Charles Tannock MEP has obviously kicked off an important debate. Crucial contributions, that a casual reader might miss as they are some way down the thread, come from two MEPs who have experienced what leaving the EPP without another group to go to means.
First, Roger Helmer:
"Charles says he's happy to form a new group, but unwilling to sit outside a group in the interim. That's a bit like saying you're happy to go to France, but you won't cross the Channel.
We've now tried this ploy at least four times to my knowledge, and we risk losing all credibility, like the boy who cried wolf. We should show our commitment by leaving the EPP first, and then forming a new group. The non-attached are not a group in any real sense, and we should be no more "sitting with extremists" than we are now (some members of the EPP are pretty dodgy).
Charles agonises about our ability to move amendments during the short interregnum before the new group was started, but I respectfully suggest that he's focussing too closely on internal parliamentary matters that leave voters cold, and failing to see the big picture."
Then Dan Hannan: