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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 - a good year for the EU?

Mark Mardell, the BBC’s Europe editor, said in his blog today that “For the European project's enthusiasts 2008 has been a good year.”

He focuses on foreign affairs, with the EU brokering the Georgia ceasefire, setting up its Kosovo mission and sending a joint fleet of warships to the Somalia coast to protect shipping from pirates. He also refers to the financial crisis and the fact that “the euro has weathered the storm better than the pound” and all EU countries eventually reached “agreement on a coordinated plan to stimulate the economy”.

In my view, the biggest EU achievement this year has been the climate change package, and he could have dwelt more on that. The package does not just proclaim targets, but brings in measures to achieve them. It creates binding Europe-wide laws on emission limits for vehicles, renewable obligations, carbon trading and so on. It finances pilot projects for carbon capture and storage. It brings aviation in to the Emission Trading Scheme, which it strengthens.
This is a good example of using the EU to do more than we can achieve just by ourselves, and where Europe is leading the world ahead of the Copenhagen climate change talks.

But, as ever in the BBC, Mark feels he has to give a sop to the eurosceptics. He buys their line on the question of the Irish response to the Lisbon treaty and does not even mention the fact that almost every other member country has approved the treaty. He refers to the Irish government’s plan to seek concessions and then hold a new referendum as “the leaders of EU countries and the commission deciding that Ireland should vote again” – sorry, Mark, neither the other countries nor the Commission have any such power, only the Irish parliament can decide, if it wants, whether to hold a new referendum.

He quotes approvingly (“a stroke of brilliance”) the phrase "They don't know the meaning of the word 'No'" and refers to the EU being "an unstoppable juggernaut". Come off it, Mark! The EU can only change its rulebook (the treaties) with the unanimous consent of every single Member State. The dice are loaded in favour of the eurosceptics, who only need to obtain one single 'No'.

As it turns out, Ireland, as the single 'No', has offered to reconsider (it's still their choice), in exchange for other countries trying to meet their concerns (e.g. on the number of Commissioners, on neutrality, taxation, conscription, etc). It is actually Ireland that can, if it wants, “bully” the other countries into making concessions, not the other way around!

In fact, as ever in a grouping of 27 sovereign countries, there will be an attempt to find a compromise, to bridge the gap, to meet halfway and to try and find a solution that is acceptable to all 27 countries. This is not to ignore the result of the Irish referendum - it is to respond to the result, look at the concerns that were expressed and try to meet them. I very much hope that will be sufficient to enable a positive result in a new referendum to be held in the autumn, when it will be up to the Irish people to make their choice. Is that so unreasonable?It was, after all, the leader of the NO campaign who said the result was a mandate to the Irish government to negotiate a better deal.

A successful summit

After frantic negotiations, the European Council summit has ended with success on a number of fronts, with agreement on how to tackle both long and short-term political problems.

The summit ended with agreements that will enable the EU to meet its previously agreed targets (to cut carbon emissions by 20%, to increase use of renewable energy by 20%, and also achieve a cut of 20% in energy use by 2020 as compared with 1990 levels).

Given the strident opposition from several eastern European countries and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, it is an impressive feat that a deal was reached. Indeed, John Kerry as US representative at the UN climate conference in Poznan, has already described the deal as "an enormous act of leadership". The package also enables the EU to revive its pledge to cut emissions by 30% provided the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen next year agrees to a new deal as well.

The other pressing problem facing the summit was how to tackle the financial crisis and economic downturn. Despite the apparent spat between our Government and the Germans on how best to respond, EU leaders have announced a €200 billion stimulus package - the equivalent of roughly 1.5% of total gross domestic product in the EU. Although the precise details of the package will be ironed out over the next few days, they will include a combination of tax cuts,extra financial support for small businesses and an acceleration of public spending projects. Although individual Member States will be able to opt-out of specific measures with which they disagree, it is good news that, rather than leave all countries to 'go it alone' and so increasing economic turmoil, EU countries have come together to seek a co-ordinated response.

The discussion of how to salvage the Lisbon Treaty was, to most, the least important item on the agenda at this week's European summit - no one would argue that the EU's institutional framework is more important than the future of the planet and mitigating the effects of the economic downturn. But the deal struck maintains the package of institutional reforms that will allow the EU to be better able to deal with these long-term political problems. As I reported yesterday, the Irish government can claim a notable diplomatic victory and the 27 governments can show that the issues raised in the no campaign have been listened to and responded to.

Ireland latest

The special sub-committee of the Irish Parliament, set up to evaluate the options for Ireland following its rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, reported yesterday. Interestingly, its recommendations to the Irish government focus on the option of re-running the Lisbon referendum, but on the assumption that the Irish government "would respond to concerns expressed during the referendum campaign". Such a response might involve supplementing the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty with a range of declarations, protocols and decisions but "the committee has strong concerns about actions which may involve Ireland opting out of EU policy areas".

It remains to be seen how the Irish government will respond to its Parliament on this, but given that we are now approaching 26 ratifications by every other EU country, the most likely option for Ireland as the only member state to say 'No',is that it indeed seeks reassurance on those points on which it was unhappy, and then seeks the approval of the Irish people in a new referendum.

For all those eurosceptics who accuse the EU of "bullying" Ireland, it is interesting that this suggestion has come from the Irish Parliament itself, following widespread consultations, public hearings and debates. The hearings included both supporters and opponents of the Lisbon Treaty, parties from across the political spectrum and NGOs of all kinds as well as businesses and trade unions. It produced a considered and detailed report.

Other EU countries must now do their bit to meet Irish concerns and respond to any reasonable requests put forward by Ireland as a result of this process.

Obama's victory and meeting with MPs and Lords

I guess there's scarcely a blogger out there today who's not commenting on Barack Obama's election victory. And what a victory speech! Also impressive was John McCain's concession speech, a model in graciousness, that losing candidates in many other parts of the world would do well to emulate.

Meanwhile, I spoke today to the all-party Europe group of MPs and Lords at Westminster. Support for the reform of the EU, as embodied in the Lisbon Treaty, remains strong there. The large majorities approving it in both the Commons and the Lords have been emulated in 24 other countries. The sole rejection has been Ireland. How that might be dealt with was the subject of my blog last Wednesday, 29 October.

Declan Ganley: more than meets the eye?

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

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

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

What is Libertas?

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

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

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

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

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

What is Rivada Networks?

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

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

Ganley’s other companies

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

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

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

Ganley calls for all out war against Iran

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

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

Is Declan Ganley actually Irish?

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

Europe must now work with Ireland to resolve its objections to the Lisbon Treaty

The other EU countries must stand ready to meet Ireland's concerns if they want Ireland to re-consider the Lisbon Treaty. But to do so, they need Ireland to articulate a list of demands.

That is the message I gave today to the special Oireachtas sub-committee on Ireland's relationship with the EU as part of a delegation of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs committee.

This is not an easy situation for anyone. We all know that any changes to the EU treaties require the agreement of every single Member state. But as we approach a situation where 25 or 26 will have said "Yes" and just one has said "No", it is neither unreasonable nor undemocratic to ask the one to reconsider - especially if a serious effort is made to meet its concerns.

Of course, Ireland would be perfectly entitled not to re-consider. In law, that would be the end of the Lisbon treaty. But Ireland's friends across Europe would be dismayed at such an attitude. In the EU, the give-and-take co-operation of all member countries is fundamental to the continued success of the EU. If there is a divergence of views, we attempt to bridge the gap. If Ireland were to reject the idea of even trying to find a solution acceptable to all Member States, without even trying, it would find itself losing the considerable sympathy it has always enjoyed across Europe.

Some leading "no" campaigners, such as Declan Ganley, said at the time that the result was "a mandate to the Irish government to seek a better deal". It is a pity that he now seems to want to oppose any such attempt.

Fifteen years ago, when Denmark rejected the Maastricht treaty, it told the other member states to continue with their ratification procedures. The Danes said to the rest of Europe that they didn't want to blow up the whole edifice, but would come back with proposals to find a way out. Denmark identified four items in the Maastricht package that it didn't like; the other member states were able to meet its concerns (without, by the way, needing to change the treaty to do so) and Denmark then approved the treaty by a comfortable majority in a new referendum. Ireland itself went through a similar process with the Treaty of Nice.

Will it be possible to do likewise with Lisbon? The findings from the research commissioned by the Irish government indicated that lack of knowledge and information were the single most important factor, both in abstention and in voting "no". Fear of conscription into a European army, threats to corporation tax, the lack of an automatic Irish Commissioner and workers rights were among the specific concerns that were confirmed by the research.

Several of these concerns can easily be met, not least because they were unjustified fears. The treaty does not change Ireland's ability to set its own tax rates, it does not oblige it to send troops to a European army and, perversely, workers' rights would actually be strengthened by the treaty. Such fears can be assuaged without needing to change the treaty, by clarifying declarations or, if necessary, additional protocols.

Other concerns might be more difficult. The loss of an Irish Commissioner (for one Commission out of three, as of 2014, as for every member state) was an issue, but special treatment for Ireland would be difficult. After all, Ireland and the other small countries were victorious on that point in ensuring equal rotation, irrespective of the size of countries, while the current Nice Treaty would anyway require a smaller Commission - but without an agreed rotation system.

Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns. If this can be done without having to alter the treaty - which would require a new IGC and renewed ratification in all other countries - then so much the better.

Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions, and achieving a solution acceptable Ireland and to all 26 other countries may not be easy. But an even worse solution would be to abandon all reform. A poorly functioning EU, failing to deliver on behalf of its citizens, is in no-one's interest, especially in this time of economic uncertainty. Sweeping the necessary reforms under the carpet because you can't even be bothered to explore the possibility for a compromise would do nobody any favours.

Naturally, other countries and the European Parliament would prefer to find a solution in time for the European elections. Whether this is possible is up to Ireland. As responsible players, the Irish government and the main opposition parties will want to proceed carefully but purposefully. Other European countries must do what they can to help, but while we all want a solution as soon as possible, we must accept that there are no shortcuts and the issues raised by the "No" campaign must be given a respectful answer

So UKIP did interfere with the Irish referendum

Back in January, Nigel Farage wrote on his blog that IND-DEM had made a large donation to the Irish "No" campaign. This letter from Kathy Sinnott proves that UKIP's group paid for a leaflet to be sent to every Irish household arguing for a "No" vote. It is both amusing and astonishing hypocrisy that UKIP, which frequently makes shrill accusations about "Brussels meddling with Britain", meddled in a referendum campaign in another country.

However, at another level, this is a serious matter and potentially illegal. The rules governing donations for referendum campaigns in Ireland are very clear. Donations are illegal if they fall into the following categories:

"A donation, of whatever value, from an individual (other than an Irish citizen) who resides outside the island of Ireland" or,

"A donation from a body corporate or unicorporated body of persons which does not keep an office in the island of Ireland from which one or more of its principle activities is directed".

Of course, UKIP and IND-DEM knew this and no doubt tried find an indirect route to channel their money. Sinnott's letter is also interesting in that it asks the Taisoeach Brian Cowen to ensure that "each European Parliament group(s) and political foundation(s) be asked to make public the exact expenses they made for this referendum campaign in Ireland" adding that "my parliament group, IND-DEM is prepared to respond to this request in full". It would certainly be in the public interest, and highly revealing, for this information to be made available.

Seeking a solution to Lisbon

Interesting to meet the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Martin today and hear him confirm that Ireland does not consider the matter of the Lisbon Treaty to be closed. Noting that almost every other Member State has taken a sovereign decision to approve the treaty, he described what is being done in Ireland to find "the right solution within a reasonable time frame".

Overcoming a divergence of views when there is a 26-1 split is easier if the 1 rather than the 26 reconsiders. (Same if it is 25-2). But this in turn requires the other Member States to help meet the concerns of the one. Any reform of the treaty requires the approval of all Member States, so nothing can be done unless Ireland (and every other country) agrees. The Irish government is clearly up for that challenge and will seek to identify a set of demands that would make the package acceptable to Ireland.

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.

Declan Ganley and the Irish No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

High Court rejects Stuart Wheeler's referendum bid

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

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

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

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

We must find a solution for all

Suppose the future reform of the House of Lords required the approval of every county. Suppose that all county councils agree the reform, except Herefordshire, which votes "No".

What should be done? Should reform be abandoned because one county votes against? Should Herefordshire be asked to vote again, in light of the support of every other county? Should Herefordshire's concerns be identified, if possible, and an attempt made at a compromise?

That is the situation facing European coutries, who negotiated a package of reforms to the EU, which one country has rejected, while most if not all of the others continue to support it. Reform of the EU needs approval from every single member state.

Of course, every country has its own procedure to decide on such matters, in accordace with their own traditions and constitutions. Some have a decision of their national parliament (sometimes by a simple majority, some by a two-thirds or three-fifths majority), one has a referendum, one requires the approval of each of its internal entities (seven parliaments) another the approval of a two-thirds majority of its internal states. These differences sometimes give rise to claims that one method is better than another, but it is any case not something for the EU to decide, but is up to each member state.

What is not allowed under the current rules is a single referendum of all European citizens. To obtain agreement for reform, you need to win the Grand Slam of of 27 victories and zero defeats.

In this situation, there is no choice but to do what all 27 governments agreed at the end of last week, namely to persevere in searching for a solution acceptable to all countries. The Reform Treaty agreed last year proved acceptable to almost all member states. The most likely route to a solution is to do what it takes to make the package acceptable to Ireland, without making it unacceptable to others. Not easy, but as I said in the parliament on Wednesday it is a challenge we must rise to.

Lords seal ratification of Lisbon Treaty in UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Parliament's debate on Ireland's No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Ireland has said No

All the indications suggest Ireland has said 'No', but there are 26 other member states whose opinion matters too.

It is inconceivable that all of the others will simply say "too bad - one country has said ‘No’ to the package as it stands, so let's forget reform and stick with the current system for evermore."

All member states want reform. Even the ‘No’ campaigners in Ireland claimed they want to negotiate a better package.

So, what is to be done? First, Ireland must have a profound internal debate to identify precisely what it is they don't like about the Lisbon Treaty. Presumably it is not the extra powers for parliaments, nor the clearer focus on combating climate change, but some other aspects. If they can identify what those are, then they can ask the other member states for help in addressing their concerns.

This, after all, is precisely what Denmark did after their initial rejection of the Maastricht Treaty. They said to the rest of Europe that they didn't want to blow up the whole edifice, but that they would come back with proposals to find a way out. They identified four items in the Maastricht package that they didn't like, the other member states were able to meet their concerns (without, by the way, needing to change the treaty to do so) and Denmark then approved the treaty by a comfortable majority in a new referendum.

Several concerns raised in the Irish debate can easily be met, not least because they were unjustified fears. The treaty does not affect Ireland's abortion laws, it does not change their ability to set their tax rates, it does not oblige them to send troops to a European army and it does not change the EU’s negotiating stance on agriculture on the WTO. Such fears can be assuaged without needing to change the treaty, by clarifying declarations or, if necessary, additional protocols.

Other concerns might be more difficult. The loss of an Irish Commissioner (for one Commission out of three, as of 2014, as for every member state) was an issue, but special treatment for Ireland would be difficult. After all, they and the other small countries were victorious on that point in the negotiations on the treaty in ensuring equal rotation, irrespective of the size of countries. Note that the current treaties, if left unamended, would anyway require a smaller Commission - but without an agreed rotation system and already in 2009.

Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns. If this can be done without having to alter the treaty - which would require a new IGC and renewed ratification in all the counties (now nearly 20) that have ratified already - then so much the better.

Nor should we accept the bleating from Eurosceptics that there is somehow something undemocratic about a new referendum. It is perfectly reasonable to address a divergence in the positions of the 27 EU countries by asking the minority of one to think again - especially if its concerns have been addressed. What would be undemocratic would be to allow the one to prevail over the many.

Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions. Achieving a solution acceptable to all 27 countries may not be easy. But an even worse solution would be to abandon all reform. A poorly functioning EU, failing to deliver on behalf of its citizens, is in no-one's interest. Sweeping the necessary reforms under the carpet because you can't even be bothered to explore the possibility for a compromise would do nobody any favours.

Ireland votes tomorrow

So, Ireland votes tomorrow on the Lisbon treaty. It's their choice for their country's ratification, but I do hope they take account, in evaluating the arguments for and against, of the wider context.

All 27 countries in the EU agree that the EU needs reform. All have worked for several years to draw up this package of reforms, taking account of every country's concerns. A first attempt, replacing the current treaties with a new constitution, fell when two countries rejected it. This new attempt, amending the current treaties, has already been ratified by a majority of Member States, but needs the approval of all 27, including Ireland. If this attempt also fails, it would take years to agree on a new set of reforms. Some are hoping that there would never be such agreement and the EU would fall apart (the UK Conservatives, for instance, hope that a failure to approve the treaty now would give them a chance of being in power - they think - before any new package is agreed, which they could then block.)

That is why Eurosceptics from across Europe, but especially from Britain, have helped the NO campaign in Ireland. They have not hesitated to deploy the same lies as they have used in Britain, together with some new ones tailored to cause concern in Ireland such as claiming that the treaty will affect Irish laws on abortion. They tell workers that the treaty will undermine social standards and they tell businesses that it will increase their taxes, both patent lies. They try to stir up fears that small countries will lose out (so why have all the countries that are smaller than Ireland already ratified with large majorities, while some larger ones are among those considered difficult?).

Let us hope the Irish people will give short shrift to the myth-makers and endorse the treaty by a clear majority!

Who says the Lisbon Treaty is boring?

Who says the Lisbon Treaty is boring? This amusing 'Spoofers guide to how to not vote No' by Jason O'Mahony is well worth a read and a chuckle!

Tories align themselves with an unlikely bunch

Now that national parliaments across Europe are debating the Treaty of Lisbon, the unholy alliances of hard left and far right that are attempting to block it stands revealed.

The motley crew includes Jorg Häider's Freedom Party in Austria, the Flemish separatists Vlaams Belang, the Northern League in Italy and the Bulgarian Attak party.. These parties all fall into various shades of the extreme right - xenophobic, ultra-nationalist and/or anti-immigration.

On the other extreme, the remaining Communist parties across Europe have voted 'No', while the German Die Linke partei made up of Oskar Lafontaine's defectors from the SPD and the remnants of the communist PDS party (still enjoying electoral success in parts of East Germany) has also opposed ratification. Interestingly enough, Sinn Fein is the only major Irish party to oppose the treaty. I never thought that Sinn Fein and the Tory party would line up as close allies!

Despite Cameron's attempts to position himself as a moderate conservative, the Tories are the only main centre-right party in Europe to be opposed to the treaty. Every main social democrat, Christian democrat, liberal and green party across the EU has supported the Lisbon Treaty.

All of which highlights just how out of touch Cameron is with mainstream thinking and how isolated Britain would be if the Tories were to win the next election. As Philip Stephen's put it in today's Financial Times,

"As far as abroad is concerned, as things stand Mr Cameron's first act would be to start an acrimonious and unwinnable fight to overturn the treaty of Lisbon and withdraw Britain from the European Union's social chapter. That, not to put too fine a point on it, would be barmy."

Tories in Lords sing treaty's praises

The debate continues this afternoon in the House of Lords on the Lisbon Treaty when the European Union Amendment Bill enters the Committee stage of the debate; the bill will be discussed by the whole house in six separate sittings over the coming months.

In its Second Reading at the beginning of April, some 75 Peers were listed to speak on the subject of the Lisbon Treaty. Unlike in the Commons, a large number of Conservative peers spoke in favour of the new treaty, including several previous Cabinet Ministers.

Among them was Lord Howe, previous Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister under the Thatcher administration. Speaking during the debate, Lord Howe called for Britain to continue to exert an "increasingly effective participation in the European Union" stating that the Treaty "is an important step in that direction for the enhancement of British influence". The Lord, who was Thatcher's longest serving Cabinet Minister, went on to criticise the Conservative Party's calls for a referendum stating, "I cannot bring myself to say a word in support of one."

Lord Brittain, a former Home Secretary, also spoke against his party's position on the Treaty: "I am not only very much in favour of approving the Treaty but I am also strongly opposed to a referendum on this issue." Lord Brittain continued saying that the comparisons made between the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty are fair and paying particular heed to the numerous benefits for Britain and the rest of Europe under the new treaty. He also praised the treaty for the necessary changes it makes to ease the efficiency and functioning of the enlarged Union.

Lord Tughendhat, Member of the European Commission from 1977 to 1981, criticised the Tory line: "Sadly, I believe that the Conservative Party's present position on the treaty is not only contrary to the national interest but to its own interest."

Lord Jones, who was a previous junior Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, also criticised the Conservative position: "[The Tories] favour a referendum because they think that they would win and, in doing so, would advance a position that is at best hostile to the Union and is frequently a flimsy cover for an eventual move to withdraw."

There seems to be a generational shift in the Conservative Party. The more experienced Tories are more pro-European and in favour of the treaty compared to the new more hasty Eurosceptic generation who unthinkingly follow the media-led euroscepticism. Do none of the younger Tories have the courage to stand out against the trend and think for themselves?

Eurosceptics target Ireland

A few months ago UKIP leader Nigel Farage trumpeted on his blog that the Independence and Democracy group (that his UKIP MEPs are the main part of) had decided to "donate a substantial sum of money" to the Irish "No" campaign for the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

At one level, it is amusing to see UKIP, which frequently makes shrill accusations about "Brussels meddling with Britain", trying to meddle in a referendum campaign in another country.

However, at another level, this is a serious matter and potentially illegal. The rules governing donations for referendum campaigns in Ireland are very clear. Donations are illegal if they fall into the following categories:

"A donation, of whatever value, from an individual (other than an Irish citizen) who resides outside the island of Ireland" or,

"A donation from a body corporate or unicorporated body of persons which does not keep an office in the island of Ireland from which one or more of its principle activities is directed".

Of course, UKIP knows this and will no doubt try to keep their donations quiet or find an indirect route to channel their money. The well-heeled eurosceptics from across Europe are targeting Ireland. Anyone who gets wind of such donations should inform the Irish Commission on Standards in Public Office, the body charged with making sure that the referendum is fair and that Ireland's rules on spending - which gives equal amounts of public money to both sides - are not subverted.

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.

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.

Lords debate on treaty kicks off today

The House of Lords begins today its debates on the Treaty of Lisbon.

Anyone wanting a good, detailed and dispassionate analysis of the treaty would be rewarded by looking at the Report of the Lords EU Committee (here and here which goes through the treaty in considerable detail making an analysis of what impact it is likely to have.

Eurosceptics won't like it. Their views were given a good hearing by the Lords, who took evidence from Open Europe and several other anti-Europeans, but the Lords don't seem to have been impressed by their arguments.

I too gave evidence to the Lords and am pleased to see over 30 references in the first 80 pages of their report to documents I have written or to the oral hearing they held with me.

I am confident the that there will be at least as clear a majority for the treaty in the Lords as there was in the elected Commons, even if the minority opposing it will get the lion's share of the publicity to the extent that the media covers their debates.

Leon Brittan's article in today's Times is also well worth a read.

Murphy ends Commons debate in good humour

The Commons debate on the Lisbon Treaty finally concluded last night with MPs voting by a large majority to adopt the text, which means just the Lords’ approval is required for Britain to ratify the treaty.

Europe Minister Jim Murphy’s final speech was an amusing one, and included some some weird and wonderful facts, such as "the great unreformed instiution", Bill Cash, made 214 interventions (swiftly up 215), a fifth of all those made in the entire debate!

There were also amusing digs at the strange trend of MPs quoting themselves, quoting other MPs who had quoted them, and even quoting themselves from a speech they never actually made!

Murphy pointed out: "The hon. Member for Stone (Bill Cash) quoted an historic parliamentary debate and a speech—by himself—as a source of reference. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) did the same thing by proxy, quoting the right hon. Member for Wells quoting him. This evening we had another passionate speech by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Peter Lilley), who went one step further in our proceedings. Not only did he quote himself, which has become the new fashion — a fashion that I have not yet bought into — but, in a remarkable innovation, to make his specific point he did not quote himself from an earlier speech, saying,

‘I can demonstrate that by referring to a speech that I did not give’

when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. A remarkable constitutional innovation! It is a first, and perhaps many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will take their lead from it in future debates."

Murphy also took time to list the other parties that support the Conservative's absurd position on the treaty – or "the 'not letting the matter rest' coalition" as he called them. It now includes, he said: "Sinn Fein, Marianne Thieme — who, as we all know, leads the Dutch party for the animals in its opposition to the treaty — and the now infamous Philippe de Villiers, part of the leadership of the French hunting party, we have three allies to fill this great chamber of Europe. That still leaves 23 empty seats for the great European coalition of international Governments.”

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.

Red lines beat red herrings, as Commons votes against referendum

I was delighted to see the House of Commons reject the Tory proposal that Britain should start ratifying international treaties by means of a referendum. The vote, which finished 311 to 248, is a victory for parliamentary democracy.

While it was disappointing to see 29 Labour MPs vote against the Government, this number was far fewer than the 120 that Labour Europhobe Ian Davidson had predicted would follow him into the division lobby to vote for a referendum.

Credit should also be given to Kenneth Clarke, John Gummer and David Curry, who showed that there are still a few moderate Tories on Europe by voting with the Government.

As for the Liberal Democrats, their bizarre approach to the vote, in taking a three-line whip ordering their MPs to abstain, backfired, with a quarter of the parliamentary party voting with the Tories and four MPs resigning from their front-bench. The Lib Dems should have had the courage of their convictions. By using their (familiar) tactic of trying to be all things to all people, their opportunism has been exposed.

This country has a proud history of parliamentary democracy and an issue like the Lisbon Treaty is where MPs earn their salt. Britain has never ratified an international treaty by referendum and the House of Commons has rightly acknowledged that it would have been absurd to start doing so now. It is right that the Commons has dedicated so long to analysing and discussing the treaty, something most people simply don’t have the time to do.

Above all, this detailed scrutiny has revealed that this is a treaty which will make the EU more efficient, more democratic and more accountable and respects the British government’s red lines. The pathetic glut of Eurosceptic red herrings, including claims that the treaty would delete the Queen from our passports and allow armed French police to patrol British streets, has been exposed as nonsense by the Commons.

Tories a bundle of contradictions on climate change

I have followed some of the debates in the House of Commons on the Lisbon Treaty and I continue to be amazed at the disarray of the Tories.

I am told that over half the Conservative speaking time on this has been accounted for by just two MPs - Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory. That the Conservatives allow these two extremely anti-Europe members dominate their contribution to this extent shows how far they have shifted in a Europhobic direction. These two denounce every aspect of the EU as the devil incarnate.

William Hague, by contrast, is now pursuing a different line. He says we don't need a new treaty reforming the EU because, in his words, "the EU is working perfectly well". Not a position Bill Cash would agree with!

The debate on the effect of the treaty on tackling climate change was a further illustration of Conservative incoherence. Two contrasting amendments were tabled by the Conservatives: one which stated that "the Treaty of Lisbon is effectively irrelevant to the vital issue of climate change" - (implying that the EU should be given more powers in tackling climate change), and another, which my regional colleague Hugh Bayley drew attention to, tabled by a number of senior Conservatives, including former leader Iain Duncan Smith and John Redwood, stating that the EU should have no role at all on climate change! Although this amendment was disowned by the Conservative front-bench team it offers another illustration of the Tories' divisions on Europe.

The reality is that we cannot effectively tackle climate change and raise environmental standards without being engaged with the EU - a point emphasised by John Gummer, one of the few moderate Conservatives on Europe, who said that "it is not possible to have an anti-European position and have any kind of environmental policy".

Climate change policy is one of the policy areas where collective rather than individual action is most effective. The unlikely deal reached at the Bali summit on climate change was an example of the clout of the EU when we have a united position. Already committed to unilateral emissions cuts of 20% by 2020, European countries were able to speak with authority and a common voice. Unwittingly, the Tory amendment, in describing the provisions on climate change as "institutional tinkering" revealed the shallow opportunism of their demands for a referendum. The point is that the Lisbon Treaty is about institutional tinkering rather than giving the EU new powers. Therefore, if the Tories accept that the treaty is about "institutional tinkering" then why do they want a referendum?

This is not to say that the Conservatives are all climate change deniers. Indeed, Nick Hurd, Greg Barker, Peter Ainsworth and John Gummer all made speeches emphasising the importance of the EU in tackling climate change. However, their approach in the European Parliament is summed up by their choice of Roger Helmer (who believes that climate change is "a journalistic fiction") as the Conservative member of the temporary committee on climate change.

David Cameron talks a good game on the environment, but Wednesday's debate offered ample demonstration of how the Tories are all over the place. In the words of Caroline Jackson, the only Conservative woman MEP: "from the point of view of the Conservative Party, pursuing the green line is all talk and no action".

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".

Revealed, the way the Tories voted on the treaty

Which way individual Tory MEPs voted on yesterday’s vote on the Lisbon Treaty makes interesting reading.

The vast majority voted against the treaty, in accordance with the Cameron/Hague line. They were, as I said yesterday, the only major party in the whole of the EU to do so.

But nearly a quarter did not follow their party dictat. Christopher Beazley voted in favour as did Tory new boy Sajid Karim, who having defected last year from the Lib Dems, has obviously failed to make many of his new colleagues see sense.

Five more avoided voting. Caroline Jackson might have been simply trying to avoid her colleagues after fiercely attacking them in the Financial Times.

But what of Syed Kamall, who has spent the past few sessions tediously squeezing in references to having a referendum in almost every speech he has made, regardless of the subject being debated, but on Wednesday, when he had a chance to vote on the treaty, he didn’t? Christopher Heaton-Harris and James Elles were also notable by their absence, though the former, at least, is an unlikely closet federalist.

As to Edward McMillan Scott, he can sometimes be very sensible, so not voting against was surely deliberate. And I won't reveal the names of those who apologised to me for not voting for my report on the treaty, citing unbearable pressure from on-high.

Lisbon Treaty overwhelmingly adopted by European Parliament

My report on the Lisbon Treaty, which I co-authored with Íñigo Méndez de Vigo MEP, pleasingly sailed through the European Parliament today, with 525 votes in favour and just 115 against.

Every single party that is in government in the EU’s member states and almost every single one of the principal opposition parties in every member state – except the British Conservatives - showed their support for the treaty in today’s vote.

All the main Christian Democrat parties, all the Socialist parties and the Liberal parties in each of the 27 member states supported the treaty. The same is true for the majority of the Green parties and even Conservative parties, except, of course, the Tories.

Opposition to the treaty came mainly from the far-right and some on the extreme left of the political spectrum. It was, though, curious to see a new political alliance being forged between Sinn Féin and the British Conservatives in opposing this treaty!

Bizarely, some opponents of the treaty argued that it was being adopted without them having access to the consolidated treaties (i.e. the treaties as they will be after being amended by the Lisbon Treaty) and the poor souls find it too hard work to cross reference the amendments. But in any case, consolidated treaties have been published by several member states. Frankly, any Member of the European Parliament who says he or she has not been able to study the texts is not doing the job which they are paid to do. It is pure laziness.

There were also some strange calls for the European Parliament to demand referendums in each member state to ratify the treaty. I find it quite amusing that those who oppose the European Union now want the European Parliament to tell sovereign member states what their internal procedures should be to ratify an international treaty. That is hypocrisy in the extreme!

Finally, I suppose I couldn’t blog on today’s events without mentioning UKIP’s chicken stunt. There were rumours every UKIP MEP was going to dress as a chicken during today’s vote but sadly the sight of Godfrey Bloom in a chicken suit was not to be and in the end they settled on wearing yellow t-shirts with a chicken print. At least they didn't try to disrupt the Parliament this time, but they didn't half look silly!

However, they spent so long parading outside the chamber for the benefit of the press that it became clear to everyone that what they were really "chicken" about, was taking part in the debate - presumably because they can't stand hearing views they disagree with. They simply dislike democratic parliamentary debate.

For my speech opening the debate click here and for my speech winding it up click here.

Eurosceptics at sixes and sevens

The old saying about not being able to organise a piss-up in a brewery now has a new version: not being able to organise a political event in a parliament!

Showing that there is seemingly no limit to their talent for incompetence, some hardline Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP MEPs have organised a "demonstration" against my report on the Treaty of Lisbon - but managed to choose the wrong day! Intended to coincide with the debate on my report (Wednesday), they have invited the media to come to watch their antics today (Tuesday), the day before it is to be debated.

Meanwhile, I gather that the expulsion of Tory malcontent Dan Hannan is on the agenda of the EPP Group later this evening. Today, Hannan got up in Parliament to apologise to President Pöttering for his comments last month when he compared the Parliament's President to Hitler. It is deeply ironic that an arch-Eurosceptic like Hannan who is desperate for the Conservatives to leave the EPP, is now trying to squirm his way out of being expelled from it. Has he done a U-turn, or has he been lent on from on-high to avoid further embarrassment for the Conservative party?

Later, not a single British Conservative MEP was in the chamber to hear the speech of the Swedish Conservative Prime Minister. Tory leader Giles Chichester did turn up briefly towards the end of ther debate, made a short speech, but didn't even have the courtesy to wait for the reply from the Prime Minister.

Why this striking absence? Can't they stand hearing from a Conservative leader about how good the Lisbon Treaty is? About how an effective European Union is the only way to meet common transnational challenges? Or are they embarrassed about how a Conservative Prime Minister dismisses out of hand arguments claiming that this treaty has constitutional implications or transfers sovereignty and therefore warrants a referendum?

.

So much for the British Conservatives wanting a wider and deeper debate on the future direction of Europe! They prefer to hide outside the chamber (presumably in the bar with the equally absent UKIP MEPs) than hear arguments that many of them recognise as correct, but which their public position precludes them from applauding. Another step in their self-imposed isolation from mainstream centre-right parties in Europe!

A tribute to the civil servants, and to the Centre for European Reform

I missed Prince Charles's visit to European Parliament today, not just because I am not on that committee, but because I had a day in London meeting various officials and policy advisors from the Foreign office, Cabinet office and so on.

Those who claim that the government was cavalier in its negotiations about the Lisbon Treaty ought to see these officials at work. They are meticulous in knowing and analysing every detail of the treaty, looking at all the possible implications and advising ministers accordingly. They also know that the British government won on all its "red lines". The only thing is they can't say so, as civil servants, but must leave it to ministers to try to get the message across through a hostile media.

In the evening, I attended a packed 10th birthday celebration of the Centre for European Reform think tank. Not very many Tories - they don't really believe in reforming the EU - but many businessmen. A smattering of Labour MPs and peers, but also a few trade unionists. Good speech by David Miliband, looking to the future beyond treaty ratification, which will indeed be a welcome development. And as to the CER, plaudits all round for its contribution to debates on reforming Europe - which has certainly helped reform the EU (with the Reform Treaty the latest step), but which has not (yet) managed to change the way Europe is debated in Britain.

Referendum campaign still flagging

The Conservatives were struck another blow in their failing campaign for a referendum on the Reform Treaty. Their petition demanding a referendum on the Reform Treaty, and posted on the Downing Street petitions website by Tory MEP Geoffrey Van Orden, received only 4,057 signatures. This shows how little public backing they are gaining for David Cameron's calls for a referendum on the Reform Treaty.

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.

The debate begins!

The first hurdle to the parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was easily cleared in the House of Commons last night. Despite extravagant claims in some newspapers that up to 100 Labour MPs would defy the government by voting against the treaty, the bill's second reading was passed by 362 to 224, with 19 rebel Labour MPs, (a small group with a history of being Eurosceptic), voting with the Conservatives.

Let us be clear - leaving aside the hyperbole, the Lisbon Treaty amounts to a set of modest adjustments to the EU's institutional framework such as replacing the rotating six-month presidency with a full-time one on a 30 month term, reducing the number of Commissioners to 18, altering the voting system in the Council to be based on population and increasing the role of elected parliaments in EU law-making. But in terms of what the EU can and cannot do, it changes little. Unlike the Single European Act or Maastricht, there are no new subjects added to the EU's field of responsibility - put bluntly; the Lisbon Treaty is about reform, not new powers.

The Tories' opposition to this treaty is nakedly opportunistic and lacks credibility. As David Miliband put it: "Left of centre parties in all 27 European countries support the treaty; liberal parties in all 27 countries support the treaty; and Conservative parties in 26 countries support the treaty. Only in Britain do we have a major party opposed to the contents of the treaty."

Indeed, William Hague's speech for the Conservatives was long on jokes (no one can accuse Mr Hague of lacking a rhetorical flourish) but fell short on substance. At one point, he defended his party's opposition of the treaty on the grounds that it would "weaken democracy" by taking "more decision making away from democratic control". This argument simply does not stand up. In fact, the Lisbon Treaty, by making virtually all EU legislation subject to the prior scrutiny of national parliaments (with the power to object to a proposal) and to approval by both the Council of Ministers (representing national governments) and directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament. This would amount to a level of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability that exists in no other international structure. To claim that this is a diminution of parliamentary democracy is no more than intellectual laziness.

My analogy that, just as the Lisbon Treaty is estimated to be 90% the same as the Constitutional Treaty, human beings and mice are 90% the same in terms of their DNA but the difference is pretty important, also made an appearance in Hansard, being quoted approvingly (and with acknowledgent) by the new Lib Dem Foreign Affairs spokesman Ed Davey, who also made a fine speech. It was also cheering to hear Nick Clegg's interview on Radio 4 this morning, during which he appeared to state that the Liberal Democrats would not support any Tory attempts to defeat the Government in demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Although the Lib Dems have a reputation for saying different things to please different people, voting in favour of a treaty that they support rather than voting against it in a bid to embarrass and score points against the Government, would be an honourable approach.

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.

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.

Bill Cash is utterly deluded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cameron still playing with fire over Europe

The new year has started but David Cameron is still equivocating over whether to pledge a post-ratification referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

This piece in the Daily Mail has been cleverly spun to make it seem as though a referendum will be promised – however, on closer inspection, Cameron parrots the same words as his Foreign Affairs spokesman William Hague did during a Commons debate a month ago, that an incoming Tory government "wouldn’t let matters rest there".

This ambiguous phrase is designed to appeal to the hardline Eurosceptics, whilst not quite committing the Tories to hold a retrospective referendum on a treaty already in force. As former Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke recently pointed out, the Tories had "always accepted treaty obligations accepted by previous governments" when they came to office. Former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind (by no means a Europhile) described demands for a post-ratification plebiscite as "silly and wrong".

By ratcheting up Eurosceptic fervour by implying that a post-ratification referendum would be held in the unlikely event of a Tory government being elected, Cameron is effectively digging a big hole and then throwing what remains of his credibility into it. A referendum on the Lisbon Treaty some years after its entry into force would, in effect, be a referendum on whether to renegotiate the terms of Britain's membership of the EU. The Tory hardliners are quite candid that they would view this as an opportunity to engineer British withdrawal. Cameron needs to stop playing with fire and state once and for all whether his Tory party would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty even after it has been implemented.

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.

Brown must show Britain is not a reluctant partner

Good to see the treaty signed by all 27 governments yesterday. Pity that Gordon Brown’s diary clash meant he arrived late, giving ample leeway for comments along the lines of "Britain, as ever, the last to join" or "Britain half-hearted again". Gordon will need to ensure that the rest of Europe doesn’t get carried away with such ideas.

Now the battle moves on to securing ratification. the European Parliament will vote on the treaty in February, based on my own report that I, together with Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, am writing for the Constitutional Affairs Committee. Then each national parliament must vote (only Ireland is holding a referendum because it is obliged to on any treaty revision by its own constitution). Every government seems confident that it will secure a majority, or even a large majority. But it only needs a single “no” to bring ratification to a halt and plunge the EU into another institutional wrangle.

European Journal admits defeat

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

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

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

More Tory divisions on Europe

Tory divisions on the Lisbon (or "Reform") Treaty are hotting up. While the hardline Eurohobes are calling for a retrospective referendum to be held if the Conservatives ever return to power, this idea is repudiated by their wiser, senior figures. In the House of Lords debate on the treaty, Geoffrey Howe, who was Thatcher's Deputy Prime Minister, said:

"I say one word beyond that; a word to those who would urge leadership of my own party, when elected, after the treaty has been ratified by the parliamentary process, exactly as it was in 1972 and 1986, to set about having a referendum on the approval or otherwise of the treaty. That would be a profoundly mistaken move. It would be entirely wrong to consider embarking on that course which might involve deliberately repudiating an international obligation. It would be extremely damaging to our position in Europe since it would inevitably be interpreted as a first step towards withdrawal from the Union. It would be equally damaging to our own domestic agenda, to have the early years of a Cameron Government dominated by that problem, as the Labour Government of 1974 were, which is now some 30 years ago."

Danes set to rule out referendum

The Danes are set to become the latest country to rule out a referendum on the Reform Treaty, with the Danish ministry of justice publishing a report which concludes that a plebiscite is unnecessary because the treaty does not transfer new powers to the EU. This recommendation follows a legal review of the treaty.

Indeed, the report, which is influential but not binding on the Danish government, states that "it is the opinion of the justice ministry that for Denmark the Lisbon Treaty does not transfer new powers of the country's authorities to the Union", adding that "Danish ratification of the Lisbon Treaty does not raise additional questions in relation to the constitution". The final decision on whether to hold a referendum will be announced by the Danish government next week.

This is highly significant in that the Danish constitution states that any international treaty that transfers sovereignty from the national government must be agreed by a referendum before it can be ratified. The recommendations of the Danish justice ministry, which echo the views of the Dutch Council of State and the Czech government, expose the sheer inaccuracy of claims by Cameron's Tories and our Eurosceptic newspapers that the treaty represents a massive transfer of sovereignty to Brussels.

It is looking increasingly likely that Ireland, which is constitutionally required to hold referenda on any changes to the EU treaties, will be the only Member State to hold a referendum.

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?

Welcome support for the Reform Treaty

"Useful improvements to what we have now" was the general reaction of voluntary sector organisations to the EU Reform treaty at a meeting in London yesterday.

Europe Minister Jim Murphy, myself and Gary Titley met the NCVO to discuss the new treaty and their views on it. It was refreshing to have a discussion on what the treaty actually says, rather than on the red herring of whether we should have a referendum on it.

From a variety of perspectives (RSPB, NSPCC, sports organisations, development NGOs, civil liberty groups and so on) the voluntary organisations argued that the new treaty was helpful in providing for more efficient decision-taking in their field, better arrangements for their involvement, more democratic accountability and/or better defined objectives for EU action in the fields in which they are active.

The only misgiving expressed about the new treaty was about where it doesn't change the status quo - the subjects the new treaty does not affect one way or the other. There were also fears that Britain's special protocol on the Charter of Rights might lead to a lower level of protection for EU citizens resident in the UK. But all in all, the treaty is regarded as a welcome set of improvements.

Crucially, this is an opinion expressed by practioners, active but independent of government, who have actually looked at what the treaty says. A strikingly different tone from most press coverage and the views expressed by the Conservatives, UKIP, and BNP.

Scraping the barrel

Disappointing but not surprising that the 'impartial' Open Europe thinktank has scraped the barrel by stirring up claims that the Reform Treaty would allow the suspects accused of murdering Stephen Lawrence to avoid retrial. This is deeply tasteless and untrue.

Open Europe refers to the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has a line that reads, "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted".

Of course, Open Europe knows full well that the British protocol on the Charter clearly states that it does not create any new rights under British law. If an equivalent right already does exist under UK law, it is because we have chosen to have it through past British decisions, unaffected by the proposed new Reform Treaty. Therefore, this story is a complete red herring and a tasteless attempt to use a shocking racist murder for political propaganda.

The Tory's jumbled mess of referendum promises

The Tories are in complete chaos over whether to call a post-ratification referendum following the speech by Foreign Affairs spokesman William Hague in the Commons on Monday, in which he stated that the treaty ratified by Parliament without a referendum would "not be acceptable to a Conservative government and we would not let matters rest there". He started to expand beginning, "in such circumstances" before deciding not to complete the rest of the sentence.

As Ken Clarke noted several moments later, Mr Hague had "given a helpful new statement of Opposition party policy, although it came to a rather vague conclusion". Clarke added that the alternatives were either "repudiation of a treaty that this country has ratified; an attempt to renegotiate or reopen that treaty; a parliamentary process of some kind; or a referendum" and pointed out that the Tories had "always accepted treaty obligations accepted by previous governments" when they came to office.

Meanwhile, the highly Eurosceptic Tory MEP Martin Callanan claimed yesterday in the Northern Echo that "David Cameron has even committed to a referendum after the treaty has come into force". This, presumably, will come as news to Cameron, who has so far refused to pledge a post-ratification referendum. Indeed, after Hague's speech, Cameron's spokesman told the press that that had been "no change" to party policy.

Once again the Tories are divided on Europe. Less than two weeks ago former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind (no Europhile he) urged Cameron not to allow the debate on the Reform Treaty to be "dominated by the small group of hardline Europhobes" and described demands for a post-ratification plebiscite as "silly and wrong".

Let us be clear - a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after its ratification would, in effect, be a referendum on whether to renegotiate the terms of Britain's membership of the EU. The Tory hardliners are quite candid that they would view this as an opportunity to engineer British withdrawal. No amount of sophistry from Cameron can hide the fact that by refusing to take on the Europhobes he reveals his parties complete lack of credibility on Europe.

To add to the confusion (or maybe to deflect attention away from their dilemna over a European referendum), Cameron is now promising local referendums on council tax rises. He has vowed to make councils offer a referendum if they want to raise their council tax beyond a certain threshold and said, "I want to replace bureaucratic accountability with democratic accountability".

He seems to think local councillors are bureaucrats (much as he seems to think MEPs are) and not elected. In most areas there are council elections three years out of four - plenty of opportunity to vote out an administration you don’t like. A referendum each year added to this is preposterous.

But what about this? Cameron went on to say, "Council tax referendum ballots would be sent out with the annual council tax bill". Does this mean people who don’t pay council tax, like students, will not get a vote? If so that also spells the end to universal sufferage!

As poorly put together as this idea is, it is merely a sideshow to the real argument do we want a parliamentary democracy or do we want a plebiscitory democracy? By offering a series of referendums the Tories would fundamentally change the way Britain is governed, surely a bigger threat to Britain’s tradition of parliamentary democracy than either a new treaty being ratified through the Commons and Lords, or elected Councillors deciding a budget for a council.

Rapporteur for the new treaty

I was delighted to be appointed yesterday to draw up the European Parliament's report on the Reform Treaty (Treaty of Lisbon) together with my colleague, Inigo Mendez de Vigo. We are the co-ordinators of the two main political groups (the Socialists in my case and the Conservative+Christian Democrat EPP Group in his) showing the widespread support the Treaty enjoys from both sides of the House (apart from many of the British Conservatives).

Of course, we will just make the first draft - the parliamentary committee and then Parliament as a whole will vote on and can amend our draft. But the first discussion in committee last night showed broad support for an approach that focusses on comparing the new treaty to the current treaties (and noting the improvements) rather than on comparing it to the abandoned Constitutional Treaty (and moaning about the changes). A few Members did argue that we should focus on the latter, deploring the loss of the Constitution, but they were a minority.

It is an honour that my parliamentary colleagues have chosen me for this high-profile report. I hope that a clear, factual report will shed light on the new treaty and show why national parliaments should also approve it.

David Cameron is dithering in the face of attempts by right-wing Tories to bounce him into pledging a post-ratification referendum on the Reform Treaty, refusing to answer when challenged by Gordon Brown in this week's Queen's speech debate. But while he fails to give leadership, others around him are trying to force a decision.

The idea to hold a post-ratification referendum is being pushed by the fiercest Eurosceptics in the Tory ranks who see it as a way to engineer British withdrawal from the EU. Indeed, the Early Day Motion on the matter that has been tabled in the House of Commons by John Redwood has been supported by 47 Tory MPs.

Meanwhile, former Thatcherite Cabinet minister Norman Tebbit (also a member of Better Off Out) has stoked up the fire, claiming that Cameron has already promised a post-ratification referendum in the Sun. Similarly, a Conservative poster released last week promised that a referendum on the treaty had been "delayed until the election of a Conservative government", although Tory central office later backtracked.

During the Queen's speech debate Gordon described the Tories' proposals as "confused, contradictory and not thought through". Quite.

One of the, thus far, little mentioned innovations in the Reform Treaty is the potential effect on CAP reform. The treaty extends the European Parliament's legislative co-decision powers to the field of agricultural legislation. In the EU budgetary procedure too, all EU expenditure will be subject to the approval of both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. At the moment agriculture is the exclusive preserve of the Council of Ministers. As I pointed out in my article on the Compass website, opening up the CAP and agricultural legislation to the Parliament, in which MEPs divide along ideological rather than national lines, will increase the levels of scrutiny, democratic accountability and should drive reform in these areas.

Another measure to increase transparency in agriculture spending is the decision last week by EU Agriculture Ministers to publish a comprehensive list of all CAP recipients, which was detailed on the Financial Times blog. The Commission and Member States will now draw up guidelines on how much information countries will have to provide - for example, the UK produces a very detailed list including the precise amount the Queen receives in farming subsidy (£769,000 for her Sandringham farm in 2003/4), but there is currently nothing to stop others from merely publishing generic information ie "a grain farmer in Picardy".

Small steps perhaps, but making the ways in which the EU spends its budget more visible and detailing how the money is spent is, nonetheless, a significant step towards increasing transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.

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.

The commitment of the Conservative Party leadership (breaking their previous manifesto pledge) to leave the Christian Democrat group (EPP) in the European Parliament and set up a new political group has still not been carried out, as they have failed to find enough allies from the other member states.

The one ally they have found - the Czech Civic Democrats - are now in government in Prague. Having been strongly opposed to the previous constitutional treaty, they now plan to ratify the reform treaty without a referendum. Their leader in the European Parliament, Mr Zahradil, explained this to the European Parliament last week, seeing this as a treaty that "sets Europe on an intergovernmental path" rather than in a federal direction, and is quite different from the constitutional treaty.

Curiously, Conservatives in Britain seem to be keeping quiet about this view of their closest partners in Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

At last, the deal has been done and a new treaty reforming the EU has been agreed by all 27 national governments!

Amid all the fuss about what the treaty does and doesn't do, it is perhaps worth noting that it will improve the democratic accountability of the European Union. Under the terms of the treaty, no EU legislation can be adopted without, first,examination by national parliaments, second, approval by the EU Council of Ministers (composed of national ministers from national governments accountable to those national parliaments) and third, approval of the European Parliament (composed of our directly elected MEPs). This is a level of scrutiny that exists in no other international organisation. Anyone genuinely worried about accountability should focus on NATO, the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, the OECD and so on, which lack such accountability.

So, a European Council summit convenes and Britain has a treaty which contains all the things it asked for at the June summit. This time Britain is not going into the meeting with major battles to fight. All of the Government's so-called 'red lines' have been agreed, and Britain keeps its ability to pick and choose whether to opt-in or out on justice and home affairs policy. The treaty discussions are expected to be wrapped up fairly swiftly. If there are any last minute hitches, they will probably be Polish or Italian quibbles. It should be a successful (and low-octane) first summit for Gordon Brown as our Prime Minister.

Of course, this is unlikely to assuage the obsessive Euroscepticism of the Murdoch press, the Telegraph and the Mail. You can expect to read the usual wild-eyed diatribes and baseless scare stories about the contents of the Reform Treaty and how it will lead to a centralised superstate.

However, the reality is that most people are not interested in such shrill little-Englanderism. I gather that the Sun's readership has fallen by over 100,000 each day its front page has been dominated by demands for a referendum on the treaty. Meanwhile, Mark Mardell's blog points out that more people declared their religion to be "Jedi" in the last census than have signed the Sun's petition. When looking at the substance of the text, such apathy is unsurprising - are people really suggesting a referendum should be held on whether we replace the 6-month rotating presidency of the European Council with a 30-month one, or apply qualified majority voting to the composition of the comitology committee?!

Let us be clear: this treaty is good for Britain and for the EU. It abandons the previous concept of a Constitution that swept away all the existing treaties and replaced them with a codifying Constitution, and the various symbols and controversial elements that some countries felt had the trappings of statehood. At the same time, it preserves the practical adjustments to the EU institutions contained in the Constitution: the strengthened role of national and European parliaments in EU decision making, reducing the number of Commissioners, merging the two EU foreign affairs positions into one role of High Representative, replacing the six month rotating Council presidency with a 30-month permanent position.

In short, it is a compromise between the 18 countries that had said 'yes', the two who said 'no', and the seven who were waiting to see on the constitution - but a positive compromise that should put an end to the years of institutional wrangling and enable EU decision making to be more effective and efficient. For those of us who believe in Britain's place in the European Union, this is a result to be welcomed.

P.S. I was pleased to read the position of Business Europe (the CBI and its European partners) welcoming the Reform Treaty. In their words, "the proposed Reform Treaty is a good compromise providing an improved framework for decision-making with 27 Member States".

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

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

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

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

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

I recently appeared on the BBC's The Record Europe programme debating the proposed treaty with three other MEPs and presenter Shirin Wheeler.

You can watch it here, though it may well be replaced by a new edition soon.

I was delighted to share a platform in London this morning with Lord Brittan - formerly Sir Leon Brittan, Conservative Home Secretary. He made it absolutely clear that he supports the Reform Treaty and does not think much of the posturing of the current Conservative leadership in opposing it and demanding a referendum, especially as they would - if they were in power - sign up to essentially the same package. Other Tory grandees such as Douglas Hurd and Chris Patten also support the Reform Treaty.

In the afternoon, I and other Labour MEPs met Gordon Brown, who is upbeat and confident about securing a deal on a new treaty at the end of this week. Other meetings with ministers, and with TUC, improved my mood of optimism.

In the evening, I gave a lecture at the Italian Cultural Institute in London on the life of Altiero Spinelli, who was born 100 years ago. I thought there would be a dozen people attending, but was delighted when some 100 turned up - perhaps there is greater appreciation for Spinelli in the UK than the state of our public debate on Europe would suggest!

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.

Just imagine - however unlikely that may seem - that the Conservatives win a general election next month. They would unavoidably face an immedite split on Europe.

First they would have to decide whether or not to sign the EU Reform Treaty, the text of which will already have been agreed by 27 national governments, or whether to seek to re-open negotiations. No other EU country will want to re-open issues, when Britain is already perceived to have won all of its negotiating positions in the IGC. This could easily turn into a major crisis, with the most Eurosceptic wing of the Tories (and of the press) keen to escalate it into a battle for withdrawal from the EU.

In fact, we know from the Tory "Alternative Treaty", which they have recently been keeping quiet about, that their leadership actually accepts almost all of the Reform Treaty's actual content. It is for electoral reasons that they are now playing up their opposition to it, but without spelling out what they would do. Presumably, they will seek some cosmetic changes that they can present as victories - but then they will have to sell the package to the British people in the referendum that they have promised on it.

Imagine them having to go out and defend a package 95% identical to the one they were so recently rubbishing! The charges of cynicism and dishonesty, that they are all-to-keen to make now, would come home to roost.

In any case, it would be difficult to see Bill Cash and his ilk campaigning for the new treaty! So the far-right of the Tory party would campaign for a "No" vote, egged on by much of their press. Even if the government won the referendum, it would cause them lasting damage.

Then, to fulfill their conference pledge to hold referendums on ANY new treaty, they would within a couple of years have to hold another referendum on the Treaty of Accession for Croatia.

And if they really did pursue their proclaimed objective of withdrawing Britain from the Social Chapter of the Treaty (assuming they could pursuade all other EU countries to let Britain have a free ride and undercut the basic standards that apply to everyone else in the single European market), they would then have to put that treaty change to a referendum too. In this case, Labour, Liberals and vehement trade union opposition, presumably mid-term of a Conservative government, would make defeat a likely scenario.

I rather suspect that the Conservative leadership would rather not come to power now, and would actually prefer to wait until this issue is settled, with the Reform Treaty ratified, while trying to milk the issue for all its worth in the meantime.

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.

Further to what I reported last Wednesday, the Dutch government has ageed with the judicial advice from the Council of State and decided that a referendum is not justified for ratifying the Reform Treaty, which will be ratified by parliament, as in the UK.

The Reform Treat merely amends previous treaties and the modest reforms to the EU institutions it does make have been deemed not significant enough to warrant a national referendum.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende said that "the new treaty gives answers to the worries of the Dutch population", referring to the concerns the Dutch people had over the shelved European Constitution.

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.

I was interested to see that the Dutch Council of State, the highest judicial authority in the Netherlands, has ruled that the Reform Treaty is sufficiently different from the draft Constitutional Treaty rejected by the Dutch people in June 2005, and does not amend the existing EU treaties as dramatically, so that it will not be necessary to hold a new referendum.

This ruling from the high judicial authority from a country that actually had a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty should give cause for thought to those loudly proclaiming the need for us to have one here on the grounds that the Reform Treaty is the same as the Constitutional Treaty. Even the Dutch don't think that this is the case.

It was disappointing to see the TUC conference back calls for a referendum, albeit for opposite reasons to the bulk of the treaty’s opponents, namely that they oppose what they consider to be a British “opt-out” from the Charter of Rights.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was agreed by member states in 2000 and sets out the civil, economic and social rights that define European citizenship. It is a complex issue but essentially Britain’s "opt-out" is a special protocol providing that the charter cannot be used in British courts unless British law itself guarantees the same rights - which is almost always the case anyway.

Contrary to scaremongering by the CBI, article 137 of the treaty of Rome, expressly excludes EU-level legislation with respect to pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose lockouts, which will remain subject to national law, whether the charter is there or not.

Given all of this, it is important for trade unionists to recognise that, even with the UK protocol on the charter, the social dimension of the EU is better off with the Reform treaty than without it. The draft treaty not only makes explicit mention of the social model, it also commits governments to strengthening it and enshrines the principles of full employment and social progress. Similarly, the treaty emphasises that the EU must work to "combat social exclusion and discrimination", and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. The treaty also requires the EU, in all policy areas, to take account of "the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health". Similarly, the treaty emphasises that the EU must work to "combat social exclusion and discrimination", and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. It contains a new provision protecting public services from inconsiderate application of competition law.

Dissatisfaction about the protocol on the Charter, even if it were justified, is no reason to oppose the Treaty. Indeed, a resolution to campaign against it was defeated.

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.

Back at work in the European Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

While the Tories have been loudly demanding a referendum on the proposed EU treaty, they have also released an alternative treaty of their own, though without so much fanfare.

Their “Simplifying Treaty”, is written by Timothy Kirkhope MEP, the Conservatives’ leader in the European Parliament, and is warmly endorsed in the preface by William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Having read it, it quickly becomes clear why the Tories have not been shouting from the roof tops about their “Simplifying Treaty”: because it includes the bulk of the proposed new treaty Tony Blair agreed to in June.

So, senior Tories know the EU needs reform and agree with much of what is already proposed but they also know that calling for a referendum wins them easy headlines in a period when positive coverage of their party has been at a premium.

It also highlights the Tory’s usual divisions over Europe. The extreme Eurosceptics are discontent and very vocal and, while leading figures in the Conservative Party know reform of the EU is essential, they are too scared to back the treaty (even though they largely agree with it) because it would cause an ugly spat between the two sides.

There is a detailed analysis of Kirkhope’s Simplifying Treaty on my website. You can read it by clicking here.

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.

Those who still think the proposed Reform Treaty is a federalist plot would do well to read what the federalists themselves think about it!

Looking at the latest issue of the “New Federalist” magazine, I see that they say:

“The results of the spring Eurobarometer [opinion poll] indicate that two thirds of Europeans (66%) subscribe to the idea of the European Constitution. However, this didn’t prevent he EU heads of State and Government, at the last European Summit (21-23 June), to drive the EU in a very different direction”.

They go on to ask:

“What is left from the ambition to reform the EU into a more efficient, democratic and legitimate enlarged Union? The result, full of compromises, opt-out opportunities and special texts for certain countries, is not going to give rise to a treaty that wins any federalist awards. Indeed, the result is extremely disappointing for anyone who had been campaigning for a Constitution for Europe and in particular for the Constitutional Treaty. What is left from the improvements achieved by the Convention? Where did the substance of the Constitutional Treaty go?”

In their assessment:

"The constitutional concept, which consisted in replacing all existing Treaties by a single text called ‘Constitutional Treaty’ is abandoned. In fact, this involves much more than just loosing the name “Constitution”, as the new Treaty will lose in fact its constitutional character. It starts with the suppression of the Preamble and the European symbols from the Treaty. Common values and symbols are not indispensable to an institutional settlement, but perhaps desirable to create the premise of a European identity. It continues with the opt-out agreement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights for the UK. Thus the civil and social rights given by the Charter are only applicable for certain citizens but not for all.

"What is perhaps more damageable is the loss of the possibility for the EU to speak with one strong voice in the world. Indeed the compromise reached is a water downed CFSP with the loss of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Now the foreign Minister will be called ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’. What is the use of having a High representative, with very limited powers?

"Furthermore, the lack of a clear terminology and efficiency of EU-Legislation contributes to the substantive change of the Constitutional Treaty. For instance the supremacy of EU law will be deleted and replaced by a declaration on the supremacy of EU law. Then, the denomination of ‘EU framework law’ and ‘EU law’ will be abandoned and instead the existing denomination of ‘regulations’, ‘directives’ and ‘decisions’ will be kept.

"...this summit showed once again that Europe is currently only the sum of nationalist ambitions and Machiavellian intrigues between EU capitals.”

This extremely disappointed reaction of the federalists should make anyone take claims of the Reform Treaty being a federalist conspiracy with a pinch of salt!

Hooray for public service broadcasting and its obligation to provide balanced reporting! It doesn't always work, but at least it tries.

After weeks of reading biased, factually inaccurate, 'briefings'
on the contents of the proposed Reform Treaty in much of the press, it was a relief to read the BBC's reasonably balanced briefing on the treaty.

It aims to provide readers with a good understanding of the main arguments about the Treaty - but that means that it, too, is drawn on to the territory of having to focus on myths that are already out there, such as whether it "gives Europe a US-style president", whether "an EU foreign minister will sideline national ministers" and whether legal personality makes the EU "like a country." It is also obliged, to avoid accusations of bias, to give due space and seriousness to some of these allegations.

Nonetheless, it does so in a reasonably dispassionate and above all jargon-free manner, so well done to its author, Stephen Mulvey.

Topically, it dismisses the nonsense put about this week by eurosceptics that Britain would have to give up its seat on the UN Security Council. Hmmm just a thought but perhaps William Hague and the Tory front-bench should give it a read before putting out any more misleading and spurious press statements on the treaty.

William Hague is now joining the clamour that the Reform Treaty is identical to the abandoned Constitutional Treaty - but even with his position of responsibility, without looking very far into the facts.

As I said in the parliamentary debate (see blog entry July 11), the proposed Reform Treaty may indeed salvage 90 percent of the pragmatic changes to the EU institutions that had been in the Constitutional Treaty. But recent scientific research shows that human beings and mice are genetically 90% identical. However, the 10% difference is crucial - and the same goes for the Reform Treaty!

The constitutional concept has been abandoned; the High Representative has not been changed into an EU Foreign Minister; symbols such as the EU flag and anthem have been dropped; and the numerous derogations and opt-outs for the UK means that, even more for us, the Reform Treaty is substantively different from the Constitutional Treaty.

But if you don’t want to take my word for it, why not ask David Cameron’s European allies in the Czech Republic?

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

David Cameron's faltering leadership means that, in desperation,
he is turning to euroscepticism to placate the right-wing of the Tory party. But, in trying to stir up fears and create myths about this treaty, he is undermining his national and international credibility as a potential Prime Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome the government’s White Paper on the proposed Reform Treaty, which sets out with admirable clarity the issues involved. Click here to read it.

David Cameron's desperate calls for a referendum on the Reform Treaty have been dealt another blow.

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who launched the Movement for European Reform with Cameron this year, and whose Civic Democrat Party is one of the parties with whom Cameron plans to set up a break-away party from the EPP in the European Parliament, has said that the proposed treaty is not significant enough to require a referendum.

Topolanek told the Czech Senate last week that the planned reform of the EU institutions did not create any new framework or powers for the EU, but only modified the existing treaties. He added that a referendum on the new Treaty would be "impractical" and would see the Czech Republic marginalised from the mainstream of the EU.

The fact that even Czech eurosceptics are happy with the Reform Treaty again demonstrates just how extreme the Tories still are on Europe.

Click here to read what I said in the parliamentary debate on the proposed Reform Treaty today

Above is my YouTube debut! Apologies for the strobing on my jacket, I can assure Eurosceptics it is not an attempt to brainwash them! You can also sign up to receive each new YouTube post I make by visiting here and clicking subscribe. Happy viewing.

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

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

The leading anti-European campaigner Dan Hannan MEP, who moonlights as a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph, has attempted to avoid the awkward fact (from his point of view) that the amendments agreed at the European Council to replace the Constitutional Treaty amount to very little indeed in the way of major constitutional change for Britain, by arguing that we should have a referendum instead on the accumulated changes to the EU that have taken place since we first joined.

This is akin to saying that the changes to the composition of the House of Lords should trigger a national referendum on the whole of the British constitution. After all, this too has evolved by incremental changes, none of which have been subject to a referendum.

Such a vote - also mooted by those arguing for the British constitution to be codified in a single document - would have some interesting parallels with the French vote on the now abandoned Constitutional Treaty. A vote on the British constitution as it stands would have no guarantee of it being approved. Some would vote against it because they object to a hereditary monarchy, others because they disagree with the electoral system for the House of Commons, still more because they don't like the House of Lords (as it is or as it is mooted). Some might vote against because they think their part of the UK should leave and become an independent country. And yet others would ignore all these issues and relish the opportunity just to vote against the government or the "establishment".

This coalition of "noes" would not get us anywhere in solving any of the individual issues currently being discussed in terms of reforming the British system. But it does illustrate the inherent dangers of holding single Yes/No referenda on an amalgamation of complex inter-related issues.

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

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

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

It's now been several days since the outline of an EU Reform Treaty was agreed at the European Council summit, and the Open Europe/Tory/UKIP campaign against it has got off to a bad start. Despite being loud and shrill it is clearly not convincing many people.

Although Open Europe are fond of claiming that British businesses are sceptical about the EU and the benefits of the internal market, this is not borne out by the evidence. A poll released by Business for New Europe showed that 52% of business leaders supported the new Treaty with just 31% opposed. The Confederation of European Business (Business Europe), which includes the CBI, is the latest organisation to welcome the proposed new treaty, saying that "the European Union comes out reinforced and reinvigorated".

Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, Tony Blair used his penultimate appearance as Prime Minister to demolish David Cameron in a debate over the new treaty. While the usual suspects on the Tory benches, led by Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory, made their outlandish claims about 'Brussels' taking over Britain, Ken Clarke pointed out to his hapless 'leader' that the provision in the new treaty to increase the role of national parliaments in EU legislation was one of the recommendations made by the Conservative party's "Democracy Taskforce". Cameron could not produce a single substantive reason why a referendum should be held on the treaty and was, as Blair pointed out, just "going through the motions".

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

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

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

* The term "constitution" has been abandoned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charming!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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.