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?