Dan Hannan to be kicked out of the EPP for highlighting despotism in the European Parliament

This should be the last nail in the coffin for those still unsure about the principle of leaving the European's People's Party.

Last week Dan Hannan MEP wrote an amazing account of Hans Gert-Pöttering's (the already powerful President of the European Parliament) successful attempt to get the authority to interpret Parliamentary rules as he wished.

It's worth reading in full. 

Basically, about two dozen MEPs from across Europe, including British Conservatives and UKIP, decided to use two perfectly legal mechanisms to register their disapproval of the EU constitution: the right to call for an electronic vote so that you can see exactly who votes which way, and the right to talk for no more than one minute about why you voted the way you did. As Hannan says:

"Two dozen MEPs making a series of one minute speeches hardly constitutes a filibuster. At worst, we would have kept MEPs from their lunch for half an hour and perhaps delayed the start of the afternoon session. But even this is intolerable to the parliamentary authorities. Blinded by their resentment of “anti-Europeans”, which is in turn a surrogate for the fear and contempt they feel for their own electorates, they have abandoned any pretence at legality in order to prevent us making our point in the chamber. The very sound of someone calling for a referendum is offensive to their guilty ears."

In response to this little display of democracy, Hans Gert-Pöttering wrote an extraordinary letter to the Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, a German Socialist, requesting permission to be able to stop such procedures at his discretion. He actually put it in writing! His request was duly rubber-stamped. You can understand Hannan's temptation to compare it to Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act which gave him the power to override the German parliament and constitution.

This morning in the European Parliament, there was a vote on the Committee's proposals to grant Gert-Pöttering these powers even though the proposals hadn't even been distributed to members. In criticising this, Hannan paraphrased the argument in his blog post, pointedly saying that "a majority is not the same as the rule of law." EPP leader Joseph Daul then stood up irately and declared that he wanted Hannan out of his Party, saying with an air of great concession that he had "no problem with you people calling for a referendum in Britain but I will not have you doing it on the Parliament floor as a member of the group".

Astonishingly, Christopher Beazley - a Conservative MEP - apparently berated Hannan just before speaking this morning, also threatening to call for the EPP to remove the Whip from him if he dared to stand up and criticise the undemocratic motion!

There is a process to go through to get Hannan kicked out, but it should be confirmed by the next Strasbourg session in two weeks. It should also be noted that the fact the Conservatives won't be getting a vote on his expulsion is a broken EPP promise. In the negotiations following the 2004 elections that led to the creation of EPP-ED the Conservatives were promised that they would have that right - but this of course was immediately reneged upon.

Whilst absolutely shameful, being outside of the EPP will be a blessing in disguise for Hannan. He said nothing that wasn't Conservative Party policy, indeed leaving the EPP isn't against Party policy, so he will retain the Tory Whip. This has been confirmed by Den Dover, the Conservative Whip who said he backed him and that as far as he was concerned Hannan was sitting as a Conservative and will be a Conservative candidate at the next election. He will, however, personally get the procedural and financial benefits of being outside of the EPP bloc, such as getting prime speaking slots in debates.

Just like Roger Helmer MEP did when he was kicked out of the grouping for daring to question the Commission President about corruption.

And just like the Conservatives will when they leave this undemocratic group. We can't leave it soon enough.

Related links: Polish Law & Justice Party looks set to bolster eurosceptic grouping and Dan Hannan gives seven reasons why we must leave the EPP

3pm update: Hannan has now blogged about being thrown out

5pm update: Click here to download a scan of Gert-Pöttering's letter to the Committee

Friday morning update: Roger Helmer MEP writes for ConservativeHome about life outside the EPP and Dan Hannan explains it all in the Telegraph

Comments

[Sir David Warbury]

Just Hinchcliffe - you really are a burke.

[Sean Fear]

So he didn't compare him to a Nazi, then, Philip? Is that what you're saying?

[Tapestry]

The Economist this week states that the EU believes the British public is too thick to understand the benefits of EU membership.

I'm definitely too thick to understand them. The best way to correct my faulty intellect would be to permit Britain to leave the EU and see that I have made a terrible miscalculation.

Then we won't need to send Dan to Brussels to tell Potty that his parliament is a farce.

How anyone can take these jokers seriously defeats me.

[Simon Marshall]

"Well done Mr Hannan. We need another Cromwell"

No we don't we need another Stauffenberg

[Deputy Editor]

Philip, please don't use capital letters.

I have to second Sean in asking what you are actually saying about the Nazi reference.

It is perfectly acceptable to compare things to the Nazi/Soviet systems.

What's the problem?

[Tapestry]

Rule 202. Members of Parliament cannot propose amendments if a committee doesn't like it. That's really democratic. Who appoints the committee I wonder!!!

[Stewart Geddes]

It is worth remembering that the EU is one of three organisations we are members of. Neither is dependent on the other. Only one concerns itself with a European Superstate - The EU. We should now withdraw from the EU. We can retain the free trade arrangements in other ways.

We would save a fortune in contributions and the EU would be forced (by lack of funds) to be more accountable, realistic and Democratic.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

On this whole issue of the "European Democrats", it has always been my understanding that they were only revived as a fig leaf to allow the Conservatives to continue sitting with the EPP whilst pretending they had independence and distance from them. But the European Democrats is nothing more than a discussion group. Does it have staff? Money? Even its own website? (No, pages on the website for the "EPP-ED" caucus website don't count.)

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

And you, 'Sir' David, do not exist.

[bill]

Louise

I was working in the City at the time and looked on amazed as the Tories stoked up inflation and then compounded their error by taking us in to the ERM. It is fair to say that a lot of supposedly informed opinion got that one wrong but I guess they didn't lose their jobs, houses and businesses.

As if they couldn't make things worse, they did by getting rid of Maggie. There followed Maastricht not to mention the cones hotline. I was no fan of John Major. But having grown up in the 70s, nothing at that time could have ever made me support Labour. I don't think UKIP was around as an alternative to the Tories then though. The Tories really need to get their act together
if they want to get elected.

[Philip Porter]

To Deputy Editor: "It is perfectly acceptable to compare things to the Nazi/Soviet systems. What's the problem?"

--> 1) Sean and you may not have a problem - but Dan Hannan himself did a week ago. In fact, he apecified two problems on his blog last week: “I am almost tempted to compare it to the Nazi Ermächtigungsgesetz – the Enabling Act of 1933 which allowed Hitler to override parliament and the constitution. But I won’t because a) it would be disproportionate and b) it would be terrifically rude to Hans-Gert, who lost his father in the war and who, for all that he is behaving appallingly on this occasion, is a decent man and a democrat.”

--> 2) Dan has committed a tactical error in using an over-the-top comparison that will distract all attention away from his main point. He has just given his opponents an ideal chance to present him (and the rest of the Conservative party) as a bunch of intemperate unreconstructed xenophobes.

If the national press picks up this story (I hope they do not), do you think they will focus on Dan Hannan trying to protest against an abuse of the Parliament's Rules of Procedures (an argument which is in any case quickly disproved by a reading of Rule 202) - or will they focus on Dan Hannan's 1933 metaphor?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Depends which paper picks it up Phillip,the Guardian and Independant will adopt their usual Europhilliac stance, the Mirror will say anything to bash the Conservative party. I would guess the others will support Dan Hannan.

[Tapestry]

Stewart, see again The Economist. Brussels is threatening that if Britain were to withdraw they would make sure we had to pay a bigger contribution to maintain access to EU markets than we do now.

They're completely barking.

We buy double what we sell to them. I can't imagine BMW or Mercedes wanting to lose the UK market. Of course they'd talk if we want to withdraw. They have too much to lose by having access to UK markets.

They're a lot of politicians puffed up with their own self importance.

Just ignore them.

Get out of the EPP as Cameron has said he will.

And hopefully get out of the EU total as well, and we can get back to some kind of sanity.

In the meantime Dan can say what he wants. That;s what he's paid for.

[Philip Porter]

Tapestry (16:27): “Rule 202. Members of Parliament cannot propose amendments if a committee doesn't like it. That's really democratic. Who appoints the committee I wonder!!!”

Rule 177:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+20071128+RULE-177+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN&navigationBar=YES

In particular Rule 177(1): “Members of committees and committees of inquiry shall be elected after nominations have been submitted by the political groups and the Non-attached Members. The Conference of Presidents shall submit proposals to Parliament. The composition of the committees shall, as far as possible, reflect the composition of Parliament.”

[John Scott]

This is schoolboy politics. Again, the Tory Party looks as though it is playing around with taxpayers' money when we should be talking about the big issues of the day. If Hannan hates Europe why doesn't he go and do a proper job where he isn't taking money from the hard pressed taxpayers of the United Kingdom?

[Deputy Editor]

Philip, this is getting silly - Dan paid all due deference to Gert-Pottering.

A perfect example of all this was last week when Nicholas Winterton - speaking in the House of Commons - compared the curtailment of debate about the Lisbon Treaty with the kind of thing that would happen in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. No-one kicked up a stink about that, and why should they have? If we can't reference despotic regimes of the past without being censored then we are doomed to become one ourselves.

Granted, Gert-P has a better excuse for being "offended" than most, but if I could I would bet a lot of money that he was not genuinely "offended" by the comparison.

Re: Rule 202, aren't you just irrelevantly describing the mechanism by which the motion was passed rather than commenting on the principle of it? Just because something is voted through by the set system doesn't mean it can't be undemocratic...

... the 1933 Enabling Act, for example!

[Dale]

"This is schoolboy politics. Again, the Tory Party looks as though it is playing around with taxpayers' money when we should be talking about the big issues of the day. If Hannan hates Europe why doesn't he go and do a proper job where he isn't taking money from the hard pressed taxpayers of the United Kingdom?"

Pathetic, this is conservative home! How about a little intellectual rigor?

[Tapestry]

Rule 177. I like the 'as far as possible' bit!!!!! In Dan's case it clearly was not possible to reflect his viewpoint in any committee. Death to democracy by bureaucratic strangulation.

For an educated opinion (not mine I hasten to add) see this link, which gives a good explanation as to why Dan is right.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/01/too-close-to-truth.html

[Tapestry]

as Dan wrote in The Telegraph.......

Hans-Gert openly admitted that the behaviour of his Euro-sceptic opponents was within the rules. And he wasn’t asking to change those rules – a procedure that would take time. No, he simply wanted permission to disregard them. Permission was duly granted, by 20 committee votes to 3.

Hans-Gert’s letter is worth quoting in full:

Dear Mr Leinen, [Jo Leinen, a German Socialist, is Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee]

In the course of the current part session, Parliament was confronted on several occasions with procedural requests which were formally based on and fulfilled the requirements of a provision of the Rules of Procedure, but which according to the full conviction of myself and of other Members of the House were moved with the intention of obstructing the procedures of the House.

I take the view that my overall responsibility for the implementation of the Rules of Procedure and the powers conferred on me by Rule 19 include the power not to allow such practices.

I should therefore be grateful if, pursuant to Rule 201(1), you could submit to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs the following question for urgent consideration:

‘Can Rule 19(1) be interpreted as meaning that the powers conferred by this Rule include the power to call an end to excessive use of motions such as points of order, procedural motions, explanations of vote and excessive, indiscriminate requests for separate, split or roll call votes where these appear to the President to be aimed at deliberately disrupting the procedures of the House or the rights of other Members.’

I would appreciate it if I could have your Committee’s interpretation before the opening of the next part session.

[Deputy Editor]

Tapestry - thanks for pasting that in, I've also added a scan of the original copy to the bottom of the post. It's worth keeping!

[Sean Fear]

Dale, Con Home is not an official Conservative site. We can commnet on anything that the editors choose to highlight. This is an interesting and important story in its own right.

[Tapestry]

I'd say it's a stitch-up worthy of a Nazi, or Soviet apparatchik, but Potty's so buried in long words he wouldn't have a second to see anything from anyone else's point of view.

The good bit about Hannan's referring to Hitler's Enabling Laws is that it might get Potty to start thinking a bit harder. He's a touch on the robotic side, I would say, and needs a good oiling.

[John Wilkin]

John Scott - Brussels is taking money from the hard pressed taxpayers of the United Kingdom - £12 billion a year I believe. Daniel does UK taxpayers a tremendous service by telling us where that money goes. Were his job as an MEP to disappear as a result of Britain leaving the EU I suspect he wouldn't complain.

[Deputy Editor]

By the way, I meant to mention that the BBC (apparently, I didn't see it) had a story on their website about this earlier this afternoon, with a title implying he had been kicked out for calling G-P a Nazi. The story disappeared soon afterwards.

[Jake]

"He's a touch on the robotic side, I would say, and needs a good oiling."

You are so kind .

More to the point he's a touch on the authoritarian/nazi side which reoccurrs throughout German history .
thus :
" which according to the full conviction of myself and of other Members of the House were moved with the intention of obstructing the procedures of the House "

not a lot of the spirit of democracy there
or anywhere in the EU

[Dale]

"Dale, Con Home is not an official Conservative site. We can commnet on anything that the editors choose to highlight. This is an interesting and important story in its own right."

What are you talking about?

My comment was in response to John Scott's nonsensicle comment about the conservatives wasting taxpayers money by dan hannan's actions. I was saying that conservative home DESERVES some intellectual rigor not nonsensicle the crap that he had come out with.

[Deputy Editor]

This is the view of the Telegraph's Iain Martin (who also refers to the BBC's apparently mistaken take on it):

"If you have yet to read Dan Hannan on his expulsion today from the EPP grouping in the European Parliament, then I cannot recommend it highly enough. He has been thrown out for daring to cause trouble – demanding the parliament stick to its own rules, calling for a referendum on the EU Treaty/Constitution, dangerous stuff like that. I hear the BBC says that his expulsion from the group the Tories really should get round to leaving is related to his having called the President of the EU parliament a Nazi (although I can find no sign of the story on the Beeb’s website).

The point Dan made about Hitler’s 1933 Enabling Act struck me as a perfectly fair and appropriate one. But the EU and many of its supporters are ahistorical in character. Rather than considering the lessons of history carefully, eurofanatics will find it much easier to shout “Nazi slur!”"

[Tapestry]

Same going on at Westminster.

From www.johnredwoodsdiary.com

On Tuesday, following a big row in the Commons the previous day, we were granted two and half hours to discuss amendments to the EU Treaty Bill on police, borders, criminal justice and immigration, instead of the derisory one and half the government originally offered. It was not enough, but clearly better than the first proposal.

Yesterday. on energy, the governemnt reverted to type and allowed only one and a half hours for all the amendments. Needless to say, discussion did not even finish the first group before the guillotine came down and a vote was taken.

With the Lib Dems in full support the government has large majorities. It is determined to prevent proper debate on the detail of the Treaty, preferring hours of general discussion of things like climate change which are peripheral to the impact of the Treaty.

So the government has not only broken its promise to the people to hold a referendum, but also broken its promise to Parliament to allow line by line scrutiny of all the complex new powers the EU is winning from us.

ENDS.

It seems that the democratic lights are going out all over Europe. Hitler would have been proud.

[Sean Fear]

Ah, I missed the quotation marks in your comment, and so I completely misinterpreted what you were saying.

[Philip Porter]

Re Deputy Editor: “Philip, this is getting silly - Dan paid all due deference to Gert-Pottering.”
 he did pay all due deference last week (when he said that he was tempted to make the comparison but then drew back from doing so for two perfectly valid reasons). He did not pay all due deference today in the Chamber (when he went ahead and made the comparison without any of the caveats/nuances he had expressed last week). If Dan had been so scrupulous in the Chamber today, there would not have been any uproar
 I agree that this is getting silly. It is quite clear from Dan Hannan’s blog last week that he himself knew in advance that he should not be making the comparison that he did in the event make today.

-----

Re Deputy Editor: “A perfect example of all this was last week when Nicholas Winterton - speaking in the House of Commons - compared the curtailment of debate about the Lisbon Treaty with the kind of thing that would happen in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. No-one kicked up a stink about that, and why should they have?”
 a perfect counter-example is the Conservative MP for Blaby in the House of Commons last week comparing David Miliband’s presentation of the government’s position with Goebbels’ propaganda. People certainly did kick up a stink then:

Mr. Robathan: The Foreign Secretary is doing a good job of saying that black is white in a rant of propaganda that would be worthy of Goebbels.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even though these are extremely serious matters, we should temper our language when we make contributions to the debate. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw that particular remark.
Mr. Robathan: I will certainly withdraw it, although I must say that my mother lost her first husband in the second world war.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to both sides of the House that hon. Members should treat each other with some courtesy and the House with respect?

 Another perfect counter-example is set out in this article from the Telegraph a few months back (I have deleted the second half which is not relevant to this point):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/17/neu117.xml

A furious David Miliband has demanded an apology after a senior Labour MP compared his approach to the new EU treaty to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler in 1938.
The Foreign Secretary, who is the son of Jewish immigrants, reacted with horror when Michael Connarty, who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, said listening to Mr Miliband explain there was no threat to British sovereignty from the reform treaty reminded him of Chamberlain's "peace in our time" declaration shortly before the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia.
"Maybe I feel this particularly personally but to say this is the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain coming back in the late 1930s from Munich claiming to have had an agreement with Adolf Hitler is not worthy of any committee," said an astonished Mr Miliband.
Mr Connarty, who had summoned Mr Miliband to give evidence about the implications to UK sovereignty of the treaty, told the Foreign Secretary he was ready to apologise "if it hurts your sensitivity".
But when the Labour MP went on to insist that Mr Miliband was being evasive about what were obviously major constitutional changes, thereby prompting another protest from Mr Miliband about the Chamberlain comparison, Mr Connarty added: "It is your sensitivity, not mine."
Mr Miliband replied: "We are all sensitive about it for quite good reason."
Mr Miliband's father and grandfather both fled to England from Brussels to escape the advancing German army in May 1940. His mother stayed behind and joined his father after the war.

---

Re Deputy Editor: “Re: Rule 202, aren't you just irrelevantly describing the mechanism by which the motion was passed rather than commenting on the principle of it? Just because something is voted through by the set system doesn't mean it can't be undemocratic... the 1933 Enabling Act, for example!”
 I don’t see any irrelevance in citing Rule 202.
 If you look back at my 16:15 post when I quoted Rule 202, it was expressly to rebut two of Dan Hannan’s assertions in his blog this afternoon, namely:
1) “In plain violation of their own rules of procedure, they demanded — and, this morning, were disgracefully granted — the right arbitrarily to set aside the rules as they sought fit.”
2) “Majority or no, the Parliament still had to follow its own rule book. To do otherwise would be to replace the rule of law with arbitrary government.”
 If you read Rule 202, you will find that the Parliamentary authorities neither violated the rules of procedure (Dan’s first assertion). You will also see that they followed their own rule book (Dan’s second assertion).

[Tapestry]

This week's Economist (Charlemagne) take on Britain and the EU (fisked)

"One Tory asked if the government thought the British public too thick to understand its (the EU's) benefits..Much of the Brussels establishment would answer 'yes'..They see British voters as exceptionally ignorant; or they see the British debate is poisoned by nationalism"

The Economist takes no issue with the Brussels Establishment for holding these views. In fact the article later goes on to explain why it agrees with them, but not before letting loose a little bit more abuse of British euroscepticism, as follows...

"At the right Brussels dinners, speakers ..win tub-thumping applause by denouncing perfidious Albion"

The article gets to the nub of the matter at the end, explaining why Britain must not leave the EU, and should sign up to Brussels power total.

"If Britain left the EU, the 26 other countries would set terms for free access to their market (including a big contribution to their budget). They would have no interest in offering a sweet deal: as any member to a book club can attest, the free dictionary is offered on the way in not on the way out.."

So what perks did we get on the way in, one might fairly ask? I don't remember any. Being made to sacrifice our fishing industry is what they are driving at I suppose. To leave we'll have to sacrifice our children too, no doubt. There's more..

"As an Ambassador predicts, "Britain would have to pay a very high price.""

ENDS

[Tapestry]

Freedom has no price. Democracy has no price.

[Philip Porter]

Re Tapestry 16:52: “In Dan's case it clearly was not possible to reflect his viewpoint in any committee. Death to democracy by bureaucratic strangulation.”
Per Dan’s own account, the Committee voted 20 to 3 in favour of the Parliamentary authorities (and therefore against him and his UKIP friends)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/jan08/despotisminparliament.htm
 It’s not that the it was not possible to reflect Dan’s viewpoint in the committee (as you assert) - it’s more that the great majority of MEPs don’t agree with him (that’s democracy for you).
 not so much ‘Death to democracy by bureaucratic strangulation’ as salvation of democracy from eurocratic strangulation …

[Bill]

Tapestry

Yes The Economist. Which I stopped reading along with the FT when they backed the ERM. The wisdom of crowds. Not.

[passing democrat]

they don't like it up 'em!

[p watson]

If Cameron was a man of honour or a patriot or had any grasp of history he would pull all the MEPs from the EPP - the EU is a stalinist anti democratic pile of crap. It will end up causing riot death insurrection and bloodshed right across Europe as it is based totally on lies. The EU is poison.

[p watson]

If Cameron was a man of honour or a patriot or had any grasp of history he would pull all the Conservative MEPs from the EPP - the EU is both Stalinist and anti democratic. As a consequence it will end up causing riot death insurrection and bloodshed right across Europe as it is based totally on lies. The EU is poisonous to freedom and its legislative power must be thrown out of the UK lock stock and barrel.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

You know I'm still waiting for someone to produce the text of Cameron's pledge to settle whether it was "we shall leave EPP as soon as possible, with that meaning when we can form a new group" or "we shall leave EPP even if it means sitting as Non Inscrits". A lot of people are accusing him of breaking a pledge but don't seem to be able to point to the exact pledge itself.

[Josephine]

Just out of interest is it not the case, that any member or former member of the EU Parliament - could/can/shall lose any right to their EU Pension, should they say anything that is considered against the EU Parliament? - I seem to remember reading this somewhere, and thought then, who's going to risk losing a pension? - what a direct conflict of interest that is - every time you hear Keth Vaz, Clegg, Huhne and other ex MEP's vociferously supporting the Treaty or any other directive rember why - it is more to do woth their pockets,,,,,
jo

[Chad Noble]

Tim R-P @ 18:11,

Here's a link for you, written during the Tory leadership election in 2005 by man of the moment, Dan Hannan:

"There is a clear division between the candidates on this question. David Cameron would remove us from the EPP grouping immediately; David Davis would leave the decision to MEPs, a majority of whom favour the status quo. With Cameron, we’ll be out of the EPP by Christmas; with Davis, we’ll still have this albatross dragging us deckwards at the next European election.

That alone ought to answer those who wonder how much substance there is to David Cameron. On the one issue which he would have to decide within days of taking over, the one which he must have been most tempted to fudge, he has been unequivocal and bold. David Cameron’s robustness on the EPP confirms my impressions of a man I have known since he gave me my first job 15 years ago. He is polite; he listens to other points of view; but, when he makes up his mind, he is resolute."

Roger Helmer also publicly confirmed that he witnessed Cameron making the 'immediate withdrawal' pledge when I posed the question to him at a meeting in London.

Now, unless you think Dan and Roger are lying, what more evidence do you need to satify you?

[Deputy Editor]

Tim, I can't remember if it is written down anywhere but his campaign definitely assured a number of MPs and activists orally that it the Party under his leadership would leave the EPP immediately or before Christmas.

On CentreRight.com: Douglas Carswell MP says this episode shows why we should leave the EPP and Dan Hamilton points out how the "ED" bit of EPP-ED only really exists on paper.

[TFA Tory]

Philip Porter wrote

"To find out more about the ED agenda, check out their website:
http://www.epp-ed.org/europeandemocrats/

You will notice that it says that “The ED is expressly committed to democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law, national sovereignty, free enterprise, minimal regulation, low taxation, private ownership, respect and security for every individual and a strong transatlantic alliance.”

How can the EPP, which supports ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum, be committed to national sovereignty? How can it be committed to minimal regulation?

Daul said "no problem with you people calling for a referendum in Britain but I will not have you doing it on the Parliament floor as a member of the group".

How is that a commitment to democracy?

Why has all bearly all references to the ED Group disappeared from the EPP-ED website?

The truth is that the EPP has no respect for the ED Group, i.e. our delegation and the Czechs. If we don't play its federalist game, our MEPs are subject to bullying, abuse and summary expulsion at the whims of Poettering and Daul.

Conservatives are BETTER OFF OUT of the EPP and Britain is BETTER OFF OUT of the EU. Stuff the lot of them!

[Mike A]

This is ConHome at its worst.

a) Comparison with the Fourth Enabling Act is absolutely ridiculous. The Enabling Act was constitutionally sound (it was actually the Fourth Enabling Act). Its import was such that Dan Hannan being told he couldn't make a poxy protest makes him look foolish.

b) I made a comment that I think Hannan is crazy which was overwritten. I don't think that's offensive. He's clearly fairly bright, but is also deranged about Europe. On a related theme, Helmer is a rather dull-witted man. I feel a bit sorry for him when I see him speak in public as he's clearly not terribly bright. I had a correspondence with Mr Helmer which was mortifying.

These are two elected representatives - my assessment of their capacities is clearly fair comment.

c) People going on about world government are being mental. The EU is not a staging post for world Government.

[Chad Noble]

Tim R-P,

Also, here is the internet archive of Cameron's leadership pledges from his official campaign site.

No mention of immediate here, equally no mention of forming a new group before leaving.

Although Cameron won't want to be reminded of his other promises in the EU section either...

[bill]

Mike A

There is no inconsistency in the argument that people in favour of world government, ceteris paribus, may/are more likely to support a European government. I saw someone on TV the other day, I cannot remember who but no doubt someone deemed of sufficient gravitas to be on the box, advocating world government. I don't know how old you are but the concept of world government has quite a long history. Of course some of us,perhaps some whom you term "mental", have sufficient knowledge and experience of the past to realise that the real fantasy is to think that world or european government would be hell.

[Bill]

Sorry: last post should have ended "would not be hell". But I'm sure you get the point.

[Deputy Editor]

Conor Burns compares Dan to a chav wearing an ASBO as a badge of honour!

[Mike A]

It's irrelevant, Bill.

Geographically, people who support Manchester United are more likely to be Labour supporters.

It doesn't make United part of a socialist plot.

[Mike A]

Also, Editor - despotism?! The Enabling Act?

Why does the Party seem unable to have any perspective or restraint?

[Mastiff]

Den Dover (MEP Chief Whip) has just shafted Dan Hannan - see comments @1806 on Dan's blog. Scandalous.

When will our MEP leadership get with the programme? We are getting divorced from the EPP. We may want an amicable parting but the marriage is well and truly over - no need for posturing now!

[TFA Tory]

Deselect Den Dover! He is a disgrace.

[TFA Tory]

Here is Den Dover's post on Dan Hannan's blog.

"In his Article on why the EPP wants to expel him my colleague Dan Hannan MEP attributes comments to me that I would never make. What he said was nothing to do with Conservative Party policy. Our Party is indeed strongly in favour of a referendum on the so called Reform Treaty (the Constitution). We will examine all options open to us, as UK Conservative MEPs, from June 2009 but no watertight pledges are in place, or expected in the near future. Finally I reminded him that he has just been re-adopted as a Conservative Candidate for the June 2009 European Elections for the South East. However I am not the only one who decides, in the light of his ill-advised comments in the Chamber and to the Press what his future will be."

Note the menacing deselection threat in the last sentence. Note also the weasel words on the constitutional treaty and there will be no policy pledges in the near future. Get ready for another sell out!!!

[DB]

Re Dover's disgraceful threats to Hannan.

Here we see the true nature of the self-serving vacuity at the heart of the Cameron project. It's clear now that Hague's much-vaunted speech in the Commons was just another empty stand-up routine served up for transient effect. Hannan showed some balls and the Tories are going to sell him out. Well, fuck 'em.

[Chad Noble]

In fact the whole tory approach to the EU is characterised by Den's brother Ben...

[Dale]

INANE COMMENT OVERRIDDEN

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Chad Noble: Reading the FAQ on Cameron's website it seems a little vague and something people will read into what they want:

"
Would you leave the EPP?
I believe it is important that we are consistent in our statements and actions. This means that the Conservative Party should espouse views in the European Parliament which are consistent with the views we espouse in the UK Parliament. This, in turn, leads me to believe that we should not be part of the EPP – a group that holds views inconsistent with our own. I believe that we can cooperate with our sister-parties in the European Parliament on a wide range of issues about which we agree, without being part of the EPP.
"

There's a lot of "believe" and "should" in there - it's not exactly "if elected we will put out of the EPP" - and frankly it's open to misinterpretation.

Was your question direct and to the point, addressing the whole "even if it means sitting unaligned" point? The way a lot of people have gone on about this in the past - including, it must be said, Dan Hannan and a lot of others advocating withdrawal - you could be forgiven for thinking that all it would take is for the Conservatives to announce they were pulling out of the EPP and then sufficient other parties and independents would come running over to form a new group, rendering the whole point of whether we should consider sitting unaligned somewhat academic. So I'm left wondering if this issue was even addressed at all. Very often in politics the preferred option is not available and one is left to decide the least unbearable alternative.

Admittedly I'm biased as I don't think we should be in the EU at all. So arguing about groups in the European Parliament is a bit like getting on the wrong train and having a row over whether to sit facing, rear or airline!

[Mark Hudson]

First, I declare an interest. Dan and I were good friends and colleagues when I was Chairman of Sevenoaks constituency Conservatives and I worked hard for his reselection getting, 150 of my members to the Kent hustings. Since then, I have joined UKIP, for whom I am standing at the General Election (against Helen Grant if they'll have me), because I admit I cannot stand Project Cameron and I was fed up with the fudge / lies over EU membership.

Anyway, events like today just make me feel happier and happier that I am no longer a member of a Party that pretends to stand up for Britain and against Brussels. Cameron, show some spine and tell your MEPs to boycott the EPP for this decision. then honour your word and leave.

[Philip Porter]

Haaretz quotes the Associated Press as follows:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950109.html

---

U.K. conservative angers EU parliament for making Nazi comment

By The Associated Press

Tags: Daniel Hannan

A British Conservative sparked anger at the European Parliament on Thursday by saying the chamber president's new powers reminded him of tactics used by the Nazi government of Germany to rule without the parliamentary consent.

One lawmaker told Daniel Hannan, a Tory deputy for South East England, threateningly, that they should take the dispute outside. Others booed Hannan or yelled at him to stop using Nazi terminology. The leader of Hannan's political group said he would push for his expulsion from the party.

Hannan was one of two right-wing British lawmakers to complain during Thursday's voting session about the new right granted by the chamber to president Hans-Gert Poettering - a German - to overrule filibustering.

Hannan then addressed Poettering, telling him that it is only my affection for you ... that prevents me from likening this to the Ermaechtigungsgesetz - the Enabling Act of 1933 that gave the German government special powers.

Several leading deputies challenged British Conservative chairman David Cameron to dissociate himself from Hannan.

By comparing the ruling with the law that gave Hitler unlimited power ? Hannan is dishonoring memories of the victims of terror of the Nazi regime," said British Labour leader Gary Titley

[Terry]

"You can understand Hannan's temptation to compare it to Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act which gave him the power to override the German parliament and constitution."

Well, I can't understand it actually. The only reason to mention Hitler is to tar Gert-Pottering with the Nazi brush and associate him with a group responsible for killing millions of Jews. I would have been outraged, as well.

That said we should leave the EPP. At the moment other centre right groups do not have an alternative. All they have is a proposal and a promise. Once the new group is set up I can see others joining. There is a demand for a grouping free from confessional links, wanting a more decentralised EU and seeking stronger links with the US. The job will not be made easier, however, by insensitive remarks by crass people like Hanan.

[TFA Tory]

Deputies? What an insult to Parliamentarians! Associated Press is a joke and toes the Eurofanatic line.

[Bill]

The EU is a con. It's anti-democratic. It's pc. It's talk not trousers. It won't follow its own rules. It's a joke but the joke is on us. The rest of Europe may like its elisions, obfuscations, hypocrisy et al. But we should have the courage to pull out.

[John Broughton]

Dan Hannan is an example to us all. A man of principle who wants to see his country free of the yoke of socialism.

So long as we remain in the eu we will be subject to socialist ideology.

Dan was right to make a comparison with the nazis. The techniques of control and compunction were how Hitler gained control. Indeed the ability to expel someone like Dan to the extremes was just how the National Socialists organised their ascent to total power.

There is a message here that not just the Conservative Party needs to learn but the whole country needs to learn. If we accept this treaty/constitution then Britain is lost.

Democracy is lost!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Hehehe - it's all coming down on his head.

[Sean Fear]

Justin,

What's your grievance against your own people having self-determination?

[deborah]

Dan Hannan has principles.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Own people?

[Sean Fear]

Fellow citizens, then. You object to the idea of their indpendence.

[passing leftiepa]

Really Passing Leftie? Please tell us exactly where powers of national Parliaments have been increased.
Here's just one example:
"Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision."

[Malcolm Dunn]

Eh? The veto's have been abolished in more than 40 areas. If what you write is correct Passing Leftie we should be able to veto absolutely anything!But you don't do you? Why don't you explain what the subparagraphs mean to the readers of this blog?

[christina speight]

Philip Porter - you said several yards back "Let’s leave the final word on this to Dan himself " Since then and even before anyone commented on you you wrote acres if not hectares of tendentious stuff. So you don't actually mean what you say.

The ED bit of the EPP-ED is a fiction. Otherwise they couldn't expel Hannan from it.

And you trot acres of verbiage all based on the assumption that it is a bad idea to tell the truth. The EPP is largely German and Poetttdring is a German and the Germans nurtured the Nazis and the Nazis used the German tendency to bully others to take over Europe. They are still at it trying to bully Poland and the Czechs over what they call refugees = Nazis expelled after the war when the surviving people of those countries didn't want to continue to harbour mass murderers.

I understand Poettering is sensitive because he lost his f ather in the war. Then why was his father fighting for the Nazis in somebody else's country? Poettering has kept the Tories in line by a mixture of threats and fav ours - more bullying.

Hannan has said so (albeit guardedly) - bless him. The pity is that we have Tory MEPs of the Beazley type who have sold out to the EU. We should be ashamed to keep them in the party.

But, you Mr Porter. quote at length the Associated press story which was itself compiled from the EPP's press release and seriously misquotes Hannan. You don't bother with a little detail like that.
----------
passing leftiep - Come off it. That para isn't worth the space you give to it. It provides N O powers to Westminster at all except to tell the EU they'ere wrong to which they can reply "P**s off!".

[Tapestry]

Porter imagines that if the majority prevents a minority from speaking, he has achieved democracy.

I think we have a problem of definition.

[Tapestry]

As for the Useful Kind of Idiots Party, you have to fight to win the conservative party over to your side, (which is happening gradually though not quickly enough), not assist Gordon Brown to win elections.

Hannan has done well by getting the absorption of Britain noticed. This was becoming a non-topic. He's brought it alive again. He's a Conservative. Support him.

The EU know who they have to destroy to win. It's not UKIP. It's the eurosceptics in the Conservative Party, or the Conservative Party itself.

In UKIP you are helping Potty and Nazi tendency to win.

[Andrew Lilico]

The European Parliament didn't suspend Dan. It just stopped him (and others) from giving short speeches on the need for a Referendum. It was the EPP that suspended Dan - and in my view it is long past ridiculous that we allow our MEPs to be treated in this way. I don't think that the Editor is right to suggest that this is some sort of blessing in disguise for Dan. It's an insult to the whole Conservative grouping - but then since we've been saying for a long time that we're leaving but haven't gone, I can quite understand why the EPP might be starting to get a bit hacked off with us.

Let's just leave the EPP and be done with it.

[Tapestry]

Let's head for the ausfahrt, Andrew, und schnell.

[Sally Roberts]

As my ears have been burning rather a lot throughout this thread I thought I would respond to the many comments!
Thank you Malcolm and Sam for your kind and generous comments on my behalf.
To those of you who regard me as "not a real person" or "a joke" I can assure you that I am very real and although I frequently MAKE jokes, I can be deadly serious at times and whenever necessary as well!
I stand by the comments I have made. I believe that alternatives to the childish and fruitless demonstrations including in the Chamber of the Parliament which I felt brought the Conservatives into some disrepute, talking and - yes - expressing views and negotiating (which is one of the great strengths of European as opposed to Westminster politicking) would be a better way of "skinning a cat" as I put it - and I would like to reassure all animal lovers at this point that no cats or any other animals were harmed in the writing of this response!
Daniel Hannan is a clever man - everyone agrees on that - possibly cleverer than many give him credit for and undoubtedly charismatic. Whether he uses his cleverness and charisma to help or hinder is entirely up to him.

[John Broughton]

Sally

If only opposition voices were even allowed to be heard.

Soon as Dan tried to exercise his legitimate right to speak he was ejected from the EPP. And so far as one can gather that action was supported by Beazley.

The time to form the new grouping is now.

[Sally Roberts]

Up early, John? I thought I was the only insomniac around here!

[Roger Helmer]

OK Sally. Let's take you at your word. If you don't want us to make what protests we can in the European parliament, what action would YOU take to respond to the demand of the British people for the referendum they were promised?

[Traditional Tory]

One of the great problems with the Conservative Party is that it continues to tolerate Quislings who seek to betray our country.

Permitting these clowns to spew ani-British poison could be compared to Churchill not only failing to jail Fascists but inviting him to join the Tory Party.

Time to show them the red card.

[Traditional Tory]

One of the great problems with the Conservative Party is that it continues to tolerate Quislings who seek to betray our country.

Permitting these clowns to spew out their anti-British poison could be compared to Churchill not only failing to jail unrepentant Fascists but inviting them to join the Tory Party.

Time to show them the red card.

[Paul Oakley]

You carry on as you are, Roger. Sally, bless her, is the lone voice on this site protesting at your "childish" antics.

I stand to be corrected, but doubt 1) that she wants a referendum at all and 2) that she would vote against the constitution if we had one.

[Tapestry]

If Hague makes moves against Dan Hannan and carries out the veiled threat to go back on Hannan's reselection, one can only imagine the earthquake that will let rip through the party. It will be tin hats all round.

Herr Spotty Ring needs to show more respect to people who don't agree with him. Or we are entitled to call him silly names. ....and recall earlier times in history when individuals have abused democracies...even those that occurred in Europe in the 1930s who have unmentionable names.

And I thought we were meant to be the Nasty Party!!

[Traditional Tory]

It's good to see so much patriotism on here. As ever, ConHome is the true voice of the party grassroots.

But as I hardly need remind people that I wouldn't trust Cameron as far as I could throw him. Let's see if he really has any spine on this EPP issue.

As for Hague, my former confidence in him has almost totally evaporated. Don't forget that Hague was the man who turned this party from a federation of democratic associations into a control-freak's paradise.

Be very, very wary of the leadrship. Their interests may not be the same as yours.

[Richard]

I have just read the comments of our Chief Whip in Brussels, Den Dover MEP:

"Den Dover MEP and Conservative Chief Whip
Den Dover MEP and Conservative Chief Whip 31 Jan 2008 18:06

In his Article on why the EPP wants to expel him my colleague Dan Hannan MEP attributes comments to me that I would never make. What he said was nothing to do with Conservative Party policy. Our Party is indeed strongly in favour of a referendum on the so called Reform Treaty (the Constitution). We will examine all options open to us, as UK Conservative MEPs, from June 2009 but no watertight pledges are in place, or expected in the near future. Finally I reminded him that he has just been re-adopted as a Conservative Candidate for the June 2009 European Elections for the South East. However I am not the only one who decides, in the light of his ill-advised comments in the Chamber and to the Press what his future will be."

It strikes me the going onto a blog to esentially threaten Dan Hannan is not a very professional way to behave, nor is it any way to treat a colleague of nearly 10 years.

[Philip Porter]

Re: Traditional Tory (8:22): “One of the great problems with the Conservative Party is that it continues to tolerate Quislings who seek to betray our country. Permitting these clowns to spew out their anti-British poison could be compared to Churchill not only failing to jail unrepentant Fascists but inviting them to join the Tory Party.”

 I refer you to Churchill himself (which is also applicable to Dan’s 1933 comparison): "Such a comparison demonstrates the difficulties of comparing situations in various centuries and scenes where almost every material fact is totally different"

[Philip Porter]

In response to John Broughton (7:39):

 I was watching the session live on the EP’s internet site. Dan Hannan was allowed to speak and to conclude. He was allowed to exercise his legitimate right to speak. It was only after he had stopped speaking that M. Daul stated his intention to launch proceedings to have him excluded from the EPP/ED.

[Traditional Tory]

Whatever.

The fact remains that the patriotic majority of Conservatives are damaging themselves by allowing a Eurofanatical fifth column to undermine their cause.

The objects of the two factions are incompatible - therefore one must go.

Many 'Tory' Eurofanatic careerists have departed in pique in recent years and many of them have taken the opportunity to cause malicious damage in departing. No surprise there.

It's time to act - before they do.

[Philip Porter]

In reply to Malcolm Dunn (23:49) (“The veto's have been abolished in more than 40 areas.”)
1) It depends how you define an area. If one wants to minimise the number of transfers to QMV, one just counts the number of titles of the treaty that are affected. If one is a little less unscrupulous, one counts the number of articles. On the other hand, if one wants to maximise the number of transfers, one counts the number of paragraphs or even sub-paragraphs affected. Which system are you using?
2) Are you counting the number of shifts from unanimity to QMV as it applies to the UK or as it applies to the rest of the EU? In other words, does your number include parts of the treaties where the UK retains its opt-ins and opt-outs? BTW, if you count the number of transfers for Ireland and for Denmark/Sweden, you will get yet different answers.
3) I have also noticed that some Eurosceptics are claiming a transfer from unanimity to QMV for areas (such as medicinal products and devices) which are already subject to QMV and which are simply being shifted from one QMV article to another. This is, of course, intellectually dishonest. You might want to check your list.
4) some shifts from unanimity to QMV are more important than others. For example, the shift to QMV for ending the veto over the ECB’s regulatory powers hardly deserves to be mentioned in a UK debate on the Reform Treaty for the simple reason that the UK is not in EMU and is not likely to be for the foreseeable future (thank goodness!). Similarly, there will be shifts to QMV for the article covering technicalities of German reunification, and for the articles relating to internal rules for appointing the Committee of the Regions and for the Ecosoc. You would presumably agree that there is a material qualitative difference between these shifts to QMV and, for example, shifts to QMV for energy market liberalisation? If so, is there really any merit to be gained from citing numbers of shifts from unanimity to QMV?
5) If you want to play the numbers game, the proponents of the Reform Treaty are simply going to cite the number of shifts to QMV in the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty.
6) If one is going to be even-handed, I think one should also accept that the Reform Treaty is going to increase the UK’s voting weight from 8.4% to 12.2% in the Council - which cannot be bad for Britain.
7) BTW, indulge me for a little longer, but the other meaningless statistic that I hate to see bandied about (apart from the meaningless number of shifts to QMV) is the number of times that the UK is outvoted in QMV in Council. It is a well known fact in Brussels that the UK often votes for a legislative proposal to which it is in fact opposed - simply because it knows that it is going to be outvoted anyway and the UK government wants to avoid the embarrassment of the UK media noticing that has been outvoted.
8) If the shifts to QMV in the Reform Treaty are so numerous and substantial, how does one answer the following point from the BBC’s Mark Mardell (BBC website blog, 19 October 2007 - day after Lisbon Informal Summit): “The Sun breathes fire in today’s editorial and threatens to keep up its campaign until the next general election. As it warns that Britain’s existence as an independent sovereign state has been extinguished, I presume it will abandon what it must believe has become the worthless charade of covering Westminster politics, and I look forward to welcoming its political staff as they are all shipped out to Brussels to report on the real action.” ?

[Philip Porter]

In response to Christina Speight (16:08)
1) I do not agree with you that the European Parliament is undemocratic.
2) You say that “the only honourable course of action for a committed democrat” is to oppose the Parliament and its actions “with all the means available”. Are you including armed insurrection (that’s what your words literally mean)? Hardly honourable to me.
3) As to your comment that the “insulting suggestion about him joining UKIP is contemptible”, I find this highly ironic given that you and I had a bilateral e-mail discussion about a year ago (as a spin-off from this forum) in which you admitted in your third or fourth e-mail to me that you were not a member of the Conservative party any more but were in fact a member of UKIP (though you did say that you would like to rejoin the Conservatives as and when the party committed itself unconditionally to outright withdrawal from the EU.
4) As to your question about why Mr Poettering has not been expelled from the European Parliament for undemocratic behaviour, I would simply say that no one has suggested that Dan Hannan be expelled from the European Parliament. The most that happened yesterday was that Mr Daul (not Mr Poettering) said that he would launch formal proceedings for the exclusion of Dan from the EPP/ED.
5) As regards your comment “Frankly as far as I can see there should be now no further delay on Cameron's part in withdrawing all the Tory MEPs from the ghastly German dominated federalist EPP”, I would simply say (pace yesterday’s Deputy Editor) that the Conservatives are not members of the federalist EPP. They are members of the sovereignist ED which is coalition with the EPP. The Deputy Editor said that this precision does not matter. I think it does and I think your comment shows why.

[Philip Porter]

For the sake of balance, this is the press release issued by Mr Daul's office yesterday on the Hannan affair:

---

EPP-ED Group to expel Daniel Hannan MEP following his intolerable remarks in plenary. Joseph Daul MEP, Chairman of the EPP-ED Group.
The EPP-ED Group in the European Parliament will expel one of its Members, Daniel Hannan MEP of the British Conservative Party, following his comments in the plenary session this morning where he compared the conduct of the session by President Poettering to the Hitler dictatorship in Nazi Germany.
"These comments are unqualified and disgraceful. I respect Mr Hannan as an MEP but his remarks this morning are incompatible with the EPP-ED Group's values. It is for this reason that I will ask the Group to proceed with the expulsion of Mr Hannan, according to our Rules of Procedure and after consultation with the Members of the British Delegation", Chairman Daul stated.

---

[Opinicus]

I suppose its too much to hope that the man might kick out all our MEPs from the EPP and do Dave's job for us?

[Philip Porter]

In response to Roger Helmer (8:03):

It seems ironic to me that you are trying to Europeanise what is clearly an internal matter for the UK and its citizens - i.e. whether the UK parliament should ratify the Lisbon Treaty after consulting the UK electorate in a referendum or not.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Phillip Porter, as someone who wants to have a much looser relationship with the EU I do not under any circumstances want any transfers of power from Westminster to Brussels under any circumstances, got that?You can play with semantics as much as you want but the claim about this treaty bolstering the authority of national parliaments made by Passing Leftie is fundamentally untrue which if you were honest you would acknowldge.
Your use of a rather stupid quote from Mark Mardell is beyond pathetic and really not worth debating on a serious blog.

[Philip Porter]

In response to Tapestry (8:34): “If Hague makes moves against Dan Hannan and carries out the veiled threat to go back on Hannan's reselection, one can only imagine the earthquake that will let rip through the party. It will be tin hats all round.”

1) I hope they do. It would be an excellent Clause Four moment to show the country that the Conservatives are a reasonable and moderate party.
2) Actually, a better analogy would be with Neil Kinnock denouncing Derek Hatton and the Militant Tendency. Some members of the party might not like it, but then nor did Eric Heffer. The sight of Eric Heffer walking out of the conference hall in a huff was worth thousands of votes for Kinnock.
3) If Howard Flyte (spelling?) could be deselected for advocating tax cuts in a private meeting, what’s the problem with Dan Hannan being deselected for advocating the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union at many public meetings and in the national press?
4) Dan Hannan has been taking up a Conservative spot on the South-East list and using it for UKIP purposes (working hand in glove with Nigel Farage) for too long. Dan should be de-selected so that there’s a spot free for a real Conservative not a crypto-UKIP infiltrator.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Phillip Porter, you seem to be one of a very small number of people who sees the "European Democrats" as anything than a fig leaf designed to cover up previous failures to leave the EPP. The "EPP-ED" is just the formal name for the caucus. Since the ED is a pretty meaningless entity that means the Conservatives are members of the EPP caucus regardless of tricks of nomenclature. It is hardly a coalition of two distinct groups! And even people who are in favour of staying in such as Caroline Jackson regard the whole thing as the "EPP" - doesn't that show how hollow a focus upon the ED element really is?

[Philip Porter]

In response to Traditional Tory (9:10): “The fact remains that the patriotic majority of Conservatives are damaging themselves by allowing a Eurofanatical fifth column to undermine their cause.”
 Here, here ! I totally agree with you. Dan Hannan is a member of a Eurofanatical (do you know anyone more fanatical about the European issue?) fifth column which has been allowed to undermine the Conservative cause for far too long.

[Philip Porter]

In response to Malcolm Dunn (9:55):

1) It seems like you want to draw me into your dialogue with Passing Leftie, but that you’re too “frit” to comment on the Mark Mardell quote.

2) Very well. I can’t be bothered to find the Passing Leftie post that you are referring to - so I’ll assume that he’s referring to the Yellow and Orange cards? If so, I would agree with you that they will make next to no difference (or even none at all) in practice. They don’t hurt though. I won’t go so far as to denounce Passing Leftie’s argument as ‘fundamentally untrue’ (as you seem to be challenging me to do) - but I am broadly on the same side as you on this specific point. Is that good enough for you (LOL) ?

[Deputy Editor]

Andrew Lilico, not sure why you think it wasn't a blessing in disguise. I did precede that statement with "Whilst absolutely shameful..." and you clearly agree that being outside of the EPP is a good thing.

Roger Helmer MEP writes for ConservativeHome about the benefits of life outside the EPP and Dan Hannan explains it all in the Telegraph

[Serf]

Through all this, the fact that the party is not giving us a chance to deselect MEPs, if the most unfortunate.

Those who dislike Dan Hannan should have an opportunity to push him to the bottom of the list.
Likewise, those of us who dislkie the EPP loyalists in our party, should have the same opportunity.

Unfortunately the selection process is a stitch up, so we can't even guarantee MEPs that represent our views.

I sometimes wonder if UKIP somehow managed to manipulate the process through mind control or something :)

[Philip Porter]

In response to Malcolm Dunn (9:55): “You can play with semantics as much as you want”

 I really don’t think my point about the QMV count was laying with semantics. I was simply trying to get you to take a step back and reflect about what people really mean when they bandy around figures about the number of areas shifting to QMV. The numbers sound impressive, but ultimately (for the reasons I gave at length) I think they are pretty meaningless. I think they get in the way of having a proper debate.
Usually, when one person accuses another of playing at semantics he is accusing the other person of twisting his meaning. In this case, I was trying to show that what you were saying had no meaning at all.
I’m not trying to be personal. My objection is not to you, but to what you wrote.