My recent article outlining my concerns about Conservative MEPs sitting as unattached members in the European Parliament sparked off a furious debate, much of which was distinctly off-thread. This article is intended as a follow-up, but first I need to address some of the comments and set a few things straight.
I have no inside knowledge about this issue at all - MEPs are kept very much in the dark about David Cameron's plans, apart from the leader Timothy Kirkhope and the MEP tasked with making contacts with potential partners, Geoffrey Van Orden. I am a loyal supporter of our party leader and a loyal Conservative - I have no intention of defecting to any other party, as per a ludicrous accusation from a nameless contributor. I have signed the pledge to do what Cameron tells us to do and I will respect that pledge. I was not intending to say that Tory MEPs should, out of principle, remain part of the EPP-ED - I have never said that. And I have certainly not been put up by anyone, least of all the new Tory MEPs' delegation leader Timothy Kirkhope, to float views or options on behalf of anyone. I enjoy free and frank debate on party policy but without invective or gratuitous insults.
What I am trying to do is to contribute in a pragmatic and realistic way to the debate about MEPs' post-election affiliation. This is an important issue not only for MEPs and activists but also for David Cameron personally. With the election in June 2009 edging ever closer we are apparently still uncertain about forming the new parliamentary group that Cameron and the Czech prime minister and ODS leader Mirek Topolanek agreed to establish.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that this new group's architecture is fully formed in terms of firm pledges by other parties to join us in 2009. Furthermore, Topolanek is struggling politically at home and the number of ODS MEPs after next June is likely to be less than now. Topolanek also has the Czech presidency of the EU to negotiate over the next six months.
Let's not forget that Cameron has essentially made two commitments: to withdraw Tories from the EPP-ED parliamentary group and to establish a new group with the ODS (Conservatives have never been part of the EPP transnational party, which is the vehicle upholding federalist views). One of those pledges he can deliver himself at the drop of a hat but the other is entirely dependent on the Czechs. Nevertheless, even assuming the ODS is still politically committed to the deal, creating a new group requires MEPs from another five countries. What efforts are seriously underway to find the right sort of allies and then convince them to join us? I don't know, but if the Movement for European Reform - the umbrella organisation set up by Topolanek and Cameron - is a guide, then it is not very active because the MER website seems to have been dormant for more than a year.
One of our mooted allies is the Polish Law and Justice (PIS) party, which is of course the party of President Kaczynski. There has been a fair amount of discussion about whether the PIS's profile fits easily with Cameron's Conservatives, not least an allegedly strong anti-gay streak. My own concern about the PIS comes from a recent parliamentary debate in which I tried to dilute slightly some strident anti-Israel language in a resolution. My initiative was opposed by all but one of the PIS members present. I wonder what those who accuse the Polish right of anti-semitism would make of that.
If a brand new group is a non-starter, one of the other options is to go into the ranks of the unattached or 'non-inscrit' MEPs. I have already expressed my deep reservations about that idea. Otherwise, there is the possibility of being part of one of the existing political groups in the European Parliament.
To my mind, there are two possibilities, the first of which is the currently existing UEN. A UEN-ED confederation (Tories officially now being in the ED rather than in the EPP) has been for some time my preferred architecture because it would mean joining a fully functioning group, allowing us to save time and benefit directly from the group's resources. The UEN is also a group that, by and large, identifies with many of the same values as Conservatives. However, the PIS is part of the UEN, which may ultimately be of concern to Cameron. There is also the not insignificant matter of the Alleanza Nazionale MEPs from Italy (previously regarded as unacceptable post-fascists) being in the process of defecting to the EPP (where their colleagues from domestic government, Forza Italia, sit). It is unlikely that the UEN would survive the loss of the Italians, who have basically been the glue keeping the whole thing together. The other problem of the Irish Republic's Fianna Fail is apparently resolved now because it seems to be planning to join the ALDE (Liberal) group - as previously the Ulster Unionist component in our Conservative delegation objected sitting with Fianna Fail even in confederation.
The other group to which Conservatives could ally themselves is the EPP. Yes, I am aware that Cameron pledged to withdraw us from the EPP-ED. No, I am not secretly at the vanguard of a pro-EPP fightback but examining an altogether new and different arrangement.
The pledge that all candidates (including me) signed during the selection process made no mention of the EPP. It commits us to joining whichever group Cameron as our national leader decides. If the Tories were to negotiate an entirely new, watertight agreement with the EPP to set up a confederation with the ED in which the ED would be of identical and equal status to the EPP then maybe a solution could be found. The ED would have its own co-president, its own staff and its own independent budget. Essentially, such a confederation would be a "marriage of convenience" on the centre-right, with limited common political platform other than rejecting socialism. It is worth emphasising that you will never find in a supranational parliament a perfect fit of sister parties from disparate countries, and whichever group you form will always be an ideological compromise. The ED would choose its own membership, therefore avoiding cases such as those of Roger Helmer, Dan Hannan and Lars Wohlin, and similarly the EPP would choose its own membership, with no veto on either side. I have discussed this option with one of my MEP colleagues known to be openly opposed to our current arrangements with the EPP, who would accept such an equal confederal solution or marriage of convenience with the EPP as a compromise arrangement and believes it could be sold by our leaders to other MEPs and MPs and activists once properly explained.
There are all sorts of obstacles in the way of this, not least Cameron's pledge. Clearly politicians who renege on pledges have a hard time explaining themselves, but politicians change their mind frequently when the facts change. All I'm trying to do is present cogent options for practical solutions to a divisive and controversial issue which is obviously being left on the back burner.
I appreciate that the EPP has repeatedly said in the past that there is no more room for concessions to the Tories. There's no reason not to believe that. The EPP is probably just as fed up with us as potential new allies are for the way we have ummmed and aaahed about what to do. The one thing that might count in Cameron's favour - were he to think about this possibility - is that the EPP might be minded to agree to such a move now if, without the Tories, it would lose its position as the largest group in the European Parliament. If the Socialists became the largest group the President of the European Commission would be a socialist. This would have a significant effect on the general direction of the EU for at least five years. It would be anathema to the EPP, which has enjoyed an effective working relationship with Jose Manuel Barroso, the current head of the Commission who wants to stay on in the job, and I believe Conservatives would probably support his candidature.
Once again, let me emphasise that I am only trying to contribute to a debate and welcome constructive participation from mainstream members of the party. This issue, after all, was Cameron's only unequivocal policy in the leadership election three years ago. I will do what I am told, but believe I have a right to discuss in detail what it means for our party and its influence in Europe.
