William Hague spells out plans for EU Scrutiny

UK Foreign Minister, William Hague this week sent a warning shot to the European Union – the sovereignty of the British parliamentary system is paramount and any future EU treaty will be put to a referendum – by law.
Mr Hague was giving his keynote speech on foreign affairs at the Conservative Party Conference and he underlined the government’s commitment to introduce an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972 to ensure that any treaties “giving away power” would be put to a public vote before ratification. This would put the UK on the same footing as Ireland. The Irish have voted on any new EU treaty since 1987. The Foreign Secretary also said he would follow through on his election promise to introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Act – making it clear where the ultimate authority in the UK lies.

Party conference is a great opportunity for any politician to play to the gallery and Mr. Hagues’ tough words on Europe was music to their ears. However, on re-reading his speech, his bark was much worse than his bite.
After the traumatic ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, there is no appetite in the EU or in any of it member states for another institutional treaty.
At the Conservative Party conference in 2009, there were calls for a referendum on the repatriation of powers in the field of employment and judicial affairs. It was believed that this could strengthen a Conservative Government’s hand in demanding opt-outs in those areas.

The Conservatives, now in office, seem to have backed off from attempts to renegotiate shared competences with the EU. This may be because they are sharing power with the more euro-enthusiastic Liberal Democrats in a coalition government. It might also be because it would be just too difficult – and may even undermine any attempts to get a good deal from the on-going bargaining over the EU budget.
All that was left for Mr Hague to say on Tuesday in Birmingham was to say that his government would, “reaffirm once and for all the sovereignty of our ancient parliament”, I suppose to protect the legislature from encroaching demands from Brussels.

Again, this is not such a radical departure from what is already acknowledged elsewhere in Europe. One of the reasons for the delay in ratifying Lisbon was that the German constitutional courts had been asked to rule on whether the Lisbon Treaty would have any effect on the sovereignty of the Bundestag.
Mr Hague pointed out to party representatives, “EU law has effect in this country because - and solely because - Parliament wills that it should. Parliament passed the 1972 European Communities Act…..I can tell you today that we will legislate this autumn to underline that. A sovereignty clause on EU law will place on the statute book this eternal truth: what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can also undo.”

This has been met with some bemusement in Brussels where it is considered that the Lisbon Treaty actually offers a greater role for national parliaments to block EU legislation. Indeed there is some frustration in the European Commission that there is not enough scrutiny of EU laws by national assemblies. The scrutiny committees in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons are under-resourced and lack the time and political weight to properly scrutinize European legislation.
Mr Hague does acknowledge that the new sovereignty clause is hardly ground-breaking. He says, “It will not alter the existing order in relation to EU law. But it will put the matter beyond speculation…This clause will enshrine this key principle in the law of the land.”

So the foreign secretary’s speech does not herald a departure with the UK’s relationship with the EU. Brussels can breathe a collective sigh of relief. The coalition government’s package of EU policies amounts to little more than symbolism.
Messrs. Cameron and Hague had successfully buried the issue of the Lisbon Treaty during the general election campaign, they still run the risk of encouraging the euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative Party to amend the Sovereignty Bill during its parliamentary passage. The Conservative leadership will be desperate to contain this prospect since it would not only put the UK on a collision course with Brussels but also create tensions with their Liberal Democrat coalition partners.
Given their political limitations, the Conservative leadership will need to look elsewhere to restrict the expansion of EU decision-making post-Lisbon. David Cameron has hinted at negotiating the application of the “so-called” passerelle clause in the Lisbon Treaty.

This article allows the European Council to switch decision-making from unanimity to qualified majority (but not in foreign affairs or defence). This could significantly widen the scope of EU influence. However, Gordon Brown had already negotiated the insertion of a provision that the passerelle cannot be used without the agreement of both houses of Parliament.

So what red meat is left for the euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative Party?
Firstly, the UK is notorious for gold-plating EU directives. Where other Member States implement the spirit of the directive, the UK follows it to the last letter.
Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty envisaged national parliaments playing a fuller role in EU legislative scrutiny. However, the EU scrutiny committees in the Houses of Parliament are under-resourced – and although there is a wealth of talent in the House of Lords committee, it is difficult to find experienced MPs wanting to serve on the Commons committee. The Committees should initiate debate on draft directives before they are adopted by the EU institutions.

In Denmark, parliamentary committees mandate ministers on the line they should take in EU negotiations. And ministers are then required to report back to their committee after their Council meeting. Of course, this would not work quite so well in the UK. However, we do have some talented MEPs in Brussels and the scrutiny committees could and should invite them to take part on a regular basis.
For the Conservatives, the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation is clearly important. They are restricted in their ambitions despite some grand-sounding initiatives. However, the new government could make a real impact by improving the scrutiny mechanisms already available to them.

Will the UK sign up to European Economic Governance?

Brussels was brought to a standstill yesterday by 100,000 trade unionists from across Europe who were demonstrating against plans being drawn up by the European Commission that would penalise member state governments that fail to rein in their deficits.

Trade Unions across Europe are concerned that the fiscal conditions being placed on Member State governments by the EU will lead to more job losses and threaten economic growth.

The conditions are being drawn up to ease market fears over unsustainable public spending after the “shock and awe” €750billion plan to protect the Eurozone from collapsing during the weekend of May 7-9th.

The Commission believes that the €110bn EU bail-out of Greece earlier this year shows that without any fiscal union there is no guarantee that the whole system won’t fall apart when a shock hits the system. Olli Rehn, the Commissioner for monetary affairs has said: “We need stronger and better EU economic policy co-ordination”. In other words; more economic governance. And this spells trouble for the UK’s relations with the EU.

For now, the idea of more EU “economic governance” has not registered in the UK. It is seen as a Eurozone response to a Eurozone problem.

However, the German Chancellor is insisting that it should be a matter for all 27 Member States. This is to ensure that the French don’t get it all their own way. Germany is concerned that France will form a political bloc with the more “fiscally-relaxed” member states rather than agree to serious structural economic reforms. France is more ambitious about fiscal union but not so keen on the budgetary constraints that Germany is insisting on.

There are inevitably conflicting views on what economic governance would look like. If applies to all of the EU27 Member States, then the UK will want to see a minimalist framework – a sort of code of good fiscal conduct. However, BusinessEurope – the employer’s federation want to see co-ordination of demographic pressures on pensions, stress-testing of public finances and monitoring of labour, product, services and capital markets.

The European Central Bank has not shied away from proposing a radical agenda for European control of deficit and spending. In June this year, the ECB proposed an independent EU fiscal agency to monitor public finances; financial sanctions and the even removal of voting rights in EU institutions.

The ECB believed that Member States had not been stringent enough in applying the fiscal rules that exist. Apart from ignoring the pressures that governments were under to revive their economies following the financial crisis, the ECB solution would be an unacceptable loss of fiscal autonomy. Its response is that Greece had de facto lost fiscal autonomy after it was bailed out.

But member states are not going to give up the fiscal controls that easily. What might be more acceptable is the Commission’s less ambitious plans to synchronise preparations of national budgets. The idea is that governments would submit national economic programmes to the Commission every April. Commission experts will look at the plans and advise the Council, which in turn will issue country-specific policy guidance in July. Only then would member states finalise their budgets and present to their national parliaments.

This arrangement was agreed in September but the UK managed to get a concession and the UK government will continue to present the budget first to the House of Commons and only then would it submit the budget to the Commission and Council “for their consideration”.

The Coalition Government in the UK is looking on with some trepidation. The Conservative Prime Minister and Chancellor will be resistant to anything that smacks of undermining national fiscal autonomy. The LibDem deputy Prime Minister and Business Secretary are likely to see some merit in better fiscal co-ordination. Divisions within the coalition on Europe will, at last, surface after the governments best efforts to ignore their differences.

Sarkozy’s “Blustery Spat” over EU Rebuke

Tempers are still frayed in the Berlaymont this week. Nerves are still raw and noses not yet quite back into joint following what was probably the most ill-tempered working lunch of Europe’s leaders for a long time.

Despite the earnest agenda that had been prepared, the heads of government from the EU’s 27 Member States had to restrain themselves from turning the European Council lunch into a bun fight.

Instead of using the opportunity to flesh out the EU’s foreign policy post-Lisbon or develop new measures on economic governance following the Euro-crisis, the lunch, according to the FT, instead turned “into a blustery spat” over France’s expulsion – or voluntary relocation scheme - of Roma.

Put simply, the European Commission believes this contravenes the sacred cows of free movement for EU nationals and non-discrimination of EU nationals. The Roma that were sent back to Romania are EU nationals and the Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship – and Vice President of the Commission to boot, Madame Viviane Reding is on the warpath.

At first, the formidable Mme Reding was measured in her response to President Sarkozy’s initiative to offer money to Roma who had set up camps in France. It was when she claimed to have found out that the French Government were being “duplicitous” in what they had been telling the Commission, she went nuclear. The Commission Vice President said that the policy was worthy of Vichy France.

This did not go down too well in Paris. President Sarkozy bounded into Brussels last week for the Council Summit looking for a show-down with the Commission – something which always plays well at home.

Sarkozy slammed Viviane Reding for her "deeply shocking" and "insulting" comments. However, he couldn’t help himself from going further. He suggested that perhaps Luxembourg – Mme Reding’s Member State – would want to accommodate Roma travellers. This only undermined his position that France was well within its rights and that it was an infringement of national sovereignty to order the Government to change policy that had been designed to crack down on crime and disorder.

Although President Barroso tried to quell the dispute, he was forced to defend his Vice President when President Sarkozy harangued him in front of EU leaders. The result? Mme Reding apologised only for the Vichy remark. President Barroso stood his ground on the substantive allegations that were levelled at the French Government.

President Sarkozy was publicly isolated. He had failed to rally any political support from his European colleagues. It was a shame that serious issues around economic governance and EU foreign policy were sidelined.

However some fundamental principles were re-established. The Council President Herman Van Rompuy concluded that the European Commission has the responsibility of overseeing the application of EU law in the areas of freedom of movement and non-discrimination.

Another positive result for the Commission was an invitation from the Summit to the Commission to write the strategy for Roma travellers.

As for M. Sarkozy, he was sent back to the Palace Elysee with his tail between his legs, facing the prospect of Mme Reding taunting him with infringement procedures for contravening EU laws.

Another Day, Another Euro

There has been some ill-informed nonsense written about the Euro since Greece was bailed out with the help of Eurozone members.

Some economists, who should know better, claimed that the crisis would spread to other vulnerable euro countries like Italy and Spain; that these countries would have no choice but to leave the single currency and that even Germany might walk away and start printing Deutschmarks again.

However, the Euro is much stronger than that - and is designed to withstand such shocks. It can, of course, be improved by enforcing strict deficit rules and by creating, which it now is, an emergency bail-out fund. What does not need to happen is any so-called economic governance. National budgets should not be subject to ECOFIN approval and tax policy should remain a useful competitive tool not be remotely part of any european fiscal union. The European Central Bank however does need to be more political in interest rate decisions and take into account more inflationary pressures in a Euro member state that is struggling. But thats as far as it goes.

I resisted joining in the clamour for quick fix solutions and rather stood back and watch the debate burn itself out. The Greek crisis has been dealt with and the Euro moves on

I read with interest some opinion polls which shows that two thirds of voters noe believe the EU is more relevant than ever following the financial crisis. thsi is remarkable considering no-one particularly liked being asked to bail out the Greek system as though it were some kind of perverse award for their fecklessness.

It was unfortunate that UK Deputy PM used the excuse of the Greek financial crisis as the reason why he changed his mind on the urgency of austere deficit cuts. Regardless, none of this of course excuses the fact that he campaigned to win Lib Dem votes without telling his voters that he had changed his mind.

What is also strange is that the Conservatives did not join on the bandwagon and launch a tirade against the Euro just when it was at its weakest. Perhaps this can be explained by the realisation that a weakened EU was not in the UK's interests. david Cameron himself said so during a visit to Paris shortly after becoming Premier.

Observers are mystified as to just how muted Cameron, Hague and Osborne have been on Europe - especially when there is a real chance to put the boot in.

The junior coalition partners can be credited for keeping the eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives reined in but how long can this last? At a Progress meeting in the House of Commons, chaired by the new MP for Wolverhampton, Emma Reynolds, Labour Party members came together to find ways of putting a wedge in the coalition on the issue of Europe. While every-one agreed that Europe is not a priority for voters, it is the coalition's achille's heel. Although there is no sign yet of a coalition split Labour is watching closely for any sign of fracture.


The Coalition Government's approach to the EU and its key partners has been surprising but commendable. But dont be fooled. It does not mark any shift of the Conservatives policies on Europe. It is pure RealPolitik. There was genuine fear that the weakened Euro would drag the UK back into a recession. But here we are - out of the storm. Another Day - another Euro. The single currency carries on.

The European Union – the policy that dares not speak its name

The second in a series of three party leader debates, last week, featured the thorny issue of the role of the UK in the European Union – or as the broadcaster, Sky News put it EU interference in the UK.

It presented front-runner, the Conservative leader, David Cameron with an opportunity to claw back some ground lost to Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader who dramatically stole Mr Cameron’s thunder in the first leaders’ debate. The Liberal Democrats are considered to be soft on the European Union and David Cameron’s more sceptical position was thought to hold more appeal to wavering voters. However, to the dismay of Conservative supporters, Mr Cameron decidedly failed to land a killer-blow on the Liberal Democrat leader.

This can only be explained by Mr Cameron’s determination to keep the question of the EU on the margins of his election campaign. In 2001, the Conservatives under the leadership of William Hague put their EU policies – particularly on the Euro – at the centre of their campaign and failed to gain any ground on Labour as a result. Mr Cameron has learnt the lesson from this doomed campaign and has so far avoided the issue of the EU as much as possible for fear of exposing the divisions in his party concerning Europe.

Rather than going in for the kill, Mr Cameron spent his time during the debate on Europe defending the Conservative Party’s position from Nick Clegg’s accusations that the Conservatives would put the UK on the sidelines. Gordon Brown gave the goldilocks pitch of dismissing both his opponents approach on Europe – the Liberal Democrats for being to hot on Brussels, the Conservatives for being to cold. Labour, he said, has it just about right.

Mr Cameron told viewers that he wanted to repatriate certain powers from the EU, although he didn’t elaborate on how or where he would try to negotiate opt-outs. The Conservative party manifesto suggests that criminal justice is one such area where they would try to claw back more national sovereignty. The Liberal Democrat manifesto, by contrast, favours more EU co-operation on criminal justice and homeland security.

The Conservative leader repeated his promise that he would hold a referendum if there was ever another change to the institutional relationship between the UK and the EU. However, this failed to differentiate him from the canny Mr Clegg who also offers the same deal. Nick Clegg even rattled Mr Cameron when he reminded the audience that he dropped his “cast-iron” guarantee for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty once the treaty was finally ratified.

David Cameron was clear about the Conservative’s policy to refuse entry to the single currency. But again, he could not score points against his Liberal Democrat opponents who had modified their position in support of the single currency by adding Gordon Brown’s caveats that the country should join “only when the economic conditions were right” and even then only after a positive referendum result.

Mr Clegg ‘s strategy was clearly to marginalise Mr Cameron on his decision to leave the Centre-Right EPP Group in the European Parliament and form a group with – as he calls them - a “bunch of nutters”. This allowed Gordon Brown to dismiss Cameron’s Conservatives simply as anti-European.

Perhaps it was a mistake for Mr Clegg to remind the audience of his understanding of the European Union from his days as a “Eurocrat” adviser to the former Trade Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, but Mr Clegg was savvy enough to know that he shouldn’t try to sound as Euro-sceptical as the Conservatives might have done just to appeal to the gallery. Instead, he articulated the case for stronger EU co-operation to help bring about stronger financial service regulation and action on climate change.

Mr Brown took a low-key approach but nevertheless repeated the Blairite offer of putting the UK at the heart of Europe and not on the sidelines. He stuck to a pragmatic defence of the EU, repeatedly claiming that three million jobs depended on UK membership.

Both Mr Clegg and Mr Brown performed as they had been expected to by those familiar with their EU policies. The only surprise of the Europe debate was that Mr Cameron took trouble to tone down his more euro-sceptic views – which for many, should have been his strongest card of the evening, certainly in trying to find some clear blue water between himself and his main threat Mr Clegg. His most effective intervention on the issue of Europe came during a discussion on immigration where he promised a cap on the number of people from newly-joined EU countries settling in the UK.

The three main parties’ manifesto commitments on the EU vary only in so far as tone. With the Lisbon Treaty out of the way, and the single currency only a distant prospect, the manifestos could comfortably avoid making any substantive policy decisions one way or the other.

The Conservative’s policy pledges emphasise the role of the US and NATO “as the ultimate guarantee on Europe’s Security.” Labour, however sees the UK playing a strong role in European defence, in “partnership with NATO.” The Labour Party manifesto points at “the poverty of the Tory vision […] summed by their false choice between alliance with the United States and one with Europe.”

It suits Labour of course to paint the Conservatives as being on the fringes of mainstream decision-making in Europe. It describes David Cameron’s decision to take his MEPs out of the Centre-Right Group, the EPP (the largest Group in the Parliament) as “anti-European” and would only undermine Britain’s influence in the EU. However, Gordon Brown left it to Nick Clegg in the TV debate to turn on David Cameron for allying the Conservatives with niche political parties in the European Union.

The manifesto commitments on Europe were successful in keeping the issue low on the electoral agenda and the Leader’s debate also succeeded in creating a full-blown clash on the UK’s position in Europe. The only surprise from both the manifestos and the debates on Europe is that David Cameron restrained himself from a full-blooded eurosceptic attack on his new nemesis, the Euro-friendly Nick Clegg. He did, however, allow himself to repeat more than once the slogan from the 2001 election campaign, “In Europe but not run by Europe”.

Ashton Critics seize on “half-baked” Euro-Diplomacy Service. Can the Baroness Survive the Onslaught?

European Union Foreign Ministers are meeting today (26 April 2010) in Luxembourg to consider controversial proposals prepared by Baroness Ashton for a new External Action Service (EAS) which will be responsible for all EU diplomatic services around the world. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy desperately needs approval from Member States for her EAS blue-print which has been dogged by criticism for its proposed structure and budgets.

The High Representative has published new proposals a month after her original plan issued on March 25th, was roundly slammed for creating the role of an all-powerful Secretary-General. The new structure sees a triumvirate running the 7,000- strong service. One of the triumvirates would deputise for her at official diplomatic visits. It is not known whether this would be another Commissioner, with a remit in external policy – or even a Foreign Minister from one of the Member States. The Lisbon Treaty does not provide for an official deputy but the three posts are expected to be occupied by heavy-weights in order to give the High Representative the support she clearly needs if she is to make the EAS a success.

The new structure, already provisionally agreed by ambassadors to the EU, is designed to reflect the prevailing interests of the Commission and the Council in EU foreign policy – the Commission, because it is still reluctant to relinquish control over budgets for delegations to countries around the world; and the Council because Member States retain full responsibilities for their foreign policies. However, the new command structure, while trying to accommodate both the Council and the Commission, runs the risk of creating further confusion over who is running the EU’s foreign policy.

A more immediate concern for Baroness Ashton is the growing criticism from MEPs over the lack of accountability of the new EAS. A German Christian Democrat MEP, Ingeborg Graessle, has said that the Ashton proposals are in violation of European laws since they do not provide for any accountability to the European Commission or to the European Parliament.

German MEP Elmar Brok, who is responsible for writing the European Parliament’s report on the proposals, has threatened to pull the plug on the proposals if they are not changed to improve accountability to the Parliament. MEPs refuse to believe the claim by Baroness Ashton will be budget-neutral (ie: would not cost more than the costs of the structure that it will replace). The European Parliament has the power to block the budget for the EAS if it does not agree to its proposed structure.

Once foreign ministers give their approval to the plans today, attention will turn to MEPs who are already critical not just of the plans but also of the architect. The proposals are seen as an important test of the credibility of the newly-appointed High Representative – who just four months into office, has been dismissed by many as a “lightweight” and could even bring about her downfall.

Cathy Ashton took office as soon as the Lisbon Treaty was ratified and was the UK’s candidate for the role after British Foreign Secretary turned it down.

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was criticized at home for nominating some-one who had so little experience on the international stage. Baroness Ashton was appointed Trade Commissioner only when Lord Mandelson was recalled to Government. It was also seen as a victory for the French who were free to put their man – Michel Barnier – in the coveted Internal Market Commissioner position. Stephen Booth, Director of the Brussels and London think tank “Open Europe” dismissed her as a “complete lightweight”.

The French Foreign Minister, Bernard Savage immediately criticized Baroness Ashton for failing to turn up in Haiti to fly the EU flag after the earthquake. She told journalists she didn’t do “disaster tourism”. She was also criticized by the French Europe Minister, Pierre Lelouche for going to Ukraine for the inauguration of the pro-Russian Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovich rather than a major European defence conference in Majorca. The French have also criticized her for going to London every weekend and having de-briefing sessions on a Friday at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

On 8th March, The High Representative faced down her critics at a meeting of European foreign ministers in Córdoba. Her position had been so badly weakened, she took with her a letter signed by David Miliband and Swedish foreign secretary Carl Bildt saying that EU foreign ministers should get behind her and her plans for the EAS. The storm abated for a short while, before the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy summoned her to the Elysée Palace where he reportedly gave her a dressing down for “amateurism” and, quelle horreur - having such a poor command of French. Monsieur Lelouche made an impertinent offer to arrange a residential French language class for the High Representative.

However, to British ears, the sniping sounded like Paris begrudged losing control of international diplomacy – a policy sphere that France guarded jealously. And given that she needed time to learn the ropes, Baroness Ashton was given the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, the negative response to her proposals for the EAS has put Baroness Ashton in a very dangerous place. Der Spiegel last week reports that there is a growing body of MEPs from across the political spectrum who question whether she is the right person for the job. With a basic salary of €323,000, she is the world’s highest paid female politician and MEPs wonder whether she is out of her depth.

The European People’s Party – a coalition of European Centre-Right parties in the European Parliament – have been sceptical about Baroness Ashton’s capabilities from the outset. Not long after she was approved by the European Parliament, an official spokesperson for the EPP Chairman, Joseph Daul went on record as saying; “We expect a lot from the position of High Representative. So far she has not met that level of expectation. We are not trying to destroy her but want an improvement in her work.” He even was far as saying; “It’s not right to assume she is there for five years. She can be removed. Something must change.”

Political point-scoring alone cannot explain the Ashton-bashing. The EPP cannot get rid of her and have her replaced by one of their own – the deal was always going to be a Centre Left High Representative in return for living with a Centre-Right President – Mr Van Rompuy. It cannot be explained either by Anglophobia since the French were happy with securing the Internal Market portfolio for Michel Barnier and in fact the French President had even boasted that they had beaten the British in securing the job. The only explanation is turf-war politics – The French and Germans want a say in the appointment of key EU ambassadors in the new EAS, concerned that it will become a British Foreign Office writ large. It doesn’t help either that in addition, the Commission President is behind a power grab for the EU aid and development funds.

There are some signs of encouragement for Baroness Ashton’s supporters. Its been acknowledged in diplomatic circles that she has developed a chemistry with US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton and that the appointment of Poul Skytte Christofferon, former Danish Ambassador to the EU, as her special adviser, is considered generally as a good thing.

Nevertheless, there is a real threat that the Baroness might not survive much longer. Brussels is watching the UK election very closely to see what will happen. Should Labour lose the General Election in the UK, she would lose the support of her biggest backer. Her detractors could petition for her replacement – perhaps with David Milliband, the outgoing British Foreign Secretary.

Lib-Dems and Labour come together to expose Tory weaknesses on Europe

Last night the Liberal Democrats and Labour came together to present a progressive common cause united against the reactionary forces of Conservatisim. Or at least it was an opportunity for them to steal a march on a Tory policy that seems doggedly rooted in the Major years untouched by the uber-modernising David Cameron.

Chris Bryant MP, Europe Minister and Ed Davey MP- Lib Dem Shadow Foreign Minister spoke at a Westminister event last night on the issue of the Conservative Party's policy on Europe. And they started with Tory MEPs record in the European Parliament.

They said that in the last few weeks Tory MEPs have voted against measures to tackle tax evasion and tax havens.

Chris Bryant warned that if the Conservatives win the election they will do everything in their power to get opt-outs on EU social protection measures such as maternity leave.

Ed Davey wents as far as calling many Tories "mouth-frothing xenophobes. He said that the Conservatives were actually taking a step back into out-right euro-scepticism. Michael Howard when Home Secretary actually helped set up Europol. Now the Tories oppose the European Arrest Warrant and Eurojuste. As part of the Stockholm Process, the Uk will have the choice to opt-in or opt-out of measures over teh next five years. We should be asking the question now - what will the Conservatives do if elected - opt-in or out of Eurojuste?

If David Cameron thinks that he has got rid of Europe as an election issue by dumping his cast-iron guarantee for a referendum, then last night showed that both Labour and the Lib Dems are willing to open a common front and make the Conservatives squirm a little over what exactly they intend to do on some very critical questions.