play ahead of the Commons debate on the Lisbon Treaty is well worth a read here.

It makes various valid points not least about David Cameron's position, which, unsurprisingly, is more about striking a pose than actual intent.

Timothy Garton Ash’s latest column for the Guardian gives five good reasons for not having a referendum on the proposed EU Treaty, though he admits to being utterly fed up that we are back having the same old arguments about Europe.

His previous week’s column is also a very good read and simply points out the contradiction between many of the Foreign Policy aspirations the Conservatives spelt out at the Conference and their continued distaste for anything to do with the EU.

He points out it makes no sense to call on the EU to take action against Burma and put pressure on Zimbabwe while in the next breath condemning the Reform Treaty and screaming hysterically at the merest mention of any common foreign policy.

He also backs up the point I made last week which was that the Conservatives’ attitude to Europe in opposition would be completely and utterly untenable in power.

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.

Alexander Stubb, a Finnish MEP, has spent some of this Strasbourg week producing a video on the proposed new treaty.

He interviews MEPs from across the political and national spectrums, asking them what they think of the new treaty and whether, particularly in the UK, a referendum is necessary.

You can view the video by clicking here.

Last night I went head to head with Graham Stringer on BBC Radio 4, debating the proposed EU treaty.

You can listen to the whole discussion by clicking on the link on the Westminster Hour webpage here.

Another useful link:

John Redwood's latest return from the wilderness won him extensive headlines with his deregulation, red tape-cutting policy proposals. Many people couldn't believe the Conservatives returned to Redwood, though many of his ideas went down well with the right-wing press.

The TUC has produced a paper on what Tory deregulation, including the Working Time Directive, would mean. It's also a useful guide to what the EU's Social Chapter actually is. Click here to read.

A very good leader in today's FT is online here.

It is a very simple argument in favour of the new treaty, and explains very clearly why a referendum is not needed.

A few links.

Sensible article from Peter Riddell in the Times here.

Only just found this but earlier in the month the Daily Mirror revealed David Cameron received a less than warm welcome from some Yorkshire Tories.

And finally a truly astonishing brawl between Bolivian congressmen.

Debate over what to do about the Constitutional Treaty has finally reached the mainstream British media.

The usual suspects have embraced hyperbolic nonsense, ignoring the pragmatic and vital reforms the original treaty offered, as I explain in more detail in my article for EU Observer. You can read it by clicking here.

The BBC’s Europe correspondent, Mark Mardell, blogs on the forthcoming summit and rightly points out that it is absurd to suggest Blair is tying Brown’s hands by agreeing a deal (as some papers are suggesting), as Gordon will be responsible for signing any treaty when he becomes Prime Minister in a couple of weeks.

Mardell and the Independent both fear the summit could get bogged down by Poland’s desire to introduce a voting system based on the square root of a country’s population. The reform of the voting system in the Constitutional Treaty intended to re-balance the weight of votes in the Council, which has slid towards smaller countries since the EU’s enlargement. By basing votes on population, bigger countries (like Britain) would be more fairly represented, while ensuring 55% of countries have to approve any directives and regulations would protect smaller member states (like Ireland).

The square root system has no chance of being implemented but the worry is Poland will refuse to budge on the issue, a result which Mardell suggests might be secretly welcomed by Gordon.

He presumably thinks that deadlock caused by another country will save Gordon from a pounding from the Eurosceptic press but a pounding from the Eurosceptic press is as inevitible as the endless coverage the same papers give to Big Brother.

The EU must reform if it is to work. We cannot continue to duck the issue and the sooner member states can reach an agreement acceptable to all the better – something Gordon knows!

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

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

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

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

Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, has written a fine article in the Financial Times which you can read by clicking here.

It stresses the importance of Britain playing a constructive role in solving the problems of the Constiutional Treaty rather than sitting out on the sidelines and losing influence in Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve recently had drawn to my attention a rather handy site called European Law Monitor. The site is aimed at constituents and organisations who need fairly detailed information on EU legislative proposals – what their content is, what stage they’ve reached in the legislative procedure, and how best to influence them. If banging your head against the virtual brick wall of europa.eu.int is starting to cause bruises, I can highly recommend it.

I also hear on the grapevine that ELM is planning to try to get more MEPs involved in the site so it can become less of a one-way lobby portal and more of a two-way interaction. Anything which helps to improve dialogue between citizens and their elected politicians has got to be a good thing! Watch this space.

There's an interesting piece on today's BBC website about the EU and citizens' confidence.

A handy link for those interested in the Common Agricultural Policy and its ongoing reform: figures on CAP subsidies are now available online broken down by individual country.

http://www.farmsubsidy.org

A very useful summary of Parliament's position on the REACH (chemicals) proposal at first reading is available here, via Parliament's website.

The BBC has just posted a very interesting set of data about migration in the UK.

Breaking news: the suspected London bomber who was arrested in Rome is to be extradited to the UK within a week. (Previous blog entries here.)

More coverage of yesterday's blogging debate is now on Parliament's website.

Chris Heaton-Harris and Roger Helmer, two Tory MEPs in the East Midlands, have launched a 'Great Kilroy Hunt', and are putting their money where their mouths are…

How gullible are you? Do you know your Brussels bureaucrats from your bendy bananas?

Find out how much tabloid mythology you've swallowed with my new Euro-quiz!

The curiously named ‘Nosemonkey’, a pro-EU blogger and freelance journalist who is kind enough to link to me now and then, wrote a while ago on how, in his words, “Europe” (or, specifically, the new constitution) “is not ambitious enough”:

“The Treaty of Rome covered just six nations, yet each required opt-outs for varous clauses. The same has been the case with most subsequent treaties. Now that the Union has expanded to 25 members - including a number which have yet to recover from their decades of poverty and pillage under Soviet rule - how can anyone think that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is the way forwards?

“The coming of the Eurozone is the ultimate proof that the EU can function without everyone participating in exactly the same way. Why did the Convention which drew up this constitution not notice that?

“If some EU states want to push ahead with political integration, and turn into the federal superstate of eurosceptic myth, why shouldn’t they? There’s no real practical reason why they have to take less keen nations along with them. So why can’t there be an ‘A-list’ membership, with various affiliate members at lesser stages of integration scattered around the edges?”

Unusually for this blogger, Nosemonkey appears not to be aware of the significant new chunks of the constitution which provide for exactly that kind of multi-layered integration. How about the improved ‘enhanced co-operation’ provisions, which make it easier for groups of countries voluntarily to integrate more closely without upsetting other countries who would prefer not to do so? How about the new ‘emergency brake’ formula, which in many cases allows a country to opt out entirely of a new measure about which it has serious doubts?

In fact, that’s often how the EU works. There are always minimum standards and basic levels of co-operation which all members agree to adhere to, but beyond that, countries are free to go their own way. Underlying this is the principle of proportionality: action taken at EU level should be no greater than the minimum required to achieve agreed joint objectives.

The sixth edition of The European Parliament, co-authored by myself, Francis Jacobs and Michael Shackleton, has just been published.

Since its first appearance in 1990, this has been the standard work of reference on the European Parliament, an essential tool for those who work at the Parliament, have dealings with it, or wish to understand its ever-growing importance within the Union. This new edition is fully updated to cover developments such as the impact on Parliament of the May 2004 enlargement of the EU and the June 2004 European elections, the implications of the constitutional treaty if ratified, and a range of significant changes in the Parliament's procedures.

Tribune:

"The definitive handbook"

Agence Europe:

"A great classic... Essential reading."

European Information Association Focus:

"The now classic and definitive text on the European Parliament"

Josep Borrell Fontelles, President of the European Parliament:

"Over more than 15 years this book has proved its worth as an invaluable guide to the only directly elected institution in the European Union"

The Council of Ministers today formally approved our reform of MEPs' pay and expenses (more details here).

The New Politics Network is an independent political and campaigning think tank, concerned specifically with issues relating to democratic renewal and popular participation in politics - and it believes that people in the UK know less about the European Union than voters in any other member country.

The full report is here.

Migration is "good for everybody"!

Irish has been officially recognised as the EU's 21st working language! More information here.

The europarliament.net site is back online after nearly a year's downtime. This site does for MEPs what the Public Whip does for MPs - it takes their public attendance and voting records, and breaks them down into useful information for citizens.

The European Parliament, like Westminster, keeps a record of all its debates and votes and publishes them online. (Actually, all our discussions are public, unlike the Commons where committees meet behind closed doors - and we keep a record of which members attend which debates, while the Commons doesn't.)

But it can be difficult to analyse this raw information - and the official europarl.eu.int site, while nowhere near as gargantuan as europa.eu.int, can still be quite intimidating for novice users.

The europarliament.net site is a very useful shortcut. With a single mouse click, you can learn which MEPs have the best (and worst) attendance records - whether more Brits turn up than Poles, or more liberals than Tories, or more women than men. You can also find a complete list of past votes in Parliament, the results, and the names of everyone who voted in favour, against, or abstained.

The site is independently run and unofficial, and it sometimes gets details wrong. Plus it's still in its infancy design-wise, with only a few of the many advanced facilities that its UK counterparts have developed over the past few years. But no doubt these will come as the site itself increases in popularity over time.

In the meantime, if you're interested in European parliamentary democracy, it's definitely worth a look. Here are a few interesting pages to get you started:

• My report on the new EU constitution in January: who voted in favour, who voted against, and who didn't turn up.
• Debates and votes on 9 May 2005: who attended and who stayed away.
• Women and men: the differences in attendance.
• UK parties: which parties have the best attendance record.
• UK MEPs: who has the best and worst attendance records. (Guess who's at the bottom? Surprise!)

(edit 25/07/05: the site is down again!)

I recently debated the new EU constitution with Marc Glendening, a prominent anti-EU campaigner, in the pages of The Ecologist magazine. Marc argued that decisions are best taken locally and that this is a reason to abandon the EU. In reply, I point out that decisions should indeed be taken locally wherever possible, but there are some issues that cut across national borders - including many environmental issues. Pollution, for instance, does not respect national boundaries. In these areas, acting in isolation is simply ineffective, and the new constitution therefore provides a democratic and efficient way of acting together with our neighbours.

A full transcript of our debate is available here on my website.

It will be interesting to see what difference this makes, if any:

• BBC unveils EU coverage changes

The BBC website has an incisive new article on the constitution debate in France:

"A charge often made against the proposed EU constitution by its opponents in France is that it is an "Anglo-Saxon" document - a plot to enshrine Thatcherite policies which will devastate the social balance of European economies. As an example, they point to the phrase used in Article I-3 (2) which states that there shall be 'an internal market where competition is free and undistorted'. …

"The problem with such an approach is that in many key areas the constitutional treaty essentially repeats existing policy.

"The original Treaty of Rome from 1957, which established the then European Economic Community, also said, in Part One, Article 3 (c) that there should be 'an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital'. And further, it said there should be 'a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted'.

"The principles of the 'free and undistorted' internal market were established from the start. So if you complain about the constitution, as you are entitled to, you also have to complain about the Treaty of Rome."

The new website for the European Unit of Kirklees (Huddersfield) Economic Development Service is now live: www.kirklees.gov.uk/european

The new site includes an overview of the EU, a summary of the different types of European funding, and a list of links to other websites to help with applying for funds.

The BBC website has an interesting article about the significance of different European cities in the history of the EU:

Nowadays, things have become more difficult. Since EU leaders decided to hold all their summit meetings in Brussels, the scope for naming treaties and processes after cities has narrowed.

But then, for Eurosceptics, the word "Brussels" itself requires no further explanation.

There may be no "Brussels process" or "Brussels strategy", but the Belgian capital does appear in common phrases such as "Brussels rules against merger" or "Brussels cracks down on bent bananas", where the city is simply used as a pejorative (and not very helpful) term for any of the EU's institutions.

I found the following in the excellent Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia:

Some opponents [of the constitution] argue that certain important rights, such as that of habeas corpus, are not provided for or recognised by the Constitution. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union forms Part II of the Constitution, and habeas corpus is not explicity mentioned among its provisions. However, Article I-9(2) of the Constitution says: "The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", Article 5 of which includes the following:

Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

Consequently, while the Constitution makes no explicit mention of habeas corpus, the Union must still uphold it because it is constitutionally bound to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Advocates of the Constitution often allege that in cases like this, eurosceptics seek to mislead the public by encouraging them to think that if the Constitution is adopted, habeas corpus will be abolished or might not be guaranteed in the future.