Geoffrey Van Orden given task of negotiating new partners for Tory MEPs

ConservativeHome has received the following statement from Giles Chichester, new Chairman of the delegation of Conservative MEPs, about the party and the EPP:

"The Leader of the Party has set out clearly the policy regarding the alignment of the Conservatives in the European Parliament after the European elections in 2009.  As I undertook, during my leadership campaign, I will use my best endeavours, working with David, to achieve this."

My understanding is that Mr Chichester is far from convinced that it will be possible to form a new grouping outside of the EPP but he has given Geoffrey Van Orden MEP the task of securing new allies.  Mr Van Orden has particularly strong links with Bulgarian politicians and, alongside the Czech ODS, Sofia may be the third major capital city of the new grouping.

On other European matters:

1. Caroline Spelman has urged Britain's extra allotted MEP to represent the West Midlands: ""People need to know if they are going to get an additional MEP to speak up for them in Europe.  A common sense look at the number of voters shows that it is the West Midlands who are entitled to the one additional MEP and the Government should confirm this will be the case as a matter of urgency.  If not people will have reason to suspect the Government will play politics with this important question of democratic representation."  There is a suspicion that Labour may award the extra MEP to Scotland - in contravention of a recommendation from the Electoral Commission.
2. Yesterday we discussed the new selection procedures for MEPs.

Comments

[Chad Noble]

Well, having picked £100 off you before, I am prepared to bet the Editor £250 that the Tory MEP's will still be members of the EPP-ED group on 31/12/2009 (funds to go to the Freedom Association if I win please).

[Sally Roberts]

Editor I do hope you will be buying Chad a nice Christmas pressie with your winnings!

[Praguetory]

"My understanding is that Mr Chichester ... has given Geoffrey Van Orden MEP the task of securing new allies."

That nobody previously had responsibility for this is a disgrace. By the way, our friends in the Czech ODS ought to be asked to pull their fingers out and be trying to persuade partners in Poland, Hungary and Slovakia.

[Alex Swanson]

Sorry Sally, the cynic in me has to agree with Chad on this one. (NB for clarity, this still does not mean I am placing any bets!)

[Editor]

I fear you may be right Chad so bet refused!

[MH]

The Chadster certainly does have a point. I met Geoffrey Vin Orden in Brussels recently. As Nigel Farage rather cruelly and correctly tagged him: Geoffrey Vin Ordinaire. And he was right too.

[Sally Roberts]

Editor you just didn't want to have to buy him a pressie did you? ;-)

[Paul Oakley]

This search for a new grouping is a delaying tactic and an excuse. David Cameron's promise was simple and supported by the bulk of the party: we would leave the EPP. We don't need to be part of any alliance at all.

[TimberWolf]

Geoffrey Van Orden given task of negotiating new partners for Tory MEPs?

I know the Young Conservatives used to be known as the most successful marriage bureau in the country, but does this man really need to find new partners for Tory MEPs?

[Comstock]

"I am prepared to bet the Editor £250"

Jeez Chad, this is getting silly. I thought I'd gone OTT when I bet £20 with someone on here!

Anyway I thought you were banned (mind you so am I so that proberbly doesn't say much :D)

[Duncan]

I can't agree with Paul Oakley that our MEPs should sit in isolation in the European Parliament. As second largest centre-right delegation in the Parliament and the government in waiting in the UK, what message would it show to our sister parties in other EU states to disengage ourselves in this way. When we are back in government we are, like it or not, going to have to negotiate with other EU member states and build alliances in order to safeguard to British national interest and this will not be achieved by pursuing an isolationist agenda.

As for the new group, Geoffrey Van Orden would be well advised to direct his attentions towards the Swedish Moderate Party, the Polish Civic Platform and the centre right parties in the Baltic states.

[Malcolm Dunn]

You may be right PaulOakley, but I do know Geoffrey Van Orden is one of our 'good guys'and wishes to leave the EPP as soon as possible.

[Chad Noble]

Well if the Ed had taken it on and I had lost, it would effectively have been a donation to the Tory Party (his chosen home for the £100 bet last time which fortunately ended up with the TPA) via an intermediary, something you Labourites know a little too much about Comstock... ;-)

Come on guys, we all know the Tory MEPs are not actually going to pull out of the EPP grouping!

[Paul Oakley]

Duncan - the message to our "sister parties" is a simple one. We will not be part of a project to deepen the EU, particularly as all the signs are that the constitution will now be passed.

To be frank, our membership of the EPP is not the most important issue. You are correct to say that we should at all times have the British national interest uppermost in our minds. The question is whether those interests are best-served by enthusiastic involvement in a nation called the European Union or by an amicable divorce from the entire edifice.

[Derek]

Paul Oakley is quite right, David Cameron made an unequivocal promise that we would leave the EPP, regardless of another grouping. If we can form another grouping of like-minded national parties, then fine; if not then we must sit as a single group and form alliances as and when we agree with others. Much better to be true to our beliefs than to remain in a group with which we have fundamental disagreement.

We would also be better off financially as we would not have to hand over large sums to the EPP, which they spend on projects which we are opposed to.

I am not prepared to gamble, but I think Cameron will realise that to renege on this pledge would be hugely damaging. We must ensure that all re-selected MEPs support the Leader's policy.

[Sakabula]

Poor Geoffrey Van Order! What has he done to deserve such a thankless task? The truth is that there are no likely partners hanging about whom the Tory MEPs have not already approached and been rebuffed by. Geoffrey did come up with a Bulgarian party that was very well disposed to join the Conservatives in a possible separate group - but then they failed to get anyone elected in the Bulgarian elections to the European Parliament this year. Presumably Geoffrey is now looking for other Bulgarians, if they exist.

The idea that Civic Platform or the Swedes or anybody else would want to detach themselves from the EPP is pure self-deception. They have never given the slightest sign of being interested in forming an alternative group with us

What they and others might be interested in is a well thought out Conservative plan to reform the EU and the Parliament and the way the whole thing works - from within the EPP-ED, where not all are mad federalists and many are now emphasising the virtues of Europe doing less. The trouble is that the Tories' dim negativism on everything European makes Euro federalism ( always "moving forward") look fresh and attractive

All that G van O's kamikaze mission will do is to make things extra difficult for the Conservatives after the next Euro election. What are our MEPs supposed to do if we exit the EPP-ED before the election, then find no allies for a new group, or no respectable ones? We either creep back into the EPP-ED, having missed out on allocation of committee chairmanships etc, or sit on the fringes of the Parliament, all alone or with the very right wing nationalists.

Far better for Giles Chichester to play the strong rather than the weak man and tell his right wing colleagues that he has had enough of this alternative group fantasy and that the Conservatives are going to form a strong reformist faction within the EPP.

[Lucy]

Agree with Paul Oakley too.

It's worrying and humiliating that we're forced to scratch together alliances like this. Rather just get out.

[Comstock]

" something you Labourites know a little too much about Comstock... ;-)"

After two years people still think I'm a member of the Labour party!!

Anyway it's g'bye for a while, Chad (see homepage for reasons)

[Andrea]

Spelman is right..if they follow the Electoral Commission calculations to alloce the other 72 seats, the additional one should go to West Midlands (I think North West is the region just after WM).
A second seat to Scotland would favour the Tories as the reduction should cost their second seat

[Serf]

Far better for Giles Chichester to play the strong rather than the weak man and tell his right wing colleagues that he has had enough of this alternative group fantasy and that the Conservatives are going to form a strong reformist faction within the EPP.

Excuse me while I wet myself laughing. You may as well set up a moderate faction of Al Qaida.

Do you really think that Giles Chichester, chosen by the MEPs has the mandate to rip up a promise may by David Cameron, chosen by half the MPs and 2/3s of the party members?

[Alex Swanson]

Serf has a point. You can argue about whether leaving the EPP is a good idea or not, but the fact of the matter is that Cameron promised it would happen. So either it does, or Cameron is revealed as

(a) an idiot for not being able to do it;
or
(b) a knave for refusing to do it;
or
(c) not in control of his Euro-MPs

[Chad Noble]

..more than that Alex, Cameron actually said his pledge has already been delivered (CCHQ email day after 'delay' was announced), so he would be achieving the impossible of breaking a pledge he has already taken credit for having delivered!

(But yes, he will obviously achieve thee impossible and do just that)

[David]

"We don't need to be part of any alliance at all."

Wrong, actually. The rules of procedure at the EP mean being part of a recognised grouping is rather essential if the MEPs are to have any influence or effect. Going off on our own means Conservative MEPs will lose a hell of a lot.

[David]

"I think Cameron will realise that to renege on this pledge would be hugely damaging"

Outside of a few harcore members, I don't think it will have any effect at all on the wider public. It's simply a high political issue, made even more arcane by the fact taht most people don't really have a clue about the workings of the EP or their MEPs.

In other words, it will only cause trouble if certain members of the party want it to cause trouble.

[Malcolm Dunn]

'conservative MEPs will lose a hell of a lot'. Really David? Like what?

[David]

"Like what?"

Well, for example, it's the groups who nominate the candidates for all the important posts including the EP president, vice-presidents, committee chairmen and the quaestors.

Outside of a group, all you can do is vote on the candidates.

[Vernon]

Why on earth do people get so het up about such a silly issue?

Cameron is clearly not going to withdraw from the EPP. He probably meant it at the time he said it but as he has matured as a politician he has been forced to confront the political reality of the situation.

I'm afraid some of the swivel eyed euro-hating fanatics are going to be sorely disappointed when Cameron becomes PM. The UK government's policy towards Europe will remain exactly the same, or with nuanced changes in emphasis at most.

Being in Opposition is easy on this one. But I have not the slightest doubt that had Cameron rather than Blair represented us at the Treaty negotiations this summer, we would have signed up on the same terms and Cameron would be proclaiming it a great deal for Britain and would be pushing it through and resisting calls for a referendum. It's just the way of the world.

[Malcolm Dunn]

David, do you really believe that 'important' posts like EP president,commitee chairman etc are really worth compromising our beliefs and values for? What do these people do that benefits the British people?
Excuse my ignorance but who or what are 'quaestors'?. Are they really important?

[William Norton]

Serf: You may as well set up a moderate faction of Al Qaida.

You mean you haven't heard of New Al Qaida? They wear pinstriped turbans and all have neatly trimmed goatee beards. Their leader, Tony Ibn Lair, is believed to be hiding in a villa in Tuscany.

[David]

i David, do you really believe that 'important' posts like EP president,commitee chairman etc are really worth compromising our beliefs and values for?

Given that one isn't really compromising beliefs or values-membership of a groups doesn't involve whipping to the extent that Tory MEPs have to vote against their wishes-I think that it is important for Tory MEPs to ahve as much influence as possible on the place, and not simply give it up in empty gestures.

"What do these people do that benefits the British people?"

Affects, rather than benefits, since they are the senior positions in the EP. Whether they benefit the UK or not depends on their positions on issues, and within a group, the Conservatives can at least help to ensure beneficial candidates are put up. Essentially it's a matter of influence-I'd want Tory MEPs to have as much influence as possible. To do that, you have to be in a group.

Now, you may think that a better way of going about things is to take as much of a detached approach as possible. Perfectly fine, I'm not about to get into that sort of debate as I suspect nothing will change your stacne, but one has to recognise that certain things will be lost with that approach. I'm just clarifying the point of being in a group which you appeared to be unaware of.

"Excuse my ignorance but who or what are 'quaestors'?

They are responsible for all the administrative and financial issues of the EP. In other words, if you want to do something about costs, having a sympathetic quaestor is rather crucial.

[Adam in London]

Committee Chairmen are vitally important - the Committees are where the real business of the Parliament takes place.

[Dale]

We could join the alliance of liberals and democrats in europe or the European socialists for all I care, But I voted for David cameron because of his EPP pledge, so it must be fulfilled.

BTW, why can't we join fianna Fail's grouping?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Thank you David. You're right, I don't agree with you at all,I would prefer either a free trade agreement only with thwe EU or if we can't get that, withdrawal.But thank you for answering my questions anyway.

[Sally Roberts]

Don't know who you are, David - but you clearly know exactly what you are talking about! It's nice to see an educated posting on this subject although I have to say a couple of the posts this morning have really given me a good laugh - thank you Timberwolf and William Norton!!!

[Graham Checker]

Vernon 12:24

I fear you *may* be right.

But with a bit of "leadership" (ie. having the balls to take the plunge and stick to your guns) anything is possible.

For example, if we have some "leadership" to leave the EPP and form a new moderate centre-right grouping, it won't be long before other parties will follow - it's just noone wants to jump first. Once we've established ourselves, we will be a new magnet for those who share our views to coalesce around. Mark my words.

On the EU treaties , if it is made clear Britain will clearly say; "No." the EU just can't do it, in exactly the same way a 2nd UN security council resolution for Iraq couldn't be achieved because France says; "No."

It only becomes inevitable because we acquiese.

My own view is that all politicans who reach the level of PM are ambitious, power-hungry people anyway (for the right or wrong reasons) so are seduced by the prospect of power-broking on an even higher level within the EU (maybe their egos do make them believe they can change it "from within") and are, therefore, reluctant to confront or challenge it.

Cameron *could* be different, we just don't know, but anything is possible.

He just needs some balls.

[Derek]

It all boils down to whether you believe in principles or you want to sacrifice principles for an illusion of influence. In practice what does the influence amount to? Financially, I am told that MEPs would be better off as an independent group.

If we want to win the most MEPs in the next elections then going through with Cameron's policy would be a huge benefit. The public would understand it, because it is simple and when it was explained it would be seen as being clear and honest.

[P K]

I heard Theresa May mention during Business Questions yesterday the speculation that Gordon Brown would award the extra MEP seat to Scotland. However, I've not been able to find any news reports or coverage of this, although I have been on holiday for the last week and a half.

Can any contributors point me in the right direction? Has it already been linked to on the blog and I've just missed it? Or this a "speculation" that we've just manufacturered to keep Brown's "Scottishness" in the public eye?

[Lee Rotherham]

For those who want to revise the history and background to all this,

http://www.adieu-epp.com

is still up and running.

[Adam in London]

Dale - I'd happily join up with Fianna Fail, but alas, I fear the headbangers would hate it. Although Fianna Fail is generally Eurosceptic they back the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. the Constitution), partly because it was originally signed when Ireland held the EU Presidency, and that would never do.

[Alex Swanson]

I have to say I resent the use of the word "headbanger". Make your case on the basis of reason or not at all.

In general, the idea that abuse is a substitute for reasoned argument used to be confined to socialists, but I can't help noticing that it seems to have entered the heads of a few alleged Conservatives around here as well. I personally am not impressed by it and am unlikely to change any opinions as a result.

And let me reiterate for the people who clearly haven't grasped the idea yet: Cameron promised to leave the EPP and won the leadership on that understanding. The debate on whether it was or is a good idea is therefore entirely theoretical.

[MH]

This whole debate is rather pointless. The plain fact is that the vast majority of our Euro MPs are seriously talentless career politicians who probably didn't cut it / lost their seat for Westminster. From 2003 to 2005, I was Chairman of Sevenoaks CA and had some involvement with Euro selections. The candidate calibre was very low and those, normally, who went on to win, just go native when they get there. They then dig up their 'Eurosceptic' speech every 5 years to please the natives when they're at the hustings.

The chances of Dave pulling out are slim to none. It means all of them lose access to a lot of jolly nice perks. Moreover, you'd have to get fully into the whole in/out debate, which would split the party for a generation. I wish that would happen, but I don't think that Cameron - for all his skills of realpolitik - has sufficient principle or stature to contemplate such a monumental move.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

What evidence is there that Cameron won loads and loads of votes on the basis of his EPP position? As I recall more people were impressed by him taking a position (rather than Davis's "I'll let someone else decide") than actually caring one way or the other where we sit.

As for Fianna Fail, they've been looking for a way to escape their own grouping and there's a lot they and we have in common. So why not give them a call?

[Derek]

Davis did not take a "let someone else decide" position. He agreed that we should leave, but not until the next EU election, as we had made an agreement to be in the EPP for the current term, which he did not think we should break. In other words he agrees with what has now become our position.

The public are not stupid, they will judge Cameron by whether he delivers.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Davis took a position of leaving it to the gone-native MEPs to decide - i.e. stay in. After Clarke was eliminated, Davis's team were even trying to sell their candidate as the most pro European on this basis.

And no-one has ever actually produced the text of Cameron's pledge - was it "leave the EPP immediately no matter what, even if it means sitting isolated alone" or "leave if and when we can form a new group"?

[Vernon]

let me reiterate for the people who clearly haven't grasped the idea yet: Cameron promised to leave the EPP and won the leadership on that understanding. The debate on whether it was or is a good idea is therefore entirely theoretical.

An interesting approach to politics. The Conservatives won the election in 1987 on a manifesto pledging to introduce the poll tax. Luckily it didn't stop them ditching the proposal when it became blindingly obvious it was as popular as the black death.

When the facts change, sensible politicians usually change their minds, and their policies.

There is no massive popular groundswell of opinion agitating for the Tories to leave the EPP, no public riots in Trafalgar Square. On the contrary, there are plenty of sensible arguments for staying in, as outlined by others on this board. Cameron seems to me to be a pragmatist, and will stay in.

[Simon Chapman]

Tim R-P:

The pledge can be found in the Daily Telegraph:

"Yesterday I made good my promise to take the Conservative Party out of the EPP. The Czech prime minister designate, Mirek Topolanek, and I announced our decision to establish a new group straight after the European elections in 2009. The delay is at his request but the agreement to form a new group is not an aspiration, it is a guarantee - and it will be delivered."

I bookmarked this link at the time.

[Dale]

"There is no massive popular groundswell of opinion agitating for the Tories to leave the EPP, no public riots in Trafalgar Square. On the contrary, there are plenty of sensible arguments for staying in, as outlined by others on this board. Cameron seems to me to be a pragmatist, and will stay in."

Thats because it is a party issue. Its quite pathetic if the best you can do is say that there 'is no groundswell of opinion'. You could say that in regards to any issue, but then nothing would ever happen.

[Malcolm Dunn]

What facts have changed since 2005 Vernon? And please don't refer to those who disagree with you as 'swivel eyed euro hating fanatics'it really doesn't add much to your case.

[Vernon]

No facts have changed since 2005. It was a barmy idea then, as Ken Clarke and others pointed out, and it still is now. Cameron was foolish to make the pledge, but then he was inexperienced and trying to make a name for himself. Now he is learning the political realities. He will be pragmatic, which in this case means doing nothing.

[Andrew Smith]

My, what a lot of postings. I was surproised at the tone of Praguetory's approach to people he wants to be partners in another grouping.

However may I also question Duncan's description of Conservative MEPs as from the centre right - they are certainly to the left of most people I know. And Paul Oakley seems to have forgotten which party it was that signed up to "Ever Closer Union".

[Malcolm Dunn]

I suppose being consistent and keeping promises is of little interest to you Vernon? And you wonder why the electorate are so cynical about British politics?
I suppose you also think it extremely foolish of David Cameron to try and give the British people a vote on the European constitution? After all what do they know about it?

[Sean Fear]

There is no point allying with people who believe in different things to the Conservative Party, simply in order to carve up a few committee Chairmanships between us. That is precisely the sort of thing that gives politicians a bad name.

There is nothing to prevent us voting alongside the EPP on issues where we agree with them, even if we're not part of the same group.

[Sean Fear]

" I have not the slightest doubt that had Cameron rather than Blair represented us at the Treaty negotiations this summer, we would have signed up on the same terms and Cameron would be proclaiming it a great deal for Britain"

Given that he would not have got it past his party in the Commons, it is most unlikely that he would have signed such a treaty.

[Paul Oakley]

Andrew @ 16:54. No, I haven't forgotten what party it was and it's about time we admitted our mistake. Politics has no equivalent doctrine of papal infallibility.

[Christina Speight]

There are some here who are actually asking Cameron to break his promise - again! You don't keep the party's support firm with that kind of behaviour.,

And it would seem trhat few here have read the proposals for selecting the new MEP candidate lists. (see "Seats & Candidates") This plan is an outrage and on a par with the defunct Soviet Union. Who on earth produced such a travesty of democracy? Why is the Conservative Party utterly determined to spit in the faces of the majority of the membership who want to see Tory MEPs reflect the views of Tory members and voters?

The EU will rejoice at this capitulation to a Federal Europe as so many sitting Tory MEPs seem to want.

I came back to the party when its attitude became more robust but now -- ? I didn't want to vote UKIP but with this there's little alternative

[Vernon]

Given that he would not have got it past his party in the Commons, it is most unlikely that he would have signed such a treaty.

Of course he would have got it through the Commons. As prime minister he would have a parliamentary majority, and the Whips would ensure it got through. There would be rebels no doubt, but most of the lobby fodder would vote in favour, purely to keep themselves in office. Equally, the majority of the Labour party would no doubt cynically oppose it, using the same arguments the Conservatives are now. Its just politics.

[Praguetory]

Someone said "I was surprised at the tone of Praguetory's approach to people he wants to be partners in another grouping."

As this link shows the leaders of the
Visegrad 4 (Czech, Slovak, Poland and Hungary) meet regularly to discuss EU matters. The Eurosceptic Czech President Klaus could pave the way for a reform grouping encompassing parties from these countries - if he tried. I watched with disappointment when the Czech's lead man in the European Parliament Jan Zahradil MEP spoke to the Conservative Conference in 2006 without making any suggestions about how he and his grouping were going to help build our new grouping in their region.

Real EU reform is vital, but the Conservative Party has shown little practical leadership to date. They need to take the bull by the horns. At this stage the Movement For EU Reform website should be more than a talking shop. Time for real action.

Of course I am disappointed that an appointment to build the coalition has only just occurred. This just confirms my worst suspicions that in the 2 years since Cameron has been in charge, Kirkhope has been sitting on his hands in respect of the most important responsibility within his role.

If we want to make something happen, we need to be passionate about it. It's not even that hard - we just need vision and determination.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Paul Oakley is right at 10.03 and later – we don’t need to be part of a grouping at all.

But even more to the point why does a Party which believes in parliamentary democracy as a central tenet support the European Parliament in any way at all.

A parliament which cuts off speakers after one minute; votes en bloc - 150 votes on complex legislation in an hour; can’t propose legislation but has to take what the bureaucracy offers.

You couldn’t make it up.

It’s bound to end in tears.

[Dale]

This 'Vernon' is character is clearly a eurofanatic that has absolutely no interest in democracy, the conservative party leadership or the tory grassroots.

He is the classic hypocritical europhile, who cares more about his own beleifs than the electoral fortunes of the conservative party, which is precisely why he is spitting in the face of those who voted for david cameron based on his epp pledge.

BTW It is very foolish to beleive that prime minister cameron would have got such a treaty through parliament, one need only remember back to maastricht being voted down with a europhile tory party.

[Vernon]

Dale, you must be living in a parallel universe with its own separate history - Maastricht was not voted down, it was passed by John Major's government.

This 'Vernon' is character is clearly a eurofanatic that has absolutely no interest in democracy, the conservative party leadership or the tory grassroots.

On the contrary, I'm extremely interested in all three things you mention. And I'm not a eurofanatic at all - what I am is fed up of this obsession with all things EU and wasting valuable political time and energy on agitating for withdrawal. It's just not going to happen. And debating in or out of the EPP is like the same pointless debate at another remove, even further away from real people's concerns.

[Christina Speight]

Vernon - If you are sayiong that the Tory party will not live up to its promises to renegotiate a new relationship with the EU then the Tory is finished and it'll be because of eu-fanatics.

When will these eu-fanatics get the `arithmetic into their heads. There are sufficient would-be Tories who put country before party and will not vote Conservative unless the party does loosen the hold that the undemocratic EU has on us. Simple, really. Permanent existence in the wilderness or stand up for Britain.

[michael mcgough]

The Brigadier would have more luck instigating a military coup here than forming a viable new EU grouping.
Is he still trying to get selected for a Westminster seat?

[Bruce]

Tory is finished and it'll be because of eu-fanatics

Oh come on, this is becoming a bit hysterical. I think Vernon probably has a point - historically the Conservative party when in government has taken us further into Europe and there's no real reason to believe that won't still be the case. Talk in opposition is one thing, action in government is another, as Tony Blair has shown us so well.

But to claim the party is finished and if so it'll be the fault of the EU supporters.... The EU supporting Tory left wing seem to me to be keeping admirably quiet, trying not to wreck things for Cameron, working to get a Conservative government elected next time.

It's notable that EU-related topics on here always get a large number of posts - mostly Eurosceptic. Surely they are the ones who are agitating and dividing the party by reopening these old wounds? And then they wonder why they get labelled "headbangers"!

[Dale]

"Dale, you must be living in a parallel universe with its own separate history - Maastricht was not voted down, it was passed by John Major's government."

The house of commons voted against the maastricht treaty the first time round. It wasn't until a second vote (also being a vote of no confidence) that it was passed.

[Bruce]

I think you're splitting hairs Dale - the Maastricht treaty was still ultimately passed by the H of C.

And the defeat you refer to - I remember the debate well - was of course largely due to the fact that the pro-EU Labour opposition at the time voted against the government because of the social chapter issue.

[Dale]

"Ithink you're splitting hairs Dale - the Maastricht treaty was still ultimately passed by the H of C."

Be that as it may, It was quite a europhile tory party (considerably more so than today) that first rejected the treaty and then accepted it only when faced with an immediate election with the conservative party in pieces.

[Chicken Little]

It is fairly obvious that Mr. Cameron has no intention whatsoever of taking the MEPs out of the EPP. As far as I can see the Tory Parliamentary Party are becoming more and more Europhile after each GE.
The last of the old school will be retiring before the next GE and the parliamentary party will be stuffed with Daves version of "Blairs Babes" i.e. a bunch of easily swayed career, not conviction, politicians.
Is this what Margarets legacy has come to?

[Colin Sargeant]

Dear Mr Van Orden
I am Attaching a letter we received today from Anglo Irish Bank, which I believe is self explanatory. Could you please kindly help me and my wife i.e. Colin and Ruth Sargeant in dealing with this matter which is not acceptable to either of us. In my case I took out my account on 10/07/08. I was already aware of the UK Compensation Scheme as I invested a sum that would be fully covered by the UK scheme.We would not and never have been comfortable with any investment that was not covered by the UK Scheme. I am dismayed to see that Anglo Irish Bank now inform us that our UK Scheme cover has been removed in favour of a guarantee scheme offered by the Irish Government. I am not happy to accept this as I do not have the same confidence in the cover offered by the Irish Government. This is a prime example of our fears of changes that are happening to our circumstances at the behest of The EEC Parliament that is countermanding a situation that existed ante and has been changed without notification to ourselves after the event. We have been informed of considerable penalties if we want to close our accounts. This may be EEC law but it conflicts with Natural Justice and the UK law in existence at the time . Furthermore it removes our remedies that would have existed in British Law that at the time when when we originally invested. Sadly as I am learning both UK and EEC legislatures now seem to be quite comfortable with acting retrospectively to our disadvantage.
Thank You

Colin and Ruth Sargeant

I sent this as an e mail to you on 9/01/09

Sorry I am unable to attach the letter to this e mail as I did in my original one to you on the 9 Jan 09. If you are unable to help us at least a reply would enable us to the approach our MP at Wetsminster Eric Pickles. Thank You

[The Bishop Swine]

I would love to see our MEP's sit in isolation. Indeed I would be happy for them not to sit at all. However, the reality is the European Union and as a result its parliament, is quickly becoming a more important institution in respect of legislation than Westminster. So we do need strong representation inside it. So long as we are going to be involved in this "parliament" then it matters who we associate with. So any right of center grouping of Conservatives is fine by me, the further to the right, the more Euro skeptic the better.