Have the Tories become pro-European again?

What an unthinkable thought just a short while ago, but after the events this week I'm not so sure.

Today the Tory MEPs selected as Leader, Deputy Leader and Chief Whip, three MEPs who are all opposed to David Cameron's pledge to withdraw the Tory MEPs from the centre-right EPP - and all with, as I understand, large majorities.

Indeed, while they elected fellow Yorkshire MEP Timothy Kirkhope as their leader in Europe, defeating James Elles, just as significant were the other results from their internal elections: the moderate Richard Ashworth defeated the eurosceptic Geoffrey Van Orden. Furthermore, Sir Robert Atkins, who penned this diatribe warning Cameron against allying the Conservatives with the Polish Law and Justice party and other extreme right parties in Europe, was appointed as Chief Whip. In other words, a clean sweep for the moderates.

Kirkhope has, of course, been leader of the Tory delegation before (between 2004 and 2007 before being ousted by Giles Chichester). He is also the author of this "Alternative Treaty", which contains virtually all the substantive reforms contained in the Lisbon Treaty which the Conservative leadership in London so bitterly opposed.

Needless to say, this news is a clear statement to Cameron that, to keep to his EPP withdrawal pledge, he will have to fight his MEPs to the death, and has met with a mixed reaction amongst the grass-roots activists on the influential Conservative Home site. One would expect that the notorious H-block of Chris Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan must be spitting feathers, but perhaps not - even Helmer seems to have performed a volte face on Europe this week, calling for EU legislation (on horses) to be more strictly enforced in member States!

All of which comes hot on the heels of Conservative MEP Christopher Beazley's speech yesterday in the Parliament, in which he declared that Britain should have been "a founder member" of the euro, and adding that he looks "forward to the next Conservative Government applying to join the eurozone really quite shortly."

Just two days into a Strasbourg session one has to ask what more is set to follow. Maybe tomorrow the Tories will call for Britain to sign up to the Schengen agreement?!

Still, the bottom line from both of these stories is that, certainly as far as his MEPs are concerned, whatever edicts David Cameron tries to enforce from Smith Square, he is a leader who is not being followed.

Bruges group anniversary highlights Tory divisions on Europe

I was interested by the coverage of the dinner to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Mrs Thatcher's notorious Bruges speech.

At the gala dinner organised by the arch-eurosceptic Bruges Group, and attended by a handful of the most eurosceptic Tory politicians and a few UKIP members, diners listened to Norman Tebbit call for Britain to completely re-negotiate its relationship with the EU, followed by a referendum on whether Britain should remain part of the EU.

It ties in quite neatly with my article in the Guardian at the weekend, looking at the Tories' continued divisions on all things European. One of things that has struck me is that many Tories, particular the younger breed, routinely claim to be eurosceptic, and argue that we should re-negotiate our EU membership, but are unable to identify or examine in any detail the policy areas they would like to see Britain opt out of. At the same time, however, they do not wish Britain to leave the EU and recognise the huge economic benefits of having access to the single market and its common set of rules.

But the diehard eurosceptics, focussed to the point of obsession on their hostility to Europe, dictate the pace. They have been appeased by Cameron since his election as party leader in 2005, through a combination of the pledge to withdraw the Tory MEPs from the mainstream centre right European People's Party in the European Parliament and his refusal to rule out a post-ratification referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, Dan Hannan, one of the most eurosceptic Tory MEPs, says he voted for Cameron in 2005 purely because of his promise on EPP withdrawal.

The Tory moderates and, indeed, Cameron would probably be happiest if all European controversies would just go away. If the Conservatives really were to win the next election, presumably with the world economy still in the process of recovering from the effects of the financial crisis, few senior Tories would relish the prospect of seeing their administration dominated by re-negotiating our membership of the EU followed by a referendum that they would probably lose.

But, while the europhobes remain such a vocal minority in the Tory party and feel that Cameron is the man to do their bidding for them, the Conservative leadership will be at their mercy. As William Hague has acknowledged, Europe is still a "ticking time bomb" for the Conservatives.

Stubb made Finland's new Foreign Minister

Following on swiftly from Jens Peter Bonde’s announcement that he will step down in 2009, it has now been revealed that Alexander Stubb will resign as an MEP with immediate effect to become Finland’s Foreign Minister.

While Bonde was one of the longest serving MEPs, Stubb, who sits in the EPP group, was only elected in 2004 but swiftly made an impact with his never ending enthusiasm, championing of the EU and his desire to see Britain really engage more with the EU (his wife is from Britain).

Stubb quickly became one of the most recognisable faces around Parliament and his website still gives you some insight into how he doesn’t follow the nerdish stereotype attributed to some of us on the Constitutional Affairs committee.

I’m sure Alex will do an excellent job in his new role and I’m confident he will not make the same mistake as his predecessor who was forced to quit after the Finnish papers discovered he sent 200 texts to a member of the Scandinavian Dolls erotic dance troupe, most of which were apparently quite keen to forge international relations of some sort or another.

Hannan's calculated attack just an embarrassing stunt

There were controversial scenes in Parliament today as Conservative MEP, and Telegraph columnist, Dan Hannan stood up and compared his fellow EPP colleague, the Speaker of the Parliament, Hans Gert Pottering, to Hitler. Joseph Daul, the EPP leader, responded by telling the Parliament that he would propose to expel Hannan from the EPP.

This was a calculated attack by Hannan who will probably have already penned his Telegraph column which will accuse the Parliament of gagging him, and acting to ban any opposition to the EU.

Of course the reality is that anyone who stood up in any parliament would face opprobrium if they compared the Speaker to Hitler. Indeed, it was merely a petty stunt to support his claim that the European Parliament will not tolerate minority views.

This is simply not true. The European Parliament has a very wide range of political views and speaking time in debates is shared out proportionately among all the political groups - so all views are heard in the debates.

The incident which provoked his carefully choreographed outburst was a vote on an interpretation (by the relevant committee) of the rules of procedure of Parliament. The rules have not been changed, but it was confirmed that they already allow the President of Parliament to call an end to excessive use of points of order, procedural motions, etc where they are "manifestly intended to cause, and will result in, a prolonged and serious obstruction of the business of the House ."

This is a reserve power that has only once been used - by President Pat Cox some five years ago - but is there to protect Parliament, if necessary, from attempts to bring it to a complete halt. The President of the European Parliament anyway has far less drastic powers than the Speaker of the House of Commons

If Hannan and co are upset about that, it is probably because they are indeed intending to bring democratic debate to a halt, possibly next month when Parliament debates and votes on the Reform Treaty, which they oppose.

The interesting question now is whether Hannan will be disowned by his Tory colleagues in the EP (who, at committee stage, supported this interpretation of the Rule). It is certainly an embarrassment for the Conservative Party and it will be intriguing to see what David Cameron has to say about it. Probably nothing!

Cameron the real loser in the Tory's leadership battle in Europe

The Conservative delegation in the European Parliament was plunged into fresh turmoil tonight after Timothy Kirkhope, a pro-European moderate who has led the delegation since 2004, was defeated by a solitary vote by the Eurosceptic Giles Chichester. Meanwhile, the Europhile Robert Atkins was ousted by Phillip Bushell-Matthews as Deputy Leader.

This is a real kick in the teeth for the moderates in the Tory delegation - the Tory delegation is bitterly divided - but Kirkhope has always been dignified and tried to bridge the yawning divide between the moderates and the head-banging Europhobes. Still, after three years of plotting and failed coups, the sceptics have finally got their man, with Chichester willing to be sceptic enough to get the support of Heaton-Harris, Callanan et al.

However, the main story was that both candidates refused to back Tory leader David Cameron's pledge to withdraw from the centre-right European People's Party, causing Dan Hannan, arguably the most anti-European Tory MEP, to abstain in the leadership vote. Apart from Hannan, and maybe one or two others, even the anti-European members realise that leaving the EPP is a route to isolation and impotence.

It is astonishing that Cameron's colleagues in Europe, so divided on climate change, women's rights, consumer protection legislation (just to name a few), are seemingly united in their opposition to their party leader's main promise. Either way it shows that Cameron will have grave difficulty in honouring his pledge to withdraw from the EPP (short of having more than half his delegation de-selected). It shows that despite Cameron's populism on Europe, he is a leader not being followed.

Giles Chichester has been an MEP since 1994. Interestingly, he was first elected by mistake. Under first past the post for Devon and East Plymouth, the Liberal Democrat vote was split with a Richard Hugget standing as a "Literal Democrat", gaining over 10,000 votes and stopping the Liberal Democrats from taking the seat, which they otherwise would have done with ease.

The narrowness of his leadership victory means that Chichester is going to have a real battle to reconcile the two warring factions. I for one wouldn't relish the task of trying to unify a party that has such polar opposites as Christopher Beazley and Roger Helmer in it!

The commitment of the Conservative Party leadership (breaking their previous manifesto pledge) to leave the Christian Democrat group (EPP) in the European Parliament and set up a new political group has still not been carried out, as they have failed to find enough allies from the other member states.

The one ally they have found - the Czech Civic Democrats - are now in government in Prague. Having been strongly opposed to the previous constitutional treaty, they now plan to ratify the reform treaty without a referendum. Their leader in the European Parliament, Mr Zahradil, explained this to the European Parliament last week, seeing this as a treaty that "sets Europe on an intergovernmental path" rather than in a federal direction, and is quite different from the constitutional treaty.

Curiously, Conservatives in Britain seem to be keeping quiet about this view of their closest partners in Europe.

David Cameron's desperate calls for a referendum on the Reform Treaty have been dealt another blow.

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who launched the Movement for European Reform with Cameron this year, and whose Civic Democrat Party is one of the parties with whom Cameron plans to set up a break-away party from the EPP in the European Parliament, has said that the proposed treaty is not significant enough to require a referendum.

Topolanek told the Czech Senate last week that the planned reform of the EU institutions did not create any new framework or powers for the EU, but only modified the existing treaties. He added that a referendum on the new Treaty would be "impractical" and would see the Czech Republic marginalised from the mainstream of the EU.

The fact that even Czech eurosceptics are happy with the Reform Treaty again demonstrates just how extreme the Tories still are on Europe.

The recent defection of two maverick Tory peers (Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the magnificently named Lord Willoughby de Broke) to UKIP led to some rather extravagant claims that the Tories were about to haemorrhage support to UKIP. Lord Pearson added that his defection was in protest at the Conservatives' lack of a "sufficiently Eurosceptic policy".

However, although it is true that a section of the Tory party are angry at David Cameron's failure to deliver on the only promise he made during his party's 2005 leadership race - namely, withdrawal from the centre-right European People's Party grouping in the European Parliament - the reality is that more Conservatives have been unhappy with their party's hostility to Europe.

This has been reflected in the pattern of defections of Tory politicians during the past decade or so with far more defections from disillusioned pro-Europeans than Europhobes. Whilst two unelected peers have gone to UKIP, no fewer than 12 elected MPs and MEPs have switched their allegiance to Labour or the Liberal Democrats. Furthermore, during William Hague's tenure as Conservative leader, two of its MEPs (John Stevens and Brendan Donnelly) and a former candidate for the party leadership - Sir Anthony Mayer - set up a breakaway Pro-Euro Conservative group in protest at their party's rabid Euroscepticism.

Switching to Labour were MPs Peter Temple Morris, Alan Howarth, Shaun Woodward, Peter Thurnham and, most recently, the highly respected former Minister Robert Jackson. The latter defected to Labour shortly before the 2005 election in view of his party's "dangerous" views on Europe, adding that "the Conservative Party's hostility to Europe has hardened to the point at which it advocates the unilateral denunciation of Britain's treaty obligations." Shaun Woodward and Alan Howarth have since served as government Ministers since abandoning a party that had become increasingly right-wing and extreme on Europe.

The Liberal Democrats have also been a haven for Europhile Tories. This trend was started by Emma Nicholson's defection in 1995 and she has since been followed by Keith Raffan MP (who later served as a Liberal Democrat member of the Scottish Parliament between 1998 and 2002), John Stevens MEP, Bill Newton Dunn MEP, Hugh Dykes (now Lord Dykes and a front bench Lib Dem spokesman on foreign affairs), Peter Price MEP and James Moorhouse MEP.

Moreover, UKIP's failure to attract Conservative politicians is not because of a lack of effort. UKIP has assiduously courted defectors, sending emails to local councillors of all parties and has written to all MPs in a desperate bid to attract new supporters. They have consistently attempted to convince disillusioned Tories to defect. Although some Tories don't hesitate to work closely with UKIP (to the extent that their loyalty to the Conservative party is sometimes questioned) Bill Cash, Douglas Carswell and Philip Davies in the House of Commons and Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan in the European Parliament, have not wanted to risk losing their seats.

Comparing the number and abilities of the pro-European defectors with those attracted by UKIP, which, incidentally, include disgraced former MP Piers Merchant who is now UKIP's Chief Executive (!), merely reveals the hollowness of Farage's claim to have attracted "many senior Conservatives".

Cameron's attempt to face two ways on Europe were spectacularly revealed by his trip to Brussels.

On the one hand, to pander to the Eurosceptic right of his party, he feeds a line to the sceptic newspapers in which he lambasts the EU. On the other, he tries to reassure mainstream opinion by teling other papers that he believes in a 'strong Europe'.

Just look at the contradictory messsages fed to different newspapers, according to their owner's position on Europe:

In the Financial Times, Cameron "fought to shrug off his party’s reputation for hostility towards Europe as he mounted an all-out charm offensive in Brussels. Mr Cameron lavished praise on the European Commission and said he fully shared its drive to tackle climate change, cut global poverty, reduce red tape and improve Europe’s competitiveness. Having secured election as leader of the opposition Conservatives exactly a year ago adopting a Eurosceptic tone, his new approach reflects a dawning sense in the British political establishment that Brussels is moving in its direction. He endorsed the “Europe of results” approach of José Manuel Barroso, the liberal-minded European Commission president."

The FT further reveals that, during his closed-door meeting with his Tory MEPs, he barely mentioned his notorious pledge to pull them out of the moderate EPP Group in the European Parliament. The FT reports that he could abandon it at a later date. "The moment to have done it was straight away. This is a defeat for the right"

Similarly, to Guardian reders, Cameron promises that the "Tories will engage with Europe". The Guardian relates that "On his first visit to Brussels as Tory leader, Mr Cameron abandoned the hostility of his predecessors as he pledged to join forces with Brussels to tackle climate change and world poverty" Cameron is quoted as saying: "One of the things that makes me optimistic is the agenda of this [European] commission does seem to be very positive in terms of deregulation, in terms of making sure that Europe is more competitive and [tackles] climate change".

But in the Sun, he tells readers that the EU is a "disaster'. The Sun reports that "he slammed the EU's 'culture of hopelessness' and branded farm subsidies an 'economic and humanitarian disaster'. He told his MEPs "We are a new generation. We have no time for the culture of hopelessness that has plagued the EU"

To Mail readers, perhaps surprisingly, he took the middle ground, venturing that he wanted to make the Union a 'shining symbol of progress'. The Mail reports that "his overall assessment of Britain's place in Europe was positive, risking angering some of his more Eurosceptic MPs. 'It's because we want to see a future for the EU and believe in a strong Europe that we want to make the EU confront its failings' he said"

Cameron's first visit to Brussels as party leader was long delayed. Only when staying away became an embarrassement did he finally come. But, far from being an exercise in statesmanship, his attempts to please conflicting parts of his party back home has simply revealed his hypocrisy on Europe. Chameleon indeed!

The Tories continue to display how divided they are over their leader Dave Cameron's stance on the environment.

On the one hand, Caroline Jackson MEP, one of the few Conservative MEPs to be considered on the moderate wing of the party, has complained that Cameron's promises have proved to be "all talk and no action at the moment".

On the other hand, unreconstructed Europhobe Roger Helmer MEP accused his leader of indulging in a "green gesture that will do far more harm than good" by calling for a strong substitution principle as part of the EU's REACH proposals on dangerous chemicals.

David Cameron based his leadership campaign last year around pledges to put the environment at the heart of policy making (to please his moderates) and to withdraw the Conservative MEPs from the European People's Party (to please the Eurosceptic right). One year into the job and he has reneged on one promise, (when he found out that leaving the EPP would see the Tories either sitting alone or in partnership with the Polish Law and Justice Party, which opposes gay pride marches, and a Dutch conservative Calvinist party, which bans women from representing it in parliament), and paid mere lip-service to the other.

Perhaps Mr Cameron should heed the warning of pollster Frank Luntz - if he wants to make the Conservative party credible, he needs to be a "leader not a brand".

The predictable reactions are coming in on Cameron’s climb-down on pulling the Tories out of the Christian Democratic EPP Group in the European Parliament. The Eurosceptic right are incensed, although a few of them are trying to put a brave face on it, hoping for something in 2009. The majority of Conservative MEPs are relieved to be staying in the EPP and are walking around Parliament with an “I told you so” grin on their faces. I just wonder what the mainstream EPP make of it: to paraphrase one of the Conservative MEPs, it’s a bit like saying you want a divorce, but, despite trying, you haven’t found a suitable new partner, so you’ve announced that you’ll stay at home for the next three years and then look again!

But how did Cameron get into such a “lose-lose” situation in the first place? I noticed that The Economist rightly drew attention to the role of Dan Hannan, an arch Eurosceptic who wants Britain to actually leave both the EU and NATO. The Bagehot column in the Economist (15 July) commented:

"The last thing that Mr Cameron wanted was to look like a Euro-obsessive: he knew the damage which that impression of his party had done in successive elections, and anyway it is just not his style. But the deal he was offered [by the Eurosceptic right] seemed harmless enough; the kind of thing that only the most dedicated political anoraks would give a hoot about.(…) Chief among the siren voices was Daniel Hannan, not only an MEP but also a Daily Telegraph leader-writer and an indefatigable critic of the European Union and all its works. Mr Hannan convinced Mr Cameron that in the new Europe of 25 member countries there were staunchly Atlanticist and free-market eastern Europeans queuing up to be part of a dynamic new anti-integrationist, centre-right group led by British Conservatives. With a knowledge of European politics that even his admirers admit is patchy, Mr Cameron decided to believe Mr Hannan. He also made the mistake of failing to discuss the matter with Mr Hannan's fellow Tories in the European Parliament. This was unwise since a large majority of Mr Hannan's colleagues disagree strongly with him about almost everything."

One can only add that if it was unwise to assume that Hannan spoke for the Tory MEPs, it was even more unwise to assume he spoke for the “staunchly Atlanticist and free market eastern Europeans”, most of whom are perfectly happy in the EPP (which includes both federalist and anti-federalist centre-right parties).

As to the small centre-right/right parties that are not in the EPP, this is usually for a reason: they are often homophobic (the Polish PiS), extreme right, or have some other feature that clashes with Cameron’s professed domestic agenda, such as not allowing women to stand for election (a Dutch Calvinist party). And quite what the traditional Tory supporter made of the suggestion that they should sit with Irish Republicans or the party that emerged from the Italian Fascists (which allegedly turned down the offer on the ground that the Tories are far too right wing for them!), heaven only knows.

A series of leaked emails from one of David Cameron's closest aides, Desmond Swayne MP, have revealed backbiting, impending sackings and a widespread discontent with the party leadership throughout the ranks of the Conservative Party.

The emails from the Tory leader's parliamentary private secretary also refer to using the Make Poverty History Campaign as 'a diversion' tactic from conflicts over the Tory policy towards the EU.

Confirming what I have already posted on this blog, Swayne described a 'feeling of frustration and impotence' over Conservative policy towards Europe with much of the criticism reserved for both David Cameron and William Hague.

Cameron's disastrous leadership pledge to pull the Conservatives out of the European Parliament's centre-right European Peoples Party (EPP) and create a new party further to the right is looking very fragile. The emails confirm that pro-European Tory MEPs are 'furious' and 'angry' about Cameron's pledge whilst conversely the anti-European Tory MEPs might defect to UKIP if the project is 'blown off course.'

Cameron's promise on the EPP has plagued his leadership from the start and with senior colleagues in the European Parliament digging their heels in it the EPP issue shows no sign of going away soon - eight months after Cameron made his announcement. Those of us who thougt that a decision would be announced during the world cup while the public's attention was focussed elsewhere have been proved wrong!

The Sunday Times has made the leaked emails available to read on the net. To read them click here.

David Cameron and the Tories are no closer to escaping their quandary over Europe.

The Telegraph reported last week that Cameron had to make a flying visit to the Czech Republic in order to meet with Mirek Topolanek amid rumours that the Czech Civic Democrats (who use the amusing/unfortunate acronym ODS) were getting increasingly cold feet over a departure from the EPP and their proposed new alliance.

Topolanek has already damaged the Tories’ hopes of forming a new group after upsetting the Polish Law and Justice Party (with the even more unfortunate acronym PiS) so much that they will now have no part in any new alliance.

Now, both Europhile and Eurosceptic halves of the party are flinging ultimatums about like a bad game of frisbee, with Cameron the piggy in the middle.

Eight Eurosceptic MEPs, led by the H brigade of Hannan and Heaton-Harris (Helmer has lost the Tory whip, don’t forget) are demanding Cameron pulls the Tories out of the EPP by September or risk seeing them walking out on their own accord.

On the other side of a seismic divide are six Europhile MEPs who intend to remain in the EPP for the duration of the current parliament, not least because it is Conservative Party manifesto and they, at least, want to stick to what they pledged to the electorate.

To exacerbate things further the 92 Group, made up of right-wing Tory MPs, have sent a letter to Cameron urging him to pull the party’s MEPs out of the EPP regardless of whether the Conservatives manage to form a new group or not.

The letter, drafted by Gerald Howarth, said: "We do not regard the creation of an alterative group as a necessary precondition to our leaving the EPP,"

If Cameron were to heed this suggestion it would leave the Tory party in Europe with all the influence, power and respect UKIP have ingloriouly garnered.

So with that all in mind it is perhaps not surprising that Cameron has gone quiet on the issue.

Many predicted that the Conservatives would use the media focus on the World Cup to bury their decision but with nothing being sneaked out from Tory HQ during England’s latest penalty shootout defeat it seems they have missed their chance. Though at their current rate of ineffective dwadling and squabbling maybe they could sneak their verdict out in the next World Cup. Or even the London Olympics.

Click here and here for more news on the issue from the Telegraph's website.

Added on July 6th:

The Guardian today carries a story on Europhile MEPs, which you can read here while the paper's Simon Hoggart provides an amusing sketch on the issue which I have reproduced below.

"Labour backbenchers were given the job of asking about David Cameron's plans to pull the Tories out of a mainstream grouping in the European parliament and join a new hodge-podge of minor parties, racists, homophobes and loonies. This is like someone deciding they didn't like the food at the Savoy Grill, so joining the winos, bag ladies and beggars outside for McDonald's leftovers - you may like them and the food better, but it's a curious choice."

To read Hoggart's full column click here.

So, the Tory/EPP saga has finally raised some interest in the national media.

Everyone from the News at Ten to the News of the World have been running the story – I was a touch concerned that Cameron’s shambles of a European policy might be overshadowed by the World Cup, and then nobody would find out the truth behind this mess. Fortunately not.

Here is a link to a fascinating article on the BBC site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5053682.stm). I was particularly interested in David Curry’s argument for staying in the EPP, which followed much the same line as we’ve seen before.

“With the best will in the world we would end up with an implausible, erratic and unstable group of parties, many of whose values Conservatives simply do not share. This is particularly important when David Cameron is committed to making the party at home reflect, not confront, contemporary society”, says Curry. Well, indeed.

At home, Cameron is doing well from this persona of being a “thoroughly decent chap”, talking positively about public services, equality and green issues – policy areas hardly entrenced in Tory hearts. Yet in Europe, he is more than happy to show the true nature of the beast – right wing, populist and stuck in the past.

A new group would be “erratic, implausible and unstable”, Curry suggests. No wonder Cameron thinks his party would feel more at home there.

In my post on the 14 December 2006 I listed a whole host of quotes from Tories concerned about leaving the EPP. For another read of them click here.

I read with intertest William Rees-Mogg's comments in the Times on
David Cameron'...

He said:

"Mr Cameron then decided, having done his bit to give the UKIP the publicity it badly needed, that he would be wise to shut up. He did not refer at all to Europe in his leader's speech in Manchester on Saturday. This omission, however, made his speech sound strangely lop-sided, since most of his main themes had a European aspect that he did not mention…If they are to regain the trust of moderate Eurosceptics, who are among their own voters, they will have to define their European policy in frank terms. Silence on Europe will not be good enough."

Let's be clear, the reason why Mr Cameron didn’t mention Europe in his speech is because he cannot unite his party on this issue. Already, the little he HAS said is dividing his party badly. If he sticks to his promise to take the Tories out of the European People’s party group in the European Parliament, most of his MEPs would rebel and stay put. Those that didn't would end up sitting with members even more “loony” than UKIPs.

Cameron would have loved the cheap applause he would have got from his first conference if he had been able to announce the withdrawal from the EPP. But, he knows the price he would have to pay in terms of external credibility and internal divisions would be too high.

Far easier to ignore the issue and hope that no one notices that six months after he promised withdrawal, his MEPs are still with the EPP.

In an interview on Radio 4 on Monday, Lord Heseltine joined the ever-growing number of Tories lining up to quote their opposition to Cameron's pledge to withdraw Conservative MEPs from the centre-right mainstream. First, he made some interesting comment:

"I think that's wrong. He knows it and I've told him, and indeed I've made it clear that I will say so if it happens. It hasn't happened and I hope it doesn't happen. But I will also tell you something else: although I happen to think it's an important issue down in the Bull and Bush, there's not a vote to be gained or lost over the issue."

Now there's an interesting point. If there's not a vote to be gained or lost, why on earth is Cameron pursuing it? The answer, of course, is that there are votes of a sort: he had to court the hard-line eurosceptic faction in his party during his own leadership election campaign, and EPP withdrawal was the promise he used to win them over.

More interesting still, however, was his assessment of Cameron's integrity over the issue:

"The reality of politics today for any government is that you have to get on with your European colleagues. There is a team there, they are important to you, they are making decisions. You are either on the team or you're not, and if you're not on the team, you're selling out British interests. David Cameron would never do that. So in reality, the new Conservative government, when it's formed, will do what every Conservative government has done since the 1960s and that is to pursue a broadly pro-European policy."

Meanwhile, on quite a different matter, I was delighted to be voted Deputy Leader of the EPLP (i.e. the Labour MEPs) last night by a 75% majority against one other candidate. I am chuffed to receive such confidence from those who know my work the best.

Nicholas Watt, the Guardian’s European editor, has put together a very astute analysis of the mess the Tory MEPs have got themselves into over their will-we-won’t-we attitude to leaving the EPP. He brings up an extra problem I’ve so far neglected in this blog: how will Europe’s family of mainstream centre-right parties react to the decision to go renegade?

By all accounts, the answer is: very badly. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy has reportedly told Cameron that he is “weak”. Other leaders have said that they will downgrade links with the Conservative party. Cameron will be losing a lot of friends in parties of government across the EU — something he'll undoubtedly come to regret if the Tories ever make it back into government here.

The most astonishing observation of this kind came from UKIP’s Nigel Farage:

“If the Conservatives were to form the next government they would probably serve the national interest better by being part of the family of European governments rather than being on the fringes. If we are going to stay in the EU it would be better to have a government that was in negotiations with other governments in Europe rather than one that has distinctly frosty relations. …

“In the EPP they [the Tories] are banded together with other parties of government. If they leave the EPP and form their own group they will have to form a group with parties whose political culture will provide a huge embarrassment to David Cameron back home. Poland’s Law and Justice Party’s stance on abortion and homosexuality will provide Mr Cameron with the hugest embarrassments back home.”

The saga of the Tories leaving the EPP Group (or not) shows no sign of abating. Interestingly, discussions were held last night between British pro-European MEPs from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Where will this all lead? Then I noticed that there were no Tory or UKIP MEPs present in the chamber this morning when a British Minister presented the budget on behalf of the Council Presidency. (Were they all out plotting a merger?)

Meanwhile, I’ll leave you with some more quotes from Conservative MEPs, showing what they think of David Cameron’s plan to force them out of the EPP Group.

“We would… find ourselves in the company of The League of Polish Families (racist and Europhobic), the Danish People’s Party (Ian Duncan Smith banned us from even talking to them!), the Italian Fascist Party, and of course UKIP. This is a pretty much unappealing ragbag of fringe politicians and I, and the great majority of my Conservative colleagues, view that prospect with great distaste.”
(The Rt. Hon Sir Robert Atkins MEP, Deputy Leader of the Conservatives in Europe, in letter to Conservative colleagues, 19 October 2005)

“Leaving the EPP won’t speed up a solution. It would simply slow it down. David Cameron – assuming it is David – has said he is the unity candidate. I just do not believe he will wish to create disunity on his first day, simply to appease a very vocal minority. “I would not move. I think a large number of us would not move, for a very simple reason. We have made a clear manifesto commitment, which each of us had to sign, that we would stay for the duration of this parliament.”
(Philip Bushell-Matthews, Tory MEP, on BBC Radio 4 Today programme, 6 December 2005)

“We would have to sit around the table on a weekly basis with these fascists and nutters that nobody else will sit with. I tell you now that I refuse to do that. I don’t care who’s ordering me to do that. I won’t come back and stand for election as a Conservative in Scotland when I’m sitting in a group with Le Pen”
(Scottish Tory MEP Struan Stevenson in the Sunday Herald, 11 December 2005)

“Of course we do benefit from being members of a large group… The centre-right is where we want to be politically”
(Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Tory MEPs, in the FT, 13 December 2005)

“I have no intention, after 30 years of elected service to the Tory party, of breaking my word and leaving the EPP-ED group in the European Parliament. If ordered to leave the EPP-ED, which I was recommended to join by Margaret Thatcher and Chancellor Kohl, I shall ignore any such instruction, which would be in breach of Parliament’s rules on the independence of elected members.”
(Christopher Beazley, Tory MEP, in the Telegraph, 13 December 2005)

“The Cameron strategy ignores the fact that MEPs make European laws – are these laws of 'second order' importance? Working with the EPP we can win crucial votes. We will be a lot less use to those we represent, lined up only with assorted Estonian Rightists and Slovenian Woolgathers… Oddly, he seems not to understand."

and

"God knows who his alternative allies are. Aides are said to be shaking the hedges of Eastern Europe: so far the only possibilities may be Polish and Czech peasant nationalists, three eccentric Swedes, a French protectionist Eurosceptic, and two MEPs from the Netherlands' extreme Christian party, which wants to stop Sunday bicycle riding. Mr Cameron has vowed to work with the government in the British national interest how can he do so as part of this barmy army?"

and

"If Mr Cameron does withdraw the British Conservatives from their alliance with the EPP, I am certain that he will be back again in a few years, trying to negotiate re-admission. So whatever happens I intend staying with the EPP to keep the place warm for my party when it returns to its senses."
(Caroline Jackson MEP, in the Times, 14 December 2005)

"I can't believe that a leader of the Conservative Party would seriously contemplate breaking the last remaining international link that the party enjoys… The alternatives [to EPP membership] are frankly barking."
(Edward Macmillan Scott, Tory MEP, in the Daily Mail, 9 December 2005)

And it's not just MEPs:

"Some of our really hardline people apparently have persuaded him that he must break ranks and leave all these Christian Democrats and Scandinavian Conservatives and Gaullists and start walzing off, looking among the ultra-nationalist right in central Europe. …What a pity to insist on finding some new, slightly head-banging… eurosceptic position to take up as his first act in the leadership"
(Ken Clarke, on the BBC Politics Show, 11 December 2005)

January 2006 - update: Some more quotes. First, from the Tory election manifesto for the 2004 European elections:

During the 1999-2004 Session we were allied members of the Group of the European People's Party and European Democrats (EPP-ED). This agreement means that Conservative MEPs will remain allied members of the EPP-ED parliamentary group for the duration of the 2004-2009 legislature. It provides us with a powerful platform to promote our distinctive vision of Europe, while at the same time allowing us to work constructively with all parties of the European centre-right against the threat posed by the Left in the European Parliament."
(Conservatives European election manifesto, June 2004) (pdf)

"Simply by following our manifesto commitment, the party is now telling us we are de-selecting ourselves. This is driven by an extreme minority group within the Conservative delegation who are more interested in leaving Europe than leaving the EPP."
(Edward McMillan Scott, Tory MEP, in the Telegraph, January 2006)

"I urge David Cameron not to encourage colleagues to break such a clear pledge, not to weaken our ability to deliver our manifesto commitments, and not to create new splits over Europe when he should be uniting our party to replace the present Government."
(Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP, in the Birmingham Evening Post, 1 November 2005) (not available online)

"I know some Daily Telegraph readers are concerned about our alliance with the European People's Party. But the most eurosceptic political party in the EU - the Czech ODS, led by President Vaclav Klaus - is a member, too. Like Mr Klaus, I believe in fighting for change from within Europe."
(Michael Howard, in the Telegraph, June 2004)

"Our sole guide [to our actions] is the Conservative Manifesto on which we were elected and our Leadership decides absolutely and without external pressures of any sort how Tory MEPs will operate."
(The Rt. Hon Sir Robert Atkins MEP, Deputy Leader of the Conservatives in Europe, in letter to Conservative colleagues, 19 October 2005)

"I simply cannot afford to have my political opponents in the House of Commons suggesting that I am isolated from the mainstream Conservative parties on the continent of Europe"
(William Hague in 1999)

"It would be a political mistake. You are either in one of the two biggest groups or out in the cold."
(Inigo Mendez de Vigo, senior MEP from the Spanish Conservative 'Partido Popular')

"Withdrawing from the EPP in the European Parliament would I think be a very curious thing to do, because if we withdraw from that group, where do we sit? Do we sit in splendid isolation? That's not a way to exercise leverage and have an effect on events in life. Or do we sit with the barmy-army of obscure right-wing continental politicians in the European Parliament?"
(Quentin Davies MP, Politics Show, 30 October 2005)

For an update on this issue: Click here

Within hours of his election as the new party leader, are Tory MEPs heading for a clash with David Cameron?

As a sop to the Eurosceptic right, Cameron had previously pledged to withdraw the Conservative MEPs from the main Conservative group in the European Parliament, the Christian Democrat EPP. Tim Kirkhope, the leader of the Tory MEPs, made sure he was re-elected by his colleagues the very same day - and by an even bigger majority than Cameron - on a mandate to stay in the EPP.

As I said in my blog of Nov 30, this is a clever move by Kirkhope. He can say to Cameron that he, too, has a fresh mandate - to stay in the EPP. Cameron's pledge to take them out does not have the support of the majority of Conservative MEPs - and opposition is growing now they realise that, in all likelihood, they will be sitting in near-isolation on the benches of the independents, next to Jean-Marie Le Pen, Alessandra Mussolini and Robert Kilroy-Silk. Unless, that is, they can find enough allies to form a new political grouping.

Since rule changes (that I drafted) a few years ago, you need MEPs from at least five countries to form a political group. So an attempt to find allies took place this Monday and Tuesday in Parliament, when Dan Hannan - one of the most eurosceptic, pro-withdrawal Tory MEPs - organised a conference in Brussels of what he called a "new alliance against European integration" - the Alliance for an Open Europe. To it were invited a number of potential partners for an anti-EU grouping, ranging from right-wing Polish and Czech parties to an MEP from Ian Paisley's DUP! There were also assorted American participants. Among the keynote speakers was Paul Belien, connected to the extreme-right Flemish Vlaams Belang party, widely considered to be neo-fascist.

No doubt to hide their rather extremist composition, or to try to appeal to less extreme parties, the meeting adopted a remarkably bland (though pretentiously named) "BRUSSELS DECLARATION". Its ten points read as follows (with my comments on each point):

"1. We uphold the values that have always infused European civilisation: personal freedom, private property, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law."

"Always infused"? Tell that to the victims of 20th century fascism and communism - never mind the almost total absence of such values in previous centuries. It is, in fact, the establishment of the EU that has helped secure these values permanently in recent decades.

"2. We recognise that the richness of European culture lies in diversity, variety and pluralism."

Good - they support the EU's motto, 'Unity with Diversity'.

"3. We fear that, in its pursuit of ever-closer union, the EU is progressively abandoning these values."

How? After all, they are among the conditions for EU membership.

"4. We posit a new and better European dispensation, in which power is devolved to the lowest practical level, and in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to those they will affect."

This is the principle of subsidiarity, a fundamental principle of the EU which is already enshrined in the treaties.

"5. We acknowledge the special loyalty that citizens owe to their nations, and believe that the primary democratic unit should be the sovereign state."

Maybe. But surely not the only one? Isn't it possible to be loyal to both Scotland and Britain? Or to Catalonia, Spain and Europe?

"6. We support a broad and loose European association, in which all European states can comfortably participate."

So, they support the EU after all?

"7. We believe that, within the constant nexus of a European free market, states should be free to integrate to the extent that they wish, and in such combinations as they please."

How can they miss the fact that countries have chosen to do so through the EU?

"8. We want to limit the jurisdiction of international institutions to cross-border issues."

That is essentially what the EU does now.

"9. We look forward to a world without trade blocs, in which European nations take their place as part of the wider Western family."

So, a "world" without trade blocs but a "Western" family. It's not very clear what they're after.

"10. We pledge ourselves to work, in our home countries and in the forums and councils of Europe, for the achievement of these goals."

Wow!

To sum up, it seems that the strategy of the Eurosceptic Tories is to team up with some quite extreme right-wing parties in Europe, but to disguise this through woolly ‘motherhood & apple’ policy statements. Nice move...

More on the other Tory leadership election!

I was interested to hear that the Conservative MEPs have brought forward their AGM so as to elect or re-elect their own leader on the same day as the result is announced of the Cameron vs Davies election for the overall party leadership.

This is a clever move by Tim Kirkhope. Assuming he's re-elected, he will be able to say to Cameron that he, too, has a fresh mandate - to stay in the EPP in the European Parliament. Cameron's pledge to take them out does not have the support of the majority of Conservative MEPs, and opposition is growing now they realise that, in all likelihood, they will be sitting in near-isolation on the benches of the independents next to Jean-Marie Le Pen, Alessandra Mussolini and Robert Kilroy-Silk.

I have also caught sight of a publication by the “Bruge Group” – one of various Europhobe Conservative organisations, written by Lee Rotherham, who it misleadingly describes as having been on the Convention that drafted the EU constitution – but he was most certainly not.

Lee Rotherham’s pamphlet gives the impression that he views continental Christian Democrats as a bunch of leftists. He also argues that the European People’s Party is neither European or popular on some rather curious grounds:

• He says that it is not European because “its Christian Democrat tenets do not belong to the Conservative parties of Europe” (Hey? Does one have to be Conservative to be European?)
• That it is not popular because it “is a top down construct that rejects the will of the people as expressed in referenda” (A “top down construct”? That’s a bit rich coming from the Conservative party which, perhaps more than any other party in Europe, was built historically from the top down and even today has only limited democratic structures. Most Christian Democrat parties are in fact member based organisations that do actually give their own members the right to elect their leaders. As to the EPP not respecting democracy, this too seems puzzling.

All political parties win some and lose some – Lee Rotherham himself will not have been happy with the outcome of most national referendums on the European Union as the overwhelming majority of the twenty or so held over the years in different countries, including Britain, have been positive. That the EPP is unhappy with the referendum results in France and the Netherlands whilst happy with the recent results in Spain and Luxembourg can scarcely be construed as the EPP behaving in an undemocratic way.

Anyway, these minor rantings from the Tory fringes are neither here nor there: the key question is whether the Tories will actually tear themselves away from their centre-right allies in the European Parliament and march off to the fringes. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament is hoping for the latter.

There's more news today on my report a few days ago that Tory MEPs will resist any attempt by a new leader to forcibly detach them from the mainstream centre-right Christian Democrat group in the European Parliament. David Cameron has indicated that he would want his MEPs to set up a new, eurosceptic right-wing fringe group rather than continue to sit with centre-right colleagues from across Europe. According to The Times, whose headline is CAMERON IN DANGER OVER 'CLOUD CUCKOOLAND EURO POLICY':

"He announced the policy without consulting Timothy Kirkhope, the Conservative leader in Europe, who was so alarmed that he insisted on a meeting yesterday in which he set out the consequences to the young leadership hopeful. Under the party's rules, it can leave the EPP [Christian Democrats] only with the agreement of its leader in Europe…

"Sir Robert Atkins, the MEP for North West England, a former Conservative minister and a Cameron supporter, has written to local Conservatives describing Mr Cameron's policies as 'cloud-cuckoo-land'…Another Cameron supporter, Philip Bushill-Matthews, the MEP for the West Midlands, issued a press release last night urging Mr Cameron 'not to create new splits over Europe when he should be uniting our party to replace the present Government'."

All the talk of the new Tory leader taking the Conservative MEPs out of the Christian Democrat group in the European Parliament seems to ignore the fact that most of their MEPs want to stay. And I was told recently by one of the Tories that the decision is a joint one. The new leader will find his authority challenged right from the beginning if he tries to impose it from above.

Most Tory MEPs realize, of course, that they have far more power and influence (and money!) as one of the largest components of the largest Group than they would as a small maginalised fringe Group with few allies. But don't underestimate the death wish of the modern Conservative party!