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.

Over the last two weeks, the European Parliament held hearings with every single prospective Commissioner – except the President. The hearings are the only occasion for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to genuinely bring some influence to bear on the formation of the next Commission. While Commissioner Hearings are a useful exercise in casting some light on a rather secretive selection process, do they really inject the kind of accountability that the Commissioners like to pretend it does and do MEPs really feel that they have held the Commission to account after listening to a series of set-piece answers?

Questions are designed to test the nominee’s credentials, size up their commitment to the European agenda – over and above any national interests – and scrutinize their priorities for the next five years.

The Hearings certainly put the candidates’ probity and record to the test. The Commissioner-designate from Bulgaria, Rumania Jeleva, was allocated the humanitarian aid portfolio but was compelled to stand down after accusations that she failed to fully declare her financial interests while she was an MEP.

As an exercise in determining the policies and priorities for the prospective Commissioner’s five year mandate, it was a disappointment but only because the candidates played safe by repeating the lines of their predecessors. This was to be expected since they will have been prepped in advance by advisers to the incumbent Commissioners and, of course, because the President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso has already set a course for his second term.

If the Hearings were designed to expose gaps in the candidate’s knowledge of their portfolios, it worked. Some arrived with a clear command of their briefs; notably Connie Hedegaard, who chaired the Copenhagen Climate Change summit on behalf of the Danish Government and now commissioner designate for Climate Action. Others who are new to their allocated policy responsibilities such as Joacquini Almunia, the respected Spanish Commissioner for Economic Affairs and now designate for Competition, demonstrated less expertise in the All eyes were on Baroness Ashton – the newly-appointed High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security – returned to the Parliament for a second time to face MEPs. This time she appeared in her capacity as the nominated Vice President of the European Commission and Commissioner responsible for External Affairs. Members of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs committee were keen to hear more about how she would undertake her duties as arguably the EU’s answer to Hilary Clinton. Alas, it was a lacklustre performance. Many MEPs commented on her responses as unfocused, uninspiring, showing only a superficial knowledge of the world issues. She failed to clearly prioritise her agenda, mentioning every continent other than Oceania as her priority.

It was her British compatriots on the Foreign Affairs committee that gave Baroness Ashton the toughest grilling. Conservative members tried to embarrass the former Labour leader of the House of Lords with questions about her past employment in the CND.

Nevertheless, she remained composed and confident throughout the hearing, honestly admitting her lack of knowledge on certain issues. In any case there was no real danger that MEPs would object to her candidature given the unanimous backing she received for the High Representative position by Member States

Mutterings over the performance by Neelie Kroes, the Commissioner-designate for the newly-created Digital Agenda role, caused some nervousness in President Barroso’s camp. She was the only nominee to be called back for a second smaller meeting, in which coordinators of the main political groups came out satisfied by her more solid opinions and agenda for Digital Europe. Her poor showing at the Hearing surprised many given that she was respected for her grip on the competition portfolio in the previous Commission.

Members of the highly influential internal market committee wanted to see how far the French Michel Barnier would differ from the Irish Charlie McCreevy in the powerful Internal Market Commissioner role. His nomination caused a fracas with the British when the French President gloated that his appointment represented a defeat for the Anglo-Saxon model. M Barnier, however, was at pains to reassure members of the committee that he would not blindly follow a French model of market economics. He played down prospects of heavy-handed regulation under his stewardship of the internal market role. He even quoted Adam Smith – an icon of the free-market British.

The Commissioner Hearings provided the European Parliament with a chance to flex their muscles. The recently-ratified Lisbon Treaty gives MEPs new decision-making powers in more policy areas – such as Justice and Home Affairs and Sport. Parliament was certainly keen to demonstrate its prowess. The reality is, however, that MEPs cannot veto individual candidates although it can refrain from approving the entire Commission team. On Monday evening (18 January), co-ordinators from the political groups met to discuss Rumania Jeleva’s candidature and it soon became clear that MEPs would reject the Commission if Ms Jeleva remained in post. The Socialist & Democrat Group was particularly adamant. The leadership of the European People’s Party responded to pressure from the Socialists with a half-hearted request for the head of Slovakia's socialist nominee, Maroš Šefcovic, nominated for the lowly inter-institutional relations role, ostensibly for comments he was
supposed to have made at a conference in 2005 that Roma were “exploiting the Slovak welfare system”. However EPP Leader Joseph Daul backed down admitting he did not have the stomach for “blood and corpses”.

This outbreak of political posturing has only served to delay the process of assembling a new College of Commissioners. The College was due to be approved by a parliamentary vote on 26th January. The most likely replacement for Ms Jeleva should be Kristalina Georgieva, currently, Vice-President of the World Bank. Her hearing should take place on February 3rd. The parliamentary vote will now take place on 9th February. It will be an anti-climax to a long and wearisome process that started with political-horse-trading over President Barroso’s re-appointment and the uncertainty of when if ever the Lisbon Treaty would ever be signed, meaning the existing Commission had to stay on as a caretaker Commission after its official mandate expired in November 2009.

The Hearings have dominated events in the European Parliament last week. However, there has been a lot of noise and too little light for the Hearings to be of any real worth to MEPs and the general public. The prospective Commissioners will feel that they have escaped the Hearings without too much damage being inflicted. In reality, they have all benefited from safety in numbers and owe their individual mandate not to the Parliament but to their own national Governments still.

Iceland is gearing up for EU acession talks to begin in March this year. In a case of seriously unfortunate timing, Iceland is holding a referendum on the Icesave Bill on either 27th February or 6th March. In early March the Icelandic Government will also enter formal acession negotataions with the EU.

UK Chancellor, Alastair Darling hinted darkly on 4th January that the British Government would block Icelandic membership if they did not sign the bank repayment deal. Since then, Icelandic President Grimmson declared that he would not sign the bill and instead referred the issue to a national vote. Icelanders are certain to reject the anglo-dutch deal.

Although the British Foreign Office has since given assurances that the UK won't interfere with the Icelandic negotiations on EU membership, the reality is that the UK may beforced to take a stronger line once the Referendum rejects the repayment arrangements - not least because it will not want to be seen as being forced to back down at a time when the UK is in the middle of a febrile election period.

The problems for Iceland's acession plans don't end there. Germany and France have said that they will not make any concessions to Iceland - even if they are generally positive about Icelandic membership. The first two sectors that will be negotiated are fisheries and agriculture. Icelandic waters are rich pickings for European fishermen and fisheries represent a quarter of Icelandic exports. This will be a big test of Iceland's appetite for EU membership. At a time when it is trying to recover from the financial disaster, it is being asked to submit to strict EU quotas. IN adition, the French will be scrutinising very closely the talks on Icelandic membership of the Common Agricultural Policy. Iceland's 3,000 farmers fear that CAP membership will reduce local agricultural production by up to 50%. Nevertheless CAP membership does offer other benefits to Iceland.

The Germans are even more lukewarm about the prospect of Icelandic acession. The CSU - Angela Merckel's sister party has said it is not the EU's duty to "save" countries in trouble.

Despite this, Iceland could still expect a fast-track process. The country already meets 80% of the community acquis. True - there has already been a delay in achieving candidate status. The country had expected to gain candidate status in December but it was only because of internal EU wrangling over Lisbon appointments that delayed the decision. The present European Commission is a caretaker one with no mandat to make new decisions. Iceland must wait until its successor is properly in place. The Council can only confer candidate status after a recommendation from the EU executive. These recommendations need parliamentary approval too.

Iceland is still hopeful of EU membership in two years and membership of the Euro in four years.

One of the biggest attractions of EU membership for Iceland would be to join the Euro, after the virtual destruction of its currency. This, however, requires a preliminary period of two years during which the Icelandic krona would need to be within the narrow band of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. It would be difficult for Iceland to negotiate an exemption from this requirement, which is embedded in the Maastricht treaty

Iceland is a member of the European Economic Area, and participates in many EU programmes, including the Schengen agreement. Understandably it was disappointed that the Union did not mobilize itself quickly to come to the stricken country's aid, forcing it to turn instead to countries such as Russia and Japan, with which it has no formal links.

Despite the widespread disappointment with the EU, many Icelanders appear to have concluded that their best bet for the future would be to join the Union as soon as possible. Membership has never been so popular.

However, the dispute with the UK and the Netherlands over bank bailouts - as well as indignation in Rekjavik that it is forced to beg its Nordic neighbours for IMF support, could mean public support for EU membership could soon wane. Iceland needs to redouble its efforts to improve bilateral relations with key EU member states to ensure there is no further delay to EU acession talks. There is every risk that the country could be blind-sided by adverse developments from IMF loan talks and the Icesave bail-out referendum. Its essential then that it strengthens informal as well as the more formal channels of communications with the EU and its members (the UK in particular). It should demonstrate its European credentials by hosting a major informal EU summit in Rekjavik later this year to draw a line under the banking crisis fall-out and set about finding a pan-European solution to guaranteeing bank deposits. Iceland should regain its confidence after a series of polital and economic blows and set out what it can do to bring something to the European table.

Ollie Rehn - when Enlargement Commissioner, said "Iceland is clearly a democratic country", he said, "which has already negotiated perhaps two-thirds of the criteria needed to join the Union…this means that were Iceland to pose its candidature, we could quickly complete the negotiations".

In practice, it is likely to be more complicated and more protracted. One of the biggest attractions of EU membership for Iceland would be to join the Euro, after the virtual destruction of its currency. This, however, requires a preliminary period of two years during which the Icelandic krona would need to be within the narrow band of the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

It would be difficult for Iceland to negotiate an exemption from this requirement, which is embedded in the Maastricht treaty
Icelanders are feeling sore about EU – particularly UK – for making their situation worse

The Icelandic government succeeded in negotiating a $6 billion IMF rescue plan, backed by Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Russia, but its approval by the IMF board has been delayed three times. The UK has been blamed for interfering in the process. Gordon Brown has become something of a hate figure. His action in using anti-terrorist laws to freeze the British assets of a failing Icelandic bank caused immense offence, and undoubtedly helped to put the skids under efforts to keep the bank afloat.

Iceland featured on a UK Governmentlist of terrorist entities that included Al Qaeda, Sudan an North Korea.

More broadly, Iceland, which is a member of the European Economic Area, and participates in many EU programmes, including the Schengen agreement, was disappointed that the Union did not mobilize itself quickly to come to the stricken country's aid, forcing it to turn instead to countries such as Russia and Japan, with which it has no formal links.

Despite the widespread disappointment with the EU, many Icelanders appear to have concluded that their best bet for the future would be to join the Union as soon as possible. An opinion poll published in Frettabladid, Iceland's leading newspaper, on 18 October, showed 70 per cent wanting a referendum on EU membership, with 49 per cent saying they would vote in favour, and 27 per cent against. Membership has never been so popular

Alastair Darling hinted darkly on 4th January that the British Government could block Icelandic membership if they did not sign the bank repayment deal. The Icelandic President gave a press conference yesterday to say that he would not be signing the so called "Icesave" bill but instead submit the repayment to a referendum where it is set to be rejected. Th $5bn owed to UK and the Netherlands may not sound like much but it is in tiny Iceland - where it works out as €12,000 per family. Cant see how any Repayment Bill referendum could be a vote winner when it costs this much. However, the UK is adamant that it wants its money. UK Treasury Minister, Lord Myners says the repayment agreement represents a good deal for Iceland. However, this will not resonate much with Icelandic voters in a referendum. Already question marks are being raised in Rekjavik by opponents of repayment over the legal definition of the EU directive on saving guarantees which the UK and the Netherlands are basing their demands on for repayment for bailing out savers.
Clearly a successful accession plan should begin with a senior No 10 meeting and general Charm Offensive

On January 1st 2010, Spain will take over the rotating Presidency of the European Union. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the socialist President of Spain, will, with his government lead the European Council for the next six months. Spain will set the agenda in Council, preside over Council meetings, lead negotiations and attempt to broker compromises between the member states on current European Affairs and a set of predefined priorities.

And yet, we also have – thanks to the implementation on 1st December 2009 of the Lisbon Treaty – a permanent President of the European Council in the person of former Belgian Premier, Herman van Rompuy, whose job it is to chair the European Council, which consists of the Heads of State of the EU’s 27 Member States. The Lisbon Treaty was meant to bring about more consistency in policy-making at the centre of the EU decision-making machinery; so why does the EU persist with its six-month Presidency where each Member State has Buggin’s Turn at the top of the table?

National capitals have to prepare their priorities well in advance of the start of their turn at the Presidency (Spain has been preparing for over a year). For some, the Presidency is an opportunity to show-case their government at the European level; for others, it’s just a distraction. National ministers are required to spend more time in Brussels and much of the civil service becomes pre-occupied with matters that are not necessarily core to their department. Rotating presidencies do not make for consistent policy-making. Often the priorities of one Presidency are completely at odds with those of its successor.

For now, at least, it will be business as usual for the rotating Presidency system. Herman van Rompuy has no administration that he can instruct to run the constituent parts of the Council. The European Council will continue to be assisted by the General Secretariat of the Council, and as such, the President will depend on the advice and support of the staff of the General Secretariat.

The new foreign affairs council will be chaired by the High Representative – another position created by the Lisbon Treaty. Former European Trade Commissioner, Baroness Ashton will perform this function. Unlike the President, she will have her own department – the European External Action Service (EEAS) - which is expected to be operational in April 2010 and will act as the EU diplomatic corps, drawing advisers from Foreign Ministries across the European Union. Already, President van Rompuy has made the point of keeping foreign ministers out of the European Council meetings now that they have a dedicated Foreign Affairs Council. There are signs that a turf war is about to break out between the Foreign Affairs Council and the General Affairs Council, which since its split from External Relations Council (when it was known by the acronym, GAERC – General Affairs and External Relations Council), focuses mainly on co-ordination across policy areas or preparation for the European Council. It is rumoured that trade policy and enlargement will fall under the remit of the Foreign Affairs council, despite the General Affairs Council’s attempts to keep the policy areas within its own mandate.

The Foreign Affairs Council is unique in that it is chaired by the High Representative rather than the Presidency. The High Representative will also appoint her own representatives to chair the constituent parts of the European External Action Service, such as the Political and Security committee. All other Councils – such as the Economic and Financial Affairs Council made up of 27 Finance Ministers - will continue to be chaired by the relevant minister from the rotating presidencies. The Committee of Permanent Representations (COREPER) which comprises of the EU 27 Ambassadors and deputy Permanent Representatives) and the Council working groups, made up of national officials based in Brussels - will continue to be chaired by the rotating Presidencies too.

The role of President of the European Council is very new and the job description provided by the text in the Lisbon Treaty is deliberately vague. It can be as elastic as the office-holder wants it to be. If Tony Blair had been appointed, there is no doubt that he would have set to work straight away on building a power-base, very much modelled on Baroness Ashton’s EEAS. President van Rompuy is much more limited in his ambition. Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable that the remit of the permanent President’s role (and accordingly that of the General Secretariat) will, at some point, expand to the point where it rivals the rotating Presidency in setting the Council agenda and pushing through legislation on behalf of the 27 Member States.

The Lisbon Treaty and its implementation impose a complex political balancing act on the Spanish Presidency. Mr Zapatero has been careful to work closely with the new President of the European Council to avoid potential friction over the two presidential roles. They agreed in mid-December to create a working group to coordinate their activities for the next six months. Mr Zapatero told Mr van Rompuy; “Mr Council President, the rotating presidency is at your disposal to support you in taking up appropriately the role of leadership and political steering of the European Council”. However, it seems unlikely that Spain will handover the fruit of months of preparation to someone appointed just last November. It appears that Messrs Zapatero and Van Rompuy have already agreed that Madrid will Chair the EU-US and EU-Latin America Summits, which in principle are to be led by the Council President. So far so good. But what about the implications for the long term future of the Presidency?

The Council President could evidently fully replace Country Presidencies, yet one could argue that rotating presidencies add specific expertise and funding that a single President could not deliver. There’s a case to be made for either system but as events unfold and turf wars break out, as they inevitably will, it will be hard to make a case for both.

Not many clues in the UK Chancellor's Pre-Budget report today on how the Treasury is preparing to defend the City of London against new measures coming from Brussels aimed to restrict the financial services sector. Much less was there any ideas of what the rationale would be when there is, according to some, pressure in the UK economy to reduce dependence on the financial services sector.

New Internal Market Commissioner, Michel Barnier, is on record as saying that the City of London is an asset to Europe. However, there is real anxienty in the Square Mile that the European Commission proposals on market regulation will put the City in a competitive disadvantage and that the Government is not properly geared up to take the battle to Brussels. The Anglo-Saxon model has been castigated by the French, Dutch, Belgian and Germans for the financial crisis even though their banks too were horribly exposed.

The Pre-Budget Report says that the Government is "closely involved in negotiating the proposed Alternative Investment Fund Manager Directive" and that it "has been working to secure substantial improvements". Still early days I suppose but its not clear that the Government has developed a fully operational strategy yet to deal with the regulatory threats to its hedge fund and private equity industry.

The Pre-Budget Report also says that the Government is "actively engaged in EU efforts to amend the Capital Requirements Directive to provide a state-of-the-art prudential framework for credit institutions and investment firms in the EU." Current proposals will raise the amount of capital banks must hold against resecuritisations and assets held in their trading books: "The UK is strongly supportive of the adoption of these rules and will continue to ensure that EU legislation appropriately strengthens prudential standards while being consistent with international agreements."

Another priority is “Solvency II”: "contributing to the development of modern and risk-based EU-wide solvency requirements for insurers that protect Europe’s claimants, savers and pensioners. What would be good to know is what the Government's position on the tax consequences of the Directive is.

The British have a real fight on their hands to defend the interests of the City. It will also have to square its position with its claim to take a global leadership role in cracking down on "excessive risk-taking" in in financial services as well as reducing over-reliance on the financial sector in the British economy.

Syed Kamall - the Conservative MEP for London kindly sent me a copy of his new book -"For a Free Market Europe" - a collection of his articles over the last three years setting out his views on a European Union which should do more to promote free market liberalism.

Syed has been consistent champion of free market values in the European Parliament since he became an MEP in 2005. He is a leading figure in the Brussels Network - which brings together conservatives and centre-right figures in Europe who want to campaign for small-state government. This collection of short articles illuste=rates his commitment to the free-market cause.

Some highlights:

The dilemma of being a free market classical liberal in the European Parliament:
He starts from the fundamental nature of the European Union and its basic premise: Should it be a free-market coalition of sovereign states or should it try to ape the "cross-continental socialist model"?

Should pro-free-market MEP’s work within the system to change it or attack it from the outside? Should some liberalism be an adequate compromise as the “perfect” free-market is unachievable?

The are big questions. However, Syed seems to think the answer is easy. He says the EU should provide a marketplace and a framework of basic rules and minimum standards – better to be an unregulated single market than one subject to overbearing directives

Politicians can only do what they can with the tools available – therefore free-market liberal MEP’s should work from within the system to change it

He applies his free-market thinking to environment policy too: The liberalisation of trade does not cause environmental damage, he says; “Calls for higher taxes often have precious little to do with real environmental factors but a lot to do with environmental posturing or the need to raise new revenue”

“Globalisation and free trade are not only the key to enriching this planet; they may also prove to be the key to saving it.”

Whether you agree with Syed Kamall or not, his written articles over the last few years show that he is on of the most consistent and energetic campaigners of the free market in the European Parliament.

Dan Hamilton writes in ConservativeHome that the Ministry of Justice in the UK has not yet directed the lectoral Commission to allocate the new seat to the UK due to it under the Lisbon Treaty rules: http://alturl.com/7vzo

Notwithstanding the conclusion he makes that this somehow shows the Labour Government has threatened British interest by not yet naming the 73rd MEP, Hamilton does make a good case for decision sooner rather than later.

It looks like the UK's 73rd seat would go to the West Midlands which would mean the Conservatives would get another MEP. Perhaps this is why there is no rush to make the nomination. If the extra seat goes to London, then Labour would get the extra MEP - Anne fairweather.

In any case, the new MEP - Tory or Labour would have to wait until 2011 (by which time a complex legal protocol will be ratified by national governments) before they are able to cast a vote as a full Member.

Last week William Hague said that the appointment of Baroness Ashton as High Representative was the result of a deal done by Brown with the French to allow Sarkozy to secure the prized Internal Market post for his nomination Michel Barnier.

Whether a deal was done or not, Ashton’s appointment opened the way for the French to secure the job. This has implications for the City of London which faces a raft of EU regulatory measures. The French have been critical of the anglo-saxon model which they blame for the credit crisis and are more keen than the British on regulatory solutions to problems in the banking sector.

Along with France – the other winner is Belgium. Not only did they win the Council President job with the appointment of former PM Herman von Rompuy, they have also secured the powerful Trade job. Karel de Grucht who replaced his compatriot Louis Michel as Development Commissioner when Michel left to become an MEP in June, is a free-market neo-liberal.

Another winner is Germany. Although likely to be disappointed that they didn’t keep the Industry brief, they have taken the Energy Commissioner job with Gunter Oettinger as the replacement for Gunter Verheugen. Germany has a lot of commercial energy interests so should be delighted.

The Spanish too will be happy with getting the Competition portfolio – although there were expectations that their nomination would get Economic and monetary affairs.

I would argue that Finland is another winner. Ollie Rehn who was widely respected while the Commissioner for Enlargement, gets economic and monetary issues.

I understand that Antonio Tajani is not happy with the Industry and enterprise portfolio. I think he was keen to stay at Transport. However, he should be pleased that pharmaceutical controls have been transferred to him from Health to Industry.

Neelie Kroes will be disappointed at getting the new portfolio of digital policy. The only reason Dutch PM Balkenende appointed her (she is not a member of his CDA party) is because he was assured she would get competition again.

Sweden’s Cecillia Mallstrom gets Home Affairs. She is a liberal left wiinger and this will put her in contention with the more conservative Roman Catholic Viviane Reding from Luxembourg who gets the Justice portfolio. This policy enjoys a higher profile under Lisbon and so this policy area could lead to some controversy over the next 5 years.

Johannes Hahn from Austria is the new Regions Commissioner. Austria gets little EU regional funding so this is probably a good thing. ON the other hand Romania a big beneficiary of agricultural funds gets….. Agriculture (DAacian Ciolos who studied agriculture in France and did an internship in DG AGRI).

Barossohas gone ahead with his plan to create a Commissioner for Clime Action – this goes to the Danish Connie Hedegaarde – the Danes are proud of their tough line on climate change and Connie will be a tough taskmaster.

Androulla Vassiliou – moves from health to Education and Culture despite her best efforts to stay.

I understand that there is a motion for resolution doing the rounds in the European Parliament basically banning any contact between the tobacco industry and the EU institutions. If this is true, not only is it gratuitously prohibitive and an ill-thought-out interpretation of what is in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, it is also smacks of posturing which could result in bad governance: Particularly at a time when EU policy-makers need to work closely with the tobacco industry to crack down on the growing threat of counterfeit and contraband tobacco.

Tobacco smuggling undermines both the industry as well as EU Member States. The imperative for EU action is the €8bn revenue loss for EU governments in 2008.Tobacco smuggling cost the industry €700m last year.

The Organised Crime, Contraband and Counterfeiting Forum is about to embark on a campaign for a more joined-up approach to fight tobacco smuggling. Some MEPs have already signed up to the cause – such as Bill Newton Dunn (UK, ALDE), Edit Herzog (Hun, S&D) and Andreas Schwab (Ger, EPP). Newton-Dunn wants a European version of the FBI to counter the smuggling trade. How well would they be able to contribute to policy development on this if they were banned from speaking to the industry

OLAF too is talking about the need for greater cross-border co-operation. So far the only co-ordinated effort is being led by the WHO through the FCTC and this just calls on governments to “monitor and collect data on cross border trade in tobacco products including illicit trade”.

The EU should allocate more manpower to stop smuggling (according to the EC Customs Directorate, there are now 10,000 fewer customs officers across the EU than five years ago). MEPs and Commission officials need to be better educated about the industry and how it can help reduce the smuggling. Likewise, EU governments would do well to recognise that it is the sharp excise duties that lead to such big price differentials which has created the boom in illicit trade.

In short - both the industry and the institutions need more dialogue right now - not less