Tag Archives: european parliament

December 13, 2012 · 9:53 am

The European Parliament approves EU-wide unitary patent rules

Inventors across the European Union will soon be able to get a unitary patent. After over 30 years of talks, a new regime will cut the cost of an EU patent by up to 80%, making it more competitive compared to the US and Japan.

The European Parliament today approved the so-called “EU patent package” (unitary patent, language regime and unified patent court).

Intellectual property obviously does not stop at borders. Today’s vote is good news for EU economy and especially for European small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

As a member of the European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee, I know that people in China are telling us that we cannot have a single market without a unitary patent. With the new rules a lot of obstacles for SMEs will be overcome.

The new patent will be cheaper and more effective than current systems in protecting the inventions of individuals and firms. Any inventor will be able to apply to the European Patent Organisation (EPO, a non-EU body) for an EU unitary patent valid in all 25 EU member states taking part. Patents will be made available in English, French and German. Applications will have to be made in English, German or French. If made in another language, they will have to be accompanied by a translation into one of these three languages. Renewal fees, which account for a large share of total costs, will be set at a level that takes account of the special needs of small firms, so that they can benefit fully from lower costs.

The international agreement creating a unified patent court will enter into force on 1 January 2014 or after thirteen contracting states ratify it, provided that UK, France and Germany are among them. The other two acts would apply from 1 January 2014, or from the date when the international agreement enters into force, whichever is the latest. Spain and Italy are currently outside the new regime, but could decide to join in at any time.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Labour Party

Tagged as , , ,

November 29, 2012 · 8:00 am

The EU budget explained

We are hearing a lot at the moment about the EU Budget and the wrangling surrounding it.  I thought it would be a good time to write a blog about what the EU Budget actually is and what could happen if no agreement is reached.

There are two different budgets in the European Union; one is the annual budget which sets spending levels each year.  The next, and the one causing the current controversy, is the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is a seven year spending plan for the EU. It defines the maximum amounts for each major category of spending (e.g. structural funds, agriculture, research and innovation and development spending).  The current MFF (2007-2013) is due to expire and an agreement must be reached on the new MFF by the end of the year. 

Though the negotiations are ongoing, the final budget, if it is agreed, will be in the region 0.8-1trillion euros for the entire seven year period.

That is a lot of money, but still only amounts to around 1% of the EU’s GDP; this is especially low when you consider that, at the national level, budgets in the EU average 50% of GDP.  Also, something worth pointing out is that none of this money is borrowed and contributes in no way to any national debt.

The budget is proposed by the European Commission and is then amended and approved by the European Council and European Parliament.  The European Council must pass the budget unanimously for it to go through.

At the moment the Commission is proposing what they call a “freeze” in the next MFF, using the 2013 maximum expenditure level plus 2% inflation. The Commission have also placed some items, for instance the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES), “off budget”, which will have to be paid for by the member states. 

The Council is split on the issue with the many of the net recipients wanting to go along with the Commission proposal (or higher) and the net contributors who want a smaller budget. Two groups emerged in the Council – “Friends of better spending” and “Friends of Cohesion”. The current Council proposal is for a EUR 79 billion cut compared to the Commission’s draft budget. The consequence of that would be to reduce the amount for structural funds (used to address inequalities between member states) from EUR 354 billion (2007-2013) to EUR 309 billion (2014-2020). CAP would also be reduced.

The European Parliament, which must approve the budget for it to pass, has made its position on the MFF clear. It believes that the level proposed by the Commission is not sufficient. The EP calls for an increase of at least 5% above the 2013 ceilings. The EP also voted in favour of scrapping rebates and correction mechanisms and reform of the own resources system (e.g. linking the EU budget to a financial transaction tax and new VAT tax).  The Labour members of the European Parliament, myself included, voted against the proposed 5% increase , preferring to support a real terms freeze.

As things stand now, if a compromise cannot be found, the maximum expenditure level, plus inflation, for the 2013 budget rolls over until an agreement can be reached.  This would result in a budget far exceeding the proposed real terms freeze.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Labour Party

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

November 22, 2012 · 9:28 am

No modern democracy without gender equality

A new coalition of MEPs has just been established with the aim of achieving a 50/50 gender balance across the European institutions. Supported by the European Women’s Lobby, the grouping intends to make sure there is parity between women and men after the 2014 European Elections.

Women make up over half the population of the EU, yet they are not represented equally in decision-making at the European level. Less than 35% of MEPs are women; the same figure applies to Commissioners. As the 50/50 declaration states, “a modern and genuine democracy requires gender equality; the equal representation of women and men in the making of decisions that affect their lives.”

MEPs are being asked to sign the following declaration. I very much hope there will be a strong response so we can look forward to success for 50/50 parity.

NO MODERN EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY WITHOUT GENDER EQUALITY

Introduction: Why is there a need for a cross-party coalition for 50/50 gender balance in all European institutions and a 50/50 campaign ahead of the EU 2014 elections?

In 2014, Europeans will elect a new European Parliament. Will there be gender balance among the MEPs? Will the President of the European Parliament be a woman after 13 years with male presidents?

We will also see a new European Commission led by its President. Will the Commission consist of 50% women and 50% men? Will the President be a woman for the first time?

Women represent more than half of the population of the EU, but they are not represented equally in decision-making at all European levels.

This current and lingering under-representation is a serious obstacle to the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. The EU states that equality between women and men is one of its main objectives and a fundamental value.

Moreover, gender equality in decision-making is mentioned as one of the priorities in the European Strategy for Equality between Women and Men 2010-2015 as well as in The European Pact for Gender Equality (2011-2020).

 Who are we and what are our aims?

To achieve 50/50 gender balance in the European institutions after the elections in 2014, a cross-party coalition of MEP’s came together with the support of the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) to make parity become a reality in the European institutions.

A modern and genuine democracy requires gender equality; the equal representation of women and men in the making of decisions that affect their lives. We are convinced it is high time for concrete actions ahead of the European elections in 2014! We believe that gender equality is a condition for modernising our political systems, so that women and men in their diversity equally share rights, responsibilities, and power. Gender equality should be at the heart of European initiatives to engage citizens in decision-making, to increase the legitimacy of the European Union, and to progress towards policies that reflect the needs and aspirations of all Europeans.

Our demands

We call for all decision-makers, individuals and organisations interested in the promotion of democracy and justice to support this campaign at all levels and across the boundaries of countries and political parties.

Each Member State should nominate one female and one male candidate for theCommissioner’s post as well as for all top jobs/positions in the EU institutions

Member States and the European Council are asked to promote and ensure gender parity in the executive board and in top positions of the European Central Bank

The European Parliament political groups are called upon to nominate one female and one male candidate for the president elections of the European Parliament, and to ensure gender parity in the nomination of chairpersons within the committees, as well as in the composition of their Bureaux.

The European political parties are called upon to promote and ensure gender representation in their bureaux/decisional bodies and promote women candidates for decision-making positions in the European Parliament

In view of the European elections 2014, national political parties are called upon to compose their electoral lists in a way that will ensure gender parity in outcome 

The European Council has to put women in policy decision-making/parity as a high level issue on the agenda. 

At the moment, less than 35% of Members of the European Parliament are women. The European Parliament has been chaired by a woman only twice. After themid-term elections 2012, only three of the 14Vice-Presidents of the Parliament are women. The President of the European Parliament is man. Nine out of 27 Commissioners are women.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Chapter III, Article 23 

Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay. The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex. TEU, Article 3.  It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Labour Party

Tagged as , , ,

November 21, 2012 · 2:58 pm

Farage Taken to Task for Lack of Work

Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgium Prime Minister and current leader of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), took Nigel Farage to task today for his lack of work in the parliament.  Mr Verhofstadt pointed out to Mr Farage that it his salary was the greatest waste of tax payers money as he has failed to attend a singe sitting of his committee (the fisheries committee) in two years.

3 Comments

Filed under Labour Party

Tagged as , , , , ,

· 9:53 am

Annual Report 2012

I have recently published my annual report, detailing all the work I’ve done in the last year.  I’ve included it as a tab at the top of the of my blog, but you can read it by following the link here.  I’ve also incuded the Sribd reader below and you can dowload the PDF by following this link: Annual Report 2012.

If you would like a hard copy, please contact my office in London.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Labour Party

Tagged as , , , ,

November 16, 2012 · 7:46 am

Daily Mail refuses to publish my letter

Last week the Daily Mail published this article, which suggested that the European Parliament could ban certain children’s books which reinforced gender stereotypes from British schools. This is very misleading. I therefore wrote a letter for publication to the Daily Mail to clarify their report.

Below is my  letter to the paper, followed by the response from the letters editor and his explanation for refusing to publish it:

Mary Honeyball MEP
4G Shirland Mews
London
W9 3DY
7 November 2012

Sir,

RE: Now Brussels takes aim at the Famous Five! Books portraying ‘traditional’ families could be barred

The article by James Chapman (Mail 7/11/2012) claiming that the EU could be planning to ban books portraying stereo typical family values is misleading in the extreme. It was incorrect to suggest that such books could be barred from schools.

Brussels does not have legal powers to intervene in which books are available in UK schools; it is a matter for the UK government.

The European Parliament committee report to which your article refers does not suggest banning books- and in any case this is certainly not something which would be legally binding.

Even in areas where the report does call for EU level action and where such action would be legislatively possible, it could only be done if the European Commission makes a formal proposal. In addition, the European Parliament as a whole and also a large majority of Member States must then adopt it.

I hope this important point clarifies the inaccuracies I refer to in your report.

Yours Sincerely

Mary Honeyball MEP
Labour spokesperson in Europe on culture media and sport and gender and equality

The Daily Mail responded to my press officer, Sarah Mackinlay, with:

Dear Sarah,

I’m guessing James Chapman knows a bit more about the byzantine workings of the European Parliament and its committees than Mary Honeyball does.

Regards,

readers’ letters editor

When my office attempted to clarify whether he intended to print the letter he offered the following explanation:

I eventually decided against it on the grounds that it is by no means incorrect that such books could be barred from schools.
Brussels may not have direct legal power to intervene on which books are available in UK schools – but you would have to be very naïve not to appreciate the way in which such a thing might become a matter of no choice for the UK government.
The European Parliament committee looking at this subject definitely exists and has published a report. It may not have suggested in so many words banning books (that might make it look very unpopular) but it has criticised them – and we’re not unfamiliar with the way in which such things begin as criticism and move on towards calls for a ban. After all, to these MEPs, what else are their criticisms for?
It may, of course, be something which isn’t legally binding today – but tomorrow? And that’s all our story warns about.
We’re well aware that this discussion may be at an early stage and ‘EU level action’ would require ‘a European Commission formal proposal’ etc, etc, but we like to warn people well in advance just what those underemployed ‘representatives’ are getting up to in Brussels: forewarned is forearmed.

Regards,

I am publishing this because I was surprised and annoyed by the response I received to my letter – a response full of prejudice which demonstrates how little the Daily Mail understands the European Parliament and how the EU makes its decisions.

3 Comments

Filed under Labour Party

Tagged as , ,

November 7, 2012 · 9:00 am

Britain’s EU bill explained without the anti-European hype

Mark Reckless, Bill Cash, Douglas Carswell and the other feral Tory Eurosceptics are quite simply wrong on the EU budget. At best they have either not bothered to do their homework or quite simply and naively believe the plethora of misinformation that surrounds us in Britain. At worst they are so utterly opposed to the European Union that they will always twist the truth to suit their own purposes.

I was particularly disappointed by an article in the Sunday Times full of prejudice taking little account of the facts. Britain actually received a £5 billion rebate back from the EU last year and will continue to get this sum adjusted for inflation for every subsequent year. The reason the UK is one of the highest contributors to the EU is that we are one of the largest member states.

What is more, the EU budget is nothing like as huge as current folk lore would have us believe. In 2011 it was € 140 billion. The average EU citizen pays only about 50p on average per day to finance the annual budget which represents only around 1% of EU-27 Gross Domestic Product

The budget is, in addition, always balanced, meaning nothing is spent on debt. Moreover 94% of what is paid into the EU budget is spent in Member States on EU funded programmes, many of which are about economic development creating jobs and generating wealth. Those who complain about EU payments to Kosovo being lost to corruption as outlined in the Sunday Times would do well to understand that this is proportionately a very small sum of money. Of course, corruption is always wrong, but the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown decision to support Kosovo was made in good faith with the aim of rebuilding the war torn country.

I get very annoyed when we are told that the EU budget and almost everything else is imposed by Brussels. The budget and, indeed all European legislation, is decided by elected politicians, in the European Parliament and in the Council of Ministers comprising member states’ elected governments. The EU never “imposes” anything on member states; it is all agreed by elected governments and elected MEPs.

The Sunday Times article sadly relied on briefing from the Open Europe think tank. They are by their own admission anti-EU as this quote from their website demonstrates: “While we [Open Europe] are committed to European co-operation, we believe that the EU has reached a critical moment in its development. Globalisation, enlargement, successive No votes in EU referenda and the Eurozone crisis have discredited the notion of ‘ever closer union’ espoused by successive generations of political and bureaucratic elites.”

While this is an opinion, it is not the only one and the Sunday Times would have done well to take on board other arguments. They tell us that 53% of those in David Cameron’s Witney constituency favour withdrawal from the EU. That means that 47% do not, enough I would have thought for their views to be taken on board.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Labour Party

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 18, 2012 · 9:06 am

EU trade relations with Israel

Since I have received a volume of correspondence on the Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA), specifically on the proposed upgrade to trade relations with Israel, I thought it would be helpful to set out Labour MEPs’ views on this blog.

The Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) is a proposed Protocol to the existing Euro-Mediterranean Agreement and not a separate Agreement in itself, although it has also been referred to as ACAA.

The proposed Protocol is intended to eliminate technical barriers to trade in industrial products between the European Union and the State of Israel. It largely applies to pharmaceutical products, and is intended to align certain assessment standards in order to facilitate trade. In effect this means some of the benefits of the EU internal market would be extended to Israel, and would offer Israeli pharmaceutical companies easier access to the EU market.

Negotiations on the Protocol between the European Commission and Israel began in 2008 and concluded in 2009. The European Parliament was then required in 2010 to give its consent before the Protocol could be adopted. The International Trade committee of the Parliament decided to ‘freeze’ the decision-making process, and the item was not discussed again until 2011 when the procedure was re-started after the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) – the parliamentary grouping which includes the UK Liberal Democrats – changed their position on the dossier.

Many parliamentary groupings in the European Parliament including ALDE and the European Conservatives and Reformists, which includes the UK Conservatives, consider CAA a technical upgrade. The European Parliamentary Labour Party (EPLP), and the Socialists and Democrat group (S&D) of which we are a member, do not believe it is a technical agreement but rather a clear upgrade of trade relations with Israel which should not be approved.

The EPLP believes all EU external policy, including trade, must be coherent with our human rights policies. Any upgrade of trade relations with Israel in the context of the Gaza blockade and the illegal settlements is unacceptable and incompatible with recent European Parliament declarations denouncing the abuse of human rights in the occupied territories. Furthermore, the EU – Israel Association Agreement requires relations between the EU and Israel to be based on the respect for human rights, and any upgrade to this Agreement would be inappropriate at this time.

The rapporteur (MEP responsible for the dossier) has proposed a two year delay on the Parliament vote in order to allow more time for compliance with international law by Israel. David Martin MEP, EPLP spokesperson for international trade, has raised our concerns over this Protocol several times during discussions in the trade committee, and supports the delay in the vote. You may be interested to see his intervention: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20120327-1500-COMMITTEE-INTA&category=COMMITTEE&format=wmv

In July the European Parliament formally asked the European Commission for reassurances that goods from the Occupied Territories would not enter the EU under this preferential scheme. David Martin again spoke on behalf of the EPLP to reiterate that although these assurances would be welcome, he is still opposed to the entire Agreement for political reasons. You may be interested in the debate and his intervention here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/plenary/video?debate=1341334304140

Socialist and Democrat MEPs voted in favour of the two year delay in a recent vote in the International Trade committee. However the Protocol was unfortunately adopted by a majority of the liberal and conservative groups. The CAA will now be voted on by the whole European Parliament in its upcoming plenary session in Strasbourg next week.

Labour MEPs will continue to raise our objections to this Protocol and I will, of course, vote in line with my EPLP colleagues.

5 Comments

Filed under Labour Party

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

September 26, 2012 · 7:20 am

Congratulations to Poland’s Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski

You may have seen this article in yesterday’s times by Poland’s Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski.

A veteran of the Solidarity generation, Mr Sikorski ticks, in his own words, “every box required to be a lifelong member of the Eurosceptic club”. He is even acknowledged by his heroine Margaret Thatcher in her book “Statecraft”.

Yet he believes in the modern European project and emphasises that Poland will do its utmost to make it succeed.

Mr Sikorski is, of course, in the European mainstream. This is yet another example of just how isolated the British Conservatives find themselves.

Mr Sikorski goes much further in his article, busting seven myths about the EU regularly peddled in Britain.

Myth 1 – Britain’s trade with the EU is less important than its trade with the rest of the world.

In fact half of UK exports go to the EU. Until recently Britain traded more with Ireland than Brazil, India and China put together. In 2011 the UK trade deficit with China was £19.7 billion. Between 2003 and 2011 Britain’s exports to Poland increased threefold.

Myth 2 – The EU forces Britain to adopt laws on human rights that are contrary to the British tradition

In fact these rulings come from the European Court of Human Rights, which is not part of the EU but part of the Council of Europe, originally set up by the UK and pre-dates the EU.

Myth 3 – The UK is bankrupting itself by funding Europe

In fact, the EU budget is a mere one per cent of the GDP of all EU member states. The UK’s annual net contribution to the EU is £8 – 9 billion a year, similar to that of France and less than Germany. It equates to just £150 a year for each person in Britain. Moreover, UK companies have benefitted enormously from EU cohesion fund investments in Central and Eastern Europe. These are new markets for this country. The British Government estimates that every household “earns” between £1,500 and £3,500 from the single market – between five to fifteen times the UK’s budget contribution.

Myth 4 – The UK is drowning in EU bureaucracy

In fact there are 33,000 people working for the European Commission compared with 82,000 at HM Revenue and Customs. Spain has nearly three million bureaucrats.

Myth 5 – Britain is being taken over by EU legislation

In fact EU Directives are not imposed on high from Brussels. British elected representatives and officials in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers approve and sign off EU legislation.

Myth 6 – The European Commission is a hotbed of socialism

In fact there are many examples of the EU helping to dismantle monopolies and maintaining competition regulations, for example the Open Sky and the subsidies to business.

Myth 7 – The EU stops hardworking Britons working longer hours than feckless continentals

In fact the average Pole works 40.5 hours a week, the average Spaniard 38.1 and the average across the EU is 37.2. In the UK we are slightly under the EU average at 36.2 hours a week.

Mr Sikorski has given us valuable information on the reality rather of the EU rather than the fantasies we hear all the time. Maybe we are also seeing the beginning of a more mature and sensible attitude to the European Union by some of those sections of the British media who have in the past been somewhat economical with the truth about our membership.

2 Comments

Filed under Labour Party

Tagged as , , , , , ,

July 6, 2012 · 8:00 am

Tory-led Coalition refuses system to reduce road deaths

All new cars sold in the EU should be able to be able to dial emergency services when they are involved in a serious accident. Having all cars equipped with an eCall system could save up to 2,500 lives a year. The European Parliament, which passed the report on this subject earlier this week at the plenary session in Strasbourg, hopes the proposal will be introduced in 2015.

Most EU member states have now signed up to the initiative, but predictably our Tory-led Coalition has not yet backed it. Sadly France is the only other EU member state to share the UK’s equivocation.

The British Government’s complacency is astonishing. Transport Minister Mike Penning is reported on the BBC website saying, “Britain has some of the safest roads in the world and technology has an important role to play in this, but it is important that each initiative is carefully considered on its merits.

“After considering the results of independent research we are concerned that the benefits of making eCall mandatory in all new cars will not justify the cost of implementing it in the UK. We have decided, therefore, that it would not be appropriate for the UK to support mandatory installation of eCall at this stage.

“However, calls from vehicles equipped with a private eCall system are already supported by UK emergency call centres.”

In other words, it’s all right if you can afford to pay.

The way the eCall will work is remarkably simple. A damaged car will make a 112 emergency call (eCall) as soon as its sensors (e.g. airbag sensors) register a crash. It could also be activated manually by pushing a special button in a car. The system will automatically transmit data about location and time of a crash to the nearest emergency response centre.

Member States will, however, have to upgrade their infrastructure so that eCalls are efficiently passed on to emergency services.

Currently, only 0.7% of all passenger vehicles in the EU are equipped with automatic emergency call systems. The eCall device is estimated to cost less than €100 per new car to install – a small price to pay for the number of lives which could be saved.

The Con-Dem Coalition defend their position on the grounds that road accidents are low in the UK. Britain may have safe roads, but no roads are free from accidents. The eCall system would certainly save British lives. Unless it revises its attitude, this Coalition Government could well be responsible for deaths on the road which they could have prevented.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Labour Party

Tagged as , , ,