All talk and little action from UKIP and Tories on workers' safety

Surprising news from Personnel Today, who report that UKIP’s Derek Clark and the Conservatives’ Chris Heaton Harris have joined a campaign to reduce the amount of youngsters injured at work.

All very laudable of course, though Derek Clark and the rest of his UKIP colleagues have never been too concerned about the safety of workers before, consistently voting against measures which protect workers.

Less than 12 months ago my colleague Glenis Wilmott’s report on Health and Safety at Work expressed concern at the "excessively high rate of accidents among temporary, short-term and low-qualified workers" and suggested measures that should be taken to prevent workers from exposure to dangerous and carcinogenic chemicals. UKIP voted against it.

And while Heaton Harris did support this measure he has previously criticised legislation which seeked to protect workers from hearing damage. He might also choose to have a word with some of his fellow Tories over their attitude to safety at work. A fellow member of the Conservatives’ right-wing H block, Dan Hannan, voted with UKIP on the Health and Safety at Work report, while Struan Stevenson mocked Labour MEPs for our avid support of the Working at Heights Directive, legislation which has and will continue to save workers’ lives.

Of course this could all be a road to Damascus-styles conversion, or Clark and Heaton Harris merely adding their name to a list. The next time a vote on health and safety comes round we shall see if they back up their talk with actions. I hope they do because Derek Clark in particular certainly hasn’t ever before.

The European Arrest Warrant should be supported

UKIP and the Tories are now arguing that suspected criminals should be immune from prosecution in other European countries for crimes committed there, if they are British.

A young British lad, Jonny Hiles, died just over a year ago after being punched in a nightclub in Greece. Under the European Arrest Warrant, which Britain and its European partners agreed a few years ago, Greek police spent a year putting together their case, presented it to magistrates in Athens, obtained their approval and asked British police to arrest their suspect, one Andrew Symeou of London, so that he can face trial.

Yet UKIP MEPs and disgraced former Tory MP Neil Hamilton have come out against it, much to the dismay of the friends and family of the victim in Wales. Both Hamilton and UKIP argue that a case should be presented in a British court first (although the crime was committed in Greece, where most evidence and witnesses are located).

I wonder what they would have said if the suspected London bomber, sent back from Italy under a European Arrest Warrant to face prosecution in Britain, could not have been sent back without first going through the lengthy process of an Italian court hearing plus appeal (by which time he would have been held for years on remand or, more likely, scarpered)

Anonymous letters and split opinion from UKIP

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

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

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

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

The true reasons behind the proposed new rules on Groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tories and Lib Dems follow our lead

Interesting to see the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have finally followed Labour’s lead and demanded that their MEPs produce receipts for all their office expenses.

Labour MEPs have had to provide receipts for their expenses and have their accounts approved by an independent auditor for nearly a decade. It’s a simple enough measure but I’m stunned its taken the Tories and Lib Dems this long. Hopefully more parties across in the European Parliament will now demand the same standards.

The party which have been under the most scrutiny for their MEPs expenses, UKIP, have not. Should we really be surprised?

The likes of Wise mean reform of expenses is essential

Anyone who flicked through the News of the World on Sunday will have seen the report on various MEPs - none of them Labour - who allegedly abuse their expenses.

The one who featured the most prominently was UKIP MEP Tom Wise, who was even caught bragging to an undercover reporter about the amount of money he says he makes from his expenses. You can read the story here but perhaps what is most embarrassing is his attitude which, for a man who remains under investigation by the anti-fraud office OLAF, is one of breathtaking arrogance.

The News of the World highlights a loophole in the European Parliament’s rules which is exploited by some people who claim the maximum amount they can for plane tickets (which is fully flexible economy tickets) but actually travel on a budget airline to Charleroi airport 50 miles from Brussels, pocketing the difference. Wise told the reporter: "When I fly Ryanair I say 'Thank you very much!' I could actually put the Ryanair ticket in and just get that back— but that would be denying me a legally, well I say legally, a genuinely available funding."

So despite appearing to acknowledge what he is doing is wrong he boasts about the amount of money he is claiming while admitting he doesn’t have a clue what he is supposed to do as an MEP. What a shower!

The good news is that the particular loophole Tom Wise is so fond of will be closed shortly but this is not enough. Rarely do I find myself nodding in agreement with the News of the World but their demand that "every member should provide receipts for everything they claim" is a must.

Of course, the News of the World did not mention that every Labour MEP is already required to have their office and staff expenses audited and approved by an independent auditor each year and I can see no reason why this isn’t replicated by UKIP and other parties.

It is a simple measure that would go some way to repairing the damage caused by the greedy minority like Wise.

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.

Jens Peter Bonde to retire

The veteran Eurosceptic MEP, Jens Peter Bonde, who leads the “Independence and Democracy” Political Group in the European Parliament, of which UKIP is the largest component, has announced his forthcoming retirement.

One of only five MEPs to have served continuously since the first European elections in 1979, he is a well known figure in the Parliament, and for more than half his period has served on the internal management body of the Parliament. He has been the most prominent euroesceptic across Europe for many years, is hugely energetic and is a prolific writer.

His euroscepticism is now very different from the nihilistic vision of UKIP. Granted, when he was first elected, he too wanted to destroy the EU or at least see Denmark leave it. But as he wrote himself in last week’s Parliament magazine:

“At first I worked to withdraw from the EU and, since 1992, have worked mainly to reform the European institutions with transparency, proximity and democracy.”

Indeed, he often said that he could make common cause with federalists on these issues. He was certainly not averse to consulting me on his publications, some of which focussed more on facts and documentation, in the cause of transparency, than on political point-scoring.

Clearly, as he got to know the EU better, he realised that his initial hostility was misplaced and he evolved to join the ranks of reformers rather than destroyers. His retirement press release refers to his desire “to focus on building a better European Union”. A lesson UKIP has yet to learn! Indeed, I know that Bonde was increasingly uneasy about the UKIP members of his Group, both in terms of their extremist positions and about their recent tactic of trying to disrupt the Parliament.

Bonde’s problem was that he was a prisoner of his own supporters. To keep his position, he needed to play up his scepticism and exaggerate the defects of the Union. His attempts to lead his movement in Denmark to a more realistic position led to it splitting in the early 1990s, but there was only so far he could go without being disowned by the more extreme elements. Similarly, in Parliament, he was a prisoner of the more extreme elements of his Group, including UKIP.

I wish him well apon his retirement.

UKIP bloggers rattled

I was alerted to a couple of blog sites run by UKIP officials, who seem to devote a surprising amount of time to rebutting the material I post here. In particular, England Expects, responding to this flippant piece I did joking that veteran Danish Eurosceptic Jens-Peter Bonde had come out in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, posted this detailed rebuttal.

If they think it worth taking so much trouble to monitor my blog and to try to rebut it, then they must think it is having an effect, which I will take as a compliment.

Unruly MEPs deserve their fines

Parliament's President (Speaker) has this week fined the MEPs who took part in the attempt to drown out the Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates in December.

Yorkshire’s very own Godfrey Bloom is in the hall of shame, though he may well not realise this yet as he wasn’t present for the parliament sitting when Hans Gert Pottering explained the reasons behind the punishments.

That’s a pity because Pottering’s explanation of exactly why Bloom and some others were punished made it quite clear that it was not their views that were the problem (as they claim) - they were in trouble for stopping others (notably the Portuguese Prime Minister) – from expressing their views with their hollering and howling.

Of course Dan Hannan has failed to note this in his demagogic Telegraph blog, as his crusade to convince the world that the European Parliament is "despotic" continues. He points out that other protests have been allowed to go on in the parliament, which is quite true but they made no attempt to disrupt parliamentary proceedings and prevent those with a different view from speaking. Similarly, in this protest, MEPs who merely waved banners have not been reprimanded (Hannan was one). The fines were imposed on those who aggressed ushers or who continued to disrupt the proceedings after being called to order by the Speaker.

Hannan well knows that the sort of behaviour he readily condones would have ended in far more rigourous disciplinary proceedings and suspension had it taken place in the Commons, but the guilty MEPs escape such punishment. Their rights to speak in debates and to vote remain intact and they have simply been fined.

Plenty of MPs have had their right to vote and speak suspended for far less in the Commons. There are myriad examples, a fair number involving Denis Skinner, who has been suspended for simply complaining that Deputy Speaker Sir Alan Haselhurst was being lenient to Theresa May because she was a Conservative. Another MP who was recently suspended was of course Lib Dem frontbencher Ed Davey, who earned a short ban after making excessive points of order during the treaty debate. Despite the frequency of these suspensions I have yet to see Hannan rally against "the despotism of the Commons."

The point is, that all parliaments have rules of procedure and when these rules are broken the people responsible face punishment and in this case, vociferously booing and heckling a speaker on the floor of the parliament, and continuing to do so when called to order by the Speaker, is clearly un-parliamentary behaviour.

You can read Pottering's explanation of the punishments in full here.

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".

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!

Bonde embraces treaty

The leader of UKIP's political group in the European Parliament, Independence & Democracy, has moved an interesting amendment endorsing the Lisbon Treaty.

Jens-Peter Bonde, perhaps the most influential Eurosceptic in the Parliament, has tabled an amendment to my report on the Lisbon Treaty in the Constitutional Affairs Committee saying "endorses the Treaty and hopes that all Member States of the Union will be in a position to achieve its ratification by 1 January 2009, by involving their peoples, through referendums, in this fundamental stage in the European
intergration process."

Whether it's an amusing error or Bonde finally embracing the treaty, it is
one I doubt UKIP will be supporting!

Tories and UKIPs in cahoots once again

A month after bringing the tactics of football hooliganism to the European Parliament, four or five Tory Eurosceptics and UKIP have again worked in cahoots to undermine the work of the European Parliament.

They hit on two tactics. The first was to demand a full roll call votes (instead of a show of hands) on every paragraph and every amendment before the house. (Imagine that the House of Commons had a division on every paragraph of a bill). This slows down voting and costs £300 per vote (but they don't really care about taxpayers money).

The second was to use the procedure of "Explanation of Votes" which allows Members to speak after a vote, even if they have already spoken in the preceding debate, to explain why they voted in a particular way, for instance if they change their mind following the debate. Usually, only a few members avail themselves of this possibilty, and often do so in writing, which is also allowed. But yesterday, every UKIP member and several Tories asked to explain their vote verbally on every item on the agenda, whether or not they had already spoken in the debate. This would have held up the next scheduled debates for several hours, so the President proposed to take these explanations after those debates. This was agreed by the House, but UKIP and Dan Hannan protested that they were being "censored", that minority views were being crushed and that they had an absolute right to delay proceedings if they chose to do so.

Let one thing be clear, this is not about their freedom of expression. The European Parliament has a very wide range of poitical views and speaking time in debates is shared out proportionately among all the political groups - so all views will have been heard in the debates.

Most MEPs take their role as elected representatives seriously, working to deliver legislation and policy outcomes for their voters. In contrast, some Tories and UKIP are apparently only interested in disrupting the work of the elected Parliament either through behaving like football hooligans or procedural jiggery-pokery. The sheer contempt they show to democracy is breathtaking.

Facetious Farage ignores the facts

I laughed when I saw that Nigel Farage had put out a press release complaining that there was insufficient television coverage of his attempt to disrupt the ceremony signing the Charter of Fundamental Rights last week in Strasbourg. He considers this to be an act of censorship - though from what I saw of the written media, his little protest got ample coverage, even on some front pages. In terms of censorship, let us not forget, it was he himself and his allies (including Mr Le Pen's Front National, various right-wing Polish parties and several British Conservatives) who were trying to shout down the Portuguese Prime Minister so that he couldn't be heard and to disrupt parliamentary proceedings - behaviour that in any national Parliament would have led to their suspension.

In a similar vein, it was strange to see that Bill Cash has complained of "the deliberate playing down of these arguments in the media" - referring to Eurosceptic arguments in the British media! Does the man live on another planet?

A new low

The Parliament plenary session was marred today by some disgraceful scenes during the signing of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Presidents of the Commission, Council and Parliament with a handful of (sadly, British led) MEPs behaving like hooligans.

Led by (needless to say) UKIP (clad in black shirts with banners calling for a referendum on the Reform Treaty) and joined by the Tory hard-right including Dan Hannan, Roger Helmer, Martin Callanan and Nirj Deva, this group shouted down and booed the Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates and President Barroso as they tried to deliver speeches on the importance of respecting basic human rights. In any national parliament (not least the House of Commons) such behaviour would have resulted in instant expulsion from the Chamber and suspension.

Such behaviour was both a disgraceful way to treat a visitor to the Parliament and also deeply embarrassing to myself as a British MEP to see the image of Brits abroad tarnished by a group of malcontents acting like football hooligans.

Vice-President of Parliament and fellow Yorkshire MEP Diana Wallis injected some welcome rationality to proceedings poining out that the Parliament had, the previous month, endorsed the Charter by over 500 votes to 84. The Charter sets out a range of civil, political, economic and social rights which, largely speaking, already exist at national level, but will, if the Reform Treaty is ratified, be binding on the EU institutions when formulating European legislation.

It is perhaps unsurprising that UKIP, who frequently resort to such bully-boy tactics when the democratic will goes against them, but shameful that MEPs from a supposedly serious party like the Conservatives would act in such a contemptible way.

Godfrey and his fistful of euros

Following this week’s part session I dashed back to Yorkshire to go head to head with my favourite curmudgeonly UKIPer Godfrey Bloom, in a debate at the University of York on Britain’s place in the EU.

Godfrey imparted his usual mix of myths, allegations and outrageous statements to the audience, culminating with him calling for an end to all aid to Africa because it was holding the continent back.

So no real surprises until Godfrey led the charge to the bar for the post-debate drinks. Kindly offering to get a round in, Godfrey dipped into his pockets but found, to his consternation, that he only had euros! "No Problem" said the students -we accept euros here..

Tory sleaze

Cameron's astonishing appointment of former minister Jonathon Aitken to head a Tory working party shows how desparate the Tories are to bring back wayward former Conservatives to the fold.

Aitken, who supported UKIP at the last European election, was not only jailed for perjury (having initially tried to sue the journalist who blew his cover!) - he has to this day not revealed what he was up to in the Paris Ritz as a guest of the Saudis while he was defence procurement minister.

I was reminded of some of the other sleaze cases of the last Tory government - far more spectacular than any of the supposed sleaze allegations made nowadays - when Neil Hamilton popped up the other day to accuse the EU of... fraud. Coming from the man who received cash in brown envelopes in return for favours in parliament, this is a bit rich. Hamilton is also UKIP - is there something that magically attracts discredited Tories to them?

But, if they want him back, why don't the Tories appoint Hamilton as head of a working group on parliamentary standards? And Jeffrey Archer on prisons? Cecil Parkinson on child support by absent fathers? John Wakeham (of Enron fame) on corporate social responsibility? And Piers Merchant (of teenage mistress fame, but now Chief Executive of UKIP) on teenage sex?

Interesting point by Peter Preston in today’s Guardian: if UKIP and some Tories got their way and Britain were to withdraw from the European Union, then the "route to the exit is littered with obstacles: four decades' worth of directives to unscramble and replace, funding promised or under way to be reappraised, fishing and agriculture deals to be haggled afresh, trade and immigration understandings to be understood again. This won't be like breaking your tennis racket and storming off court. This has to be a long, deadly serious business"

Not to mention that there would be precious little goodwill from our partners if we were to storm out slamming the door of the house we have helped to build over several decades. Nor could we rely on economic muscle: we represent a smaller percentage of their trade (under 10%) than they do of ours (62%). And once we were out, we would no longer have a voice around the table in making the common rules for the common market - our main export market which our producers have to adapt to anyway.

Seems to be a no-brainer – maybe that explains who is supporting it!



PS I see Mark Mardell has also blogged on this today for the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/

It looks like UKIP are in trouble with the law again, although this time they have an opponent who they may think twice about before criticising - the Queen!

For the past few years UKIP have sold souvenir passport covers displaying the royal coat of arms. However, the Lord Chamberlain, representing the royal household on behalf of the Queen, has ordered an end to these sales as the coat of arms is protected under law and cannot be reproduced without permission.

Rather than accept the judgement, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has vowed to appeal, describing the decision as "another step to an integrated Europe" and accusing the Lord Chamberlain of "promoting the EU". I'd be surprised if the Lord Chamberlain has ever been accused of being an EU stooge before!

UKIP are busy trying to distance themselves from Ashley Mote, found guilty last week of several fraud charges relating to false benefit claims he made before he became an MEP.

Mote was elected as a UKIP MEP. Indeed, he was their top candidate in the South East. Did they really not check his character and financial background before they selected him to represent the party in the European elections? Of course, when the news came out that he was facing so many criminal charges, UKIP kicked him out of the party (though they have not done this yet to their MEP Tom Wise following the allegations against him of financial irregularities over the use of office funds - if they do, they will have lost a quarter of the MEPs elected as UKIP in 2004!).

Ashley Mote has now joined the far-right neo-fascist "Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty" group, which gives you an idea of the type of political views UKIP seems to attract.

Ironically, Mote spent most of his time as an MEP making allegations about the EU accounts. Now it is he who has been found guilty of eight counts of false accounting. The other crimes Mote was found guilty of include eight charges of obtaining a money transfer by deception, four charges of evading liability and one charge of failing to notify of a change of circumstances.

So, after three years of trying to dodge the Crown Prosecution Service by spuriously claiming immunity as an MEP, Ashley Mote finally appeared in court to face charges of multiple benefit fraud.

It was disappointing to see that elements of the press chose to cover the story without mentioning that Mote was elected as UKIP and spends most of his time hypocritically denouncing the EU as corrupt. Instead, Eurosceptic newspapers turned a story about an opponent of the EU into an anti-EU story, with headlines such as "£70,000 MEP con" and "MEP fleeces taxpayers", trying to use Mote's behaviour to bring all MEPs into disrepute.

(Incidentally, Mote is not the only MEP elected on the UKIP ticket to face investigation for misappropriation of public money. His former UKIP colleague Tom Wise is under investigation for allegedly misappropriating public monies.)

At the start of this year, Mr Mote was one of the founding members of the neo-fascist Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty group in the European Parliament (which unites Mussolini's granddaughter and Jean Marie Le Pen's National Front). Mr Mote's brass neck also extended to giving 'evidence' to a House of Lords enquiry into the EU's financial management in 2006.

Let's hope that Mr Mote's case is swiftly resolved and that other MEPs are not tarred by his brush.

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!

UKIP are constantly on the look-out for real or imagined cases of financial mismanagement in the EU, though their credibility in this field was recently undermined by the fraud office investigation into Tom Wise MEP, a UKIP member accused of misusing his parliamentary allowances.

Another instance has now arisen: UKIP member Mike Nattrass is one of only two MEPs who – some five months into 2007 – has still not updated his declaration of financial interests for 2006 which all MEPs are required to register. He was named and shamed in Parliament last month, but to no avail as Monday’s minutes – naming and shaming him again – testify.

The media is buzzing following today's decision by MEPs to adopt measures that will place caps on mobile phone roaming charges. Labour MEPs have spent the last two years campaigning on behalf of consumers for these rip-off charges to be capped, and today our hard work paid off as the new law was passed.

Currently when you use your mobile in another EU country you will be charged by your phone company extortionate fees not only for making calls, but also for receiving calls. Today’s decision will put a limit on those fees across the EU, so now when you make a call on holiday in another EU country, that fee will be capped at approximately 39p per minute (falling to approximately 34p per minute after two years) and when you receive a call, the fee will be capped at approximately 19p per minute (falling to approximately 15p per minute).

So one more of many victories for consumers thanks to European legislation applicable across the whole of the European market. But why then did Conservative MEPs oppose this? Tory MEPs voted against caps on mobile roaming charges, championing the cause of big businesses to charge their customers what they like – so no change there then from the Tories.

No change from UKIP leader Nigel Farage either, who unsurprisingly stated his opposition to the new law by saying it was merely a "giant publicity stunt" – presumably because the EU that introduced this law . Yet, it would not have been possible to introduce a law of this kind at all without the EU, but we can’t go around praising the EU can we Nigel?

I had the pleasure today of attending the launch of the Centre for Women in Democracy - a new organisation based in the North of England working to increase the representation of women at all levels of public life. The Centre for Women in Democracy is the first think tank of its kind to be based in the North of England, whereas such things are traditionally based in London.

The event began with a fascinating speech by Jill Liddington, whose recent book, Rebel Girls: Their Fight for the Vote, tells of the struggle women from the Yorkshire region faced in their fight for suffrage in the beginning of the twentieth century. Next to talk was the Centre for Women in Democracy’s director Nan Sloane. Nan highlighted just how under-represented women still are at all levels of government and public life, quoting some very disturbing figures. Only 19.5% of MPs are female, 25.6% of UK MEPs are female, 27% of local councillors are female and perhaps more worryingly, just 2% of councillors are black and ethnic minority women. Last up was Hilary Armstrong MP, Minister for Social Exclusion, who spoke of the importance of women in politics and the barriers they face.

The European Parliament, which has over 30% female MEPs, is at least better than Westminster. Labour is well above average with 42% female MEPs. Unfortunately, the UK is let down by the Conservatives, who have just one female MEP (who has just announced her retirement), and UKIP who have none at all, together bringing the UK average down to just 25.6%.

For further information on the Centre For Women & Democracy please click here.

The recent defection of two maverick Tory peers (Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the magnificently named Lord Willoughby de Broke) to UKIP led to some rather extravagant claims that the Tories were about to haemorrhage support to UKIP. Lord Pearson added that his defection was in protest at the Conservatives' lack of a "sufficiently Eurosceptic policy".

However, although it is true that a section of the Tory party are angry at David Cameron's failure to deliver on the only promise he made during his party's 2005 leadership race - namely, withdrawal from the centre-right European People's Party grouping in the European Parliament - the reality is that more Conservatives have been unhappy with their party's hostility to Europe.

This has been reflected in the pattern of defections of Tory politicians during the past decade or so with far more defections from disillusioned pro-Europeans than Europhobes. Whilst two unelected peers have gone to UKIP, no fewer than 12 elected MPs and MEPs have switched their allegiance to Labour or the Liberal Democrats. Furthermore, during William Hague's tenure as Conservative leader, two of its MEPs (John Stevens and Brendan Donnelly) and a former candidate for the party leadership - Sir Anthony Mayer - set up a breakaway Pro-Euro Conservative group in protest at their party's rabid Euroscepticism.

Switching to Labour were MPs Peter Temple Morris, Alan Howarth, Shaun Woodward, Peter Thurnham and, most recently, the highly respected former Minister Robert Jackson. The latter defected to Labour shortly before the 2005 election in view of his party's "dangerous" views on Europe, adding that "the Conservative Party's hostility to Europe has hardened to the point at which it advocates the unilateral denunciation of Britain's treaty obligations." Shaun Woodward and Alan Howarth have since served as government Ministers since abandoning a party that had become increasingly right-wing and extreme on Europe.

The Liberal Democrats have also been a haven for Europhile Tories. This trend was started by Emma Nicholson's defection in 1995 and she has since been followed by Keith Raffan MP (who later served as a Liberal Democrat member of the Scottish Parliament between 1998 and 2002), John Stevens MEP, Bill Newton Dunn MEP, Hugh Dykes (now Lord Dykes and a front bench Lib Dem spokesman on foreign affairs), Peter Price MEP and James Moorhouse MEP.

Moreover, UKIP's failure to attract Conservative politicians is not because of a lack of effort. UKIP has assiduously courted defectors, sending emails to local councillors of all parties and has written to all MPs in a desperate bid to attract new supporters. They have consistently attempted to convince disillusioned Tories to defect. Although some Tories don't hesitate to work closely with UKIP (to the extent that their loyalty to the Conservative party is sometimes questioned) Bill Cash, Douglas Carswell and Philip Davies in the House of Commons and Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan in the European Parliament, have not wanted to risk losing their seats.

Comparing the number and abilities of the pro-European defectors with those attracted by UKIP, which, incidentally, include disgraced former MP Piers Merchant who is now UKIP's Chief Executive (!), merely reveals the hollowness of Farage's claim to have attracted "many senior Conservatives".

It maybe grudging, reluctant and rather embittered but UKIP have apologised for repeatedly using the Jean Monnet quote that I pointed out to them (see blog entry 31 January) was completely fabricated (to the effect that Monnet advocated developing the EU in secret, keeping the public in the dark).

In a letter to the Western Morning News, UKIP’s Graham Booth, a regular user of the quote, apologised for his “mistake” and accepted to remove references to it in UKIP material. We’ll see if they do – Nigel Farage, their leader, has not even acknowledged a similar request.

Anyway, it’s good to get an admission from UKIP that they were telling lies. Not that the apology was anything but grudging. Booth goes on to claim that the fabricated quote effectively represents Monnet’s real views – despite the fact that I furnished him with a quote in which Monnet says precisely the opposite.

As his evidence Booth quotes a passage in a book by one Adrian Hilton, “The Principality of Power". But what is this supposed to prove? This is a single author’s opinion of what he thought Monnet believed, not what Monnet ever said.

I’m still slightly bewildered by Booth’s letter (which you can read in full here) but it is certainly an intriguing insight into the warped logic of UKIP (to the effect of "If he didn’t say it, he probably meant it anyway even if all his deeds and sayings show the opposite")

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was greatly amused to see the results of last week's council by-election in Croydon.

The Conservatives' campaign slogan for the Bensham Manor ward was "Send a message to Mr Blair!", which the locals promptly did by voting in Labour candidate Alison Butler by over a thousand votes, a swing of 10% to Labour!

You can view all the results here which reveal a couple more interesting issues. The UKIP candidate stood as a UKIP candidate and not as an Independence Party candidate and registered 40 votes; that's just 25 more than the Monster Raving Loony Party. There was also no BNP candidate which will not help UKIP fight the allegations that the parties have a deal not to stand for the same seat.

On a lighter note, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the People's Choice candidate who was anything but after managing just nine votes.

Interesting to see again (following Mike Nattrass's suggestion that the EU should abolish bull-fighting) to see that another member elected under UKIP's banner is now calling for the adoption of EU measures instead of their repeal. Robert Kilroy-Silk has called for a system whereby health professionals who are banned from working in their own countries be put on a list so that they can be banned by all EU countries.

Sounds reasonable, but again hardly tallies with the usual diatribe against any EU legislation that comes from Kilroy and his ilk.

So UKIP are going to cut and run from their name and call themselves “Independence Party”. I suppose “UKIP” has built up too many bad connotations. “Independents” sounds better, and perhaps they are intending to claim the several hundred Independent councillors across the country as theirs!

Their leader, Farage, is quoted in the Telegraph saying it is “time to campaign on more than just immigration and withdrawal from the European Union and move to wider themes of national and local independence, deregulation and tax cuts”.

"Local independence"?! For where? Dulwich? Liverpool? Hull? Perhaps the Scottish nationalists are not, after all, the main threat to the unity of the UK!

Hypocrisy knows no bounds among UKIPs MEPs!

UKIP was, of course, set up to oppose everything the EU does and to object as a matter of principle to the EU having any powers whatsoever. Yet here we have one of its MEPs, Mike Nattrass, calling for the European Union to ban bullfighting in Spain and saying that he will fight for that in the European Parliament!

Perfectly respectable to oppose bullfighting. Perfectly respectable to urge Spain to ban it (as Catalonia has already done) but a bit rich to ask the EU to override Spanish law on this matter (which could only be done by a massive increase in the EU's powers) whilst claiming to be against the EU in the first place!

Going up in the lift in Strasbourg with Nigel Farage, he tells me that the Labour Party should be delighted with him and the inroads UKIP is making into the Tory party. I concured that even the darkest of clouds (UKIP) can have a silver lining.

Last week's defection of two Tory peers to UKIP, the revelation that nine Tory MPs have signed up to UKIP's 'Better Off Out!' manifesto and the announcement that two huge party donors (Stanley Kalms & Stuart Wheeler) may now throw their support behind UKIP, do indeed seem to be causing Cameron to panic.

He has told the Telegraph that he's the heir to Thatcher and promised to resist any European integration, to opt out from the Social Chapter, Keep the Pound, and oppose any new EU Constitution

So much for what he said in Brussels scarcely a month ago (see here.

But of course, he's caught in a cleft stick. Appear too reasonable on Europe, and lose some of his rabid eurosceptics to UKIP. Appear too eurosceptic, and lose credibility as a serious leader and lose votes to Labour or the Lib Dems.

That's why Cameron hopes Europe will go away as an issue, allowing him to ignore it. Unfortunately for him, the debate on the Constitutional Treaty, with the large majority of European countries having now ratified it and wanting to salvage as many as possible of the reforms it contains, will ensure that European issues will not go away.

And Farage is right to say that, in electoral terms, it is Labour that stands to gain.

UKIP have spent the past few months attempting to convince people that they are not just a one issue party and take an interest in domestic matters. However, in doing this they have not lost the capacity for spreading myth and outrageously distorting the truth.

The latest example is their Yorkshire MEP Godfrey Bloom "uncovering" that 11 schools in York use fingerprint recognition and getting his knickers in a twist that this is indicative of Orwellesque totalitarianism. With characteristic understatement, Godfrey said "it's like 1984", adding that "we really have reached a low when we are fingerprinting children at primary schools". The Daily Express described this as "a scandal" and an attack on civil liberties, while the Daily Star reported the 'story' under the lurid headline "Terror test for 5 year olds". All this conjurs up images of a police state.

The problem is that if Godfrey, the Express or the Daily Star had bothered to check out the facts behind the 'story' they would merely learn that the 11 schools are using electronic fingerprint recognition, instead of membership cards, for their library services. Moreover, all but one of the schools in question had informed parents in advance of implementing the system, while the school in question, Manor CE, introduced the thumbprint recognition scheme on the recommendation of the pupils themselves! Indeed, Manor's head, Brian Crosby, responding to the furore in the York Press, expressed amazement that anybody could be so upset by a school using such a library system, pointing out that it is much easier and quicker for pupils who don't have to worry about always carrying (and possibly losing) library cards and that the school's library system is not connected to any other network.

Mr Crosby adds that this new technology has allowed the school's learning resource centre to be transformed, is popular with students, and has helped them to achieve excellent literacy results, while the education authority in York has sent out a letter to schools supporting the system so long as parental approval is sought.

This is simply a case where modern technology is being used to assist children in their learning rather than a sinister attempt to condition them to hand over their privacy. Bloom's attempt to distort what is good news for schools, parents and pupils is yet another example of his party's breathtaking cynicism.

With blatant irresponsibility, the BBC website gives prominence to a trip to Romania by their European editor, Mark Mardell with, of all people, the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage.

Giving such prominence to the leader of a fringe party with not a single seat in the House of Commons might in itself be questionable, but to do so and swallow his arguments lock stock and barrel, without even the basic checks, is inexcusable.

The thrust of Farage's argument is that, although Romania is due to join the EU next month, they plainly have no intention to play by the rules. Mark Mardell falls for this argument, reporting that "The first Romanian butcher Mr Farage talks to, enthusiastically cleaving pork chops on top of what looks like a large tree stump, is unaware that any hygiene standards will change when his country joins the European Union on New Year's Day."

Yet, even a cursory reading of Romania's accession agreement reveals that Romania is not due to apply EU phyto-sanitary standards for another two years. And surely the BBC should know not to accept as gospel stories about the EU coming from UKIP, a party whose very existence is founded on stirring up fears and telling tall stories about Europe.

Mark Mardell's account has a "comments" section where people are invited to place their views on his trip. I tried myself to make this very point, but the BBC moderator did not see fit to post my comment up. After all, let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good story!

Tory MPs who pander to hard-line Eurosceptics in the hope of dissuading UKIP from putting up candidates against them in the next election are set to be disappointed. UKIP leader Nigel Farage has just announced on 18Doughty Street that UKIP will put candidates up against Tories whatever their views on Europe.

Previously, Farage had stated that UKIP would not stand against signatories to the anti-European "Better Off Out" campaign, contrary to the wishes of a substantial proportion of his party. Had his U-turn taken place 18 months ago, then, in my home town of Shipley, Labour's Chris Leslie would have defeated Better Off Out signatory Philip Davies at last year's general election.

UKIP estimates that there were 21 constituencies where the decision of UKIP to stand resulted in the Conservatives failing to win the seat.

Whatever the accuracy of these estimates, the deision to stand everywhere means that there is no point in Tory MPs pandering to them. Rather, they will need to stand up to them and demolish their arguments. But don't count on it: many of them have spent so long parroting UKIP that they wouldn't know how to put a reasonable fact-based pro-European argument together!

Perhaps that is why Farage boldly claims that UKIP will be the largest party after the 2009 European Elections, based on the (rather questionable) logic that, having doubled its share of the vote in the past two European elections, achieving this again would give it 32 per cent of the vote in 2009.

This is slightly at odds with the party's declining membership (down from 27,000 at the height of the Kilroy media frenzy to a mere 16,000). This averages at a mere 20 per constituency and would seem to indicate that, with Europe not currently at the top of the political agenda, UKIP's strategy is basically to attract disaffected right-wing Conservatives.

Still, he did at least have the honesty to admit that "UKIP is good at raising money for campaigns" - but Paul Sykes's millions won't turn UKIP into a credible political party!

I was interested, if that is the right expression, to hear UKIP leader Nigel Farage on Radio 5 Live yesterday.

He usually claims that the European Union is responsible for 70% of the UK’s legislation; this time, however, he fancied a change and decided that it was 75%.

Thankfully, a listener put him right asking the following question:

“Mr Farage claims that 75% of our laws are made at European-level, even though his own website puts the figure at 70%. His UKIP colleagues put the figure at anything from 50% to 80%. Isn’t part of UKIPs problem that they can’t keep their stories straight? Incidentally, the House of Commons research department put the actual figure at 9%”.

His response was fascinating. He dismissed the 9% figure by saying that the House of Commons research department can’t be trusted, “that paper was an entire fabrication”. So, is everyone a liar?! He doesn’t trust the European Parliament. He doesn’t trust the UK Parliament. Who exactly does he trust?

His argument to back up his 75% claim was equally as revealing. "Well in Germany, the figure is 80%, so to say 75% is probably quite accurate". Nothing like sound research eh Nigel?!

I have written to UKIP MEP Nigel Farage after he pledged to spend as little as six days a month in Brussels and Strasbourg if he wins the current UKIP leadership contest.

I await his response with interest!

Below is a copy of the letter I have sent to Mr Farage.

Dear Mr Farage,

As the UK Independence Party’s leadership contest draws to a close, I am writing to ask you to publicly clarify a manifesto pledge you have made to your membership.

On your website – www.votenigel.org – you state:

"As the elected Leader of UKIP I would cut my time over there [Brussels and Strasbourg] to 6 or 7 days a month, and the rest of my working time I would devote to UKIP affairs."

I would hope that you do not need to be reminded that it is the British taxpayer who pays for you to carry out your duties as an MEP. Your constituents expect you to be representing their needs in Parliament on a full-time basis, and they do not expect you to reduce your working hours in order to follow your own personal political agenda.

You often speak, unfairly I might add, of the EU as a “gravy train”, with those elected to serve the people being involved purely for their own financial gain. On this basis, and should you be elected Leader, may I assume that you will not be receiving your full salary, as a result of the reduced representative service that you will be offering your constituents? I would hope that we both agree, receiving your full salary would be an act of astonishing hypocrisy and contempt for the hardworking tax payers of the United Kingdom.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Corbett MEP

British Sugar’s decision to close its factory in York down is obviously a blow to the region and particularly unwelcome to those who will be made redundant.

However, many people have been quick to blame the EU and the Common Agricultural Policy for the closure but as David Wilmott-Smith pointed out, in a letter to the Yorkshire Post, this is wide of the mark.

Godfrey Bloom and other opponents of the EU have consistently complained about surplus farm products as a consequence of high quotas yet, when the cuts are made - as they demanded - they are the first to condemn them.

The Common Agricultural Policy is problematic but it is an issue the EU is working hard to reform. To criticise the EU for making changes long called for is both hypocritical and insincere.

<