EU Decide: 'Tonight', ITV1, 8pm

In recent weeks, ITV's Tonight programme - hosted by Sir Trevor McDonald - has staged a referendum on the European Union in the town of Luton.

Three thousand local residents were given the chance to vote 'Yes' or 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty, and whether to stay in or come out of the EU.

The Democracy Movement was asked to lead the 'No' side, and supporting DM activists on the campaign trail were the Labour MP for Luton North, Kelvin Hopkins, together with Thomas Rupp and Gayle Kinkead from the European Referendum Campaign.

Music producer and Pop Idol judge Pete Waterman also pledged his support for a 'No' vote, as did Bob Crow - RMT union leader and chair of Trade Unionists Against the EU Constitution.

During the campaign, the DM argued that:

1. The EU costs Luton: Britain pays far more to the EU than we get back -
£6 billion more every year, from 2007, equivalent to £115 million every single week. This means that for any money a Luton project receives from the EU, our government has sent more than twice that amount to the EU in the first place. The DM also focussed in particular on the EU's role in local post office closures.

2. The Lisbon Treaty is about centralising even more important decisions in unelected Brussels institutions. It means more ineffective and often damaging interference by the EU in how we manage big issues like our energy supplies, National Health Service, criminal justice and transport; a significant loss of influence over new EU laws; the EU becoming more like a country in its own right; more powers for the EU police force EuroPol; and much more. Yet the treaty does nothing to reform the EU's failing environmental policies, won't solve widespread waste and corruption, and doesn't make the EU more democratic.

3. There is a better way. Trade and co-operation between European countries is perfectly possible without having to pass ever more decisions over our lives to remote EU institutions in Brussels. The DM used the opportunity of the referendum to launch a new leaflet and campaign titled Break Free from the outdated EU, these leaflets being distributed during the campaign alongside a locally-focussed flyer.

The launch of campaigning was reported on ITV's Anglia News - a video clip can be seen here. During the campaign, DM campaign director Marc Glendening also took on the European Movement's Peter Luff on Chiltern FM and BBC Three Counties radio. The event also received widespread coverage in the local media.

The edition of the Tonight programme about this referendum - EU Decide - will be shown this evening on ITV1 at 8pm, having been postponed from its originally scheduled slot last Monday. Don't forget to watch, to find out how we got on.

Luton 'Yes' campaign challenged over PO closures

Ahead of the final few days of campaigning in the Luton EU referendum being organised by ITV's Tonight programme, the DM's Marc Glendening has challenged the 'Yes' camp to a public debate over the EU's role in local post office closures. Marc's letter in the Luton on Sunday newspaper reads:

Madam,

As the organiser for the 'no' campaign in the ITV Luton EU Referendum campaign, can I challenge my opponents on the 'yes' side, through your paper, to a public debate on the issue of local post office closures?

The EU has enforced two postal services directives, as well as several procurement directives, which have had the effect of stripping the Royal Mail of its profit-making areas. Big companies have moved in and won the tenders.

This is why 2,500 post offices across the country, including five in Luton, are no longer economically viable.

The crisis confronting this aspect of national life is one example of how laws made in Brussels, by institutions that are politically unaccountable to ordinary voters in the member countries, can have devastating effects.

These laws cannot be reversed by our elected representatives as EU law is legally superior to decisions made by national parliaments.

I would be interested to know how those campaigning for more powers to be transferred to the EU through the Lisbon Treaty can possibly justify this to the people of Luton.

My opponents can name the date and place where this debate can take place. My organisation, the Democracy Movement, will be happy to pay the full costs of the meeting.

Marc Glendening
Campaign director
Democracy Movement, Hammersmith Road, London

Three thousand Luton voters are taking part in the referendum. Votes must be returned by post to arrive by 5pm on Thursday 9 October. The programme will be broadcast on ITV at 8pm, Monday 13 October.

Mandelson's return to the Cabinet

Commentators are struggling to explain the surprise return of Peter Mandelson to the Cabinet.

This is the man who was twice previously forced to resign from the government over a loan from a ministerial colleague and then allegations of misconduct regarding a passport application for the Hinduja brothers.

Theories being bandied around include Gordon Brown's desperation to access Mandelson's 'electoral skills' (but really ... how hard was it to score a big win in the 1997 general election?).

More ridiculous is the 'all hands on deck' spin that his experience as EU Trade Commissioner is so invaluable towards easing the credit crisis that it warrants him quitting the Commission immediately and becoming Business Secretary.

So could the shock move in fact, just possibly, have anything to do with this - internal EU circles perhaps having since ascertained that its implications run wider than at first apparent from the Sunday Times piece?

Could there have emerged an urgent need to avoid a top-level scandal and damaging resignation for the EU at this delicate, treaty-faltering time - and Gordon has helped the EU out of a tight spot?

Perhaps we'd better look forward to the public release of the conclusions of the promised "comprehensive and thorough" investigation into that interesting case of Mr Mandelson's corrupt official.

EU heading for 14th successive audit failure

Siim Kallas, the EU Commissioner for "Audit and Anti-Fraud", has pre-empted the forthcoming verdict of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and revealed that the Court will once again refuse to give their approval to the EU's accounts.

The ECA report into the 2007 figures, due 10 November, will make it 14 years in a row in which the EU has failed to have its spending cleared by auditors.

Earlier this year, a majority of MPs unjustifiably approved a government deal to increase Britain's payments to the EU by more than 60%. The deal included giving up £7 billion of Britain's EU rebate between 2007-2013.

As a result of that deal, on average Britain is now paying £6 billion more into the EU budget every year than we get back in grants and subsidies. This is an astonishing £115 million every single week.

European Voice reports that auditors will say they found only a slight improvement in the legality and regularity of EU spending between the financial years 2006 and 2007.

Speaking to MEPs, Kallas admitted that there were “real and unquestioned” weaknesses in 17 areas including research policy, the European refugee fund, structural funds, external actions and rural development.

How many years of EU audit failure will it take before MPs take action to halt this mis-spending of public money on a grand scale?

Until this happens, those MPs who approve of continuing to lavish more than a hundred million pounds a week on the EU despite annual audit failures and regular reports of EU waste and fraud must take full responsibility when public money runs out for essential public services or council tax rises in their constituencies.

Islands give Finland EU treaty problem

The Aland Islands - an autonomous territory of Finland - have joined Ireland, the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland as a further thorn in the EU's side over ratification of the discredited Lisbon Treaty.

According to EUobserver, the government of the Islands is demanding certain concessions from Helsinki in return for ratifying the treaty, on which the 30-member strong Aland parliament is expected to vote this Autumn.

Although Finland has been able to ratify the EU treaty without the consent of the Aland parliament, Finland's minister responsible for the islands - the former MEP Astrid Thors - has said that the Alands' refusal would lead to an "unclear situation."

Finland would be put in the awkward situation of not being able to guarantee the implementation of the treaty throughout the whole of its territory.

The Islands' four demands include direct access to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), a seat in the European Parliament and participation in the work of the Council of Ministers with some control over the (sham) principle of 'subsidiarity'.

But Helsinki is only offering the possibility of Aland being given some sort of speaking rights within the EU, together with the drawing up of "Aland document" that would commit the Finnish government to "listen to Aland's point of view."

Vice-President of the Aland parliament, Susanne Eriksson, also told EurActiv that the Islands' answer on ratification "will depend on what happens to the Treaty overall".

The Islands rejected the original EU Constitution because it was politically dead and Ms Eriksson noted that, following the Irish 'no', they could also consider the Lisbon Treaty to be dead already and decide to reject it for that reason.

The clash stems from upset on the Islands caused recently by the European Commission's demand that the sale of 'snuss', a traditional form of chewing tobacco, be banned.

When the Islanders refused on the grounds that health in the Alands is not controlled by Finnish laws but the Islands' own, the Commission took Finland to the ECJ and imposed a €2 million (£1.6m) fine.

The Aland parliament is expected to hold expert hearings on the treaty into early September.

The confused Norman Baker

The Daily Mail today shouts from its front page that the Lib Dem MP for Lewes, Norman Baker, is spearheading a campaign for MPs to ditch their traditional oath of allegiance.

Supporting the campaign purportedly on the grounds that their 'principal duty' should be allegiance to the people who voted for them rather than the Queen are 22 MPs from all three main parties, but reportedly including only a single Conservative.

A full list of these supporting MPs isn't given. Yet what's the betting that most of these sudden adherents to representing their constituents and 'swearing allegiance to the nation' both didn't keep their manifesto promises to support a referendum on the EU Constitution and voted to approve that transfer of more decision-making powers to the EU?

At that time, countless polls showed that a large majority of people wanted a say on the treaty and opposed the transfer of more decision-making to the EU. How many of these MPs were so interested in representing their constituents then?

Norman "it's a matter of democracy" Baker himself certainly wasn't. In line with the instructions of his party leader, Nick Clegg, he didn't bother to vote in support of a referendum on the EU Constitution's "substantially equivalent" successor, the Lisbon Treaty, but he did vote to approve the treaty.

Wouldn't MPs keeping clear promises on which they were elected and taking their own manifestos seriously be a far greater contribution to improving democracy than gimmicky campaigns to tinker with oaths?

Record year for inward investment

The government's trade and investment body - UK Trade and Investment - has revealed that 2007-8 was another highly successful year for Britain in attracting investment from overseas companies.

A record 1,573 investment projects were won in what marks a fifth consecutive year of growth.

According to the figures, 45,051 new jobs were created and a further 58,488 safeguarded as a result of this continuing success.

The results are in stark contrast to the scare-mongering some years ago by the government and pro-euro figures that investment would dry up if we didn't scrap the pound and hand over greater control of the economy to the EU.

Car industry success

During the euro debate, particular focus was placed on whether car manufacturers like Nissan, Honda and Toyota would maintain their operations in Britain if we didn't join the euro.

Not only have they stayed, but they have been increasing their investment in manufacturing operations here.

Back in May 2007, Nissan announced a £4.5m / 4,000 job investment in a new logistics centre at their factory in Sunderland - Europe's most productive car plant. More recently, 800 new jobs were created to support a third shift at the site.

Last year Toyota also announced an £88 million investment (pdf, page 4) to build a new petrol engine at its site in Deeside, North Wales, with production due to start in 2009.

And in March this year, Honda announced an £80 million investment in its manufacturing site in Swindon, where the company makes its Civic and CR-V models.

Vauxhall was another example being touted by the euro lobby of manufacturing at risk. But in 2007 the company announced that the new Astra model (pdf, page 4) would be built at their Ellesmere Port plant.

Since the euro membership debate died, big investments have also been made by German car giant BMW to build the new Mini in Oxford and the new Rolls Royce in Goodwood, and by Ford in their engine plants in Dagenham and Bridgend.

'Ringing endorsement'

Without a hint of self-consciousness about earlier claims, Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton said the results were "a ringing endorsement of the UK as an international investment destination, demonstrating that our compelling mix of a business friendly environment, political and economic stability, world-class talent, and a strong research and development base, is a powerful magnet for overseas companies."

Exactly all the points in Britain's favour that pro-pound groups were making, to argue that inward investment decisions depended far more on factors other than whether we joined the euro.

Lessons learnt?

It's obviously too much to expect for the government to have learnt lessons from such previous debates about the quality of their judgement in relation to the implications for Britain of refusing to hand further powers to the EU.

Having been utterly wrong about Britain's fate if we didn't join the euro, what big steps in EU power centralisation could they be similarly wrong about today?