Dr Lee Rotherham: The Twelve Lies of Christmas

Dr Lee Rotherham - an expert writer on the European Union - makes the case for David Cameron's decision to take Britain's Conservative MEPs out of the European Peoples' Party.

Festive spirit is somewhat lacking at the moment. We hear a lot of talk about Brussels, but it’s not about sprouts, just the stuffing.

There’s a concerted effort going on by EPP addicts to justify their need for the needle, and their fear of being weened off their prop. So far, it’s been possible to identify twelve big fibs that have been touted as excuses: appropriate, really, given the symbolism of the twelve star flag. But none of these claims actually stand up. It’s the same old Euro saga of claims being thrown out as bald facts, and hoping the media will swallow them whole.

Time then to look at these claims in turn, and see where the truth actually stands.

1. Conservatives will be isolated

The Conservatives are not the only right-of-centre party in Europe. We have a number of friends across the continent with whom we have a closer affinity than other EPP members. Were we to leave the EPP, we could certainly link up with them: indeed, for the best part of a decade, I have seen senior members of these movements actively trying to wean the Conservative Shadow Cabinet off the EPP opiate. The Polish and Czech conservative parties are even in government. It is firmly within the bounds of realism to anticipate that several other parties, who have shown an interest in the past, will be amenable to a formal approach.

We can link up with friends who share some basic philosophies: respect for democracy; Trans-Atlantic friendship; the defence of the nation state; and the free market. Clearly, there would be differences in opinion on certain votes. But currently, the Conservatives vote against the EPP one time in three.

We have to remember a key element of Brussels politics here. Unlike Westminster, the European Parliament is not a bear pit; it is a hemisphere. You do not have one political grouping running the show. Alliances need to be formed. Up to now, the EPP-Conservative alliance has been a formal one. But once the Conservative parties of Europe form their own bloc, the EPP will still need our vote. That’s why before sessions, various reps get round tables to broker deals to get legislation through. They simply cannot afford to just ignore us.

2. Conservatives have more influence by being in the EPP

Direct influence only appears where individual Conservative MEPs share the philosophy of the EPP. This might occur in certain set areas, predominantly to do with businesses (but even here the shadow of the EPP’s open support for the Social Chapter looms large). But in other areas, it’s because the Conservative MEP is not actually displaying basic Conservative principles, but is following Christian Democrat ones. This is hardly displaying influence.

The ready counter to this is to ask an MEP to name a case where the EPP has backed down on a proposal when invited to, rather than slightly water it down for purely cosmetic display. And then ask how the final Conservative whip went…

3. Conservatives will lose out in the European Parliament by striking out on their own

A lot of work has been done on the mechanics behind this, and can be found in a CPS paper available here.

At the time, the assessment was that there would be a gross (not a net) loss in that Conservatives held two Committee chairmanships, and a British MEP, Caroline Jackson, would have to surrender Chairmanship of the important Environment Committee. But Mrs Jackson has already handed that position over. Conservatives now only hold one Committee, that of Industry. Depending on the size of the new group, it is even possible mathematically that we might actually gain a Committee chairmanship.

With respect to the 18 chairmanships of the permanent Delegations, 2 are currently held by Conservatives. It is therefore probable that Jonathan Evans will lose his position as chairman of the US one. Whether that is translatable to any tangible loss that cannot be replicated by other means is a moot point, however, given the traditional Conservative-Republican and UK-US bilateral links. It would be a real issue if you were, say, French.

James Elles would no longer be in charge of his pet toy, the European Ideas Network, which reportedly has coincidentally just had its budget increased. But then, the Conservatives would have five million to spend on their own support staff and think tank anyway, so no loss there.

Conservatives would also be removed from the Trans-Atlantic Legislative Dialogue. But Eurosceptic MEPs have instead already been linking up with the influential American Legislative Exchange Council instead, as well as with a plethora of key think tanks in Washington.

So overall, in terms of positions that Conservatives would surrender, they have little to lose. Certain individual MEPs, who have been particularly vociferous in opposing leaving the EPP, personally would.

We do not, of course, churlishly for a moment suppose that such reasons lie as the root behind their opposition to leaving the EPP.

Brutus is an honourable man.

But Conservatives structurally have a great deal to gain from the new system. They would finally gain access for starters to the Conference of Presidents, which is the motor at the heart of the EP.

They would also, as leaders of the third or fourth largest bloc, get to speak accordingly in the debate. At the moment, the leader of the British Conservatives speaks eighth. That’s after Nigel Farage for UKIP, and after Roger Helmer, a British Conservative now forced to sit as an independent! Even more embarrassingly, as Timothy Kirkhope is not speaking as a group leader, if Tony Blair comes to visit, the PM can scoot straight off after Roger speaks and leave poor old Tim speaking to an empty platform. By this time, the Brussels press corps have already written their piece and are filing it. It is a sorry, and unnecessary, spectacle.

4. The plan is to link up with the Far Right

This brazen untruth has been killed by research recently published in a Bruges Group paper (see here). When IDS and his team were negotiating with fellow political figures on the European Right, they deliberately and completely rejected any notion of tying in with any group that was remotely suspected of dodgy tendencies, or even had an iffy history.

It may be worth here making a distinction in Europolitics that is often muddied by biased commentators. There are clearly different categories of parties of the Right in Europe – just as there are many different branches of the Left.

There is the Christian Democrat Right, which as we have seen, is not of the Right at all. It is an alternative branch of the Soft Left; a bit like New Labour, and no one is suggesting we link up with them.

Then there are the Conservative parties, like the ODS of Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President. These were always the parties that the IDS team wanted to link up with.

Next there are what one might style the Question Mark Right, where parties have some baggage that guarantees the automatic hostility of Guardian writers. These include parties that had evolved from the Far Right but moved towards the centre, and government. Or parties that have particularly strong views on immigration. These are especially loathed in liberal quarters in their home countries because they break the cosy consensus and actually address peoples’ concerns, making them political forces and therefore a threat. Such opinions are then lazily picked up by foreign commentators unless some bizarre apotheosis occurs (witness the astonishing BBC volte-face on Pim Fortuyn). One or two individuals may be mavericks, there might indeed be bad men in their number somewhere, but the centre of mass of the party falls short of the extreme.

And then there is the real Far Right, the parties whose leaders address gatherings in retirement homes of 80 year old former Stormtroopers. And on top of that the Extreme Far Right, whose ugly membership is made up of people who would like to become the next generation of stormtroopers. An important distinction lies even here. The former can still get invited into government, as in Austria.

The point is, when Owen Paterson was doing the rounds for IDS to link up with the Right, it was with the Conservative Right that he was negotiating. Everyone else got ruled out. So anyone who says that it’s about teaming up with crackpots and Nazis is simply lying.

Before any lefty journo starts pointing out any imaginary specks in the eyes of others, he would do well to pay heed to the mote that juts out of the PES. Some of the characters in the European Socialists group are plain thugs. But it's not PC to talk about them.

5. MEPs have an obligation to stay in the EPP

Some MEPs claim that being in the EPP was a promise they made on being elected. This doesn’t take into account what promises they made, however, on being selected. It is par for the course in the six months before reselection to peddle in the press how much you as an MEP have been doing a real sterling Eurosceptic job. This time, candidates were invited across the board to comment on their positions regarding the EPP. Feedback from sources indicates that the majority of those now pretending that they have an obligation to stay in the EPP took the line during the selection process that they would abide by the decision of the Shadow Cabinet.

Of course, once elected, MEPs have typically put two fingers up and reverted to type. This is just another example of how individuals can behave differently at parole hearings from when they get back out on the streets.

MEPs have an obligation to their electorate, to their promises on selection, to their Party members, and to their voters, who are overwhelmingly Eurosceptic.

6. The issue of EPP membership is unnecessary and petty

If it is so trifling, then the critics of leaving the EPP shouldn’t be causing party disunity by opposing the policy.

Membership of a political group is one of the tiny number of things that is actually in the gift of a party leader. In opposition, you cannot run departments; you cannot steer government policy; you cannot control the national purse. But you can determine who your friends are and team up with them.

By setting up a Eurosceptic Conservative group in Brussels and Strasbourg, we will also – finally – be lending support to our friends and natural allies on the continent. The machine of integration is against them. Most of the countries of Europe are small, and their political parties mere Davids against the march of federalism. By banding together, they have a chance. But this will only happen with the leadership of a great political party in Europe. Only the Conservatives fit the bill.

7. The EPP gives the Conservatives a good deal

We have already seen how the share of posts for Conservatives within the EPP does the Tories no favours. Less well known is the way that Conservatives were eligible for new funds to promote their "ED" element of the EPP, but that key figures were leaned on by EPP bigwigs who want to see no element of freedom emerging. That was no act of friendship, but one of political dominion. The EPP simply does not respect the Conservatives. They pimp the party.

8. No previous leader ever wanted to do this

As the Bruges Group paper referred to earlier demonstrates, the link was about to be broken in 2004. But IDS got knifed first.

We have been through the whole period of Shadow Cabinet arguing for and against. It was resolved – and then dumped, seemingly as the price for Ken Clarke’s silence in the run up to a General Election. The time to end the ridiculous Clarke veto has come.

9. The EPP are ideological allies

The EPP supports the EU Constitution; the Charter of Fundamental Rights; suppressing whistleblowers; a European police force; the development of an EU army; a single EU border with EU border police; an EU seat on the UN, the IMF and the WTO; a European president; an EU foreign minister; a social market economy; ignoring the votes of the French and Dutch referenda; EU propaganda funding; more powers for the European Parliament (taken from national parliaments); the abolition of the national veto; and a pan-European income tax, to be levied by the European Parliament.

That’s just for starters. A mince pie to anyone who can spot a Conservative policy in that lot.

10. This is an unnecessary move and argument

Take the example of Spain’s Partido Popular, and more recently Portugal’s homonymic one, as well as the attitude of a number of current British MEPs.

It’s scientifically proven. Proximity to the EPP drains your soul. It turns you into a supporter of federalism, either openly or passively. You go native. It saps your will to resist European integration. You might as well go the Matrix route and plug yourself back into the machine.

There was an interesting piece of work carried out five years ago by a Swedish researcher, which calculated that with the expansion of the EU, continental Eurosceptic movements would over the course of time be squeezed by the system. The big two parties would dominate Brussels. The reason behind the workings of the model was that there was no real Eurosceptic bloc, so EU-critical movements in the new member states were marginalized and eradicated by the new elite. But by creating a new bloc to lend them support, it would be possible to invigorate the domestic scene and provide major intellectual, practical and moral support.

In short, a new Conservative bloc would provide respectability for opposing ever-closer union. It would also over time have the potential to develop into a real ideological power. That’s why we have even Lib Dem MEPs showing themselves running scared in the press.

11. Leaving the EPP is extreme, "slightly headbanging"

It is extreme to belong to the EPP in the first place, a group that wants a federal Europe. If submerging your country in a neo-corporatist superstate isn’t "extreme", I don’t know what is.

But then, it would be hard for a former Chancellor like Ken Clarke to criticise the EPP if he has probably read as much of their literature as he did of the Maastricht Treaty.

12. MEPs won’t wear it so best to drop it

Since when have MEPs had a veto over Party policy? The Conservative Party Constitution says explicitly that political direction is determined by the leader. The head of the MEP delegation can expect "consultation". But even this is not guaranteed by the rules. Cameron has got them bang to rights.

If MEPs are unhappy about it, they will have to lump it in just the same way that Eurosceptic MEPs have long had to endure membership of the EPP.

…..

David Cameron made a bold decision based on common sense. A leadership retreat on the matter would send all the wrong signals, and is tactically unthinkable. The sooner Europhile MEPs get to grips with the reality, and concentrate on building up their pension rights and playing golf before retiring, the better.

There’s a new generation of Conservatives available who are more than ready to step in, take over, and fight the Conservative corner in Europe full time, if some of the wishy washy MEP incumbents aren’t.

Merry Christmas!

Comments

[Phil Hendren]

Wouldn't it be nice if the papers started running these counterpoints to the nonsense coming out of the Labour Whip's office.

[Samuel Coates]

Thankyou Dr Lee, that was informative and well structured.

[William Norton]

Dr Rotherham - an excellent case for the prosecution. I doubt any one here will enter a defence. The theory pushed by people like James Elles MEP that being in the EPP (strictly – being allied members of the EPP-ED Grouping under Procedural Rule 5 – see http://www.epp-ed.org/Group/docs/rules/rules-procedure2004_en.doc) gives us vital “influence” and we avoid being “isolated” is of course drivel.

Clearly, we shouldn't have gone into the EPP-ED, but we're in it. The problem, however, is whether we can leave now under the terms of the Party’s agreement with the EPP-ED. I have been informed that if the Party leaves before a particular date (usually said to be the next elections in 2009) we are open to legal action. Supposedly there is a legal opinion on this floating around but I haven’t seen it.

Any way, that explains why, allegedly, we cannot be “out of the EPP by Christmas” or any short timetable, because it isn’t possible legally. Perhaps “consultation” actually means “play for time while building up a rival grouping and persuading the EPP not to hire lawyers”.

Does any one know what the truth of this actually is?

[Richard Gibbs]

The case Dr Rotherham puts forward is a powerful one and I must admit, I am convinced by his arguments that, theoretically, pulling Tory MEP's out of the EPP-ED is the right thing to do. However, there are a number of practical concerns that worry me and before we rush headlong into this, I think we need to make sure that we have proper answers to these concerns. It is all well and good for us to agree that there are strong reasons why the Conservative's should never have formed the alliance with the group in the first place, or why we would see more consistency if the Tories left now, but unless we can see that the practical hurdles can be tackled successfully, this could be a mistake in the long run.
Malcolm Harbour MEP recently outlined a number of concerns to me and while I disagree with the overall assertion that the EPP-ED is a good intellectual home for Tory MEP's, I recognise that some more pedestrian considerations need to be made.
Firstly, in 2004 the Conservative manifesto did pledge Tory MEP's to remaining in the EPP-ED for the 2004-2009 European Parliament. To break a manifesto commitment so soon would undo any capital gained through seeking consistency between policy in London and Brussels/Strasbourg. We can't accuse others of breaking their manifesto pledges if we break ours as soon as it becomes expedient. At the least I would say Tory MEP's have to remain in the group until 2009.
Secondly, approximately two thirds of Tory MEP's want to stay in the group. To push ahead with a policy - withdrawal - would be to run counter to the wishes of a majority of those who would have to enact it. The room for division and difficulty is immense here and it requires a thoughtful approach.
Finally, depite Dr Rotherham's argument, I am not convinced that there are enough members with pro-Atlanticist, free market ideas outside of the EPP-ED to make a viable alliance. The danger is that the Conservatives would end up, literally, isolated because there can be no thought of going into alliance with UKIP et al. This would be a huge boost to Tony Blair; at a time when he has fouled up the budget negotiations, he would be able to point to Tory Europe policy as being about isolation and being on the fringe. Not a comfortable place to be.
We have to provide answers to these practical issues if we are to make any real progress with this. There is no point rushing headlong into a radical proposal, which while intellectually clear, may not be pratically viable. And if we can't provide answers to the practical points. we should be prepared to ask if the whole exercise really is worthwhile.

[malcolm]

Richard,David Cameron has been overwhelmingly elected by the Conservative Party.Withdrawal was a commitment in the 'Cameron manifesto'.
I was not aware that EPP membership was a manifesto commitment at the last Euro election.I wonder how many of our voters would have been pleased to know that we were commited to a federalist grouping who wished to see 'ever closer political union in Europe'.
Would it really matter if we had no alliances within the European parliament?
What MEPs want or don't want is really not of primary importance.They are fortunate enough to be elected by the 'list system' and are therefore entirely beholden to their party for their positions.They should therefore do what they're damned well told.

[Richard Gibbs]

Malcolm; I agree that the need for some assessment of this situation is needed and I too am unhappy with the way in which there is an incoherence between Europe policy in London and with Brussels/Strasbourg. Equally I am a strong supporter of David Cameron, but I still think it would be more prudent to say our MEP's are withdrawing from the EPP-ED, but at the end of this European Parliament, not now. Other than wanting to act decisively right now, there are no solid arguments for not waiting.
As to the MEP's doing what they're told, I have some sympathy with this but I don't want to see the Tory Party go the way of New Labour; "its the leadership's party and you will do what you're told." A new politics - which we are trying to build - needs to be more grown up than this.
Essentially my argument is that I would be happy for us to do leave the EPP-ED, but I think we should wait until the end of the EP term; that nobody knew it was a manifesto commitment makes no difference. We shouldn't allow our desire for action to cloud the need for strategic sense. Our opponents would make hay if we gave them this opportunity.

[William Norton]

Could someone please answer my question: if we pull out of the EPP-ED before 2009 will the Party be open to litigation (either from the EPP-ED or a dissident MEP)?

[malcolm]

Could you explain to me Richard (or anyone else)what exactly the benefits of our MEPs remaining within the EPP are for our party and our country?I asked this question on another thread but did not recieve any answers.

[Richard Gibbs]

On William Norton's point about the party being open to litigation, I don't think it would be as I doubt that the arrangement's with the EPP-ED are in the form of an enfoceable contract. It would be interesting to know definitively what the reality of this is though.
Malcolm, I will happily tell you exactly what the benefits are of our MEP's permanently remaining in the EPP-ED; none. The EPP-ED's aims (as Dr Rotherham expertly points out), are largely contrary to those of the Tory party and there is a massive disjuncture between what the Conservative party stands for and what the EPP-ED stand for.
In my original point, I made it clear that I agreed that the theory behind leaving is impeccable and I have no disagreement here. My simple point is this; if the Tory party pulled it's MEP's out of the EPP-ED group now, then that would be a blatant breach of a manifesto commitment. The sensible thing is to announce our departure at the end of this European Parliament.
That way the practical concerns - such as the possibility of litigation, if there are any - can be dealt with; there would be no room for damaging allegations of breaking election promises, there would be time to properly attract support for a coalition to join us and the ultimate goal of leaving the EPP-ED would be achieved. Game, set and match. Can anyone tell me why we should foresake the advantages of time and quit now?

[Oberon Houston]

I would like to see greater clarity on what we would like to see strategically regarding our European Foreign Policy.

I am no great fan of continued integration, or indeed, no great fan of the extent that it has occurred to date, however I think we have been guilty of letting our hearts rule our head in the Tory Party over European integration.

It is easy to forget these days that just a couple of generations ago Franco-German aggression dragged the world into a terrible war for the second time in twenty years. This was the initial driving force behind integration, to make hostilities between European powers much less likely to occur. Of course there is a price to pay for this, but if one looks at the huge shifts on world order occurring at the moment, is it wise to move towards a unilateral policy? If you want to really scare yourself, read ‘The Shield of Achilles’ by Phillip Bobbitt for the possible outcomes. Given the enlargement of potentially Anglo-friendly countries, we are in danger of acting very rashly on this.

Former German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, once said ‘A Europe without Britain is just a torso’. If we lose our heads on this, we might get to put his assertion to the test. So before we begin plucking around thoughtlessly at the edges of policy: more debate, much more; and much more strategic thinking please.

[R UK]

That old one about the EU being the end of European war....

It was NATO that has defended Europe from the Soviet threat, and US power that ended the Second (and the First) World War.

The EU has based itself totally on negatives. Maybe nations will fight each other...mmmm....I know...let's eliminate all the nations into a single power bloc!!!

And the EU was born.

However a little closer examination of the tendency of nations to go to war (or not), would have thrown up something a lot more durable. As Kant pointed out, no two democracies have ever made war on each other. In fact democracy's greatest plus is its tendency to discourage war (Bush's Iraq strategy is based on tis idea - yet to see if it will actually work). The EU in eliminating nation states is unfortunately eliminating many long established democracies as it goes. Mmmm...not such a good plan really.

The three things that encourage warfare are ethnic rivalries, economic collapse and the decline of empires. Here again the EU performs poorly. It is creating an empire - or a political structure by eliminating all the nation states, but it is bound itself to collapse in time - as all centralised blocs have done throughout history. The EU is creating one of the key causes of future war - itself.

As for collapsing economies, the EU is creating the slowest growth region in the world. Unemployment and especially youth unemployment is at disaster levels...see the riots in France and many other similar events that somehow go unreported across Europe. The European economy is teetering in a period of rapid worldwide growth. Its pathetic economic performance is a potential cause of future war. - just add war-making ingredient number three.

Ethnic tensions. The EU has brought together the elites of Europe - corrupt, incompetent, self-serving as they are. It has done little or nothing to bring the peoples any closer together. In fact there is more hatred being generated by forcing ethnic groups together who would far prefer to stay separate.

The French/German hatred is the key faultline in the European ethnic divide. It took the Russian threat, and American power to keep it in check for the last sixty years. The French have had to be given everything on a plate to keep them happy, and the Germans have agreed to cripple their economic potential inside the Euro, and with ridiculously high social costs.

In the end the world is moving on. The EU has locked France and Germany into the past. When the locks break, the tension will be bad. It would be better to allow people to move into the future by degrees, and not create barriers to change as the EU has done. France and Germany are boiling up, and it's getting dangerous.

No in total, the EU is the greatest threat to peace imaginable. David Cameron wants to move Europe forward by abandoning ever closer union and the elimination of nation states. He wants to create the new localism which will bring democracy right back down to the human level, and in the process make Europe a fee trading group of true democracies. This will save war...not the stuck views of Ken Clarke and his ilk.

We must exit the EPP urgently. It should have happened years ago. It cannot be delayed any longer. Change must arrive in the Euro lock-up, and Cameron's Conservatives will be at the vanguard.

[Oberon Houston]

Well thats the case for exit.

The case for remining involved? Does anyone dare speak up, or will I have to debate the other side of this one? Not much of a debate if all we hear is exit exit exit.

[R UK]

You have Ken Clake's contact details? If not contact his Rushcliffe Constituency. He'd be delighted to furnish you with a long list of convincing arguments that we must stay within the EPP.

Corruption - no problem.

Higher Minimum Wage - a must

More power to trade unions - a natural conservative policy

Ever Closer Union - a federal superstate - every Tory's dream

And that's just the declared policies (bar the corruption which is well known and no one lifts a finger) - bar our own brave Roger Helmer MEP who charges every fortification placed in his way by the corrupt and croneying - only to be disowned by his fellow Conservative MEP's led by one Timothy Kirkhope - another person who needs to expalin himself publicly for the disgusting stance he has taken against Roger Helmer.

Otherwise also click on website of Daniel Hannan MEP and look to at Timothy H-H MEP. This is not just politics. It's a straightforward battle between good and evil. No wonder no one wants to back the EPP publicly. It stinks even at this distance (London)

[malcolm]

I would be grateful if you would debate the other side (if there is one)Oberon.This blog has been very useful to me in improving my knowledge across a whole range of subjects of which I am ignorant.The case for remaining within the EPP is one of them!

[Richard Gibbs]

Many of the problems pointed out are problems with the EU project in general and more than just issues to do with the EPP-ED. Arguing to leave the EPP-ED isn't the same as getting these things changed; just as saying we should stay in the EPP-ED isn't an attempt to justify the many flaws within the EU.
The case for leaving the EPP-ED is a broad one to do with political consistency and ensuring that Tory MEP's stand by the values of the party in general when they are in Brussels/Strasbourg.
The case for remaining in the group is a narrower one, but it would be naive to pretend it has no merits. For all its faults, the EPP-ED is currently the only viable centre right grouping in the European Parliament. That's just current reality. To leave it would be to opt out of that consensus and to hope to find something better. The alternatives are alliance with UKIP, Le Pen et al, or total isolation as independence. Politically it wouldn't matter a lot, other than it would be symbolically potent; the Conservative party out on the fringe of Europe, so to speak.
The manifesto pledge is something I've mentioned before, but the fact that we made it in 2004 is an argument in itself for saying we shouldn't leave it yet. Those who want us to ignore this commitment should be prepared to explain why the points they raise against the EPP-ED are any more valid today than they were at the time the last manifesto was written.
So the case for staying can be summed up as follows; it's not a great group to be in, but it is about as good as they get at the moment. None of this contradicts the sensible middle way of announcing an intention to leave in 2009; that would give time to rectify the problem of no viable alternative and would quash the other point in favour of remaining - the manifesto pledge.
Right now though, the case for the EPP-ED is one of 'better the devil you know.'

[malcolm]

'The Conservative pary out on the fringes of Europe'.Isn't that really where we are Richard?
There is little of the current European project that the majority of our party believe in would it be more honest of us to have our MEPs acting alone rather than having to pander to allies whose aims and desires are at odds with our own?
Cameron is rightly enjoying a honeymoon period with the party he should make use of it and pull our MEPs now.Better that than having a long running argument with a bunch of recalcitrant MEPs.

[R UK]

'the EPP-ED is currently the only viable centre right grouping in the European Parliament. That's just current reality.'

The past looks like the past, yes it is true. The future potential groupings are not limited to Le Pen and so on. This 'lie' is the only conceivable defence that the EPP-ers have, and that's exactly what it is - not true..a fabrication or charitably put, an inability to see what the potential is for the Conservative Party once we leave the EPP.

I would prefer better and more experienced and knowledgable voices than mine to explain what will happen next. The Czechs, Poles, Portuguese and others have highly respectable parties who are waiting for the Conservatives to give the lead. Once we do they will form a new grouping. Owen Paterson went round all the EU countries where there are interested parties to join a non-EPP Conservative-lead group in 2003. IDS was all set to quit the EPP and form this new group when he felled by the coordinated media assassination.

Howard was not keen to suffer the same fate as IDS and struck a deal with Ken Clarke to put the issue onto the backburner. Cameron knows how dangerous this issue could be and is treating it with extreme caution as regards the timing of the Conservatives' departure from the EPP. He has had the letter from Frau Merkel stating that she looks forward to working with him as long as he remains inside the EPP - which is as good as a threat.

Ken Clarke has already been back on TV championing a revolt against Cameron over the issue. The whole structure of power inside the EU could become vulnerable if the Conservatives set up a new group not committed to ever closer union but the survival of the nation-state democracies. The big guns are lining up to try and intimidate Cameron. My guess is that the more they try and intimidate him, the stronger will his conviction grow that we must take on the pro-EPP bullies.

They will try to keep the real issues out of sight of the electorate and feed them with the kind of twaddle you read in Richard Gibbs' piece above.

Read www.rogerhelmer.com/contraepp.asp for the true picture. It'll shock you. (or find Daniel Hannan MEP's site)

[R UK]

As if any more evidence were needed of the EPP bullies, I've just found this piece on my personal email, 'Take your Clarke predjudice and shove it somewhere else . I
>recommend UKIP.' sender philhurd@hotmail.co.uk - not previously known to me.

Not prepared to speak publicly about your support for Ken Clarke and the EPP, Phil? Why not? I think he'd do well as the next Party Leader. Once one Anthony Blair reaches the exit door.

[R UK - EPP SPOOKS]

How did that Ken Clarke spook get my private email? Can't you secure the site a bit more, Tim? We've had tampering already. Now we're getting personal approaches to shut up.

Make no mistake. There are powerful people out there who will defend the EPP regardless of its merits - Frau Merkel, Ken Clarke - people with powerful media connections - but that's not their only game. Black Arts are standard fare too.

Cameron is right to play the EPP carefully, but the public need to know how vulnerable he is if he doesn't get support. Read Dan Hannan'S NEWSLETTER. Rally round Hague and Cameron on this one, Conservatives. It's an important battle.

[Richard Gibbs]

Malcolm, I agree with you as to where the Tory Party currently is re Europe and I have repeatedly said that I think the intelligent thing to do is for Tory MEP's to leave the EPP-ED. I support David Cameron am pleased he is taking the approach he is.
However, we shouldn't let our hearts rule our heads and do this right now simply to satisfy our end desire.
R UK is clearly greatly animated by all this, but despite a lot of generalities, there is nothing substantive in his point.
The closest R UK seems to come in answering the practical questions, is his assumption that 'others' are just waiting for the Tories to quit the EPP-ED so as to be able to join with our MEP's in a new group.
At best this is assumption; at worst it underlines his suggestion that 'better and more experienced and more knowledgeable voices' than his should explain what would happen next.
We are all agreed that the Tory MEP's should leave the EPP-ED; that seems to be the basic consensus. However, I still see no specific reason why we should do this now and not wait until 2009.
Ignoring the conspiracy theories, the only tangible arguments I can see our opponents making are the manifesto issue and the lack of real alternatives currently in the EP. R-UK can brand that a lie if he wishes, but hoping for 'others' to join with us doesn't seem much of a contradiction to me.
If we said we were going to do this in 2009 it would allow us the time to find allies and to do this properly. Otherwise we are acting out of a desire to be seen to be doing so as opposed to because we want to do this properly. Or am I to take reference to previous posts as 'twaddle' as a substitute for concrete, practical reasons why we shouldn't wait till 2009?

[R UK]

The move out of the EPP was to happen in 2004 as planned by IDS. He was felled and the chance was missed. The Ken clarke veto blocked Michael Howard.

Cameron does not observe the Ken Clarke veto. He was elected on the basis that the Party will leave the EPP as soon as he wins power. That's usually known as a mandate.

The European parties who are ready to join the Conservatives in a new non-federalist grouping are already known. To abandon the Conservative Party to EPP corruption and croneyism for another four years would be criminal.

There are no arguments that make it right to stay in the EPP a day longer. Four more years..we may as well forget it. By then Europe will be so knotted up with its own Army, defence procurement, Police Force, diplomatic corps, that Britain will to all intents and purposes no longer exist.

If Richard Gibbs desires the elimination of the world's longest lasting democracy, the mother of parliaments, then there is of coure no urgency. On the contrary delay is the tactic of the federalists. They need four more years to get Britain and others into a total stranglehold from which there will be little chance of escape. Nice try, Richard. Twaddle was as kind as I could say. The reality is, you speak intentional twaddle, feigning to agree when your strategy is actually to destroy.

[R UK]

Let the better minds speak -

Where would Conservative MEPs go?

They could either sit as Independents or form a new Group with like-minded parties. This is easily done: the rules of the Parliament stipulate that a Political Group must contain at least 19 MEPs from at least five member states. There are already 27 Conservative MEPs, and it would be a straightforward matter to attract respectable, Atlanticist parties from four or more other nationalities. In particular, many of the free market parties from Central and Eastern Europe have repeatedly sought to create a new Group under Tory leadership, and cannot understand why the Tories themselves are reluctant to leave the EPP. It is worth stressing that there is no question of sitting with extremist parties, or with parties that have a colourful past, such as Italy’s “post-fascist” Alleanza Nazionale (which is, incidentally, negotiating to join the EPP). It is also worth pointing out that several of the parties currently in the EPP are tainted by sleaze or extremism: Chirac’s UMP was involved in a number of funding scandals, while many of Silvio Berlusconi’s allies have been accused of corruption.

[Richard Gibbs]

This still does not answer the point about why we shouldn't wait until the end of this parliament. If R UK is right about other centre right Atlanticist parties wanting us to join with them in a new group, then it would be better to have this planned to come into force at the beginning of the next EP session.
Once again, I agree with all of the sentiments behind this and the problems with the EPP-ED are not at issue, but I am concerned at the danger's of breaking a manifesto commitment so soon after it was made.
While I have no reason to doubt the desire of others to be part of a new centre right group, I suspect that we could ensure this was better suited to our needs and more capable of exerting itself in the EP if it was negotiated to come into force in 2009. The fact that unsavoury parties are seeking to join the EPP-ED would add extra impetus to these initiatives over the period of this parliament and give the new group a greater degree of strength than it would otherwise have.
Ultimately, while there is no disagreement as to the end goal, I still see no compelling reason to make the change now. In fact, all the advantages would be maximised and the disadvantages avoided if we went in 2009 rather than now.

[R UK]

...apart from one minor detail viz. that Britain will have ceased to exist by 2009.

Read another expert's output...

What is the European People’s Party?

The European People’s Party (EPP) is a union of Centrist and Christian Democratic parties founded in 1976 to promote European integration. Its Basic Charter commits it to “compete for the realisation of a United States of Europe”. Its current manifesto advocates:

• A European police force and army

• Single EU seats on the UN, the IMF and the WTO

• A European president and foreign minister

• The abolition of the national veto

• A pan-European income tax, to be levied by the European Parliament

Of course upsetting a few folk in Brussels is unthinkable to the likes of Mr Gibbs - even preferring the destruction of his own country. To me and most people you have a strange set of priorities. Put simply, you are wrong.

[malcolm]

You're going mad again Henry/Roger/MalcolmThomas etc.Staying in the EPP or leaving is not going to lead to the destruction of Britain.
Having said that,with approximately zero reasons being put forward for staying in a group whose ideas are not in our countries interest I think it would be foolish in the extreme to wait for years to make a decision which I believe would be popular in the country and extremely popular in the party.The fact that it might upset Merkel is just an added bonus.She might be able to push Blair around David Cameron should make sure she never does the same to him.

[R UK]

I wish I could agree with you malcolm (about me being mad I mean)!!!!

Unfortunately unless a strong resistance to 'ever closer union' gets underway, Britain will cease to exist in any meaningful sense, and the date 2009 is a good estimate of when this could happen by.

There won't be a grouping in the Europarliament to resist the 'United States of Europe' unless the Conservatives lead it. The EPP is so important as it blocks out all potential resistance. It is pivotal to the future of Europe. Cameron's decision on the EPP has big implications.

I liked your 'again'! I'm sorry but if the emperor has no clothes, someone has to say so - even if it all seems a little embarrassing. I give you the bare facts.

[Richard Gibbs]

Once again R UK resorts to wild generalities for want of a point. To suggest that the UK will cease to exist if Tory MEP's don't pull out of the EPP right this minute, is just nonsense. It's exactly this sort of siren 'the end of the world is nigh' sentiment that allows our opponents to paint us as extreme and irrelevant.
It is clear that the EPP-ED is not something that the Tory party should want to be part of and I think it's fair to say that nobody is seeking to prop up the ideals of that group.
Nobody is suggesting we don't make a decision for years; we should make the decision now to leave in 2009. The reasons for that are well rehearsed and I have not seen, yet, a single good reason as to why we should leave now; breaking a manifesto pledge and not having any formed alternative to move to.
David Cameron has a good, bold policy here. We shouldn't let attitudes that would negate the positives of this move, prevail.

[R UK]

'not having any formed alternative to move to'.

This is chicken and egg stuff. One day on the phone round a few suitable allies and we're off. Let's do it!!!!

Those who don't realise that the EU is a threat to the survival of its nation states are not well informed. The move away from the EPP provides a way to move the whole of the EU away from federalism. There is no group in the Europarl to give the opposite view. The EU needs an effective opposition. We must provide it.

Cameron will make his moves when he's ready. Even Blair's attacking him on the EPP. So now he has Blair, Merkel and Clarke all at him over this.

If that doesn't convince you that this decision is of major strategic significance and not just a little Brussles tidy up, then nothing will. The survival of our democracy depends on this just as much as it did at other key moments in our history.

I don't need any pep talks from the likes of Richard Gibbs. He like many others hasn't taken on board the key significance to Europe's future of the Conservatives' EPP decision.

Setting up the new group - The Europe of the Democratic Nationstates EDN - will create the first effective opposition to the ever closer union (ECU) eu in Brussels in 50 years. Long overdue. Of course ECU threatens the UK's existence. that's the whole point of it.

[R UK]

I wrote to a well known MEP about the issue of whether we are in breach of an agreement by leaving the EPP. He replied as follows -
QUOTE...
It is inconceivable to me that anyone should contemplate legal action. Under parliament rules no member may accept instructions from an outside body (this is bad in one way -- the euro-luvvies can refuse to leave -- but good in another, as no one can be held responsible for what they can't control).

Besides, the EPP agreement was based on a written commitment from the EPP to "respect our distinctive institutional and constitutional positions", and to provide the so-called ED with a separate identity and "adequate staff and financial resopurces". This they have comprehensively failed to do.

This is also the answer to those who say that they gave a personal commitment, at the request of Liam Fox, to sit with the EPP for five years. Yes, but it was based on an agreement between the Party and the EPP, which the EPP has comprehensively failed to honour. So both the Party's commitment to the EPP, and that of individuals, are null and void.

Feel free to quote. UNQUOTE

His initials are RH

[Richard Gibbs]

So I take it there are no solid arguments against announcing a decision to leave in 2009? It would fulfill the objectives set out in these posts and would nullify the criticisms likely to be levelled at us by opponents.
http://richard-gibbs.blogspot.com/

[Sean Fear]

I think that makes sense Richard. It would also enable us to question our Euro candidates on the issue at the next round of hustings.

[Lee Rotherham]

Some interesting debate and questions in all this. Here's an extra tuppence thrown in from my metaphorical piggy bank:

1. Your MEP contact is quite right about fluidity of realignments. I understand that a Swedish Group is leaving the EDD to join the Greens even as we speak, which is itself occasioning a reshuffle of party alliances.

2. A Conservative party group is indeed logistically viable, and immediately so. From experience, there are enough sensible Conservative parties that would be prepared right now to cross the qualifying threshold to form a group. All it takes is a firm commitment from Smith Square (or should that be Victoria Street?) as the starting pistol. Extra parties could then be appraised at leisure based on their track record. No need for dear old Struan (whom I otherwise greatly respect) to throw a barney on that one at all.

3. There are very good reasons for not hanging around to 2009. Firstly, far better to sort this out way in advance of the next General (and indeed European) election. Secondly,the waiting game has already been going on for years now. Delay has been used as an excuse to permanently kick this issue into the long grass. This has damaged the Party's reputation as seriously ever wanting to form a non-federalist bloc. Thirdly, and crucially, the longer we wait, the more of our natural allies get picked off and go native. We saw it with the Spanish and with the Danes; it seems we are now seeing it happen to the Portuguese. Delay is smothering European Conservatism.

4. Litigation. A new one on me. Perhaps some EPP staff might be brassed off if they found themselves out of a job, but no doubt their contracts would provide generous customary European levels of compensation, and it would be an opportunity to review which EPP Brits are actually in favour of Conservative policies.

5. Isolation. Once again, I have to underline that forming an independent group does not mean being alone. The Christian Democrats would still need our votes in Strasbourg when opposing job-destroying Socialist measures about to hit their car factories.

Finally, I can't resist a dig at Blair. I note yesterday he said that he needed a budget deal because otherwise it would have fallen to the European Parliament to set it. Horror of horrors! So that means he believes that both the PES and EPP are a waste of space who can't be trusted.

Merry Chrimbly

Lee

[malcolm]

Best post on this thread Lee,well done.
Happy Christmas to you too.

[Deckchair of despair]

I don't know who R UK is (and don't much care); but my own private thoughts on any subject have never been so well articulated by someone else as by R UK on this subject. I have nothing to say except that I agree completely.

[Richard Balfe]

One point that has not really been aired is can we find other groups from 4 other countries and you really need 5 or you face eternal blackmail. The fact is that most of these parties are already in the EPP-ED and just as David Cameron leads any decision for the UK MEP's to leave the EPP-ED so it is these other Party leaders who will have to make their minds up on what they can get. There seems to me to be little appetite around the National Capitals for change at the moment and William Hague is going to have to do a lot of visiting and convincing to put a package together.
I am not saying he cannot but one difficult question is not ideology but the practicalities of power. In other words these Parties are going to ask what can we get from linking up with the UK Tories that is more than we get where we are.
He could start with a visit to Sir Reg Empey in Belfast and find out what his price would be? At the moment the one MEP from that party Jim Nicholson holds a senior EP position which gives him a second British Tory place on the EP Bureau.
One thing we also have to remember is the question of size. Many of the parties we are looking at are quite small in numbers and there is a genuine fear amongst some that they would be swamped by Brits
Earlier postings asked about the possibility of litigation I doubt it but the group might find it had a liability towards the staff this would/could mean that the new group had to take with it some of the UK staff employed under the EPP-ED banner. There may also be other costs connected with the break up but it is not impossible just difficult.
This is not an easy one and needs a lot of study.

[Editor]

Thank you Richard for taking part in this discussion.

It's great to have a former MEP's perspective.

[Richard Balfe]

I wonder how many people realise that if they do not leave the EPP-ED group by midnight tonight they are there for another year as funding is determined by group Membership at midnight in Brussels on 31/12. That is now just 42 minutes away so the chance of an early exit has been lost. Maybe in view of this there is time to now think this through in a less frenetic fashion

[Derek]

So many threads, so little time to read them all!
So we may have missed out on £700,000 by delaying a decision. I'm sure DC and his team were well aware of the deadline, and still have every intention of completing the pledge at the earliest time. He knows that this is of utmost importance to a small number of concerned citizens who are watching, and his ability to deliver on this important matter will be of the utmost importance. Failure is not something any new leader wants to be associated with.

I must say I am in complete agreement with R UK's assessment of the importance and urgency of the situation.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"I wish I could agree with you malcolm (about me being mad I mean)!!!!

Unfortunately unless a strong resistance to 'ever closer union' gets underway, Britain will cease to exist in any meaningful sense, and the date 2009 is a good estimate of when this could happen by"

Dr R North and Helen Szamuely, authors of the very well researched and written EUReferendum blog, weekly guests on Talksport Radio would agree with the arguement put forward by R UK: that by 2009 Britain will lose its identity to a very large and damaging degree. Unfortunately, at this moment in time, the aforementioned authors are not admirers of Mr Cameron.

.

[LETTER TO RUSHCLIFFE CONSERVATIVES]

FIGHT EU CORRUPTION

In July 2004, Portuguese politician José Manuel Barroso was nominated as the new EU Commission president. In August 2004, he and his family enjoyed six days free hospitality on a luxury yacht owned by Greek shipping magnate and multi-billionaire Spiros Latsis. In September 2004, the Commission gave the nod (under EU state-aid rules), to a €10 million grant to the Lamda shipyard, in which Mr. Latsis has a substantial interest. Evidence is emerging that Mr. Latsis's companies seem to have other EU connections as well, not least through the notorious Athens airport project .

Roger Helmer MEP (Cons East Midlands) decided to speak out in the EuroParliament to raise the doubts that he and many others had about the grant. You might think that opposing EU fraud would please other Conservatives. Well, you’d be wrong. For his pains, Roger Helmer was immediately kicked out of the Conservative delegation by its leader Timothy Kirkhope MEP, and Roger’s whip removed. This was despite the fact that opposing the fraud endemic in the EU is a Conservative Party manifesto commitment.

Roger Helmer has still not been reinstated, though thousands of Conservatives have sent him messages of support. Ken Clarke is the only Conservative to actually speak publicly against Roger Helmer. On BBC World At One, he referred to Roger as an ‘untypical’ Conservative and ‘so extreme that M.Howard had taken the whip away from him’ (not correct). Rushcliffe Conservatives, where do you stand? Are you in favour of EU fraud? Do you think it is ‘extreme’ to even ask questions about it? Ken Clarke seems to think it is.

The EU is riddled with corruption from the top to the bottom. Inside the EPP, Conservative MEP’s who want to speak out are effectively muzzled. Surely Rushcliffe Conservatives, you would be happier if Cameron went ahead and formed the new grouping in the EuroParliament. You should not allow your MP to pillory Cameron any longer for doing the right thing, or to belittle the courage of Roger Helmer fighting a long and lonely battle in Brussels. It’s time you did something, and proposed a motion of no confidence in your candidate. The Party awaits.

[Mike Smith]

Some excellent posts, but many wary of 'evil counsellors' possibly surrounding David Cameron.

I think Mr Cameron is going to have to take personal responsibility for his Euro-policies, including the ONLY specific pledge of his leadership campaign - to pull the Euro-Tories out of the EPP.

So 'Dave', where's the beef?

Let's hope it's not turning into fudge.

[Derek]

Regarding Richard Balfe's comments [above], I asked Dan Hannan to give his response. Here is what he says: "Richard is wrong: the funding comes in three-month tranches, so we have until 1 April. (Or, strictly speaking, until 22 March, the last date on which the President of the Parliament could formally announce our move in open plenary)".

[R UK]

Derek - good detective work. (as usual)

[Keith Standring]

I recently wrote to the Shadow Foreign Secretary (copy to DC and others) to let him know just how pleased I was to read of David Cameron's determined promise to end the unhappy link of Conservative MEP's with the ultra-federalist European People's Party.

I advised that as an active member of the Conservative Party I was sure that DC's promise is music to the ears of the overwhelming majority of the Conservative Party who would like to restore honour and consistency to our position in Europe, and I unequivocally supported his intention.

I have just received a reply from DC's Office which reads, "Thank you so much for copying your email to William Hague to David Cameron - he's asked me to thank you and to say that he appreciated what you had to say.

David Cameron has made clear that it is his firm policy that the Conservative Party under his leadership will not remain a member of the European Peoples Party-European Democrats Group (EPP-ED) in the European Parliament, and will aim to form a new grouping which reflects more closely our views on the way forward for Europe.

The Conservative Party has a fundamentally different approach on the key institutional and constitutional questions relating to the future direction of the European Union, and it is natural that we should wish to ally ourselves with parties which share that view. But we intend to maintain close relations with other centre-right parties with which we agree on much, but not on these issues.

David Cameron has asked the new Shadow Foreign Secretary to take forward this process, with appropriate consultation of all involved. In seeking a new alignment within the European Parliament, the Conservative Party will aim to continue to work closely with fellow centre-right parties in the European Parliament on the many issues on which we agree.

Many thanks again for writing."

David Cameron has been attacked by several Euro-enthusiasts for promising to end this unhappy link. It is usually the way in politics that, when a change is proposed, its opponents become hyper-active while its supporters sit back and take things for granted. I hope, though, that, on this issue, those who support the leader’s line will give him public backing.

[BB]

Do you see Kameron is now threatening to deselect MEPs if they refulse to leave the EPP.

Boy Wonder talking big. Seems to be making an awful lot of enemies for someone who says he wants to be people-friendly.