Leaving the EPP just got a little harder

Dan Hannan has just blogged the news here but the European Parliament is going ahead with plans that will mean new parliamentary groups will need members from seven nations to gain official recognition.  It was previously just five.  This will make it harder for Conservative MEPs to leave the EPP and form a new group.  Timothy Kirkhope, former Leader of Tory MEPs, was - we understand - a driving force behind the rules change.

> Related link: David Cameron must order Conservative MEPs to vote against new barrier to EPP exit

Comments

[EML]

It's hard not to be cynical and conclude that this change is directed specifically at Cameron's proposed move ...

[EPP Corset]

So it is EEP today and EPP tomorrow.
In the EPP and run by the EPP!
The Lisbon Treaty is dead,long live the Lisbon Treaty

Matter rested.

[Malcolm Dunn]

It is ery hard notto be cynical. This boil needs to lanced and it's better to do so when we have a big lead in the opinion polls.It would be preferable to sit alone rather than remain in the EPP in my opinion. If any MEPs can't stomach that decision they should be under no illusions what the alternatives available to them are.

[Anoymous Eurocrat]

Paradoxically it may make it easier. There will be all sorts of parties who are represented in the EP at the moment who will fall victim to the ballot box and threshholds next year; and there will be several parties next year which are represented for the first time. There will be a scramble to join groups, and the bloc of Tory MEPs will be attractive to a number of them.

The conventional wisdom is that the the Tories wil find it difficult to form a new group. This will only happen if they believe it themselves and chicken out.

[Anonymous Eurocrat]

I ought to point out too that by making it harder to form groups there will be a greater proportion of independents (the so-called non-inscrits). This will make it much more respectable to sit outside the group structure, which may be necessary for a short while.

[michael mcgough]

It must be remembered that David Davis,aware of the difficulties in forming a new group .was careful not to make a promise that he couldnt keep unlike the inexperienced Cameron.
He who spins wins!

[Man in a Shed]

Well there's not point in hanging on any more - just leave the EPP.

The federalists will have shot themselves in the foot if they create a system designed to crush the democratic will of a member nation.

Whilst were at it can we please ditch the Quisling element on our MEP benches.

[HF]

Where can we find out how the Conservative MEPs voted?

[David_McD]

The change was aimed primarily at UKIP and the IDG.

The EU Parliament is a sham. Only when we understand this will we take the necessary measure which is to pack our bags and go!

[christina Speight]

It is NO MORE DIFFICULT to leave the EPP that disgraceful collection of federalists seeking to abolish the nation, and determined to stamp the views of minorities.

HOW MANY TORY MEPs voted FOR this policy? And who please

As Roger Helmer has pointed out he can speak more often and has much greater freedom of action outside the EPP.

This will just be used as an excuse by the Cameron clique to break another promise.

[Stewart Geddes]

There is absolutely no need to be part of a multi national group. It has been proved already. Just leave.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

How does this effect other groups like the Union for a Europe of Nations?

And michael mcgough, David Davis was not aware of the European Parliament situation. He was under the illusion that the "-European Democrats" in the EPP-ED moniker was something real, not a figleaf of nomenclature.

[Dale]

Won't forcing the collapse of 2 eurosceptic groups make it easier to form a new one?

After all, not all members of Independence and Democracy want their countries to leave the eu and the same goes for UEN.

[Anonymous Eurocrat]

The UEN are most at risk, along with the Ind/Dem Group. The Greens and Communists may also be affected, depending upon the outcome of next year's elections.

The UEN are pretty small both in terms of MEPs and states represented. The Italians within them (the ex-fascists, though they claim to be fully reformed) wish to join the EPP and the Polish Law and Justice party would rather be elsewhere. That leaves Fianna Fail and not much else.

The real aim of the change is to strengthen the EPP and the socialists at the expense of pretty well everyone else, including the Liberals. Both of the two biggest groups would like a grand coalition similar to the system that has operated many times in Austria and Germany. This is likely to prove repellent to many within the EPP who do not like to be pushed around by the Germans.

[johnC]

Well, the IDP group has members from 9 nations according to its website, so would survive, but the UEN has members from 6, so wouldn't (unless the UK Conservatives join after the next election). The best thing would be for both groups to combine, and for the UK Conservatives to join the combined group, in order to form a united Eurosceptic front which would carry more weight.

[Outrider]

The Conservatives need to say, e.g. in the run up to the 2009 Euro elections, what they will do about important things, such as the powers that have been transferred to the EU by the treaties of Ametrdam, Nice and Lisbon that they voted against in Parliament under a 3-line Whip. There is a need to say that a Conservative government will renegotiate our membership. This EPP discussion is meaningless as far as voters are concerned. It is an excuse for not doing anything real and will not win the votes of a single Eurosceptic.

[Iain]

If past actions by EUphile Conservative MEP's hasn't been enough to ensure the EUsceptical vote looks elsewhere, then this will. Conservative MEP's seem to be doing everything in their power to wind up and insult the electorate from which they get their support. Have they been in Brussels for so long that they hold the electorate in contempt? It seems so, but it is a big error for if they think that getting rid of Brown here will translate in votes for them then they have made a very big mistake in their calculations.

[serio]

Daniel Hannan spoke in the European Parliament today in favour of a proposal by a French MEP not to proceed with the vote. Does anyone know who the French MEP was and which party he is from?

[IRJMilne]

Why do we need to be in a group?

[christina Speight]

IRJMilne @ 1738 :Why do we need to be in a group?"

Roger Helmer - as I said above - says he can work much more effectively out of a group.

[Happy Tory]

We need some real leadership in Europe. Someone who can actually shape those parties that oppose the federalist project into a more coherent entity, where the similarity between the non-federalists is emphasised, rather than people focusing on where there are differences. This isn't about nit-picking over the current party structure. This is about revolution! We need a revolutionary anti-federalist leader in Europe, to redefine the whole game at a European level and beat the Eurocrats at their own game. Any nominations?

[Yet Another Anon]

How hard can it be to leave - one minute they could be in, the next out, it's easier than leaving the EU and certainly a heck of a lot easier than getting the sort of reforms in the EU that David Cameron wants, meagre as they are - how many people are really going to believe there is any credibility in David Cameron's position if a commitment going back to the leadership campaign relating to something he can do NOW, remains unfulfilled.

[Iain]

What I can't understand is why Cameron is allowing these treacherous MEP's play him like a mug? Why is he pussy footing around them when the selection is in his power to control, the party lists are his to determine, and its not long when they have to stand for re-election. So it is now that he should be in complete control of them, yet he is allowing them to run rings around him, allowing their obstinacy to make him renege on a promise and his word to withdraw from the EPP, and allowing them to keep their snouts in the Brussels trough which is doing sleaze damage to the Conservative party.

WHY IS CAMERON TOLERATING THIS?

[thomas]

This amounts to the Conservative MEPs, who poll a tiny share of the 25% of people who vote in the Euro elections determining the policy of the leader of the UK party who are polling as if they will get over 40% of a proper turnout for our national parliament.

If Cameron becomes Prime Minister, his freedom of action and that of the nation will have been constrained by these people.

This is why people hate the EU.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Oh God, here we go again.

Look, if the new group can't attract parties from more than 7 countries, it begs the question, 'what sort of grouping is it, for goodness sake'?

I have always been - and remain - against leaving our friends in the EPP. In fact, the majority of parties from Eastern Europe want to actually join them!

And, of course, strengthening the numbers will ensure that dangerous minority parties led by Fascists and Communists won't be as influential and financially strong. This is surely a good thing?

Rogel Helmer and Dan Hannan can't succeed (in not only getting us out of the EPP, but getting us out of Europe altogether) where people like Bill Cash, IDS and Richard Body et al failed. These people, some would say, are the "Derek Hattons"' of today's Conservative Party.

To Christiana Speight: Please stop writing in capitals - it spoils the thread and is bad for the eye.

Now let the personal abuse commence...

[Nigel Rathbone]

WHY IS CAMERON TOLERATING THIS?
Posted by: Iain | July 09, 2008 at 19:15

Cameron is tolerating this because, unlike the armchair commentators posting here, he has to face political realities, all the more so as he is pretty much certain to be in government in the not-too-distant future.

Show me a British politician of any party who has either talked and/or acted as Eurosceptic in office as they have in opposition. Euroscepticism is a very easy cause to grab a few headlines and votes when you're in opposition and don't actually have to deal with our colleagues in the EU, but the reality of government is rather tougher.

[Geoff]

Nigel and Justin, we wouldn't have to deal with our enemies in the EU if we got out!

[David_McD]

"Now let the personal abuse commence..."

I have no doubt, dear boy, that in due course you will a typical professional politician, just like David Cameron!

[Dale]

"Show me a British politician of any party who has either talked and/or acted as Eurosceptic in office as they have in opposition."

Margaret Thatcher.

Considerably more eurosceptic in 1990 than she was when she was campainig for the single market in opposition.

Not that your question was even worth answering, the eu is very different now to what it was then and a Eurosceptic Government has never been elected (not because they were eurosceptic but rather because the only party that was then eurosceptic was also full of communists). We have also never had a LibDem government, souldthey just give up? Why don't we march into cchq and sa 'sorry dave, you've never been prime minister before, which means you won't ever be!'.

Lest we forget that their have only been 2 british governments since the EU was created (only one of which was elected) and only 4 elected since we joined the eec.

[Dale]

"I have no doubt, dear boy, that in due course you will a typical professional politician, just like David Cameron!"

Justin Hinchcliffe isn't the sort of person that gets very far in politics, the irony in him bringing up derek hatton was hilarious.

[Iain]

"Cameron is tolerating this because"

This is not EU matters but internal Conservative party matters, which if Cameron fails to deal with it now, when these MEP's need his patronage to get them on the party list, then he will find them stabbing him in the back if and when he becomes PM, for as we have seen the EU can become a very toxic issue for Conservative PM's, as such he would be wise to ensure the MEP's standing on a Conservative ticket will be there in support of him, not trying to undermine his leadership when he has to do battle with the EU, as he most certainly will.

[Nigel Rathbone]

Geoff, our "enemies" are surely terrorists and dictators et al. Our fellow European government leaders are our colleagues.

Dale, Margaret Thatcher proves my point, in fact - she has been far more Eurosceptic out of office than she ever was in it.

All the current leading Eurosceptic politicians are either well past their time in government or haven't yet served in it.

Why don't we march into cchq and sa 'sorry dave, you've never been prime minister before, which means you won't ever be!'.

Lest we forget that their have only been 2 british governments since the EU was created (only one of which was elected) and only 4 elected since we joined the eec.

Not sure how to unpick these sentences, your meaning - and thus your point - is obscure to say the least. There has never been a government in this country which was not elected in my lifetime, and (as you've pointed out before, I've been around rather longer than you have).

[Graham Checker]

Justin @ 20:16

All of us just ignore the europhilic bilge you post these days.

You're not even worth personally abusing...

[Iain]

"Thatcher proves my point, in fact - she has been far more Eurosceptic out of office than she ever was in it."

Well that didn't stop the EUphiles like Howe, Hurd, Clarke, Hesletine from stabbing her in the back. So if by your own criteria we find EU freindly PM's getting stabbed in the back by the EUphiles it would seem that nothing can satisfy their fanaticism. So you actually make the case for Cameron to have a night of the long knives and deal with these sleazy, troublesome, EUphile MEP's now, rather than waiting for them to cause him trouble later on.

[Dale]

"Not sure how to unpick these sentences, your meaning - and thus your point - is obscure to say the least. There has never been a government in this country which was not elected in my lifetime, and (as you've pointed out before, I've been around rather longer than you have)."

Allow me to explain it to you in very very simple language;

We joined the EEC under Heath. Since then we have had wilson's government elected (1) we have had thatcher's government elected (2), we have had major's government elected (3) and we have had Blair's government elected (4).

To clarify, we have had 4 governments elected since we joined the eec, IF you count different PMs (majr/Thtcher) heading different governments.

Heath's government was elected before we joined the eec and the only governent that has thusfar been elected since the creation of the EU is the present labour government, clear enough?

Sorry for when I said

"Why don't we march into cchq and sa 'sorry dave, you've never been prime minister before, which means you won't ever be!'."

I'm fairly tired, which is the reason for spelling mistake/ missing of letters. Particularly annoying is my confusing 'their' and 'there', but the point should still be obvious: Just because it has never happened before in the relatively short history of the eu, doesn't mean that it won't ever happen.

[Dale]

Sorry for more typos in the above post.

They are the result of a combination of a Broken hand and a 19 hour day.

[Sam R]

Difficult to leave the EPP? Just ask Dan Hannan. All it takes is a backbone and some principle.

[Nigel Rathbone]

Thank you for the clarification Dale, I now see the point you were trying to make. (Btw no problem with the typos, I'm rather tired too, I just type fairly slowly.)

However, you are failing to appreciate how our system of government works - parliaments are elected, governments are appointed.

As I said above, all our governments are "elected" in the sense that they are made of up MPs who are elected into parliament. Thus the party is elected, and the (largest) party then forms the government.

There have in fact been 12 administrations since we joined the EEC (not including Heath): Wilson (two administrations), Callaghan, Thatcher (three administrations), Major (two), Blair (three) and Brown.

But in the sense you mean it, this current government is just as "elected" as much as any other - it won its mandate in 2005. Constitutionally, the fact they changed leaders is irrelevant. In this modern presidential-style politics it may not seem it, but that's the way it is, and I for one would rather keep our current system than have some kind of Americanised political pop-idol contest.

[Joe James Broughton]

What a boring lot of posts.
And before you squeal, I'm quite Euro sceptic actually.

[Londoner]

Frankly, as the EU is grown bigger it makes sense to force parliamentary groups to embrace a greater number of nations. Doesn't it? (We've gone from 15 to 27 Member States)

[Londoner]

Frankly, as the EU is grown bigger it makes sense to force parliamentary groups to embrace a greater number of nations. Doesn't it? (We've gone from 15 to 27 Member States)

[Eveleigh]

As a prospective candidate for the European parliament I signed an undertaking to leave the EPP-ED. I did so willingly and consider it part of the 'contract' which I am honour-bound to stick to. My understanding is that all candidates, whether they are currently MEPs or not put their hands to this agreement.

[Iain]

"Frankly, as the EU is grown bigger it makes sense to force parliamentary groups to embrace a greater number of nations. Doesn't it?"

No, for that means we have EU dictated political parties. Its up to the electorate to decide which political party they give their votes to. The EU bureaucracy has no business trying to decide which political party or group of political parties are recognised.

[John]

The Europhiles wre not alone in our party for destroying Maggie, they did it on the orders of their masters in Europe. The only way is OUT!

[Sally Roberts]

Christina, you seem to know Roger Helmer quite well - can you explain why on earth he wrote that memo (if he did!)?

[Jim Mcleod]

I never believed Cameron when he promised to leave the EPP to gain the Right Wing Conservative votes to become leader.

And I do not believe he will when he promised in 2009.

The Conservative Right Wing were taken to the cleaners and they know it. But will stay quiet while ever their is a poll lead.

You were all duped by a first calss PR man.

[Dr Charles Tannock MEP]

July 09, 2008 at 17:37 Bruno Gollnisch MEP

Deputy President of the French NationalFront

All those bloggers who think there is no purpose in being in an EP Group might ask why are the National front so angry at the threshold being raised from 20 to 25 as they like UKIP are desperate to reform a group which collapsed asthe ITS as the Romanians walked out or in the case of UKIP preserve the INDDEM Group structure. I despair at some of the ill informed comments who know nothong of the workings of the EP. Group membership and the bigger the better means politcal power. Being in the NI or unattached group means making glorious speeches but no power to chair Committees. table amendments or resolutions and being in the political wilderness.Enough said -I like all candidates am committed to the DC pledge to form a new group and we will all campaign on that basis

[Iain]

"Group membership and the bigger the better means politcal power."

But political power for what? A coordinated economic policy? An EU dictated immigration policy? etc.

How many Conservative voters want that? Or are we and our political objectives incidental MEP's power play?

Your 'power' is disenfranchisement for us!

[Sally Roberts]

"But political power for what? A coordinated economic policy? An EU dictated immigration policy? etc."

Power to achieve useful things which affect the lives of us all - to name but two, a world-wide "Amber Alert" system for missing children and transparency in the purchasing of airline tickets - i.e. no more so-called 99p fares with hidden charges on top!

[Sally Roberts]

Sorry I meant "Europe wide" not "world wide"!

[Iain]

"Power to achieve useful things which affect the lives of us all "

They forget they are supposed to our servants there to represent us. Well not even that, for we never agreed to have a EU Parliament that disenfranchises us in the representation we have in Westminster. Voted there on a party list system which means we cannot individually sack them, let alone the fact that they have joined political groups we do not accept, and that are determined by Brussels.

So as far as I am concerned these jumped up busy bodies have no institutional mandate to busy themselves with useful things.

[Sally Roberts]

"They forget they are supposed to our servants there to represent us."

"these jumped up busy bodies have no institutional mandate"

These two statements seem to contradict one another!

[Iain]

"These two statements seem to contradict one another!"

And as you can see these were two statements interspaced with a 'Well not even that'.

But just look at the situation, we have Conservative MEP's joining a Brussels political grouping which I would hazard a guess a majority of Conservative voters want nothing to do with, for its pursuing an agenda that is opposite to their wishes. But Conservative MEP's carry on regardless. Let alone the wider situation, where I would also guess most British voters don't want an EU parliament in any form at all. But again its foisted on them regardless of their wishes.

[Sally Roberts]

"where I would also guess most British voters don't want an EU parliament in any form at all."

To be honest, Iain, most British voters are not that interested in Europe - they are too concerned with worrying about the economy here and how they are going to pay their ever increasing bills and whether they will have a job next month! It is only "wonks" like us that get thoroughly over-excited on the subject on here!