Tory revolt against Cameron's anti-sleaze show

Conservative MEPs are today in open revolt over the announcement made yesterday by their supposed leader David Cameron to reform the Tories' system of auditing their MEPs expenses, after it was revealed that a secret Conservative memo referred to his proposals as, amongst other things, "half-baked" and "a PR disaster that would "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"

The story is all over today's papers and there is confusion over the source of the memo. The Guardian and Sun seem to think it came from the pen of arch-eurosceptic Roger Helmer, while the Telegraph claims that it was written by a group of several Conservative MEPs. Either way, it is hard to imagine that the author's identity will stay secret for too long. The memo is incredibly indiscreet; it is astonishing that Tory MEPs are threatening to sue the Conservative leader if he carried out his threat to de-select them!

The memo was found on a photocopier in Strasbourg. It says a lot about the incompetence of the Conservatives that they would leave such an explosive document in a photocopier for anyone to find.

Demonstrating a startling brass neck (even by his standards), Dan Hannan claims that Tory MEPs are actually the cleanest, and saying that Labour MEPs are keeping "schtum for a reason"! Well, the reason would be that since 2000, Labour MEPs have had their accounts annually reviewed by an independent auditor to make sure that they are in order and in compliance with the Parliament's rules. As Labour's leader in Europe, Gary Titley said yesterday, "Finally, after eight years, the Tory Party has caught up with the Labour MEPs' regime for dealing with expenses. The difference is that all 19 Labour MEPs have signed up to this, but the evidence is many Tory MEPs will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing the right thing.”

I have to say that Lib Dem Norman Baker's line that "the words 'Tory and sleaze' go together as easily as cheese and sandwich" is also worth a chuckle (but it would rhyme better if it was 'sandwich and cheese')

The memo's release took the thunder out of Cameron's press conference given yesterday to announce a so-called 'deep clean' of his MEPs expenses. It wrecked his latest attempt to portray himself as taking a tough line with the sleazier elements of his party.

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!

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!

More on MEPs' expenses

The media focus on Tory MEPs' expenses has continued unabated since I last blogged on the subject a week ago.

Following the resignation of the Conservative leader in the European Parliament, their Chief Whip has also resigned. They can hardly claim it is a case of a few small rotten apples, when it is their leadership team itself that has had to resign!

As I said, the Tories might have avoided this humiliation if they had done what we Labour MEPs have done for the last eight years, namely have our spending reviewed annually by an independent accountant to certify that all has been used properly. They are now belatedly on board for that, as are - equally belatedly - the LibDems.

Some have suggested that this has all come out now because of in-fighting among the Tories who remain bitterly divided on Europe, but even at the best of times have a reputation for ruthless backstabbing. Certainly, some of the stories in the press appear to come from internal leaks. Some have suggested that Cameron will use the opportunity, not just to deal with wrong-doers, but to purge those who are not solidly behind his own leadership. Maybe. That is an interesting dimension to their troubles, but it should not distract us from the the fundamentals. The setting up of companies run by family members to siphon off public money for private gain is a serious allegation and if true should be punished.

Meanwhile, they are determined to do whatever they can to tar other parties with the same brush. They are distraught that, despite trying, they have not been able to find equivalent cases among Labour MEPs.

We are now being bombarded with letters and calls from journalists, and queries from various campaign groups. Fortunately, we can reassure people quite easily thanks to our auditing rule and the fact that we all fill in our Declaration of Members' Interests, which includes whether any family member is employed. We publish the guidelines given to our auditors and we publish the resultant certificates on our websites. We also publish how we make use of the staff allowance in terms of employing staff in our constituency and parliamentary offices.

Despite all this information being publicly available, the anti-Europe campaign group Open Europe, which masquerades as a think tank, has now appointed itself as the policeman-cum-prosecutor of MEPs, has sent each Labour MEP a questionnaire, and denounces all those who fail to fill it in. Too lazy to read the published information on our websites, they expect MEPs to spend their time co-operating with an organisation that has no interest in improving the system, and certainly makes no distinction between genuine problems and invented ones, but simply in promoting Euroscepticism by means fair or foul. We'd rather spend our time, given that we are in order with our spending, on doing our job on behalf of our constituents.

For anyone who is interested in my expenses I suggest they look at the relevant page on my website.

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.

Tories scrape the barrel on St George's Day

I had always thought that the media 'silly season' was in August, but the Tories seem to be trying to bring it forward a few months with this nonsense that was picked up by some very lazy journalists in the Sun, Mail and Express.

In what can only be described as a deeply cynical attempt to get some media coverage on St George's Day, the Conservatives have shamelessly recycled a story they used two years ago claiming that the Government is colluding with an EU plot to create transnational regions in order to create a united European state.

Sadly, it seems that a few journalists were too lazy to check the facts and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

A quick internet search shows that the Sun and the Mail ran virtually identical stories in September 2006. Indeed, it looks as though the Conservative press officers were so lazy that they couldn't be bothered to make up a new quote for their Regional Affairs spokesman Eric Pickles! In September 2006, Pickles was quoted as saying "Eurocrats could literally wipe Britain off the map". Today he says "Gordon Brown literally wants to wipe Britain off the map". I don't think I'm alone in sensing a bit of déja vu here!

On the substance (what little exists), the Tories' claims refer to a map of Europe used for the INTERREG programme which is, as the acronym suggests, an inter-regional structural funds programme designed to help regions in different countries work together in order to maximise funding opportunities and tackle common problems. For the purpose of the programme, the map defines a "North Sea" region, an "Atlantic" region, a "Transmanche" region, a "North Atlantic" region and an "Ireland/Wales" region.

But, of course, Hartlepool and Hull do share a number of common problems and interests with the likes of Zeebrugge and Rotterdam - they are ports, share the same stretch of water and have similar environmental concerns. Indeed, inter-regional co-operation is not a conspiracy - it is common sense and a map showing which regions of Europe are working with each other is no more a threat to Britain than is a geological map showing both the Kent coast and Northern France as chalk.

Of all the euromyths I've come across, this has got to be up with the most scurrilous.

Anyway, let's hear a few bars of Jerusalem! Happy St George's Day everybody!

The truth about migrants and crime

An interesting if wholly unsurprising report from the Police confirms that migrants to the UK from eastern Europe are not responsible for waves of crime.

As you would expect, levels of crime from eastern European migrants are in line with the rate of crime of the general population.

You can read in more detail about the report on the Guardian and Telegraph websites.

Of course there is one set of people who will be astonished by this news, Daily Mail readers. While researching this blog I couldn’t find a mention of the report on the Daily Mail’s website anywhere, a paper that has previously claimed that eastern European migrants are responsible for one in 10 crimes.

But I wanted to be sure so searched through the Daily Mail's site via Google for mentions of “Immigrants” (you can do it like this). There are thousands upon thousands of hits, none of them mentioning that migrants are in no way responsible for waves of crimes!

Edit on April 17:

It seems the Mail were just a little slow on the uptake. Instead of a screaming front page headline the story is dumped on page 12 of Thursday's paper. Incredibly, and without a hint of irony, James Slack's analysis piece asked, "Who claimed there was a migrant crimewave in the first place?"

And if you think that's astonishing, how about the Express who defied logic and all the evidence to the contrary by plastering Thursday's front page with "IMMIGRANTS BRING MORE CRIME" before going on to quote the report which said, "the evidence does not support theories of a large-scale crime wave generated through migration."

In between the bluster, the blind prejudice and underlying hatred, the Express did find one rise in crime which featured migrants in the report. It was a "huge surge in the exploitation of migrants."

Media ignores Lords report on treaty

The excellent House of Lords report on the Lisbon Treaty, which I mentioned last week, was also referenced by Peter Preston in this week's Observer.

He noted, that the press coverage of this report was meagre to say the least.

The Mail, Telegraph and Express all failed to acknowledge its existence but more surprisingly Preston couldn't even find coverage from the BBC, giving the lie to those who claim it is pro-European. The Guardian covered it briefly and Peter Riddell went into a little more detail on it in an opinion piece for the Times.

Always quick to give ample coverage to shrill, sensationalist and highly inaccurate Eurosceptic claims about the Treaty, most of our media just ignores an authoritative, detailed analysis by an expert committee of our national parliament.

Miliband builds on government's increasingly pro-European stance

Patrick Wintour focused on David Miliband's Mansion House speech in yesterday's Guardian, suggesting the government is entering into a new pro-European era, following the Lisbon Treaty’s smooth path through the Commons.

Miliband is arguing that rather than being a threat to the UK's foreign policy or economy, a strong EU will enhance both as it increases our links with countries within and outside the EU.

Wintour is right to assert that the government is becoming increasingly braver with regards to actually talking about Europe, something it has sometimes been reluctant to do in the past. Wintour mentions Gordon Brown's recent visit to Brussels but at Labour's Spring Conference he also made it clear that it is only within the EU that Britain can achieve its objectives on climate change, development, trade and security – all areas where he noted Europe was leading the way.

As Denis MacShane has said before all this suggests that Europe has once again become a major dividing line between the parties, and crucially it is one that works to Labour’s advantage.

It's that time of the year again…

The Daily Mail has a fondness for publishing stories claiming that the Britain is bailing out the rest of Europe by paying through the nose for the EU budget.

This week they duly claimed that "every household in the UK will be expected to pay almost £400 a year for the privilege of EU membership".

A good line - but based on decidedly warped mathematics. Leaving aside our contributions to the EU budget, which is anyway capped at around 1% of EU GDP, the common market is worth £160 billion to our collective GDP - equivalent to roughly £1500 to every family in the UK.

Similarly bogus is the Mail's claim that Tony Blair "surrendered" the British rebate at the budget review in 2005. The rebate remains part of the budget and will actually increase by 13% (compared to an increase of just 6% for the EU budget as a whole) from an average of £3.9 billion per annum to £4.5 billion. Besides, let's not forget that the rebate exists to offset the imbalance that would otherwise leave Britain paying more than our fair share, not to provide us with a windfall which would leave us paying less than our fair share.

Indeed, claiming that Britain gets a raw deal from the EU budget simply does not stand up. According to a recent House of Commons library report on the EU Finances Bill, in per-capita terms, the UK is not one of the highest contributors to the EU budget. In 2006, the UK paid €68 euros per head. By comparison, the Netherlands pays €241 per head, Denmark €127, Sweden €124 and Germany €100. France and Austria paid €50 and €40 respectively.

Moreover, in structural funds (designed to regenerate the poorest regions of Europe) the UK receives a third more than France, 20% more than Belgium, nearly twice as much as the Netherlands and more than eight other countries. The UK received €3 billion in structural funds (an average of €50 per head). This is one euro per head less than Poland receives. Put plainly, the world's fifth largest economy, receives only €1 per head less than one of Europe's poorest countries.

Besides, while some may baulk at the idea of UK taxpayers providing money to the accession countries, the fact is that investing in economic stability in Eastern Europe benefits us all by increasing the total volume of EU trade, investment and jobs. For example, Britain's bilateral trade in goods with Spain and Ireland (two of the poorest EU countries 20 years ago) is now worth £40bn per year.

It is one thing for the Daily Mail to be sceptical of our EU membership, but it is fatuous for it to suggest that we are paying through the nose for the privilege.

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 admit they are "a small hardcore going nowhere"

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

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

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

Tory's emergency mythmaking

Britain has 999. Belgium has 100. France has whatever. Difficult for tourists and business travellers alike to remember every emergency number from every country they visit.

So, someone has the idea of having a common number that will work everywhere, not replacing 999 etc, but as an additional number that will put you through to the same switchboard. No problem remembering several different numbers. EU countries all agree to introduce such a system. Useful.

Then, along comes a Tory MEP, desperate for some publicity and media coverage, (Chris Heaton Harris, News of the World letters, 24 February), saying "They must be bonkers if they think we are going to drop 999 in favour of 112. This is another example of an idea pushed by Brussels which nobody wants"

Yet he must surely know perfectly well (it takes about 30 seconds to look at the relevant document, and he - and his staff - are paid by taxpayers to be on top of European legislation) that no one is suggesting to drop 999, and that, far from being an idea nobody wants, every EU country thought it was a good idea.

But why should a Eurosceptic MEP let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Britain's not being "forced" into anything

We all know combatting climate change means switching to clean, renewable energy. We know that Britain doing this alone would be futile. Our country gets other EU countries to agree with us to work together to reduce C02 emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2020 - hailed at the time as a great example of British leadership in Europe.

How is this now rendered in ouur Eurosceptic media? Yesterday the Mail screamed that,"Brussels demands thousands more turbines across the UK", while the journalist, David Derbyshire, followed that article up with one today which stated, "Britain will be forced to generate 40 per cent of its electricity". Similarly the Telegraph went with "EU to set Britain 'ambitious' 40 per cent renewable energy target".

All of these imply that these targets are an unwelcome imposition by the EU instead of an agreed (and British-led) common endeavour.

Sun gives up on a referendum?

Another sign of the Eurosceptic anti-treaty campaign floundering: the Sun has apparently given up on its circulation-destroying obsession with a referendum on the EU.

Previously, its campaign for an EU referendum was flagged up throughout its website with the left-hand column of nearly every page linked to a dedicated site calling for a referendum. And while MRSA, Weird, Royals and even the US election primaries now enjoy the same treatment there is no sign of a link to their referendum page anywhere.

This of course follows the news that everytime the Sun led on its campaign for a referendum, droves of readers left the paper on the racks and relatively few people signed its petition.

Mail's dream 'manifesto' comes unstuck

After 25,000 people signed a Downing Street petition calling for Jeremy Clarkson to be made Prime Minister, the Daily Mail decided to draft a manifesto (or a list of all its hateful prejudices) on his behalf. No surprises then that this made the list (though only at number 17): "We fought the last war for our independence, and now we're under the heel of the unelected eurocrats of Brussels. Under my rule, Britain will withdraw from the EU, so we will no longer be governed by a bunch of sausage-eating Germans, French cheese-eating surrender monkeys and kebab-swallowing Greeks."

However the Mail must have missed Clarkson's article for the Sun last year, in which he outed himself as federalist when he wrote, "I also like the idea of a giant European state tempering American stupidity and Chinese economic might".

Hardly the talk of a rabid Eurosceptic!

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?

No surprises as papers produce myth-laden stories

Must of the British press was again displaying its utter contempt for factual analysis, truth and objectivity in its reaction to the signing of the EU Reform Treaty in Lisbon. Just look at the following lies and distortions:

* "Armed police from France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and the Netherlands will be able to come over here and take away British citizens" (The Sun, 18th December, Fergus Shanahan)
* "Britain ceased to exist politically on Thursday" and "ceased to exist in most other ways years before" (Mail on Sunday, 16th December, Peter Hitchens)
* "Mr Bean signs away our freedom" (Daily Express)
* "A further surrender of British sovereignty" (Daily Telegraph, 16th December, Michael Grove)
* "Another nail in the coffin of Britain's history" which "gave away more power to unelected Brussels bureaucrats" (Sunday Express, 16th December, Neil Hamilton)

And I could go on!

As revealed by former Telegraph correspondent David Rennie, these are invariably articles and headlines written in London rather than by Brussels correspondents for the papers in question. Their authors have neither read the texts nor verified their allegations. Their aim is colourful alliteration rather than factual accuracy or any meaningful contribution to political debate. But they all contribute to the drip-drip portrayal of the Union as being adverse to British interests, anti-democratic and incompetent, precisely the opposite of the reality.

In praise of the Western Morning News

For a newspaper in the Daily Mail group and which regularly allows UKIP MEPs and other Europhobes free reign in its letters page, the Western Morning News editorial yesterday was an extraordinarily well-argued comment in favour of the Reform Treaty. There was a precise explanation and evaluation of what exactly the treaty contains, a rebuttal of the myths that have prospered and an articulate attack on a local Tory MEP heading for the House of Commons.

The editorial asked: "If the Reform Treaty is going to crush our sovereignty so much, why is it that an ambitious politician like the South West Conservative MEP Neil Parrish is bidding for a Westminster seat even though the powers of MEPs are going to be increased?"

They then quote an answer from the man himself: "People keep asking me why I want to make the leap to Westminster. I tell them I will sincerely miss serving the South West in the European Parliament but ultimately for anyone who loves political service, the Commons is the place to be." Maybe – but if so, this hardly tallies with the line that Westminster is being reduced to a parish council!

The Guardian chose the same day to take a lighthearted look at the variety of myths propagated since the arrival of EU migrants from eastern European countries. EU migrants have been blamed for the quality of service in restaurants, a shortage of £50 notes and even accused of eating swans and poaching carp! It also points out how statistics are used to denigrate migrants, by never bothering to explain that things like a rise in foreign cars involved in accidents is entirely logical because there are now more foreign cars on the road.

As if to prove certain attitudes towards migrants the Daily Telegraph’s Village Britain series concluded with the headline "Village Britain: Half the population is foreign". The article actually says that 10 per cent of the population of Boston are migrants, with the "half" claim coming from someone pruning flowers in an entirely different village! The article goes on to acknowledge that migrant labour hasn’t taken jobs from local people, has helped the area boom and that there is a history of migrant labour in the area (Irish migrants and unemployed miners have done the work in the past). So, why then the sensationalist headline?

Drastic differences of interpretation

David Miliband's speech at the College of Europe in Bruges provoked a wildly disparate response from Friday's papers, which reinforces the point David Rennie made on coverage of the EU - rarely is it accurate, let alone balanced.

In what was a comparatively modest speech looking at the future of the EU, the Daily Express, delved deep into its chest of conspiracy theories and raged against Miliband's "project for the Islamification of Europe". The Daily Mail decided he had "grandiose ambitions for a new EU empire" but the Independent took precisely the opposite view, accusing him of wishing to "diminish the EU".

The Guardian praised his "meaty" speech and was relieved to hear talk of an “outward-looking EU” but the Independent complains it wasn’t ambitious enough.

Hmmm. So plenty of coverage but few actual quotes and a rag-bag of claims, mostly unfounded and from the usual suspects. If you want to find out what Miliband actually said, his speech is up on the Foreign Office’s website here.

Depressing state of the press

The poor quality of UK press coverage of the EU is something I've often moaned about. Those who think I exaggerate should read the recent article by David Rennie, who was until recently the Daily Telegraph correspondent in Brussels, so cannot be accused of coming from a pro-Europe stable.

In his article in E!Sharp magazine he says:

"British press reporting on the European Union is getting sharply worse. This matters more than you might think. When barmy Brussels stories first became a staple, they usually contained at least a speck of truth, which was then spun into an overblown confection like so much candy floss. Lately, however, once-serious newspapers have printed several stories that have not been checked at all or - strikingly - have been flatly denied by EU or government press officers, but published anyway."

He goes on to ask:

"Why are things getting worse? Here are a few hunches. British newspapers are turning their backs on Europe. While the Brussels press corps is growing overall, the number of full-time staff correspondents from the UK is shrinking steadily. The worst pieces are almost always written from from London, unsullied by contact with arguments from Brussels."

He also quotes some of the same examples that I have blogged on such as the Sunday Express' article on "a new EU police force" which he rightly describes as a "slab of tosh" pointing out that the opening sentance of the article succeeds in "cramming three claims into 17 words and getting all of them wrong", and the News of the World story on the Queen being removed from British passports - which, he points out, the Daily Telegraph repeated after the government had pointed out that it was not true.

My colleagues from other countries often tell me of their incredulity at how outright untruths find their way into headlines in some British newspapers, even when the papers themselves know the story to be untrue. And it is hard not to conclude that this drip drip drip of falsehoods denigrating the EU does not have an effect on public attitudes to Europe (just look at the comments section on the Telegraph's passport story).

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/

With customary hypocrisy, the Eurosceptic press today criticised the EU for cutting subsidies that could lead to an increase to the cost of Christmas trees. Apparently, imports of the Danish grown Nordmann fir, which has been the most popular tree in British households since the early 1990s because it retains its needles for longer than other trees, are to drop because a ruling by the European Union to scrap subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy.

About 300,000 Nordmann firs will now be sent to Britain this December compared with the 1.2 million last year.

An interesting story - I hadn't realised that the Telegraph and the Express were in favour of the CAP subsidy! The ingenuity of newspaper editors to shape a story to give the EU a clout never ceases to amaze, but "EU ruins Christmas" is a new one in my book.

I came across this interesting piece by Peter Preston in the Observer on Sunday. A recent opinion poll by Ipsos-Mori showed that just 3% of Britons feel that the EU is the biggest political issue facing our country. It is not surprising that the vast majority of people are more concerned by the state of the NHS, education, pensions and the environment than in an EU treaty that makes some slight re-adjustments to the EU institutions.

Except if you read the Sun that is. Last Tuesday the Sun devoted a full six pages to a set of rabid and frequently factually inaccurate diatribes against the proposed Reform Treaty, with Gordon Brown mocked-up to look like Churchill adorning the front-page alongside the slogan "Never have so few decided so much for so many". The Sun has also published opinions polls claiming that Labour would be nearly 20 points ahead of the Tories (equivalent to a landslide election victory even bigger than in 1997!) if the Government holds a referendum on the treaty. The ferocity and single-minded determination of the Murdoch press has been considerable.

However, it does not appear to be shared by their readers. As the political jamboree of party conference season comes to an end, around 100,000 readers have signed an on-line petition calling for a referendum. According to the Newspaper Marketing Agency website the Sun's readership is just over 8 million readers, which amounts to less than 1.5%.

As Peter Preston very succinctly puts it, "never in Sun history, you might say, have so few rallied round after so many scarifying appeals".

So, the former footballer and TV presenter Ian Wright backs the European Constitution (despite it no longer being on the table), albeit in a roundabout way when he says in The Sun: "Apart from that, I think signing up to the Constitution would be a great idea".

What is the "apart from that"? Four things the constitution would not have done (and the Reform Treaty certainly doesn’t do). He says "I don't want the EU to dictate our foreign policy (it wouldn’t), I don't want them deciding on how we police our borders and who we let in, (they wouldn’t) I don't want the EU to have the power over our courts so they can decide how long murderers get. (it wouldn’t) And I don't want the Euro" (a totally different issue).

As his fears are all placated, I trust that it is his last comment ("great idea") that applies and that he will be campaigning to resurrect the constitution, or at least, support the Reform Treaty.

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!

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.

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!

A constituent emailed me yesterday asking me if I had heard about a new play in London by Richard Bean. It’s apparently a farce with the central character a Labour MEP.

My interest piqued, I googled away to discover that it had received a bit of a savaging in the press, mainly because it was so absurdly Europhobic!

And which bastion of liberal, pro-European England was it that criticised the play most fiercely? Why, it’s the Evening Standard whose reviewer was “repelled by the loutish simplicities of its Europhobic politics”!

Nicholas de Jonhg’s review also reveals the play includes “the odd vibrator, handcuffs and a prosthetic hand”, the line “Your wanking hand is on fire" and the sight of an MEP with a vibrator in his mouth, which suggests the play isn’t set in Constitutional Affairs Committee, Working Group E.

The Times review concludes with “Yuk”.

One vaguely positive review I found is the Telegraph’s, which enjoyed the gags about the EU and, incredibly, managed to shoe-horn a dig about the Reform Treaty in, which is obsessive even by my standards!

I was very amused to read the one performance that came close to salvaging the show was Richard Moore’s, who played a “boorish”, "curmudgeonly", “no-nonsense Yorkshireman”, UKIP MEP. I wonder who their inspiration was?

Two weeks ago the Sun was battling to save Britain from surrender to Brussels, yet this week, along with the Daily Mail and Yorkshire Post, they are hailing proposed new Europe-wide regulations on women’s clothes sizes.

Indeed Sun fashion editor Erica Davies, presumably tapping away in a quiet corner of the office hidden from the prying eyes of avowed Europe-hater George Pascoe-Watson, declares it is “the news every seasoned shopper has been waiting for”.

The Daily Mail headline reveals there will soon be a “dress size system that will really measure up” and happily acknowledges that the European Committee for Standarisation is responsible, without a diatribe following swiftly after.

The Sun’s article is perhaps not that surprising as its black and white attitude to everything means it will eventually come down in favour of Europe, especially on what is a sensible answer to on an issue which many women have found particularly irritating. But it is the Daily Mail that really impress, simply because their story informs people neutrally about what is planned. There is no hint of bias or mention of “creeping red tape” just a factually accurate story on something that will have a small but positive effect on people’s lives!

As for the actual story itself, the proposed regulations will end respective manufacturers sizing their clothes on their own terms. Currently a women’s size 12 in one store can be a size 14 in another and a 10 in another, meaning people have very little idea what size they actually are. The new regulations will mean clothes are labelled in actual measurements of wastes, hips and busts Europe-wide so people will know what size they are whether they are in Meadowhall or Madrid.

Of course, whether the measurements should be imperial or metric is a debate for another day! A bit contentious that one apparently.

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.

Over the next seven days the Sun has set itself the task of saving Britain from a “draconian new superstate”.

Thankfully they have kept things in perspective. Their urgent battle to save Britain from “surrender” is deemed less newsworthy than Michael Barrymore, Big Brother and a drunk soldier stripping off. Only then is Britain truly worth saving.

And as predictable as a soused squaddie in their birthday suit, is the Sun’s attempt to hoodwink (as they like to say) its readers into fearing any reform by publishing its own version of the treaty, which bears almost no resemblance to what is actually up for discussion.

The Sun’s version of the treaty includes:

"A PERMANENT EU President with 3,500 staff.
UNELECTED European judges getting unprecedented powers to set UK law.
BRITAIN surrendering its seat on the UN Security Council.
AN EU foreign minister representing the UK on international issues.
SLASHING Britain’s voting powers by a THIRD.
GIVING UP for good Britain’s hard-won veto on EU directives.
BOWING to EU laws on criminal justice and policing.
A RAFT of job-destroying shopfloor laws.
DESTROYING the City’s reputation as the world’s greatest money market.
HANDING the European Commission the power to meddle in any part of British laws it chooses.”

Every one of these 10 items is a tribute to the imagination of Sun journalists.

In fact, the EU will not have a permanent president but one that serves 30 months, instead of the current six, merely chairing summit meetings. The 3,500 staff it mentions is a statistic plucked from thin air.

European judges have never and will never be able to set UK law, they merely adjudicate when there is a dispute over EU laws previously agreed by government ministers and MEPs.

The claim Britain will have to surrender her seat at the UN is bunkum as is the preposterous suggestion that the treaty is out to destroy the City’s reputation or will cost British jobs.

If an EU foreign minister is introduced he or she will only represent Britain’s interests when we agree with the other 26 Member States on an issue. If there is a difference of opinion, like there was on Iraq, then there is no common position to represent. In either case Britain, like every other EU country, will continue to express its own views through its own foreign minister.

The current proposals would actually increase Britain’s voting power quite considerably, which just shows the Sun’s journalist can’t even add up.

The only point with a grain of truth in is the justice and policing veto, which will be discussed. Britain will want to keep this and it seems highly unlikely Blair will leave without some sort of veto or derogation in place.

The Sun is running a poll alongside the story which will inevitably conclude that 90 odd percent of its readers don’t want Blair to sign a new treaty, which they will then proudly proclaim is the voice of the British people. Which of course it isn’t, it is what Sun readers think of the imaginary treaty they have made up themselves, which I wouldn’t want Blair to sign either.

If the Sun gave as much importance to the bare facts as it does to bare bums, it might one day be able to claim it speaks for the British people over Europe. Until then it is helping to form opinions based on outrageous lies.

I came across this typically restrained piece by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail (don't worry, I don't make a habit of reading the Mail!). It appears that, aside from the usual diatribe, she has completely misunderstood a number of issues regarding a revised European treaty.

Aside from the usual bunkum about the treaty creating a new EU President (we already have an EU presidency which changes every six months - the treaty simply provides for a two-and-a-half year chair) she claims that merging the two posts of External Relations Commissioner and Council High Representative on Foreign Affairs, would mean the end of an independent British foreign policy! A new EU foreign affairs spokesperson would merely speak for the EU where there was a common position. She asks the question "what would happen if British foreign policy contradicted that of the EU". But, if Britain (or any country) objected, then there could be no common EU policy in the first place.

She recycles the tired Eurosceptic cliché that the EU is "anti-democratic" - conveniently ignoring the fact that the measures contained in a revised treaty would strengthen the role of the directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament (by making all EU legislation subject to approval by it and the Council of Ministers) and increasing the powers of legislative scrutiny by national parliaments. Besides, the EU is already the most democratically accountable of all the supranational organisations the UK is a member of including the WTO, NATO, IMF and World Bank, bodies which never seem to feature in her concerns about democracy.

Moreover, Phillips also reveals her own cynical double standards. She demands a referendum on a revised treaty only because it's the next best thing to a referendum on withdrawal from the EU.

I did chuckle when I read her description of the EU as "a failed, backward-looking project whose days are numbered"! In the words of Nobel peace prize winner John Hume, "the EU is the most successful example of conflict resolution in history", while Paddy Ashdown described it as "a political miracle". The EU is not perfect, but neither is any other political institution, and the reforms expected to be retained in a new treaty would enhance its effectiveness and its democratic accountability and help us to deliver the best policy results for our citizens on those matters when our countries are highly interdependent. If Melanie Phillips wants to see something that genuinely is "a failed and backward looking project", she should try reading her own columns.

Have just seen an utterly ridiculous press release from the Conservative leader Tim Kirkhope MEP, accusing Labour MEPs of being “in chaos” and contradicting the government’s position on the Constitutional Treaty in today’s vote in the European Parliament.

The Tories desperately cobbled together a press release with some outrageously selective editing of the report; once the report is read in full it is quite clear the press release is complete tosh.

The Conservative press release reads: “17 Labour MEPs voted in favour of the Brok report which committed the European Parliament to ‘reaffirm its commitment to achieving a settlement of the ongoing constitutional process of the European Union which is based on the content of the Constitutional Treaty, possibly under a different presentation’"

A quick glance at the actual report shows that the paragraph above (paragraph six) is cut off mid-sentence. It actually finishes “but taking account of the difficulties that have arisen in some Member States" – the key point which they deliberately cut out.

The Tories also conveniently ignored any mention of the following paragraph (paragraph seven unsurprisingly), which is also the exact position of the Labour government, namely to have an inter-governmental conference this autumn to negotiate a new treaty.

It will be interesting to see if this weak concoction actually makes the papers. Hopefully not, but if it does it will not have been the first time an absurd Tory press release from Europe has made column inches in some of the right-wing rags.

It's always interesting to see how newspapers are able to conjure vastly different headlines and stories from the same facts. One of the issues that gets the most hyperbolic reaction in the press is immigration. The Sun, Daily Mail and Express frequently talk of "floods" or "stampedes" of immigrants.

The release last week of Home Office statistics on the number of economic migrants from Bulgaria and Romania, who joined the EU at the start of 2007, needless to say, provoked a series of blustering headlines from right-wing tabloids none of whom can agree on the figures.

The Express ran with "92,000 east Europeans milk our benefits" adding that a "flood" of migrants had left taxpayers with a £102 million bill. The paper claimed that more than 4,500 "Eastern Europeans" were arriving in the UK. However, the Mail (which also cited "official figures") contended that the true figure was 120 Romanian and Bulgarian per day (fewer than 1,000 per week).

Meanwhile, the Guardian pointed out that "only 8,000 Romanian and Bulgarian migrants came to work in Britain the first three months after their countries joined the EU", noting that this figure was far lower than the claim made by certain tabloids that 300,000 would enter the UK. Indeed, the Scotsman continued in a similar vein, stating that "fewer than 200 migrants from Romania and Bulgaria applied for national insurance numbers to work in Scotland".

I'm sure I am not the only one to be slightly bemused by the disparity between these figures. Certainly, you could be forgiven for thinking that some sections of the right-wing press are fiddling the figures to fit their distortions about immigration levels.

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!