Robert Sturdy

View from Strasbourg – March 2012

This months Strasbourg session started on a very solemn note. A minutes silence was observed for the victims of the Belgian coach accident in Switzerland. I was deeply saddened to hear of the incident that claimed the lives of so many young people. Whatever your views on Europe, it is time like these that people come together from all sides of the ideological divide.

If you have been following the news this week, then you cannot fail to have picked up on the large amount coverage being designated to the Prime Minister’s trip stateside.  Although the EU does not share our special relationship with the USA, transatlantic relations are exceedingly important to Europe.  This being said, Wednesday saw an important development as the Parliament gave its consent to the resolution of a trade dispute between the EU and the USA and Canada, which has been dubbed as ‘Beef Wars’.  The resolution of this dispute, which has affected transatlantic trade relations since 1988 when the EU, concerned for the health of its citizens, banned imports of beef treated with certain growth-promoting hormones, will give a huge symbolic boost to trade between the two parties. The recent developments will also open the door for EU andUKexporters to sell beef, Stilton and Roquefort into the American and Canadian markets as they had previously been banned as a reaction to the EU hormone ban.

MEPs are very rarely in the national press but to demonstrate the importance of this development, I was interview by the BBC, the Farmers Guardian and local media in the East of England, and my comments were picked up by the Associated Press.

It is important to remember that despite the recent economic downturn and talk of a major economic shift to the Pacific, our cousins across the Atlantic are still our most important trading partners and the world’s largest economy. I am glad that silly squabbling like this decade long dispute has been resolved and both sides of the pond can get back to trading and creating economic growth.

From the US with its 50 states to the EU and its quest to entice more member-states, this Wednesday also saw the relentless march of EU enlargement continued as the Parliament voted on three resolutions on the future EU membership of Iceland, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Although Iceland was hailed as being a potential model EU state, some concerns where expressed with developments in the other two candidate nations that could lead to obstacles on the road to full membership. This latest round of enlargement has added to last year ‘s new member Croatia which signed on the dotted line to become member-state number 28 backed by a referendum of some 60% of its population.

On Thursday, the Parliament debated another hugely important agricultural issue that of the recent spread of the Schmallenberg virus. The Conservatives in the European Parliament demanded that the EU step up its efforts towards developing a vaccine against the virus, and reassuring consumers that there is no risk to human health from the disease. TheUKhas been instrumental in preventing a disproportionate response and has urged the EU to act on scientific advice rather than fear and misinformation. Unfortunately Egypt, Russia and a number of other countries have closed their markets to EU animal products, despite a lack of evidence that it will affect human health. It is important that the EU strongly protects its producers against unfair and unwarranted bans. I have no doubt that the EU will continue to wear its sheep’s clothing on the international stage but I urge it to be a wolf in lamb’s clothing on this issue rather than continuing to be the lamb in lamb’s clothing we all know and loath.

In a recent letter to the East Anglia Daily Times (see my website), I wrote about how important it is to receive emails and letters from my constituents. My offices in Brussels and Cambridgereceive hundreds of these every week that. Some of them ask my opinion on certain policy issues, some ask me to attend meetings or hearings on their behalf and occasionally I receive a correspondence like the email below. As Conservatives we are always searching to remove red-tape, it is perhaps our raison d’être. An email I received this week summed up our mission better than any policy paper or parliamentary speech. I think this says it all…………

Pythagoras’ Theorem: …………………………………24 words.

Lord’s prayer: ……………………………… ……………..66 words

Archimedes’ Principle: …………………………………67 words.

Ten Commandments: ………………………………..179 words.

Gettysburgaddress: ………………………………….286 words.

US Declaration ofIndependence: ……………..1,300 words.

US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: …….7,818 words.

EU regulations on the sale of CABBAGES: …..26,911 words

 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg – January/February 2012

Before I give you an update of this months Strasbourg session let me briefly run you through some of the developments from January. Unusually, the plenary session of January did not contain much legislative activity. The start of 2012 marks the mid point of the current five year legislature which sees the Parliament’s mid-term review take place. Various elections are held to fill a number of post and positions of the Parliament and of the political groups. The Conservatives held on to all of their major positions in the Committees, maintaining our Chairmanship of the extremely important Internal Market Committee and my vice-Chairmanship of the International Trade Committee, along with our vice-Chairmanships in the Development, Fisheries and Constitutional Affairs Committees.

 The Parliament’s presidential election was slightly more eventful. Traditionally, the two major political groups in the Parliament, the centre-right EPP and the Socialists S&D, make a deal that seems them utilise their overall majority to alternate the position between them, effectively rendering any election pointless. This year however, the Conservatives decided to contest the election of the man who would be President by exercising some good old fashion democracy. Although a spirited campaign was fought, and we managed to persuade a sizable minority of the Parliament to back our candidate, the fix up was a foregone conclusion.

The turning of the year also saw a changing of the guard at the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which is rotated every six months between member-states. This January saw Denmark take over from Poland in what might be the busiest and most important 6 months in the EU’s history. This change is a big boost for the UK in Europe as Denmark and the UK have long considered each other strong allies and are also seen as like minded states in the EU. The Presidency of the Council chairs and organises all Council meetings and also bestows upon the holder of the position considerable power to shape and mould the agenda of the EU for a six month period. Let us hope that our strong collaboration with Denmark can be maintained and they can put Europe back on the path to growth and prosperity. This brief break from normal procedure was however short-lived.

Almost every month I write to you about the unnecessary journey to Strasbourg. Each month, I try to demonstrate to you that the Conservatives in the European Parliament are doing all that we can to make sure that this monumental waste of money and time is scrapped, which, I must add, seems to be a constant up hill battle. 

Recently, however, there have been a few crucial victories and it seems that that many, dare I say the majority, of MEPs in the European Parliament have come around to the Conservatives point of view. Over the last 12 months the European Parliament has adopted a number of Conservative proposals that have tipped the argument in favour of a single seat for the European Parliament. First, there was the adoption of the Conservative amendment to the European Parliament’s calendar that will see the Parliament conduct two plenary sessions in one week, effectively reducing the number of trips from 12 to 11 over the next year. Although only a small victory, its significance should not be over looked. The French Government has seen this move by the Parliament as such a threat to the presence of theStrasbourgseat that it is taking the European Parliament to the European Court of Justice.

This week saw the scale tip again in our favour as MEPs in Strasbourg, voted through a key British amendment during a debate on the guidelines for next year’s budget  which calls on the parliament’s authorities to review their hugely wasteful two-seat policy. Even the recently ‘elected’ President of the European Parliament has, for the first time, put his weight behind our campaign.

Further significant developments have occurred outside the Parliament. In January,Denmarktook over the Presidency of the EU Presidency and has announced that they openly support the Conservative motion of a single seat for the European Parliament. With support for our cause building and the ongoing austerity in much of the EU, I cannot see how this wasteful practice can continue.

February saw the European Parliament return to its normal service with votes in Strasbourg. As mentioned above, the biggest development occurred during a debate on the Parliament’s budget for 2013 in which some 329 MEPs voted in favour of an amendment stipulating that “the biggest saving could be made by having a single seat for the European Parliament”.

Tuesday saw the Parliament vote on a very important piece of legislation for the UK’s farming community. New rules were approved which will allow widespread preventive vaccination against the livestock disease bluetongue. Previous EU rules only allowed a farmer to vaccinate if they were in a designated exclusion zone. This was because the vaccines were “live” and therefore could potentially spread the virus. The rules made comprehensive preventive vaccination practically impossible.

Now “inactive” vaccines have been developed which pose no such threat, but the EU’s regulatory framework is only now catching up. After an initial attempt to update the regulations foundered last year over technical disagreements, legislators have been in a race against time to update the rules before the arrival of warmer weather and the swarming of midges, which spread the disease.

Now we always hear of the EU trying to milk the UK for all its worth, but this month the Parliament voted to enable British dairy farmers to get more money for their milk.  New measures adopted on Wednesday will give dairy farmers greater bargaining power as the EU will recognise dairy farmer producer organisations which will be able to collectively negotiate a price for their milk up to limits of 33 per cent of national production or 3.5 percent of total EU production. This should allow farmers to strengthen their position in the dairy supply chain and ultimately achieve a better price per litre for their milk.

Now I often complain that many MEPs are semi-skimmed but I must say the flood of good news coming from the Parliament this month has made me wonder whether some of them might just be gold topped.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg – November 2011

Before I begin my usual report on this months voting session Strasbourg, I must address a very important issue.

As many of you may know, every year the European Court of Auditors presents the EU’s accounts to the European Parliament. This year’s report saw the Court of Auditors announce that overall, 3.7 per cent of the EU’s €122 billion budget in 2010 was spent in error or against EU rules. That’s just over €4.5 billion. This is a staggering amount of money. The figures get even worse when you look at the most offending area. Misappropriation of funds and spending errors were as high as 7.7 per cent of total spending in the areas of cohesion, energy and transport.

Some of you may be shocked by this news but many of you will probably not be surprised. After all this is the 17th year running the Court has been unable to give the EU’s accounts an unqualified statement of assurance.  The last time the EU’s accounts were in order Sir John Major was a resident of 10 Downing Street, Mandela and de Clerk won the Nobel Peace Prize and the European Community officially became known as the European Union.

In isolation this is outrageous enough, but when one factors in the recent demands from the EU, especially from the European Parliament, to increase the EU budget, then the mind really does boggle. It is quite interesting that the amount of money being demanded is almost exactly the same amount that would be saved from scrappingStrasbourg, some €180 million a year.

With the recent economic turmoil in Europe no one would blame you for keeping your minds on monetary matters but many other issues were addressed in Strasbourg this month that are worth mentioning.

Although the EU has managed to develop an effective single market, one area that needs improvement is the mobility of qualified professionals, which is one of the 12 priorities of the Single Market Act, the Commission’s action plan to improve the functioning of the single market.  On Tuesday the Parliament voted on a Conservative resolution that aims to address this by making it easier for doctors, dentists, architects and other professions to work abroad within the EU.

Although this resolution is about adding flexibility to the labour market by enabling professional qualifications to be recognised faster, recent cases in the UK have highlighted that it is imperative that this be accomplished without compromising on the reputation and safety of qualifications.

Also on Tuesday, the Parliament voted on a resolution on honey bee health and beekeeping. At first glance you would be forgiven in thinking that this is perhaps not as pressing an issues as others on the EU’s agenda at the moment. However, over recent years there has been a worryingly steep rise in bee mortality which could have a serious knock on effect on Europe’s food production and environmental stability. When one considers that an estimated 84% of plant species and 76% of food production in Europe depends on pollination by bees, its is evident that the problem is a pressing one.

Aside from the environmental impact of the declining bee numbers, beekeeping also provides an income for more than 600, 000 people across Europe. As Vice-Chairman of the Cambridgeshire Beekeepers Association, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are concerned about this issue and are keen for action to be taken.

The Parliament’s resolution, which was strongly endorsed by MEPs from across the political spectrum calls on the EU to step up investment in research on new medicines and coordinate its efforts to protect what is fast becoming an endangered species.

On the whole the resolution of honey bee health is an important step forward that manages to address the issue at hand. Unfortunately, like a busy little bee, the EU gives with one hand and takes with the other.  A recent ruling by the European Court of Justice stated that honey producers must prove that pollen is not an ingredient of their product. This involves expensive testing, bottling and labeling. This is yet another length of red tape to strangle British industry. I am trying to avoid the obvious pun but sometimes I really wish I could tell elements of the EU to buzz off!

On Wednesday, the Parliament voted on five reports aimed at mobalising the EU’s Global Adjustment fund (EGF). For those of you who are not familiar with the EGF, it is an annual fund of €500 million that helps EU workers find new jobs and develop new skills when they have lost their jobs as a result of globalisation or, since 2009, the economic crisis.

In this week’s votes the Parliament voted to send €42.3 million from the EGF to workers in Ireland, Austria, and Greece. This included €2.9 million to help find new jobs for 642 Greek workers made redundant by the closure of ALDI supermarkets. Now I am fully aware that the current economic times are increasingly tough on families across the EU but I think it is wrong to signal out a small number of workers when millions across Europe are in a similar predicament. The EU should be concentrating on growth and prosperity across the continent.

As I sit in my office writing this months ‘View from Strasbourg’, important news has been announced by EU officials. After an extensive, and no doubt expensive, two year study, the EU has proclaimed that from now on water is no longer hydrating! This statement is dangerous enough but as usual it is accompanied with a regulation which in this case will forbid water producers from making hydrating claims about their products. The fact that water hydrates should be abundantly clear to anyone one who has ever had a glass. One positive thing may come out of this mind you. We are always saying that EU officials are from another planet and this may well prove to be the evidence to prove that claim!

As always I like to leave you on a light hearted note. On Wednesday, 47 bright young people from Mildenhall College of Technology visited the Parliament together with their tutors.  For the past few years, a group of politics students from the College has travelled to Strasbourg to learn about the EU and how the EP works first-hand.  I was very impressed with their interest and knowledge and they raised some very good questions.  I look forward to hosting another visit for the College next year.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg – October 2011

After last months double dose of Strasbourg, this month saw the calendar return to normal, with just the one long trip to the Alsatian capital. With the ongoing economic crisis in the EU, this session was all about budgets and bailouts.

First on the agenda was the budget. Ever since the Commission released its proposals for the EU’s 2012 budget, Conservative politicians on both sides of the channel have been working hard to make sure that the shouts of more Europe and more money are met with equally loud demands for less waste and less expenditure.

Whilst the member’s states national governments represented through the Council have come around the UK’s viewpoint that the EU’s budget should be cut, the Parliament has stood steadfast by its proposals to ask for more money.

In an attempt to bring the more free spending MEPs from the UK and the rest of Europe back to reality, Conservative MEPs tabled a number of amendments to limit the EU’s budget and increase the efficiency of its spending. One such amendment proposed a reduction in interpretation within the Parliament that could save €27m. Also, unlike many of our colleagues, Conservative MEPs supported calls for a freeze in pay for MEPs and top officials.

However, politics in Europe is slightly different from in the UK. Whilst our Chancellor holds up the famous ministerial box, politicians in the European Parliament instead of the red box hold up the red balance sheet. This seems to symbolise the pushing ofEurope’s national governments further into debt as a result of the EU’s constant demand for more money.

It was not surprising therefore that the Parliament voted on Wednesday by some 431 votes to 120, with 124 abstentions, for an increase in payments of 5.2% as compared to this year’s budget, resulting in a budget of €133.1 billion. Needless to say that Conservative MEPs were very much in the against camp. I find it ironic that whilst the word ‘budget’ in UK has come to mean the act of carefully controlling ones expenditure, on the other side of the English Channel it seems have become synonymous with flagrant spending.

Although taking place inBrusselsthe eurozone summit that took place on Wednesday evening was another central event of the week. This much hyped meeting was billed as a do or die moment for the euro. As news filtered through to MEPs from the summit inBrusselsin the early hours of Thursday morning and the details of the deal became apparent, there was a change in atmosphere in the Parliament that brought a new meaning to the phrase debt relief.

Six hours after the deal was announced, MEPs gathered in the plenary chamber to comment on the previous night’s event. Although there was a tinge of eurozone euphoria in the air, many MEPs were sounding a note of caution by emphasising that the deal is only the first step and that much still needs to be done to exit the crisis.

I too was relieved when I heard the news. It is crucial forBritainthat the eurozone stabilises itself and returns to growth and prosperity but I am not so sure that this deal will be the magic bullet that many people are making it out to be. It will be interesting to see the reaction of the world’s markets and businesses in the coming days and weeks.

One cannot release a newsletter on the happening of European Parliament in Strasbourg without mentioning the events in Westminster. I have long been a proponent of the British people having a say on theUK’s membership of the EU and I was somewhat disappointed with the outcome of the debate, especially when it seems that two thirds of the electorate support this notion. I am sure that this question will not go away and I will be interested to see how it develops in the future.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg, September 26th-29th

One of the most prestigious dates in theUSpolitical calendar is the President’s annual State of the Union address to a joint sitting of congress traditionally held in January. The EU adopted this practice last year to much acclaim, if we needed any more evidence for a United States of Europe! Unfortunately for the EU, the MEPs were not as enthusiast and they had to be bribed to be there. This year President Barroso’s big speech was less State of the Union and more theUnionin a state.

President Barroso has seized on the failures of the EU and its member-States to address the continents economic woes to support deeper and deeper integration. One such proposition, and a long-standing demand of the Parliament, is a financial transaction tax. The European tax would levy trades in shares and bonds at a rate of 0.1pc and derivative contracts at a rate of 0.01pc from Jan 2014 and would be expected to generate €55 billion a year for the EU coffers. When one considers that City ofLondonofficials have warned that 80% of these funds would come from the square mile, then this is nothing more than a tax on our capital.

This is exactly the kind of policy from the EU that infuriates the British public. Not only is this an attack on the city of London but the Commission’s own study has shown that if a financial transaction tax were to go ahead, EU growth would be detrimentally affected to the tune of 0.5%, more than the €55 billion  that the tax would generate!

History is not on the side of the President Barroso and his fellow euromaniacs, a similar tax on financial transactions was introduced inSwedenin the 1990s after a financial crisis but when trading volumes moved abroad it was hastily revoked.Sweden’s finance minister recently said that as a result ofSweden’s financial transaction tax, ‘between 90%-99% of traders in bonds, equities and derivatives moved out ofStockholmtoLondon.’ Thankfully theUKhas a veto over taxation issues and the Chancellor has expressed his absolute commitment to use it.

The European Parliament has plans for the tentacles of EU power to spread ever further with proposals that were debated on Monday. The plans would see Europe-wide speed limits of 30 km/ph on all single lane notes without cycle lanes, the harmonisation of road traffic rules and road signs and the replacement of the British Highway Code with one covering the whole ofEurope. Personally, I don’t think it is particularly helpful to have signs declaring a speed limit of 18.64 m/ph, such complicated signs will probably cause more accidents! As any British holiday maker to the continent will attest, or anyone who has ever seen the Italian job,Europehas 27 different driving traditions from its 27 different member-states. For example, whilst single lane roads in the rest of the EU may be minor roads, in theUKsingle lane roads can have speed limits that vary from 20 to 60 m/ph. The one size fits all approach that the EU is so fond of is simply unworkable in situations like this.

In the spirit of fairness it is important to point out that the proposals do contain some useful suggestions, such as teaching children at the youngest possible age, and that accompanied driving should be permitted from the age of 17, to enable young people to learn more gradually, but these are things that have been standard practice in the UK for years.

On Wednesday the Parliament addressed an issue that I have been contacted on numerous occasions, by a number of my constituents. Full body scanners have been quite controversial since their introduction in response to the heightened security at airports of the last decade. Concerns have been raised about the level of detail these scanners provide and also the health risks associated with their use, no matter how unlikely this may be. After a rigorous debate, the Parliament reaffirmed its position that passengers have the right to refuse body scanner and opt for traditional body searches, should they see fit.

As another Strasbourg session draws to a close and a long journey back to my constituency draws near, I am deeply concerned with news that the coalition government has decided not to support the European Conservative’s position to abolish these monthly jaunts to France, one can only hope that common sense prevails.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg – September 12th-15th 2011

They say that ignorance is bliss. On this account many of my European counterparts must be amongst the happiest people on earth. As the EU seems to be in the midst of an existential crisis, and governments across the continent are becoming deeply concerned on the future of not only the eurozone but even the EU itself, MEPs have decreed in true pantomime fashion that the show must go on. The European Parliament is a place made up of ideological Euro Federalists whose answer to every problem is more Europe, more power toBrusselsand, more often than not, more money.

After governments across the EU and the Council have repeatedly called on the EU to reduce its budget to match similar cuts made in member-states, MEPs and the Commission have demonstrated that there is still a huge void between the two positions as they once again demanded more money for the EU. Parliament will vote on its position on 26 October and I can guarantee that my Conservative colleagues and I will not vote to give the EU a penny more.

If the ignorance levels were making the MEPs happy with a call for an increased budget, they must have been delirious when President Jose Manuel Barroso of the European Commission took the floor in a debate surrounding a vote on the EU’s response to the economic crisis. President Barroso urged for a ‘political union’ as a means to solve the crisis and talked of an EU federal moment when Eurobonds and financial transactions tax were needed to put the Euro back on track. All I can say to that is no way Jose!

The week had started on a solemn note with a sensible debate. On Monday, the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, led the Parliament in a tribute to those killed in the attacks in theUSfollowing the 10th Anniversary of 9/11. The ensuing debate weighed up the costs and benefits of the counter-terrorism measures taken inEuropesince the September 2001 attacks, with regards to their effectiveness and impact on civil liberties. Although the vote on the resolution was postponed, it is reassuring that the EU is constantly reconsidering the effects of counter-terrorism, for example increased security checks at airports, to make sure their continued use is necessary.

Again on Tuesday the Parliament conducted yet another positive bit of business when it rejected an overzealous EU response to theGulf of Mexicooil spill. MEPs approved a report by fellow Conservative MEP for the East of England Vicky Ford that dismissed a ban on all deep water drilling in EU waters. The report noted that the EU has much more stringent procedures than those operating in the Gulf of Mexico and that an EU wide ban would be a damagingly disproportionate response, especially when one considers that in the EU and Norway over 90 percent of oil and over 60 percent of gas produced comes from off-shore operations, mostly in the North Sea and Norwegian Sea.  However the report did call on European Regulators to improve safety standards and clean-up planning around EU oil and gas drilling sites.

The later part of the week seemed to focus a great deal on international affairs. As Conservative International Trade spokesman in the European Parliament, a resolution conveying the Parliaments disappointment on the progress, or lack of, in theDohaDevelopment Round international trade talks, was hardly a surprise to me. I have long known of the difficulties that a Doha deal would pose and whilst supportive of a deal, I have been an advocate of the EU pursuing bilateral deals with the world’s emerging economies in order to prepare for the worst, whilst still hoping for the best.

In a resolution passed on Thursday, MEPs congratulated the Libyan people on their courage and determination, and welcomed the fall of the 42-year autocratic regime of Muammar Gaddafi. Parliament expressed full support for the National Transitional Council (NTC), and urged the EU to assist the new Libyan authorities in building a unified, democratic and pluralistLibyathat guarantees human rights and fundamental freedoms. MEPs called on EU Member States to seek UN Security Council authorisation to release frozen Libyan assets to help the NTC to deliver the governanceLibyaneeds. Although the resolutions passed by Parliament onLibyawere positive, I could not help but feel that the Parliament was taking credit for the actions of NATO and its allies. The EU seems to be always chasing international events and its response overLibyawas anything but coordinated and that exposed the weakness of a single EU foreign policy.

With the ongoing crisis onEuropemany have talked about British schadenfreude, the pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. I, for one, hope that the crisis can soon be resolved, but in the appropriate manner. It is also often said that the British are unhappy with the EU, well if ignorance is bliss then I for one am fine with someone calling me unhappy.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg – July 2011

As our minds veer towards summer you may be forgiven in thinking that work in the European Parliament is slowing down in anticipation of the upcoming recess. However, July is perhaps the Parliamentary calendar’s busiest month as people scramble to complete work before their summer deadlines. This months Strasbourg plenary session was no different. There were a number of important and high profile pieces of legislation on the agenda many of which were actually very sound proposals. Alas do not fret, there were, of course, some absolutely preposterous ones too.

One of the most satisfying parts of my job is when something that you feel strongly about and campaign hard on, is adopted as law. I have long been a proponent of country of origin food labelling because I strongly believe that the UK has the highest quality of food produce in the world and I believe that given a choice, consumers will choose to buy British products precisely because they know they are getting a good quality product.

This week the Parliament voted on new proposals to extent food labeling rules to more products. Under the new rules country of origin food labeling was extended from beef, honey, olive oil and fresh fruit and vegetables to all meat products. This is great news for British consumers and producers alike, as produced in Britain is a renowned throughput Europe for its products such as Welsh lamb, English sausages and Scottish beef. Although this regulation only deals with the Country of Origin labelling for meat and a few other food stuffs, it is a significant step in the right direction. There is scope to extend the scheme further to all food produced pending a Commission investigation.

Also included in the rule is the inclusion of a compulsory display of the nutritional value. Once the rules are implemented, the energy content and amounts of fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt must all be stated in a legible tabular form on the packaging, together and in the same field of vision. This has been standard practice in the many of the UK’s shops for many years now so it is unlikely that we in the UK will notice much change on this front except on our summer holidays abroad.

Another issue that I feel strongly about is Genetically Modified Organisms. I have long been of the conviction that GM crops are essential if Europe is going to able to feed its bourgeoning population and compete on the international agricultural market. Both the US and Brazil, two of the world’s agricultural giants, have successfully cultivated GMOs for years. Aside from the fact the GM crops have been proven to be safe, it is near on impossible to ensure that our food market stays GM free and if we fail to get on board then we risk being completely forced out of the market. Furthermore, I strongly believer in a farmers right to choose whichever crops they wish and this proposal goes someway to accomplishing that.

Within the Parliament GMOs have been an extremely contentious issue, mainly due to misinformation and the irrational fears of many MEPs. However this week, MEPs voted overwhelmingly for a compromise that would allow member-states to cultivate or ban GMOs as they see fit. It also provided rules to prevent against cross contamination with conventional crops. The Parliament’s position will now be taken to the Council for further deliberation.

Another long standing campaign of mine, and the Conservatives in the European Parliament, has been to limit the EU’s budget and to ensure that it is being spent wisely. A huge task I am sure you will agree.

After the Conservative victory in limiting the EU’s 2012 budget and reducing the number of trips to Strasbourg in 2012 and 2013, it seemed as though the tide had turned on the tax and spenders in the EU. Unfortunately, my illusion of the triumph of commonsense was shattered as I heard President Barroso proclaim his intentions for an increase in the EU’s long term budget for 2014-2020 by some 5-10%. What was more astonishing is that in the subsequent debate it appeared as though a large number of MEPs supported these rises, as more Europe seems to be the answer to all questions. The Parliament is supposed to represent the people but consistently MEPs have voted for more money and more Europe against the wishes of their constituents.

Not only was the EU asking for more money directly from member-states but it also is debating the possibility of a financial transaction tax that is expected to raise between €20-30 billion a year through a 1% levy on financial transactions.

We have been outspoken on both these issues. It is unacceptable to increase member-state contributions when the whole of Europe is facing budget cuts and austerity, and with regards to a direct EU tax, this completely is out of the question. I remain confident that even if these measures do eventually pass through the Parliament, they will be defeated by our government when they get sent to the Council.

As always I try to end on a lighter note and this month is no exception. If you are like me and enjoy driving in Europe, then you may be interested to hear that the European Parliament voted to make sure that motorists are penalised when committing traffic offences abroad. The legislation will exclude our drivers as the UK, Denmark and Ireland have all negotiated an exception to these rules even in face of opposition from certain MEPs.  At one point a French Socialist MEP complained that British drivers would just use Europe as ‘racing circuits’, I did try and point out that we were not all like Jeremy Clarkson.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg – June 2011

Cucumbers! Yes you heard right, cucumbers have been the talk of the town in Strasbourg this week. The reason is not another farcical EU decision over the shape of food but related to the outbreak of E. coli that has swept across much of Europe. The relevant authorities seem to have pointed the finger of culpability towards the humble cucumber.

On Tuesday, the Parliament debated the issue and raised some serious questions relating to EU farming practices, the use of antibiotics and food traceability and labelling. These are issues that I have raised countless times in the Parliament. It is a shame that all too often it takes a tragedy for some politicians to take notice.

Later in the discussion the debate took on a comical turn when a Spanish MEP was seen brandishing a cucumber in the plenary chamber whilst making a speech calling for Spanish cucumber famers to be compensated by German authorities who had implied that the outbreak had come from Spain.

Like a knight in shinning armour Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos, immediately began looking at ways in which it could solve the problem and help the damaged cucumber industry. With no regards for his own safety (or finances), Commissioner Ciolos valiantly proposed a 150m euro (£134m) aid package to help farmers whose products have been hit by the current E. coli outbreak. However, as is tradition in the EU when money is thrown about, the offer was not considered enough and at the meeting of agriculture ministers in Luxembourg, Spain immediately rejected the offer as ‘insufficient’.

From money for old vegetables to a load of tripe, as once again MEPs, who seem to be living in a different dimension to the people they supposedly represent, voted to increase the EU’s budget by a staggering 5 % from 2014.

The position endorsed by the Parliament on Wednesday, calls for a five percent budget increase on the last seven-year budget, a system of EU direct taxation, a financial transaction tax, abolition of national rebates, and an end to returning unspent EU money to national governments.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, to add insult to injury the Parliament also voted to end national rebates. This news should be enough to make anyone reach for a handbag in a Thatcherite manner, but apparently some MEPs feel that the EU just hasn’t got enough money.

It would not be a Strasbourg session without a customary sensible moment from the Parliament. In a significant vote that took place not long after votes on the EU budget, MEPs overwhelmingly called for the institution to end its monthly relocation between Brussels and Strasbourg, which regular readers will know costs around 200 million Euros and emits around 20,000 tonnes of CO₂ each year. Supported by a vote of 353 to 282, with 38 abstentions, the vote was a ray of sunshine in an otherwise abysmal session for EU finances.

This vote adds to the success of the adoption early this year of amendments tabled by Conservative MEPs that will merge two Strasbourg sessions in the 2012 and 2013 Parliamentary calendars, thus reducing the number of trips to (just!) 11 a year.

In another moment of absent minded common sense, the European Parliament voted to condemn the ongoing  corruption that seems to be all to prevalent in sport at the moment. With the recent fiasco during the presidential ‘election’ of Sepp Blatter, such a vote by the Parliament sends a strong signal that corruption, in whatever field, should not be met with impunity.

I will end on a more horticultural note. On researching the Cucumis sativus, the common cucumber, I learnt that the cucumber is a creeping vine that grows very fast and if not kept in check, spreads out uncontrollably over the ground. Mmmm, sounds very much like an organisation I know. Oh well time for some pruning.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg, May 2011

Since I last wrote April’s view from Strasbourg Britain has witnessed a thoroughly memorable period. The nation has been united by a single event that has truly brought the country together. People were celebrating in the streets and flags were flown, proudly from government buildings and houses alike. Thankfully I am talking about the events of the 29th of April and the Royal Wedding and not the 9th of May and the so called Europe Day.  Although the existence of this day is designed to produce the same feelings of patriotism and elation, I struggle to feel the same sense of pride when I see the golden circle of stars hoisted, as I do when I see the Union Jack.

In Strasbourg this week the European flag was flying and trade was the name of the game, as the Parliament expressed its opinion on the ongoing Free Trade Agreements with India and Japan.

These two agreements signify a coordinated approach by the EU to target key markets around the world to bolster the EU’s position in the global economy. As vice-Chairman of the International Trade Committee and Conservative Trade spokesman in the European Parliament, it proved to be a busy but successful week.

On Wednesday, MEPs in Strasbourg voted in support of concluding the ongoing negotiations for an EU-India FTA. The resolution although on the whole supportive, did include some dissatisfaction at the slow pace of negotiations, which have been ongoing since June 2007, with many MEPs calling for the agreement to be finalised by the end of this year.

One of the major obstacles on the road to an agreement seems to have been navigated as the resolution included a compromise to allow essential generic medicines to continue to reach those in need, whilst also setting up a strong intellectual property rights regime to protect patents. This is good news for European companies and to the millions of people throughout the world who rely on cut price medicines for their survival.

I welcome the continual support of the Parliament, and although I recognise their frustrations of the seemingly snails pace of negotiations, the Indian economy is a complicated beast. If we rush things without properly understanding their implications on the European economy and industries, we may get an egg in the face rather than a worthy deal with the jewel in the crown.

In a similar resolution that was passed by a show of hands, the Strasbourg Parliament signalled its support for a comparable trade agreement with Japan. Recent events in Japan had threatened to stall negotiations but credit must be given to the Japanese who in spite of strife at home, wanted to push ahead.

Even with solid determination from both sides, an EU-Japan FTA will not be plain sailing as Japan hosts some of the most closed markets in the developed world. Having said this, a FTA with Japan is not to be sniffed at as EU-Japan trade is worth €120 billion per year. I am hopeful that negotiations will progress at an upcoming EU-Japan summit that will be held in Brussels at the end of this month.

Also on the agenda was a proposal to temporarily lift EU tariffs on key Pakistani exports. These temporary aid measures would enable preferential access to EU markets for Pakistan’s textile industry as a means to help Pakistanis to recover from last year’s devastating floods.

Although the proposals were eventually adopted, they were opposed by some Socialist MEPs which I thought was particularly mean spirited. I know Pakistan’s government has been in the news a lot recently and has some very difficult questions to answer but this wasn’t about giving funds to the Pakistani military or writing a blank cheque to the civilian government, this was about helping people to help themselves, people who I might add are amongst some of the poorest people in Pakistan and who are still reeling from last years devastating floods.

On a slightly lighter note, on Wednesday seven times F1 World Champion and motor sport legend, Michael Schumacher, was present in the Parliament for an event on road safety. It was great to see the man in person although it was somewhat ironic to have a man who regularly travels at speeds of 200 mph +, talking about safe driving. Oh well, irony is rather fitting for the EU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg – April 2011

April is a fickle month. As the clocks go forward and the English weather struggles to shake off the shackles of winter, optimism collides with reality as we all begin to look forward to the summer ahead. This seems to be an apt metaphor for April’s plenary session.

On Wednesday in Strasbourg, at least a first, the sun was shining as the Parliament adopted the estimates for its 2012 Budget, which will stand at some €1.725 billion. Although this figure represents an increase of 2.3% over 2011, it compares favorably to the current EU-27 inflation rate of 2.8% and is substantially lower than the absurd inflation busting budget of 6% originally proposed. The 2012 budget represents a victory for the Conservatives as we have campaigned hard since the budget negotiations began to fight any substantial increase.

Within the budget proposals the Parliament voted to reduce the proposed figures regarding funding for political parties and foundations, information campaigns, IT and maintenance of buildings, by €13.7 million. Along with the 15 million Euros that is expected to be saved from last months Conservative amendments to the 2012 calendar, this represents a significant step in the right direction.

However in true spring fashion, the sunshine soon gave way to that annoying persistent drizzle that we all loathe. On Wednesday the Parliament voted on a resolution that takes the first step on the road towards to having Europe wide political parties. Initiated by MEPs on the Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO), the report is aimed at creating EU political parties that enjoyed legal status and have access to greater amounts of funding, which is expected to rise from the current 85% to 90% of political group overall budgets.

MEPs on the AFCO Committee argued under the guise of democracy that by creating Europe wide political parties, to replace the current system that has EU political groups acting as an umbrella organisation for national political parties, democratic accountability would be increased in the EU.

Unfortunately this is not an April fool. Although the report on the rules and funding of European parties did contain some worthwhile aspects, such as a push for greater transparency and penalties for infringements of funding rules, it was largely overshadowed by the vast majority of its absurd content.

TS Elliot wrote that April is the cruellest of months and as the storm clouds gather over Portugal, and it looks like yet another country in Europe will need financial assistance from the EU, he may be right. However, much of European Union membership is taking the rough with the smooth. Just as there is a feeling of summer in the air, recent moves to limit the EU’s budget and reduce the monthly Strasbourg treks seem to indicate that maybe, just maybe, MEPs are starting to see the light.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg  – March 2011

 This month the trip to Strasbourg looked less like a comedy and more like a spaghetti western, with the European Parliament voting on proposals that were good, bad and ugly.

 First and foremost let us look at ‘the good’. The parliament moved a step closer to abolishing the monthly Strasbourg session by voting to reduce the number of trips to and from Brussels.

Tabled by the Conservative in the European Parliament, MEPs voted for an amendment to change the parliament’s calendars of 2012 and 2013 by merging the two Strasbourg sessions in October into one week. This means that MEPs will fulfil their treaty obligations to hold 12 sessions in Strasbourg, whilst only having to make 11 trips backwards and forwards. It is estimated that even this slight change will save EU taxpayers some 15 Million Euros and save the environment from 1600 tonnes of needless carbon dioxide.

 The run up to the vote was rather comical. Certain MEPs, who seem to think that they are Hollywood stars rather than elected officials, actually tried to convince their colleagues to vote against the amendments. Thankfully commonsense prevailed and it was passed by some 100 votes. Let’s hope that the next step is a treaty change so we can abolish this absurd practice once and for all!

 After ‘the good’, unfortunately must come ‘the bad’. Back by Labour MEPs, the European Parliament voted to support proposals for an EU Financial Transaction Tax (EU FTT), which could treble the UK’s EU contribution to £20 billion. Although not EU legislation yet, these proposals represent another example of the EU overstepping its remit and sticking its nose in where it is not wanted.

Imposing such a tax, without a global agreement, would cause some of our financial services sector to relocate, losing the UK billions in tax revenues and costing untold jobs. The UK already has a bank levy in place which will raise ₤2.5 billion a year by 2012-13 and it is better designed to ensure more stable financial practices.

 Another item on the parliamentary agenda was the EU’s reaction to the continued unrest in Libya. With the US is taking a cautious approach, the European Union has already acted to restrict trade with Libya and to freeze the personal assets of Gaddafi’s regime located in Europe. Although any possible military intervention, such as a no fly-zone, must be enacted by member-states through international organizations, the EU has set a clear aim to be at the forefront of global efforts by acting as a coordinator with all international partners, such as the UN, US, Turkey, Russia, China, Australia and the Arab League. This aim was strongly endorsed by MEPs in a debate in Strasbourg this week.

 This brings me on to ‘the ugly’. These days Gaddafi looks more like a caricature of a totalitarian dictator than a man of steel. However, he continues to brutalise his own people by raining down havoc from the air and using mercenaries and his personal guard to attack those fighting to rid their country of him. So far the EU has spoken with a single voice. Let’s hope that Gaddafi’s reign can be brought to an end soon.

 As the final curtain falls on another week in Strasbourg it seems that more than ever that you win some and you lose some with the EU. Unlike last months Oscar winning performance, this month, even with the withdrawal of the Tale of Two Cities, I am afraid that this month the European Parliament has wrongly released a Tax on The City.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg – February 2011.

For once the unnecessarily long excursion to Strasbourg that we all know and love was worth its while. After over two and a half years of negotiations, the EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement was approved by the Parliament, by 465 votes to 128.

What has been described as the most comprehensive trade deal by the EU to date, the EU-South Korea FTA eliminates about 98% of import duties and other trade barriers in manufactured goods, agricultural products and services over the next 5 years and is expected to double trade between the two partners in the next 20 years. When you consider that the EU is Korea’s 2nd largest export market and South Korea is the EU’s 8th largest trading partner, this is no mean feat.

I am especially proud of this agreement. I believe that it manages to balance the need to send a strong message to the world that the EU is open for business with the concerns of certain sectors, by providing safeguards that protect key EU industries such as the consumer electronics, textile products and specially the European automotive industry.

As rapporteur, or author, of the EU-South Korea FTA, I have worked long and hard to get the best deal for the EU, but alas the work does not stop here. I am looking forward to steering through similar agreements with emergent economies, such as India, Columbia and Peru to name but a few.

Although the EU-Korea FTA was the show piece, the travelling circus to Strasbourg does not just have one attraction!

The Parliament also voted to implement restrictions on CO₂ emission from vans and other light duty vehicles, similar to that which is already in place for passenger cars.

This, coupled with certain guarantees in the text of the EU-Korea FTA from the South Korean automobile industry to improve their emissions, means that the EU automotive industry can help protect the environment whilst still remaining competitive in the global market.

Another worthwhile piece of legislation was approved by the Parliament is aimed at preventing fake medicines from entering the legal supply chain. It is estimated that up to 1% of medicinal products currently sold to the European public through the legal supply chain are falsified. This legislation aims to protect the welfare of patients by introducing new safety features on individual packs to help identify them, guarantee their authenticity, and to prevent the contents from being tampered with. One of the legislations most important achievements is extending the regulation to internet sales, something that was not present in the original proposals from the European Commission.

It has been said that if you lay out all the red tape produced by Brussels it would stretch around the world 12 times. With this in mind, it would not be a European Parliament session if it did not adopt legislation that adds to the mountain of red tape that makes Mont Blanc look like an attraction at Euro Disney.

One such piece of legislation, which was voted on in the European Parliament this month, is the so called ‘Passengers Bill of Rights’. As of 2013, these new rules will apply to all long distances bus journeys over 250Km and require bus companies to pay compensation to passengers for a multitude of different reasons.  

I commend the sentiment of the legislation but I am worried that these rising costs for travel companies will not only have a detrimental affect on Europe’s already ailing transport industry but that the costs will simply be transferred on to passengers. MEPs should ask not whether it is a good idea but whether it is absolutely necessary. For air travel it was, for coach travel it is not.

On many occasions I have left Strasbourg feeling frustrated at the processes of the European Parliament and amazed at the actions of some of my fellow MEPs. This month I left with a spring in my step. The approval of the EU-South Korea FTA shows that the EU can come up trumps. I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day. This month the view from Strasbourg was, on the whole, a good one.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg, September 2010

How could the French make the ridiculous travelling circus to Strasbourg any less appealing? Yep, you guessed it, the have put the whole of the French transport system on strike – and on the final day of the plenary session no less! Isn’t that nice of them?

I won’t dwell on such frustrations any longer as you are all too well aware of my despair on facing this unnecessary journey every month. Instead, I will get on with letting you know what we have been up to over the last two sessions.

Can you believe that amongst serious debates on the economic crisis, helping Pakistan overcome the ongoing hell caused by severe flooding, and holding the European Commission President Jose Barroso to account, we had to deliberate such crazy proposals as Pro EU propaganda funding? A report that was only meant to look at ways new media was changing journalism, somehow became a wish list for improving how MEPs and the EU institutions are reported in the media. Proposals include an EU funded training programme for journalists, a fund to support student media, but only for those that follow EU matters, as well as more money for Parliament’s information offices ,and even more money for EU communication policy. The whole thing completely undermined the usefulness of democratic reporting and a complete waste of taxpayer’s money, and I pleased that we were able to block such silly requests.
Thankfully, not all of the debates and decisions taken over the last few weeks have been as cringe worthy as Bruce’s Forsyth’s attempts at humour on Saturday night TV.

Animal welfare is one of the most popular issues that constituents write to me about. The European Parliament voted through important new rules on animal testing last week.  The new rules seek to reinforce and strengthen animal welfare legislation, while at the same time encouraging the phasing out of animal testing as new technologies come forward. I know this is a big and often sensitive issue in the Eastern region and I am pleased the EU is finally barking up the right tree!

With mixed reports in the media as to how the UK is actually battling its way out of recession, it’s difficult to know what is actually being done to encourage investment, create jobs and boost our economy. I personally agree that a key way to reaching each of these goals is through more open and freer trade with our global partners. As the Parliament’s spokesperson on the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea, I was thrilled when Parliament took its first steps in making this deal a reality. Members voted unanimously in favour of the all important Safeguard Clause which works to protect EU industries should they come under serious, unfair competition from our South Korean partners. Chemicals, pharmaceuticals, iron and steel, auto parts, shoes, spirits and medial equipment exporters will all see substantial savings after tariffs are removed. Non-tariff barriers to trade, such as technical standards for cars or certification procedures for consumer electronics, will also be broken down.

The long-term benefits of this deal will be substantial for the EU and the adoption of this safeguard clause will help prevent short-term pain. The EU needs to send a signal that it is open for business and that it will not resort to protectionism at a time of economic difficulties.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg, July 2010

It is often the case that the plenary sessions in Strasbourg before the European Parliament’s summer recess are extremely busy, and last week was no exception.  Frequently the negotiation process between the different political groups and between MEPs and the other institutions leads to delays and postponements, causing a hurry to get through all the various reports before the summer break.

At the top of the log jam this month was Parliament’s vote to ban the sale of illegally harvested timber. Illegal deforestation has devastating effects. On a global level, deforestation as a whole is estimated to contribute 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. Where it occurs, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity and landslides are all potential problems. The plunder of this natural resource also hits forest-dependent peoples and the economies of developing countries.

The new legislation bans illegally-harvested timber or timber products from being placed on the EU market. This will prevent such wood from effectively being laundered once it reaches the EU. Currently, at least 20% of timber and timber products reaching the EU market are estimated to come from illegal sources.

Member States will be responsible for applying sanctions to operators who break the rules. The legislation sets out guidelines for imposing fines covering the environmental damage caused, the value of the timber and lost tax revenue and EU countries can also impose criminal-law penalties on unscrupulous dealers. To ensure traceability, each operator along the supply chain will need to declare from whom they bought timber and to whom they sold it.

I have kept a close eye on this piece of legislation, frequently meeting with NGO representatives who share my concerns about the disastrous effects of trade in illegal timber and from my point of view this vote could not come soon enough, we can only hope that the rest of the world takes a leaf out of the EU’s (recycled) book and follows suit in adopting similar measures themselves.

*With over 33 million people living with AIDS world wide, it is a real problem that access to antiretroviral treatments remains so poor. Last week Conservative MEPs submitted a resolution (a non-legislative text which officially expresses on record the opinion of the European Parliament) calling on governments to pass new laws ensuring more affordable medication for those suffering from HIV.

The resolution stresses the existing higher levels of infection among key groups such as sex workers, homosexuals, transgender people, prisoners, injecting drug users, migrants, refugees and mobile workers, and calls for specific targeted actions to ensure their access to public health and fight their discrimination and stigmatisation by society.

This opinion was specifically targeted at sending a strong message before the International AIDS conference in Vienna on the 18th to 23rd July.  There is currently an ongoing debate across a whole range of legislative texts, in particular trade agreements, as to how best we can protect the ability of Europe’s scientists to develop new drugs and market them while ensuring that those who need them most can afford them.

In the International Trade Committee this is particularly the case with the negotiations surrounding the Free Trade Agreement with India and the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), both of which are ongoing.  Trade is an area where the EU works best, and it is essential that we get this right.  If we come down too strongly on the side of the pharmaceutical companies we could prevent access to life saving medicines, which is unacceptable.

*Elsewhere, the Parliament also agreed on new rules for bankers’ bonuses, which I believe to be both fair and proportionate.  Caps will be imposed on upfront cash bonuses and at least half of any bonus will have to be paid in contingent capital and shares. MEPs also toughened rules on the capital reserves that banks must hold to guard against any risks from their trading activities and from their exposure to highly complex securities.

There is a consensus that while the bonuses may not have been the main cause of the crisis, they certainly contributed.  We need to prevent a future situation where the pay and bonus culture at our biggest investment banks do not encourage the kind of risks which led us to ruin and recession, and that includes other European banks taking risks on our markets.

That’s it from me until September when we have two voting sessions, so until then I would like to wish you all the best of summers, and of course if you ever have any questions about my work, or the Parliament in general, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

________________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg, March 2010

Returning to Strasbourg for a sitting made me reflect about how the European Union started, and where we are now.  A young Dutch Liberal initiated a debate regarding the Strasbourg seat, arguing that it was time to do away with the current arrangement and to conduct business full time from Brussels.  I thought that I would share with you the main points of discussion.

The Parliament was originally based in Alsace and grew from the old European Coal and Steel Community and its “Common Assembly” was located in Strasbourg, an arrangement designed to prevent further Franco-German conflict.  However, these reasons are no longer relevant in modern day Europe and Strasbourg. It has become an expensive anachronism, costing tax payers hundreds of millions of pounds each year for MEP and staff travel, as well as the exorbitant cost of maintaining the buildings; the roof caved in last summer, and was found to contain large amounts of asbestos.

Conservative MEPs are constantly campaigning to retreat. There are two types of opponents to change – those who wish to see the current situation continue, and those who agree that one seat would be more efficient, but want that seat to be in Strasbourg.  The latter can be quickly discounted; Strasbourg lacks the required facilities to host the Parliament full-time, whereas Brussels already has everything needed, including a voting chamber.   So what then of the case for maintaining the status quo?

One argument proposed by opponents is that the abolition of one seat will lead to increased centralisation, and that a concentration power would be more likely to result in abuse of powers.  This is nonsense as we have already seen a whole litany of abuses with the current system in place.  The executive of the Union, the European Commission, is based solely in Brussels. Most associated business is based in Brussels, and the headquarters of the European Council is in Brussels.  By abolishing the Strasbourg session, MEPs would merely be moving a process, namely that of voting, which would in no way have any impact on the workings of the Union.  Besides, is not the EU already by its very nature a massive centralisation of national powers anyway?

Strasbourg also lacks many of the transport links needed and it is not easily accessible. Members from Eastern Europe are frequently forced to taxi from German airports, again at great expense to the taxpayer.  Furthermore, the Strasbourg buildings sit empty for most of the year, a monument to EU waste and excessive bureaucracy.  And what of all the greenhouse gases needlessly emitted by all the transport of all the papers and people from Brussels to Strasbourg?  If the European Parliament is serious about climate change, it should start by putting its own house in order!

It might seem like a no-brainer to most, but it is a simple matter of common sense.  Unfortunately, the political reality is rather different.  The French are very protectionist and are unwilling to give up their parliament, and why would they?   After all, the rest of Europe picks up the tab while France gains a valuable source of income from the influx of MEPs and staff.  I do not think it is a coincidence that most of the MEPs who support the Strasbourg seat are French!  The Parliament is the goose that lays the golden egg.  I am confident that most of the people who live in the member states of the union want to see an end to this circus, and such a move would do much to promote transparency and democracy, as well as cutting millions of pounds from taxpayers’ bills.

Elsewhere, I signed a European Parliament resolution regarding the ongoing negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This will criminalise the possession and use of copyright materials by unlicensed owners, and is aimed at stopping the illegal downloads, of films, songs, games and software.

As ECR coordinator for International Trade and Vice-Chairman of the International Trade Committee I have been following this issue very closely.  The negotiations have been strongly criticised by many stakeholders who regard the ACTA deal as an attempt to restrict civil liberties and infringe privacy rights.  The resolution is aimed at allaying those fears, and I believe this regulation is long overdue.

________________________________________________________________________

Strasbourg report, February 2010

Sometimes I despair of politicians, I really do.  I have always been a believer in simple, reasonable and sensible policies.  So my confidence in my fellow MEPs was really shaken by some recent new developments.  You may remember the farcical “bendy bananas” and “curvy cucumber” rules dreamt up by Brussels bureaucrats and only recently scrapped.  I was delighted about this, and know many of my constituents felt the same. Disappointingly, I have learnt that we could be returning to those ludicrous rules again – at least if Spanish EPP and Socialist MEPs get their way.

It was a major triumph last year for Conservative MEPs when the European Commission finally overturned the ban of mis-shapen fruit and veg which had been widely ridiculed in the press. Prior to the U-turn, strict marketing standards were imposed for 26 types of fruit and vegetables governing their size and shape. I deplored the fact that bananas which curved too much, as well as oversized apples and knobbly carrots, could not be sold and instead had to be thrown away, wasting a huge amount of healthy food and driving prices up.  I have seen a lot of stupid rules come out of Brussels in my time as an MEP, but however. this ranks among the worst.

Consumers agreed with my beliefs that we should be able to decide what we want our food to look like; we should not be dictated about this from Brussels.  Our farmers, of course, were also delighted as it meant they could sell perfectly good produce, whatever its shape or size.  We need to let the market decide on this one, not the European Parliament.

Conservative MEPs will continue to rigorously oppose any plans to return to those “ban the bendy banana” days!

*Elsewhere this week, we had the big vote on the new European Commissioners who will oversee the various departments of the European Commission for the next five years.  The ECR group, having been central to the re-election of President Barroso for a second five year term, was faced with a tough decision. The idea that we as MEPs can vote on the whole College of Commissioners as a whole is utterly ridiculous.  If you want to reject a single candidate, you have to vote against the entire group.  This “take it or leave” approach means that we were unable to voice our support of the candidates we endorsed, and unable to act against the weak candidates we would have opposed.

I felt that several of the Commissioners were simply not good enough for the demands of their roles.  Firstly, the European Commission is massively powerful and the idea that we might appoint people who were not up to the job should be of great concern.  Secondly, many of the candidates expressed their support for EU powers in the field of taxation, but this is unacceptable to me. Finally, I failed to see why it was necessary to move several of the existing Commissioners to new portfolios, despite them having performed extremely well in their previous positions.  Because of the limitations imposed by the approval system, I reluctantly decided, along my fellow Conservative MEPs, to abstain from voting rather vote in some Commissioners I could not support.

*There was some welcome news about how the European Parliament has thrown its support behind a World Horse Welfare initiative that seeks to end the cruel long distance transport of horses. I signed a written declaration expressing my support for an urgent review of EU legislation governing the welfare of animals during transport to slaughter.  Latest figures estimate that 100,000 horses are transported in atrocious conditions across Europe to slaughter. Imagine a 12 hour journey from Bulgaria or Romania to Italy, often without rest, water or food, and in the stifling heat.  Journeys such as these are inhumane and can lead to exhaustion, injury, pain suffering and stress for the horse.  Most of these journeys are completely unnecessary as slaughter facilities exist across Europe, so why are these horses being transported around like this?  I sincerely hope that this is the beginning of the end of this scandal; it is precisely this sort of issue where the EU can do a lot of good.

________________________________________________________________________
CHRISTMAS message 2009

Firstly, I would just like to say a big thank you to all those who turned out at the polls in June and voted for the Conservative Party.  It has always been a great honour to serve in the European Parliament and I must thank all those who kept their faith even after the expenses scandal in Westminster.  Politicians must demonstrate humility and sincerity to win back the trust of the voters, while at the same time moving forward.

2009 was the year that the European Parliament passed tough new rules governing the use of pesticides for European farmers.  The Parliament voted to support a compromise package negotiated between the Commission, the Council and MEPs, with 577 in favour, 61 against and just 11 abstentions.  For me, this was one of the most important issues in my 15 years as an MEP and the vote came as a massive disappointment, not only for me, but for East Anglia’s farmers, gardeners, grounds men, consumers and everyone else who contacted me expressing their considerable concerns regarding this Directive.  The proposals were watered down considerably from those originally proposed but the compromise still went too far, despite the active campaigning I led against it, including a letter of protest to 10 Downing Street with Shadow Agriculture Minister, Jim Paice.

The issue of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) was also a large part of my workload this year.  EPAs are agreements between the EU and ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries.  Helping countries from poverty has often felt like uphill struggle; no matter how much aid has been given, it hasn’t had the effect we hoped and sadly, many African countries are much poorer than they were at independence, despite the vast sums of money they have received.  Problems of accountability and traceability have always been a problem.  If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, then EPAs are long overdue. I work actively on this issue as the European Conservative and Reformists Group Spokesman on International Trade and I believe we need market liberalisation tied to structural aid to help less developed countries trade their

way out of poverty, enabling them to take advantage of preferential treatment and to develop both sustainably and quickly.  With drought conditions and food security adding to their huge difficulties, caused by climate change, it is more important than ever that we do all we can and as quickly as possible to help ACP countries.

But what of 2010?  The first priority for the New Year is to ensure that the new Commission is held to account.  Belgium’s Karel de Gucht recently received Manuel Barroso’s nod for the Trade post, vacated by the outgoing Baroness Ashton and I will be working closely with him.  It will be interesting to see the stance he takes as he most certainly has to demonstrate a commitment to free trade as the last thing we all need is someone who resorts to protectionism.  Free trade is vital to end the world’s economic depression, which we have still not escaped.  A sad sign of this ongoing crisis was GM’s recent announcement that 350 employees from the Luton Vauxhall plant are to be made redundant, demonstrating a further demise of our manufacturing industry.  My sympathies are with all those who lost jobs particularly in the run-up to Christmas.

But the New Year also brings with it new ideas and new opportunities.  We hope to have a Conservative Government come June and after 12 disastrous years of Labour in power this cannot happen soon enough.

I shall, of course, continue doing my bit in Brussels, Strasbourg and the constituency to make sure that the Eastern Region is represented at the European table.  I shall also continue to help all those who write to me with questions and problems to the best of my ability, so please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Finally, may I wish you a Merry Christmas and a healthy and prosperous New Year.

_________________________________________________________________________

View from Strasbourg, November 2009

In the end it was all a bit of a damp squib.  After weeks of feverous speculation in which just about everyone short of Shergar was mentioned, Baroness Ashton was appointed Foreign Minister and former Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy (much to the delight of headline writers at The Sun) became the first President of the European Council.  Firstly I would like to congratulate both Commissioner Ashton and Mr Van Rompuy; if forging a consensus among different nationalities in the Parliament is anything to go by, they are going to have their work cut out!  The real story, however, was to be found elsewhere.

While “stitch-up” is perhaps a little harsh to describe the situation as everyone was in on the deal apart from us, we were certainly caught napping, if not fast asleep.  The EU’s three top economic job – Internal Market, International Trade and Competition – have been given to the French, Belgian and Spanish Commissioners, which could mean that the EU is about to take a protectionist turn, something that would not be in our interest.  The benefits of open markets are the most important factor in fostering a recovery from the seismic shocks generated by the financial crisis.  The lessons of economic history are clear: protectionist policies are not a sustainable means of protecting jobs in the EU.  It is clear that a future Conservative government will have plenty to do to ensure Britain’s interests are well represented in Brussels.  I will be doing my bit by closely monitoring the policies of Trade Commissioner designate Karel De Gucht and am looking forward to questioning him when he comes before the International Trade Committee in January.

But what of Baroness Ashton?  As Vice-President of the International Trade Committee, I have been working very closely with her since she took over the job vacated by Peter Mandelson just over a year ago.  There is no doubt that she did a very good job as Trade Commissioner, but you have to question whether she has the experience and qualifications required for the role of High Representative.  Can you imagine High Representative Ashton holding her own at a table with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?  But maybe that is the point.  Europe, particularly Germany and France, does not want a powerful High Representative with a big name, but rather one who will quietly go about doing the bidding of the 27 member states.  The same goes for the President, with appointment of someone lacking in recognition and charisma demonstrating that for the moment, the member state holds sway over a possible EU superstate, but vigilance must be maintained.

Either way Ashton she has to prove that she is worth the money.  She will have control of the new European external action service, starting with 5,000 staff already engaged on “external relations”, based in delegations in 130 countries – and the service is expected to grow rapidly.  The current EU foreign policy representative, Javier Solana, believes that the service would become “the biggest diplomatic service in the world” and would cost taxpayers £45 billion between now and 2013.  By contrast, the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an annual budget of
£2 billion — which the Treasury hopes to cut by 20% over the next two years!

Despite all the commotion surrounding the new Commission appointments, I still had the day to day parliamentary business to attend to.  I was delighted by the recent decision by a European Council Committee to reject extending both a 16.5 percent and a 10 percent tariff on shoes from China and Vietnam respectively for another 15 months.  The duties, which were introduced by Lord Mandelson in 2006 when he was Trade Commissioner, have had a detrimental effect on consumers and retailers across Europe. For example, Clarks Shoes says they have cost it around €800m in import costs since 2006, which has led to a hike in the prices paid by us in the shops. However, my happiness was tempered by the fact that the Commission plans to go to the European Council to overturn this vote.  The new Commissioner must not attempt to overrule today’s vote in an EU trade committee which would cause the price of shoes from China and Vietnam to fall.  We should be one step ahead on this, and not dragging our heels.

________________________________________________________________________

Strasbourg report, September 2009

This was the first meeting of the Parliament since the summer break. While it was lovely to catch up with several friends in Strasbourg, it was catching up that could have been done just as easily in Brussels!  Still, while it was a bad week for those unconvinced by the need for the Parliament in Strasbourg, it was a good week for Jose Manuel Barroso, the incumbent President of the European Commission, who won a second term in office after securing the backing of a majority of MEPs.

There was for a moment a worry among those of the centre-right that Mr Barroso might not secure the requisite 369 votes needed for an absolute majority. But a split in the Socialist vote led to many offering their support against the wishes of their political leaders, allowing Mr Barroso a sigh of relief.

Following the Opposition’s collapse, the vote in the chamber ended amidst farcical scenes with Daniel Cohn-Bendit (better known as Danny the Red, and up until this point, one of Barroso’s fiercest critics) handing Mr Barroso a large bouquet of flowers.   Wreathed in smiles, which stemmed from I do not know where, Mr Cohn-Bendit announced without a hint of irony or embarrassment that he had achieved a victory for the Greens!  This was despite the fact that he had failed in his bid to scupper Mr Barroso’s re-election, failed to find a candidate himself and failed to secure any sort of concessions from the new President, who in the end had no need for the support of Mr Cohn-Bendit’s Green MEPs!

Now, while I broadly support Mr Barroso’s appointment, I think I should at this juncture sound a note of caution.  While as a centre-right politician Mr Barroso shares many of the Conservatives’ political beliefs, he still remains firmly attached to the federalist and integrationist ideals which are firmly opposed by my new group in the Parliament, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR).  While Mr Barroso is likely to support our ideas regarding free markets and liberalisation, it is less likely that he will support our more “Euro-realist” sentiments regarding integration.  It is this area where we will have our work cut out, ensuring that no more powers are removed from Westminster to Brussels.

*Elsewhere Europe’s dairy farmers have been strongly urging the European Commission to show support for the milk market to avoid permanent damage to the European dairy industry.  Protesting dairy farmers have become increasingly vocal in recent weeks, as the market price of a pint of milk fell to less then half of what it costs to produce.

To highlight their plight, farmers across Europe joined forces to dump milk on fields, roads and in cities in an attempt to force the Commission to intervene.  While one option available is that of a “super-levy” for individual farmers; I think this would send the wrong message to those efficient farmers who are planning to stay in the industry in the long term.

While I have always supported efforts to make EU agriculture more responsible to market forces, there is a massive problem currently destroying European agriculture which is not of the farmers’ making.

In the last three years dairy producers have seen their product prices drop 40%. Yet in the same three years, consumer prices have risen by 14%.  This comparison clearly shows that the role of supermarkets in the supply chain is posing a big problem, not only to European dairy farmers, but to farmers of other agricultural products such as wheat.

The Agriculture Commissioner has acknowledged the problem, but so far the Commission have done little or nothing to stop large buyers from forcing prices down whilst failing to pass on any savings to the consumer.    This is a situation where the only ones to benefit are the large supermarkets; they are driving many farmers out of business while ensuring that prices for consumers remain unchanged.  This is the most pressing problem in European agriculture and it is one which I will be following very closely in the coming months as Europe emerges from recession

_____________________________________________________________________________

Strasbourg report,  July 2009

First of all I would like to say a big thank you to everyone who turned out to vote in the European elections on 4th June.  It has always been a massive honour to serve the people of East Anglia and I was absolutely delighted to be trusted once again to represent you all in Brussels, Strasbourg and, of course, back home.   Last week was the official opening of the Parliament’s term in Strasbourg and this message is the first of many I will be sending in the next five years, keeping you all up to date on the latest events that will have an effect on East Anglia.

The first sight greeting all MEPs upon their arrival was that of a large green net stretched across the roof of the building, the latest development in the ongoing saga of the Strasbourg Parliament.  Following last year’s collapse and the discovery of asbestos, it was recently realised that the roof was in fact not fire proofed, a fact many found quite astonishing given the amount of hot air issued by MEPs in the hemicycle chamber!  Unfortunately, we were unable to transfer to Brussels on this occasion, where the Parliament is more than capable of holding all the necessary meetings.

The main event dominating my time last week was the election of the European Conservatives and Reformists new group Chairman.  Earlier this year, David Cameron decided to withdraw the Conservatives from the European Peoples’ Party (EPP-ED) and form a new group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR).  Of course, the Conservatives will maintain good ties with our former colleagues, continuing to work together in areas of mutual interest, but the new group will allow me to concentrate on our region’s economic recovery, improving growth and competitiveness, reducing red tape and making sure that the EU represents value for money for the Eastern Region’s tax payers.

The move away from the EPP and the creation of the ECR generated much media controversy and a great deal of misinformation.  Contrary to many reports, which said we would never build a group, and that if we did, we would be sitting with extremists and would fall apart almost as soon as we formed, the ECR has emerged as a group of mainstream national parties dedicated to European reform.

These countries share our view, as well as that of a large proportion of the Eastern Region’s electorate, that the EU should not continue down the path towards ever greater federal union, but rather should respect the right of sovereign nations and their citizens. I do not think I am alone when I say that the EU must become more open, democratic and accountable; this is the mandate upon which I was elected, and this is the platform which I shall follow.  I made a promise to all those who voted for me and I fully intend to keep it.

However, as some of your may be aware a colleague of mine, Edward McMillan-Scott, decided that he would stand for the position of Vice-President of the Parliament, against the wishes of the new group, which had agreed as a unit that Michal Kaminski would be our sole candidate for the job.  Edward, a colleague of mine for the past 15 years, refused to remove his candidacy, even after receiving a call from David Cameron informing him that he would lose the whip.  In the end Michal lost and Edward won.

The Poles were incandescent with rage, arguing that Michal had lost his bid as a direct result of Edward’s renegade actions.  They demanded the Chairmanship of the ECR in its place.  It had been previously agreed that this was a job which would be held for the first two-and-a- half years of the group’s existence by a British Conservative. However, Michal’s loss changed all this.  The two other candidates for the leadership, Timothy Kirkhope and Geoffrey Van Orden both stood aside and it was agreed that Michal would become group Chairman.

By this time it was around 11pm, and fatigue was evident on the faces of most in the ECR meeting. While I fully support the election of Mr Kaminski as leader, who I am sure will do a sterling job for the next two and a half years, I was very disappointed with the actions of some of my Conservative colleagues, who, instead of allowing an overnight period in order to restore calm and consult the leadership in London so we might present a united front, voted to hasten the decision making-process.  This was the first opportunity to show how the group could – and should – be run, and with one element effectively holding all the others to ransom it did not bode well. If in future we stand together and make united, informed and unrushed decisions as a group, we will flourish.

Only a united front will enable us to go from strength to strength and fulfil the promises we made to our respective constituents.

I look forward to representing you over the next five years.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Strasbourg report, March 2009

I believe that legislation should be judged not merely by its intentions, but by its results. Indeed, good intentions can sometimes do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding. An excellent example of this has been the European Commission’s directive on Industrial Emissions Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) which we voted on last week in Strasbourg. The IPPC legislation will merge seven existing directives on industrial pollution into one whilst extending the scope of the law. The directive creates a permit system to prevent and limit pollution from supposedly large-scale industrial installations. Yet a directive that was originally targeted at reducing industrial emissions instead threatened not only to force hospitals to shut down their boilers, but also to have a profound impact upon the Eastern Region’s agricultural sector.

Firstly, with regard to the NHS, concerns were raised that the new directive would result in around 70 hospitals across the country being forced to pay oppressive costs for their boilers. Hospitals require significant amounts of spare boiler capacity to cope with emergencies in case of technical failures. The IPPC directive would have assessed their boilers in light of their potential emissions as opposed to their actual emissions, incurring the NHS, and thus the British taxpayer substantial costs. The outcome of this was potentially catastrophic.

The British Conservatives submitted an amendment that that was passed by 471 votes to 169 that will allow such boilers to be subject to emission controls based solely on the amount of time they run rather than on notional full time running. This will save the NHS large amounts of money that can be much better spent on patient care rather than appeasing Brussels bureaucrats. It was a triumph for fairness and commonsense led by Conservative MEPs.

The IPPC was also a threat to smaller poultry farms. The Commission proposed applying the directive’s pollution controls to premises “with 40,000 places for broilers, or places for laying hens or 24,000 places for ducks or 11,500 places for turkeys”. The amendments replace this with the words “40,000 places for poultry”. The British National Farmers Union expressed concerns that this “will not benefit the EU poultry industry, consumers or the environment…Disproportionately stringent requirements will not bring added-value to the protection of the environment in the EU and have no scientific basis.”

I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. This legislation would have burdened a vitally important regional sector without tangible environmental benefit; all that it would have served to do was to tangle smaller poultry units in unnecessary red tape and added to their costs. Yet unfortunately, despite our best efforts we were not as successful when it came to the pig sector. An amendment we proposed to alter the manner in which (and forgive me for getting technical here) nitrogen excretion equivalent rates is calculated was not adopted – potentially adding £25,000 to the costs of a permit for pig farmers.

*Elsewhere sea passengers will be better protected and European waters made safer after MEPs adopted the EU’s third maritime package. Passengers will benefit from a new pan-European level of accident liability and insurance which means ship operators are liable for lost or damaged luggage and any physical harm caused by neglect. Previously liability has been set at different, and often insufficient, levels in member states according to their own national laws. I am delighted that passengers will be receiving greater protection when travelling by sea, a victory that has been achieved without burdening ferry companies with bureaucracy and red tape. This legislation now means that foreign ships entering EU ports are required to meet the same standards as our ships and face fines should they repeatedly fail to do so.

___________________________________________________________________________

Letter from Europe,  March 2009

EU leaders met last weekend for an emergency summit in Brussels about the global economic decline. I was greatly pleased to see that EU leaders committed themselves to a multilateral free trade approach, rejecting protectionism and reaffirming their commitments to the European Single Market and sending a powerful message to our partners across the Atlantic. It is crucial to the future of the world economy that we maintain liberal policies; we must learn from the lessons of the Great Depression of the 1930s and emerge stronger on the other side.
Yet in times of economic crisis similar to which we are now experiencing, it becomes all too easy to turn a blind eye to those living in regions which are less fortunate than our own. One can become anaesthetised by repeated headlines of doom and gloom and not consider that in faraway continents, people are still struggling to have their fair share of the globalisation pie.

For these less developed countries, free trade has become even more urgent; if developed countries retreat behind the walls of protectionism they stand to lose much too, a particularly bitter injustice for them considering it was the developed world which created this mess.
I was delighted with the outcome last week’s marathon four hour voting session of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, which I represent as a coordinator for the EPP-ED group. MEPs were voting on a series of resolutions regarding the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) currently being negotiated by the EU with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. I want to do all I can to help these countries get a fair deal. EPAs are designed to ensure that ACP countries can continue to enjoy unhindered and protection free access to EU markets within the framework of the Word Trade Organisation.
The benefits of open markets and the opportunities it can deliver to the ACP are huge, as well as liberating. EPAs will form the first stage of incorporating the ACP into the world economy, fostering agricultural development and industry diversification. This represents the best chance in a generation to restructure ACP trade relations, making certain that where previously ACP nations were unable to utilise trade as a vehicle for development, they will now be able to build a sustainable partnership within the EU.
*In my last column I reported on the European Commission’s proposal to force member states to establish a fishing quota solely for recreational fisherman. To propose regulation that not only complicates current legislation, but also targets an innocent minority that enjoy angling for pleasure, was yet another example of the Commission’s floundering attempts at regulation. Following intense lobbying by myself and my colleagues, Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg informed the Fisheries Committee that he had no intention of bringing recreational fishermen under the scope of the CFP.

I was delighted to learn that the Commissioner was very clear in ruling out any extension to “recreational anglers who catch a few kilos of fish, even recovery stocks like cod, and take it home for their own use.” He went on to promise that he would fine tune the legislation so that its sole targets are sea anglers who catch and sellrecovery stocks for profit, a decision I think that all of us who enjoy fishing the region’s seas will welcome.

_______________________________________________________________________

Letter from Europe, 29 January 2009
The European Commission is muddying our waters again unnecessarily.
This time, it is our recreational sea anglers who face the full extent of their ridiculous bureaucracy which could have a considerable impact in the Eastern region.
It follows the announcement by the European Commission that it wants to impose quotas on recreational fishermen limiting the number of fish they may catch. They say it is intended to protect endangered species, such as cod, pollack and shark.
East Anglia has some of the finest fishing coastline in the country and sea angling, in particular, has seen a huge surge in popularity in the last decade. Now it is proposed that these quotas will be included in the total quota allowed to individual Member States. I just can’t see that happening.
Although I welcome reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, which has to date been bad for British fishermen, I believe this proposal is ludicrous and will be totally unworkable. Introducing reforms that will require further micro-management from Brussels will only exacerbate the present problems. To me, this is totally unworkable and cannot be managed.
To propose regulations that target an innocent minority enjoying his leisurely pursuit is only going to alienate our electorate, particularly our anglers who genuinely enjoy fishing for pleasure, and make us a laughing stock. It will complicate current legislation and I shall vigorously oppose it.
When will Brussels realise that this heavy handed approach will not only result in a bureaucratic nightmare if it becomes law, but would actually do very little to meet its objectives in the recovery of fishing stocks, as well as damaging tourism in these coastal regions. That is something I certainly do want to see happen in East Anglia.
I believe if the European Commission is serious about wanting to protect our fish stocks, it should launch a total and effective review of the CFP, and not target the harmless recreational sea angler.
*”Some folk want their luck buttered,” Thomas Hardy once said. And the luck for EU farmers seems to be getting better. This week it was announced that the EU is buying 30,000 tonnes of unsalted butter to put into cold storage, as well as up to 109,000 tonnes of milk powder. Just so you understand exactly the full extent of this, this weight is around the same as 75 jumbo jets. Inexplicably, this is happening at a time when the EU is committed to wholesale reform of its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), resolving the problems that had led to the now infamous “mountains” and food and “lakes” of oil and wine, and is a massive step backwards.
The reason given for this extraordinary action is protection. EU farmers have suffered from a massive drop in demand in their main butter markets (especially in Russia as a result of the crash of the rouble) which in turn has resulted in a price crash. This action undermines all our efforts to move away from the protectionist policies of the past.
At a time of ongoing financial crisis, we should be fully liberalising markets and placing Europeans on an equal playing field with our competitors. We are, in effect, artificially supporting farmers by inflating the market price for these commodities. In my opinion farmers, would much rather turn a profit in a system that is both free and fair. For far too long the EU has controlled prices to the detriment of the farming communities of less developed nations who are desperately trying to make a living, but were forced out of a closed EU market.
Currently the WTO is trying to complete the Doha round of talks launched in 2001, a round that is specifically designed to open up world trade by bringing down this kind of non-trade barriers that have frequently distorted world markets in the past. At its peak, the butter surplus in Europe was a massive 1.2 million tonnes, and it was only in 2007 that the EU was finally able to do away with this “mountain” – an event that received much publicity. I was naturally shocked and dismayed when I learned of this development.

For this reason, I was most encouraged by the visit of the Czech presidency to the EuropeanParliament’s Trade Committee last week. With the election of President Obama across the pond, many in the EU are worried that he too may resort to protectionist policies to artificially shield America from the effects of the global slowdown at the expense of everyone else. While the new Obama administration’s policies are yet to fully emerge, our Czech colleagues assured us that they will continue the EU’s free trade policies. They were adamant that lessons from the 1930s recession had to be heeded – namely that protectionism will only make things worse for everyone – prolonging the effects of the global economic downturn.

_______________________________________________________________________________

New Year message for 2009 from Robert Sturdy
A new year. A new presidency. A new parliament.
While there is much speculation about whether or not Gordon Brown will call a general election next year, voters in the UK will certainly be going to the polls to vote in the Euro-election 2009.
We will be led into the elections by the new presidency from the Czech Republic, which takes over on 1 January 2009. The results will mean a big shake-up, with 50-60% new members taking their seats at Brussels, all driving through their new ideas and agendas. I am very much hoping that Conservatives will win four seats in the Eastern Region, including a female member, Vicky Ford.
The election will be held in June and its mandate will focus on many important subjects close to my heart – the environment, the Doha agreement, free trade and food labelling. All these issues will have an important impact on all our lives. They might seem far removed to citizens in East Anglia at the moment, but the implications of these important EU legislations are crucially important on a local level, as well as globally.
For example, let’s consider the stalled talks on the Doha World Trade Organisation which was launched in 2001. This is increasingly important now at a time when the world is suffering from financial crisis. One of the best ways round this would be to ensure we have a free trade agreement because that helps movement of goods, it puts people back in employment and benefits everyone. These talks have been going on for seven years and I have great concerns about whether we will get a settlement in the foreseeable future.
Much of the difficulties are caused by America and India. The new president elect, Barack Obama, has in the past in the run up to the American presidential election talked very protectionist; he has said he would look after the mid-West. At the same time, India is trying to protect its agriculture, and does not feel comfortable with the Obama rhetoric, so there is a big clash between the two countries about agriculture. The Americans also wants access to the Indian market, not just on agriculture, but on services and public procurement, so it clearly makes sense to reach an agreement as early as possible.
As an international trade spokesman, I am also trying to help EU countries gain access to markets in other countries, for example in Canada, Japan and China, so they can bid for public procurement contracts, such as building railways, new roads and telecoms. These are all national industries which need public tenders, but at the moment we are not allowed to tender for Canadian or Japanese quotes. We just missed a huge quote on the Toronto underground that European countries could have won.
I believe we are good at what we do. I believe we can beat the world on a lot of the products we produce, particularly our transport and rail network goods which could be exported to many countries. You have only got to look at Strasbourg where the European Parliament sits a few days each month. All the trams in Strasbourg were made in York. But unfortunately, York Carriage Works has closed – highlighting a great loss of traditional skills which must kept in order to be competitive.
I plan to continue pursuing vital talks on this issue to open up new gateways of opportunity for the whole of the EU, and I hope they will benefit my highly skilled constituents in the Eastern Region too.I shall continue to fight for common sense regarding the banning of pesticides which have not been proven scientifically to be harmful to human health or the environment. It is plain lunacy to hinder productive crop yields at a time when there are serious concerns about future food security.
I also feel passionately about the need for clear food labelling. This was made even more apparent by the recent situation in Ireland when supermarkets were unable to trace whether pork products on their shelves were produced in Ireland, in the EU, or for that matter imported and processed in the EU. It is clear that we must have transparent labelling, and even in some cases it should state the region of origin: I’m thinking about labels which say Scotch beef, or Welsh lamb, for example. Canada has a product called Parma ham, but it is produced in Canada, and not from Italy, it’s main country of origin.
So my message is, let’s try and get a settlement on Doha we can move forward; if we can get more trading of goods across the world, this will result in better prospects and a better chance of more jobs in the UK and EU.
I look forward to a bright new year. It will be difficult, let’s be clear it is going to be difficult time, but I think the opportunities are great.