Robert Goodwill, MP for Scarborough & Whitby and a former deputy Conservative Leader in the European Parliament, has urged David Cameron to "forge ahead quickly" with his promise to take Tory MEPs out of the federalist European Peoples' Party. Mr Goodwill uses a pamphlet for the Cornerstone Group of socially conservative MPs to urge the Tory leader to resist “tired and threadbare” claims that EPP withdrawal will undermine Conservative influence in Europe:
“David Cameron’s wise decision to leave the EPP would not only provide Conservatives with more resources, independent control over their finances, a seat at the Conference of Presidents and a seat in the front row of Parliament, it will also enable Conservatives better to represent British beliefs and protect British interests."
Senior Tory figures such as Ken Clarke, Chris Patten and Lord Heseltine have joined the calls from European leaders and Europhile MEPs like Caroline Jackson for Mr Cameron to abandon his EPP pledge. Mrs Jackson - wife of defector Robert Jackson - has called on William Hague to abandon his "pointless rummaging in the margins of European politics" for new coalition partners for Tory MEPs.
John Hayes MP, Cornerstone chairman, has issued a statement saying that David Cameron would have the full backing of the group if he moved soon to leave the EPP. An impeccable source close to David Cameron has assured ConservativeHome that he will deliver on his EPP pledge but the timing remains unclear. Mrs Jackson and one or two other MEPs are not expected to leave the EPP when Mr Cameron forms a new grouping, however.
Mr Goodwill's pamphlet will soon be posted in full on the Cornerstone website. In the meantime a summary pdf can be accessed here. Cornerstone's previous paper - by Julian Brazier on higher education - is reviewed here.
You may be interested to know that Tory Radio will be interviewing Roger Helmer MEP at the weekend, and amongst other things - including when and if Roger will be reinstated to the party, I will be asking Roger for a view as to whats happening with the Conservative Grouping in Europe.
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | March 28, 2006 at 12:48
What possible reason is there not to carry out this promise immediately ? It may be that potential European partners, like some of us, are wondering whether Cameron really means it and are reluctant to waste time discussing something that is uncertain. The best way to convince tham is to leave the EPP immediately. If the Conservative MEPs have to form a group on their own, at least to start with, so be it. Better that than continuing to betray their principles.
Posted by: johnC | March 28, 2006 at 12:55
I totally agree with the above. Robert Goodwill is a hard headed yorkshire farmer, and as such knows a LOT about the EU from a personal - ie business perspective. We should get out of EPP as soon as.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 28, 2006 at 12:59
The last time we were talking about this, I asked if the numbers could be gathered for a group. Could we get the right combination to have this new group which Cameron is aiming for? If I remember we need a certain number of MEPs from a certain number of countries. Can we actually get that combination?
Posted by: James Maskell | March 28, 2006 at 13:19
Almost certainly not James, we will be the most de-enfranchised group of MEPs within the Parliament. It's a shame it's come to this, I think Cameron has realised he made a mistake here but as he was so outspoken on this during the leadership election it will be hard for him to do anything other than leave.
At some point a serious minded Conservative government will have to re-join a cross party group to achieve influence witithn European policy making.
Posted by: Frank Young | March 28, 2006 at 13:52
An impeccable source close to David Cameron has assured ConservativeHome that he will deliver on his EPP pledge but the timing remains unclear
Let me suggest one scenario; it will be left hanging in limbo with similar promises and clarifications (without any definite leaving date) until after the "Built To Last" ersatz-mandate vote to ensure an overwhelming win is achieved, but then this result in itself will be used to defend the decision to u-turn and not leave the EPP.
Why deliver an older pledge when you have just received a convincing win on a newer platform that makes no mention of EPP withdrawal?
If you don't have a departure date before the B2L vote, you can be sure you won't be leaving.
Or in short, u-turn coming.
Posted by: Chad | March 28, 2006 at 13:55
Chad, I would be reluctant to bet against you....especially given the amount of counsel DC seems to be taking from Heseltine, Ken Clarke and the Vichy Tory-in-chief, Chris Patten.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | March 28, 2006 at 14:01
This pledge has been in the 'long grass' for far too long. The defeatists who argue 'if you can't beat them - join them' are infecting increasing areas of traditional policy. Just leaving the EPP would be a refreshing reminder that sometimes 'professional'conservatives mean what they say.
Posted by: RodS | March 28, 2006 at 14:15
At last, something that involves an actual political decision and not just warm words.
This is a test of Cameron's decisiveness and political will. Nothing has changed since he made his commitment but the fact he won the leadership election. To go back on this would enable Blair and Brown to add credence to their flip-flop accusation, and reveal an unpleasantly cynical attitude to those who elected him.
Politicians are allowed to change their minds if new circumstances dicate, but there are no new circumstances. He should stick by his word.
Posted by: True Blue | March 28, 2006 at 14:16
When we get into government we are going to have some crunch point in our eu relations. This is inevitable - even Blair has mini-ones. But, assuming that we oppose any further integration (and we should really be calling for repatriation of most powers), there will come a time towards the beginning of our government when we will be outnumbered by 24+ v 1. If we don't even have the guts to stand up for euroscepticism now how will our partners believe we will stick by our word when in government?
Any watering down of this pledge will only lead to an increase in UKIP support.
Posted by: TimB | March 28, 2006 at 14:35
Chad, I would be reluctant to bet against you....
Talking about bets, with Bob Edmiston confirming that he is converting his £2million loan to a donation, that means James Hellyer owes me, or more precisely the TaxPayers Alliance, a crisp £20 donation.
Posted by: Chad | March 28, 2006 at 14:38
At some point a serious minded Conservative government will have to re-join a cross party group to achieve influence witithn European policy making.
Sorry Frank but you are obviously living on another Planet. The only way to influence anything in Brussels is using the four letter word VETO.
We are currently subsumed in a Federast Group whose aim is to support the distrcution of Nation States and replace them with a European State. They support ever larger incursions into Nation States Powers.
Our only hope is to try and form a more rational conservative alternative. We might fail, but its better than surrendering without a shot being fired.
As for infşuence, there is nothing stopping us supporting the EPP when we agree with them.
Posted by: EU Serf | March 28, 2006 at 15:54
That's the point EU Serf. We can vote alongside them on issues where we agree, regardless of whether or not we are part of the EPP. But we will not be part of an organisation whose agenda is completely at variance to the beliefs of British Conservatives; nor will be obliged to remove the whip from Roger Helmer for doing his job.
Posted by: Sean Fear | March 28, 2006 at 16:09
There is no reason for Cameron not to implement the exodus from the EPP. I suspect that he is dragging his feet because he doesn't want to upset Heseltine, Clarke etc. He should tell those MEPs that want to stay in the EPP, that they will be deselected in 2009, then I might believe he isn't a closet europhile.
Posted by: Margaret | March 28, 2006 at 16:29
Slightly off topic but I had an interesting discussion with an MEP last week.He was absolutely appalled like me by the behaviour of Caroline Jackson,Edward Mcmillan-Scott etc.His best guess is that if Cameron forces the issue about 21 MEPs will agree to leave (out of 28),this is better than I thought.I too hope Cameron takes this decision soon.The vast majority of the party will back him.
Posted by: malcolm | March 28, 2006 at 16:52
I find myself eating humble pie, which (on this occasion) is most tasty.
A few weeks ago I took the Chad line that the issue would be kicked into the long grass, and then would be conveniently paused while we 'united' to fight Euro elections and a General Election.
I am assured (indeed, strongly assured) that this is not the case. DC is intent on pulling us out, and he will deliver.
And if any sitting MEPs do not like it, they need not re-apply to join the Euro list.
Got any Bollinger?
Posted by: TT | March 28, 2006 at 17:13
I do hope that Mr. Cameron sticks by his decision to leave the EPP, if he finds a 'smart' way to change his mind, he may please Clarke, Patten and Heseltine, but ordinary people will see even more similarities with Mr. Blair! Anyway I thought it was agreed that Mr. Clarke was another yesterday's man, and as for Mr. Patten, he will take a job from anyone so why should he be taken seriously!
I do hope Mr. Cameron does what he says otherwise how can we believe the other things that he says?
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | March 28, 2006 at 17:25
So if Frank Young is right (and I do lean towards what he says quite strongly), we are leaving the EPP to form a group that we may not be able to form. So we are not only isolating ourselves, we are doing it without any real hope of having influence in the European Parliament?
I believe strongly in principled action, but it has to be done rationally. The idea of pulling out of the EPP without having negotiated a definite group prior to the pulling out is counter-productive and politically naive.
Posted by: James Maskell | March 28, 2006 at 17:56
Those of us in the party who are more sympathetic in our approach to Europe do ultimately have to realise that Euroscepticism is the orthodoxy within the party and we have to work within this.
I was pleased to see a letter in today’s Times from a cross-party group of MEPs who say they are going to work together on issues of mutual and national interest in the Parliament. This is a welcome move and will counter some of the more extreme rhetoric coming from the leadership.
I hope sincerely that regardless of whatever Cameron eventually decides to do. Conservative MEPs will be able to successfully work in this way.
It will certainly offer an alternative for those MEPs who feel strongly that they stood on an EPP-ED platform at the last election and are being ask to break this commitment.
Posted by: Frank Young | March 28, 2006 at 18:03
I challenge the Europhiles to point out the downside of the policy argued for here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/27/do2702.xml
In short, leave the EU and enter the EFTA and EEA. This allows us free trade with Europe, no CAP, no CFP, no common external tariff and only minimal regulation, mostly of a technical nature.
Posted by: Richard | March 28, 2006 at 19:05
Why is it that when Europe comes up as an issue, theres a belief by certain people here that people are either pro-Europe or anti-Europe with nothing inbetween?
Posted by: James Maskell | March 28, 2006 at 19:15
"Why is it that when Europe comes up as an issue, theres a belief by certain people here that people are either pro-Europe or anti-Europe with nothing inbetween?"
Because many Conservatives (on both sides of the Atlantic) long for days of the civilised West vs the Evil Empire; cowboys vs indians; the world of goodies and baddies. Life was so much easier when there was an identifiable enemy - a need which has not been fulfilled since the demise of the USSR. With Islam entering the frame, the US has discovered a new Darth Vador. We are more nuanced in the realms of religion, so our 'external threat' is symbolised by Europe. It is, therefore, a matter of war, but treaties and directives have replaced bombs and bullets.
The 'in between' sounds to many like appeasement. Defeat of our EU-membership has become the only acceptable end. Even if it is not the most intelligent, politically enlightened, or suiting to an era of postmodernity.
Posted by: TT | March 28, 2006 at 19:28
"Even if it is not the most intelligent, politically enlightened, or suiting to an era of postmodernity."
Why is it none of these? What is the intelligent and enlightened case for allowing laws to be enforced on this country that are made by representatives of other nations? Note that these laws inhibit our economic competetiveness (social chapter) and are in many cases unpopular (metrification for example). What do we gain from CAP and the CFP?
What would be wrong with the EU being nothing more than a free trade area with no common external tariff?
Posted by: Richard | March 28, 2006 at 19:51
I am interested to know Frank in what way the 'leadership' has used any 'extreme rhetoric' with regard to this issue.I feel the leadership has been remarkably restrained.
Personally the more I learn about the EPP the less I can see any benefit to Britain at all in our MEPs being members of it.
Posted by: malcolm | March 28, 2006 at 20:11
"What do we gain from CAP and the CFP?"
I wasn't necessarily voicing my opinion Richard, but a line of argument. Your question (above) illustrates the point. It would be considered as being narrow, nationalistic, insular, selfish, etc etc, when the world has become global, transnational, outward-looking, mutually supporting. "Ask not how the CAP and CFP benefit the UK, but how they benefit others in the EU." They are 'partners' or 'neighbours', and they must be loved. 'Them' and 'us' is supposed to melt away...
Posted by: TT | March 28, 2006 at 20:51
I challenge the Europhiles to point out the downside of...In short, leave the EU and enter the EFTA and EEA. This allows us free trade with Europe, no CAP, no CFP, no common external tariff and only minimal regulation, mostly of a technical nature.
I'm certainly no Europhile, but looking a bit like the "political nutters" in UKIP would be the first drawback.
Of course we want to reform and roll back European decision making, and make a better functioning, less intrusive union that is broader, not deeper. But we also need to be careful not to reopen one of the "perceived negatives" that we have worked so carefully to close down: "There they go again, same old Tories, banging on about Europe..."
That said, I don't believe that the EPP are the correct partners to help us get there - our policy agendas diverge tremendously, and I fully support David Cameron and William Hague's efforts to build a parliamentary coalition that shares our vision of the European Union.
Posted by: Richard Carey | March 28, 2006 at 21:50
TT! Them and Us will never melt away. It is basic human psychology. Projection, and all that stuff. Me and not me. I am a good person, so it must be you. This is played out on a global scale, and has been since before they invented the wheel. We can however, allow the EPP to get on with it, and do something more constructive for the UK.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 28, 2006 at 21:55
So image is more important to you than reality Richard? Why would we look like 'nutters'? I suggest the party has a sober and rational debate both with itself and the British people on the benefits of EU membership if there are any.Down playing all talk of Europe as IDS and Howard did I believe deprive of us a potential vote winner.I do agree with you though that the stridency that afflicted so many Eurosceptics in the 1990's should be avoided at all costs.
Posted by: malcolm | March 28, 2006 at 21:57
A Lords Committee was asked to look at the economic benefits of belonging to the EU, and they refused. In my opinion, if the pros and cons of remaining in the EU were examined properly, there would be an overwhelming case for withdrawing. Ruth Lea has recognised this, and I am told there are at least 20 MPs who believe we should leave, but haven't found the courage to state so in public.
Posted by: Margaret | March 28, 2006 at 23:31
"What possible reason is there not to carry out this promise immediately?"
The biggest problem would be the likely partners in a new grouping, I don't think they're willing to move until the European Parliament ends its current sitting.
This site has rightly raised the issue of some of these parties' policies on issues like homosexuality. However, as the EU primarily deals with trade and economics, their economic policies seem more important. Many, like the Polish party, are generally economic populists who support stronger protectionism in Europe's dealings with the world, the strengthening of the CAP and are committed supporters of the "Social" Europe.
It seems to me that an alliance with parties that are illiberal at best on personal issues and really rather statist on economic ones would be a rather peculiar one for the Conservative Party Cameron seems to want to lead.
Posted by: Shaun | March 29, 2006 at 01:16
I think we should argue for euroscepticism much more in terms of democracy rather than sovereignty. Even Tony Benn opposes the EU because it is thoroughly undemocratic. It is pretty much undeniable. I think the "sovereignty" point would be pre-eminent in people's minds anyway, so it doesn't need emphasising so much. But the way to convince people that Euroscepticism is an important issue (and not just the preoccupation of a lunatic fringe) is to emphasise the loss democratic accountability.
Posted by: John Hustings | March 29, 2006 at 05:27
"It seems to me that an alliance with parties that are illiberal at best on personal issues and really rather statist on economic ones would be a rather peculiar one for the Conservative Party Cameron seems to want to lead."
These parties may not be Conservative in the British sense but they are in the European sense. Furthermore, the reason for allying with them is to create a group that will repatriate power from the EU. What they want to do with their repatriated power shouldn't concern us. National interest before party interest.
"I think we should argue for euroscepticism much more in terms of democracy rather than sovereignty."
Agreed. I have yet to see a Europhile justify why we need unpopular legislation such as compulsory metrification. We need to force them into saying what they really think - that the people are stupid and don't know what's good for them.
Posted by: Richard | March 29, 2006 at 07:15
I should also add that the Tories have links to the American Republican Party. They are not known for being particularly liberal on social issues and many of them are sympathetic to protectionism and agricultural subsidies. We do not seem to have suffered from being linked to them.
I'm sure (but I could be wrong) most people realise that Poland hasn't quite "caught up" with the West on social attitudes and economics. Bese thing to do is adopt the traditional conservative policy of allowing the country to evolve into a more liberal position, which is what usually happens to wealthy European countries.
This counry trades with countries that have some shocking human rights records. The beliefs of the Polish Right are mild by comparison. If we trade with the former there's no logical reason why we can't do deals with the latter to serve our own interests.
Posted by: Richard | March 29, 2006 at 07:27
For those who do not beleive that David Cameron will fulfil his promise, I suggest they read this:
http://rightlinks.co.uk/linked/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=5
I don't think he wanted it to be the first big issue of his leadership, so its taking more time than we hoped.
Posted by: EU Serf | March 29, 2006 at 07:47
For those who do not beleive
Hi Serf,
Sorry, but that clarify anything.
I think the time for 'believing' has passed. Blair shot that to pieces but most politicians don't seem to have cottoned on that cold, hard delivery is what people are looking for now.
Words are cheaps. Remove the rhetoric and there is just delivery and non-delivery. Roger Helmer noted that he understood the pledge to be an immediate withdrawal once the leadership election has been decided, but that was four months ago.
They days of a politician saying "trust me" and people believing are long gone, imho. Trust will need to be built through delivery, not loaned.
When[if] Cameron takes the MEP's out of the EPP, I will be very pleased to hear you blowing raspberries at me but until then, it is just an undelivered pledge with no ETA.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 08:14
'Too many people think there’s no point in voting because you can’t believe a word that politicians say and, if elected, they’ll ignore the wishes of the electorate and do whatever they like. '
Yes DC they do. I wonder why ?
Posted by: johnC | March 29, 2006 at 16:44
I have no love for the EPP but we ought to consider the fact that the alliance was included in the 2004 European Manifesto. As it was not related to a Government programme, it remains a "live" document. If Mr Cameron is able to ditch one commitment, he may ditch other important commitments, e.g. fishing policy.
Dr Fox threatened to deselect candidates, incuding sitting MEPs, who failed to endorse the EPP deal. His campaign u-turn was breathtaking.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | March 29, 2006 at 17:24
"These parties may not be Conservative in the British sense but they are in the European sense."
I think the Christian Democrat tradition is more close to European conservatism. These parties are, from my understanding, right-wing populists which is a very different thing.
"Furthermore, the reason for allying with them is to create a group that will repatriate power from the EU. What they want to do with their repatriated power shouldn't concern us. National interest before party interest."
I'm not wholly sure they do. Certainly the parties tend to talk loudly about things European but with their countries expecting large European grants they seem rather committed to it. The Law and Justice Party, for example, is totally opposed to reform of CAP as Poland would receive too much from it.
From what I have read of them they seem opposed to the EU in principle, oppose the parts that work (Trade liberalisation) in practise and support the parts that don't. I would characterise the British Conservative Party as precisely the opposite. It seems, frankly, like allying with the Kate Hoey wing of the Labour party.
"I should also add that the Tories have links to the American Republican Party."
Of course, links are fine but this is asking Conservative politicians to walk into the voting chambers on the issues of trade, the EU budget, regulation and liberalisation with parties that, on each of those issues, goes against the Tory party.
"I think we should argue for euroscepticism much more in terms of democracy rather than sovereignty."
I agree, but this is a double-edged sword. A more democratic Europe will also have more legitimacy.
Posted by: Shaun | March 29, 2006 at 20:21
"I agree, but this is a double-edged sword. A more democratic Europe will also have more legitimacy."
Notif it means Continental voters can have a say over UK law. People don't mind being outvoted in their own country but on a European level I can't see it being popular.
Posted by: Richard | March 29, 2006 at 21:22
A new group would take 19 members and 5 countries. The 19 member requirement is in the bag—the pro-split Tories alone can muster it.
But the only rock-solid, no-ideological-baggage on-all-the-same-page partner is the Czech ODS party. That means Hague has to find at least one MEP from each of three more countries who are prepared to make the jump. And finding parties that pass the sniff test with ODS-grade flying colours has been tricky.
Law and Justice would be a relatively weighty catch in terms of influence (government in Poland and hence a vote on the Council), but in raw terms of meeting the technical requirements of a group, wooing them counts as much as, say, getting one Irish independent MEP on-side. It might be smarter to set up a minimumish-sized group, let it run for a bit, then let PiS in maybe a year down the line just so to make it clear that they're guests in the Tory/ODS ideological tent rather than vice versa.
A further question is whether putting together a group in the same rough vicinity sizewise as the Green group or the Far-left group is going to be good enough for Hague to pull the trigger and get on with it. Hannan has fantasized about getting some sort of ubergroup that would be big enough to rival the EuroLibDems for third place, but I honestly think that waiting around and stalling until all the ducks are lined up is a stupid strategy. The only way to shut up the critics that say it can't be done or will lead to the end of the world is to do it. The only way to convince a lot of these other potential partners in Europe who are feeling decidely meh at the moment that you're about to try it is to do it.
So take your Tories, your ODS, and three more countries (MpF from France, the LNNK from Latvia and, say, Kathy Sinnott from Ireland), and run with it. Others will come: the EPP has multiple members from some states with internal rivalries, and the less-statist or more-Euroskeptic options might be enticed loose over time; there are some in the liberal group who are well to the right of the LibDem/Nordic core who also could be coaxed if the new group works; and once Romania and Bulgaria join the odds favour finding at least someone there. Outside the EU, there are parties in Norway and the former Soviet republics (the Union of Right Forces in Russia, for instance) that would quite happily join a transnational organization outside the Parliament provided it wasn't federalist like the EPP.
Posted by: Tom | March 29, 2006 at 22:28
So if there are all these mainstream Conservative parties in the European Parliament 'crying out for the Tories to take the lead' and leave the EPP-ED Group, will Roger Helmer or Robert Goodwill be kind enough to tell us who they are? Not at any point in the last 6 months to date. Cameron's aim has been out there for months, but the best that we have so far is the homophobic Poles, 4 anti-Russian Latvians and a left-wing single issue pro-lifer from Ireland. Is this the leading position in Europe which Goodwill and Hemer dream of ? And as for linking up with the Russian party Tom, our reliable MPs at Westminster have already signed up in the Council of Europe to the leadership of that great democrat President Putin and his United Russia party. What has europhobia brought the once great Conservative Party to? Come clean - this whole EPP issue is a smokescreen for getting Britain so sidelined that withdrawal from the EU itself is inevitable outcome. Your posters make it clear that that's REALLY what they want, even though it isn't and never has been Tory policy. At least Helmer and Hannan are straight enough to publicly say so.
Posted by: JAN ILCZYSZYNE | April 07, 2006 at 11:21
"Come clean - this whole EPP issue is a smokescreen for getting Britain so sidelined that withdrawal from the EU itself is inevitable outcome."
I don't see any problems with this. The EU's destination is 'ever closer union', which means union in everything, politics, economics, constitutions - everything political. The more honest we are that we don't want a part of it, the better.
Posted by: Tim Aker | April 07, 2006 at 11:29
You have hit the bullseye Tim. The grouping in the European Parliament is a red herring. All those arguing on this site in favour of Cameron's policy just like you want to get Britain out of Europe altogether. Probably the majority of Conservative members are in favour of leaving the EU. Your problem is with not the EPP because Tories have never been members of that party. It is that Cameron has made it clear that he is following the policy of every other Tory leader in fully backing EU membership, and unless the anti-EU Tories are honest and join UKIP rather than just voting for them as they did in the Euro-elections, they have to keep a surrogate argument going over this irrelevant grouping question.
Posted by: JAN ILCZYSZYNE | April 07, 2006 at 14:08