Brown conquers the sceptics in Strasbourg

A busy Strasbourg session was given further excitement with Gordon Brown's arrival this afternoon. The Prime Minister took part in a debate in the Parliament on the preparation of the crucial G20 summit, before meeting with the Labour MEPs and then the Socialist group, and then travelling on to New York for further preparatory talks.

Gordon's passionate speech, which ranged from the need for regulatory reform and investment to deal with the financial crisis to tackling climate change and maintaining overseas development aid, was from the heart and certainly confounded those who claim that he is a eurosceptic - his final sentence called for a "united Europe founded on shared ideals", while he was at pains to stress that he was "proud to be British and proud to be European". Among Socialist colleagues, the consensus was that it was a great speech and he was given a rousing standing ovation from all national delegations in our group and beyond (even managing to get applause from Danny Cohn-Bendit, the leader of the Greens).

Eurosceptics were represented by some particularly wild contributions (even by their standards) from Nigel Farage and Dan Hannan. Farage argued that parliamentary democracy doesn't work, neither at Westminster nor in the European Parliament. A bizarre rant, which brought a knowing smile from Gordon!

Eurosceptics block reform so able to continue attacking EU

Sadly, the Written Declaration (the European Parliament's equivalent to an "Early Day Motion" in the House of Commons) calling on governments to allow the EP to hold all its sittings in Brussels, just failed to gather the target of 300 signatures that its authors had set themselves.

I was dismayed to discover many British MEPs had not bothered to sign the Declaration to reduce the time-wasting and costly junket to Strasbourg. Whilst British Labour MEPs supported the Declaration, the other UK political parties remained divided on the issue. A number of Tories, some Liberals and one of the two Greens failed to sign the Declaration. Most surprising of all, the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage, refused to sign (despite emailing me personally to say "for once, I think you may be right") as did four of the other 11 MEPs elected as UKIP in 2004.

UKIP is always quick to accuse the EU of wasting taxpayer's money, but given the chance to press for an end to the costly monthly travel to the French city, Farage and nearly half of his following prefer to retain the junket! It would appear that UKIPs claims to oppose waste in the EU are empty. They would prefer to retain the two seats in order to continue accusing the EU of waste!

Less surprising is that the elusive Kilroy-Silk was one of those who failed to sign the WD. Kilroy's absence from the Parliament is legendary, so he is probably of the opinion that this won't affect him too much.

Although this WD is of course not legally binding, if it had been adopted by the Parliament it would have sent a clear message to the Member States (who have the power take this decision). It is high time national governments revise the 1992 decision (at the Edinburgh European Council chaired by John Major) obliging Parliament to shift twelve weeks of the year to Strasbourg.

Why UKIP is just not credible in distancing itself from BNP

For all of UKIP's attempts to distance itself from the BNP, the latest being the high-profile announcement that it would not enter into an electoral pact with them, the fact remains that the two parties have overlapping membership, and similar philosophies.

It was telling that the electoral pact was proposed by UKIP activist Buster Mottram, whose links with the BNP are well known and long-standing. Indeed, Nigel Farage, when questioned about Mottram's past as a campaigner for the BNP's forerunner, the National Front, flippantly batted away the question, saying that these were no more than "youthful indiscretions". So much for Farage's claims to be watchful over BNP "infiltration" of UKIP if he can't even spot one in his ranks!

It seems that UKIPs indecision about their links with the BNP has reached the level of their National Executive. Although UKIP have claimed that the BNP pact offer was rejected 'unanimously' by their NEC, tucked away at the bottom of their press release was a note announcing that that two members of UKIPs NEC, Eric Edmond and David Abbott, were removed from their positions yesterday - presumably because they supported the pact. As UKIPwatch said yesterday, this is either a spectacular coincidence or yet another example of Nigel Farage's particular interpretation of the phrase 'party democracy'.

But this is no surprise to anyone who takes more than a superficial look at UKIP. After all, UKIP and the BNP have a habit of swapping members and candidates. For example, at the last European elections, four BNP candidates were former UKIP members or candidates: Dr Peter Lane - BNP candidate in the South East region, Dr Alan Patterson - BNP lead candidate in the North East region and a former UKIP parliamentary candidate in Hexham at the 2001 general election, Roger Robertson - BNP candidate in the South East region and Matt Single - BNP lead candidate in the Eastern region.

Two of UKIPs current MEPs, Jeffrey Titford and Mike Nattrass, are
former members of the far-Right, anti-immigration New Britain Party, which urged the repatriation of immigrants. It's also worth pointing out that a number of UKIP officials and candidates, for example, Andrew Moffatt (former UKIP parliamentary candidate in Beaconsfield at the 2001 general election) and Martyn Heale (Chairman, UKIP Thanet South), are, like Buster Mottram, former activists of the BNP's forerunner, the NF.

So closely intertwined are the two parties that, in 2004, John Brayshaw was found to be serving as the Chairman of UKIPs Vale of York branch (since October 2003) while simultaneously serving as BNP National Treasurer! Indeed, according to Andrew Edwards, a UKIP official who was expelled from the party for trying to publicise the links between the two parties, Brayshaw was also UKIP-BNP “pact liaison officer for the north”.

In some ways, UKIPs links with the BNP were neatly illustrated at last year's UKIP conference, when their fascist comrades paid a visit to hand out leaflets and literature to the several hundred delegates. According to a BNP spokesman at the time, "a substantial proportion of BNP activists are themselves former UKIP members". Meanwhile, Nigel Farage continues to parrot that UKIP are a 'non racist' party. Pull the other one Mr Farage, it has bells on it.

Anonymous letters and split opinion from UKIP

Having lost a quarter of the MEPs elected on their ticket four years ago (the latest being Tom Wise after his arrest in connection with alleged expenses fraud) the wheels now seem to be coming off UKIP at staff level too - judging by the number of leaked documents that desperate UKIP staffers are sending to me anonymously. In recent weeks I have received a number of these, and I have reason to believe that some of their staff have gone to the Belgian police, alleging that their computers have been tampered with to allow officials from UKIP's group in the European Parliament to read their emails. There are also rows about how they use their Group money.

I hear that there are also political schisms. Rumours that Nigel Farage intends to moderate their position and no longer call for British exit from the European Union are causing consternation amongst his colleagues.

Interesting in this context is the publication 'EU Watch' put out by UKIP's group in the European Parliament. The latest edition contains a 10 page analysis of the issue of the "primacy of community law". It concludes that: "The Lisbon Treaty strengthens cooperation between the EU Member States and simplifies the present confusing EU structure. On the other hand, in the area of state sovereignty there are no major changes to the status quo. There is no major extension of the EU's competences."

This is not quite what UKIP and other Eurosceptics were telling us during the ratification debates on the Lisbon Treaty but, hey, better late than never to admit that you told a load of fibs!

The true reasons behind the proposed new rules on Groups

It was not a surprise to see the Telegraph print this story on my proposal to raise the threshold needed to form a political group in the European Parliament, nor dress it up as a sinister plot to “eliminate Eurosceptics”.

My proposal, which was discussed in the Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday, was a response to concerns that, currently, just 20 MEPs (only 2 1/2% of members in the European Parliament), drawn from a fifth of the member states, can form a political "Group" and obtain significant extra resources such as staff and money.

My proposal is to raise the number of MEPs needed to form a group to 30 (4%), with a quarter of member states represented - still lower than the percentage required to form a Group in most national parliaments.

The Telegraph and some blogs have swallowed Nigel Farage's line that this is is a direct attack on UKIP as there are currently just 23 members in their Independence & Democracy Group. But my proposal, if adopted, would not come into effect until the next parliament. By then, UKIP and its allies will surely either have more seats (their view) reaching the new threshold, or fewer (my view) meaning they won't even qualify under the current rule. In any case, MEPs who do not sit in a Group are guaranteed all the normal parliamentary privileges and cannot be silenced.

Farage flatters himself that he and the pipsqueek remanents of UKIP are my target. No, the true purpose of the rule change is to diminish the chances of creating - and giving taxpayers money to - a neo-nazi style far-right Group. Already last year, we saw the debacle of the Independence Sovereignty & Tradition Group, when the far-right managed to cobble together 20 MEPs from a mixture of fascists, holocaust deniers and xenophobes (including Ashley Mote, elected as UKIP) to become eligible for a million euros of funding in 2007. The ramshackle nature of the group was exposed when they collapsed this year after several Romanian MEPs left it following deogatgory comments about Romanians from their colleague Alessandra Mussolini.

Maybe Nigel Farage supports giving money to neo-nazis, but I don't. Certainly, dressing up my proposal as an attempt by the two big Groups to squash the small ones is nonsense.

On the contrary, my proposals actually include a provision that would help small Groups. Previously, smaller groups could often be held hostage by a few MEPs or even individuals who know if they leave the group it would collapse. It was the former leader of UKIP's Group, Jens Peter Bonde, who drew my attention to this problem. I have attempted to address it in the way he suggested, by proposing that if an existing Group loses members and falls below the threshold of 30, they can continue to exist for two years. This would actually help smaller groups work better and give them more stability, as they would not have the fear of collapse continually dangled over them.

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?

I was delighted to accept an invite from Birmingham University to debate against two Party leaders, (albeit from pseudo parties) UKIP’s Nigel Farage and Veritas’ Patrick Eston, the motion that “This house believes Britain should leave the EU”.

However, Nigel Farage pulled out at the last minute, claiming he couldn’t get there in time from Brussels (although that’s precisely where I came from).

The debate had been widely advertised on Eurosceptic websites such as those of Veritas, Conservative Future but their attempts to pack the audience in their favour did not pay off with an overwhelming majority opposing the motion at the end of the debate (with, I am delighted to say, a swing in our favour if you compare the votes before and after). Many of the students in the audience were well informed about the EU and a thoroughly enjoyable and lively debate was held. Peter Luff, of the European Movement, also spoke on my side.

I was also intrigued to hear the latest Eurosceptic argument that claimed the EU is undemocratic because in the Council of Ministers, one country can halt the will of 26 others by using their veto – not something hitherto from the Eurosceptic side!

So, the deal has been done - in the early hours of this morning. Many of us in the Council building feared that Polish intransigence would last throughout the night and longer, but eventually they too compromised at about three a.m.. I've lost count of the number of interviews I've done for British, French, German, Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg TV and radio throughout the long day and night, but hopefully there will be no need for another summit on these issues for many years to come.

The Constitutional Treaty has been replaced by a practical set of reforms to the current European Union. They will make it work more efficiently and will improve parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability. This is a result to be welcomed. Euro-obsessives that want Britain to leave Europe (and, presumably, become part of America) will try to scare people with their ususal froth, but any objective look at the agreement shows that their complaints are fibs or exaggerations. Indeed, UKIP leader Nigel Farage was looking distincly forlorn, not sure what he could complain about, when I debated with him on BBC this morning - he fell back on quoting an article that has been in the treaty since Maastricht, 15 years ago.

Indeed, of the issues that the Eurosceptics focussed on, almost all have disappeared or been neutralized:

* The term "constitution" has been abandoned.

* On the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a new clause says "In particular, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in title 4 of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom."

* On the Foreign Minister, the role stays as High Representative, as it is called already now, and EU foreign policy will be decided by "The European Council and the Council acting unanimously", without the European Courts having a say over it. It is specified that none of this will effect the "existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each member state,"

* In the field of justice and home affairs, where there is a switch from unanimity to majority voting, there are opt-outs for Britain.

Curiously, two items which Eurosceptics continue to criticise are things that, if they thought about them for a few seconds, they might appreciate.

* One is the longer-term president of the European Council (30 months instead of six months). This could lead to a strengthening of the intergovernmental European Council presidency at the expense of the Commission presidency. That is certainly why the anti-federalist French support it.

* The other is the "External Action Service". At present, EU external representations across the globe are run by the Commission. This change is designeed to give Council (i.e. national governments) a say in running and staffing them. Another step away from, rather than towards, a federal system.

However, Tory and UKIP critics just don't want to know and are simply focussed on finding fault with any change.

On the other side, federalists will be disappointed. The Italian and Belgian governments are muttering about too much having been sacrificed to placate the Brits, the Dutch, the Poles and the French. The European Parliament will be unhappy, as will the 22 countries who wished to retain the Constitutional Treaty intact.

BBC Europe chief and blogger Mark Mardell's assessment is interesting. Although BBC impartiality means he has to treat the Eurosceptics seriously and give them coverage they don't deserve, he clearly proclaims a victory for the government, saying: "Tony Blair can claim that he has won all his red lines. Of course, many will feel this was utterly predictable and of course Conservatives and other will say that there is plenty here that deserves a referendum. But Mr Blair has made their job that much harder."

Indeed a referendum seems hard to justify. Britain has never had a referendum to ratify an international treaty, and it would be odd to start with a minor one. We similarly have never had a referendum on issues that are far more important and that really interest the public, like the creation of the national health service, compulsory education, university fees, the death penalty, the monarchy. We are a parliamentary democracy - a British tradition we are generally proud of. To argue that a referendum is justified because the president of the European Council will have a 30-month instead of 6-month term of office is ludicrous.

But I predict that it won't stop the Torygraph, the Mail, the Sun, the Express UKIP, the Conservative party and the BNP demanding one!