Tories dump EPP in favour of isolation

The Tories' departure from the centre-right EPP has been brought a step closer today, with William Hague and Tim Kirkhope holding a meeting with Joseph Daul to officially serve notice of their intention to form a new group after the elections in June. The meeting will no doubt have been difficult for Tim, who has always been in favour of remaining within the EPP-ED.

However, the Tories are still no clearer about who will join them in this new right-wing group. Apart from some of the Czech ODS members, takers are a bit thin on the ground. Under the rule change which I piloted through the Parliament last summer, political groups must consist of at least 25 members from at least seven Member States. The number of Members is unlikely to be a problem, but finding MEPs from at least six other countries to join could still prove difficult.

Leaving the largest group in the European Parliament to sit in isolation (or with some pretty odd characters) is in any case throwing away power and influence.

Why do it? Because the EPP has some federalists! Yet, it also has many non-federalists, and anyway it is national governments and parliaments that decide on the degree of integration - the European Parliament decides on the content of EU legislation in areas that the EU is already responsible for. On most of this, the Conservatives and other centre-right parties agree.

So symbolism prevails over reality! Britain, which had a strong presence in the two main groups, will now have no presence in one of them (except for those - and I know of at least one - who will not follow Cameron's silly instruction).

At the other end of the Tory delegation, Roger Helmer has produced this poster featuring a semi-naked woman, and (for those who bother reading the poster) a series of outlandish claims about the cost of EU membership drawing on the inaccurate nonsense published by the Taxpayers’ Alliance this week.

Roger makes it clear that he will be using this material to campaign during the European elections, despite the fact that it clearly advocates British withdrawal from the EU – which is completely at odds with Tory party policy. If Helmer is going to campaign on this basis, there is barely a cigarette paper between his politics and UKIP's. It is a mystery why Helmer hasn't done the decent thing and defected. Or is the self-styled 'straight talker' frightened that if he followed his beliefs and defected, he'd be out of a job in June?

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.

Flagging up the issue

More hullaballoo from Eurosceptics about the European flag and anthem.

Most of you will be thinking that the 12 gold stars on a blue background and Beethoven’s Ode To Joy have been around for some time and you’d be right. The symbols were originally agreed on by Mrs Thatcher and other prime ministers of EU countries way back in 1985 but have never been formally recognised by the European Parliament.

To tidy up this discrepancy, a European Parliament committee, on which I sit, today voted in favour of recognising these EU symbols. Despite my disquiet at the Thatcherite angle, I voted in favour in a spirit of cross-party consensus.

Curiously backing out of the consensus, Conservative Tim Kirkhope voted against this. He did so, he explained, because he has an interest in a flag company back in the UK. A strange decision, bearing in mind most people simply abstain from votes which they have an interest in.

Although the status of the symblols is just a decision of the relevant institutions (plans to put them in the treaty and have them ratified by Member States were abandonded last year), leaving their status somewhat akin to the Olympic flag and anthem - don't be surprised to see Eurosceptic media stories raging about superstates and suchlike in tomorrow’s newspapers!

Tory comes out against referendum

With Timothy Kirkhope ousted as leader of the Tories in Europe, it has been interesting to read the response on the Conservative Home website (here and earlier here. Nearly all Conservative attitudes to Europe are represented and nobody seems particularly happy with the result, with new leader Giles Chichester considered too Europhile by some and too Eurosceptic by others. Some are even demanding that any MEP not in favour of leaving the EPP should be automatically deselected for the next European election which, considering Eurosceptics like Parish and Heaton-Harris are destined for safe Westminster seats and others like Kamall have similar ambitions, could mean an almost completely new group of Conservative MEPs in 2009.

With that in mind it will be intetresting to see the reaction to Christopher Beazley’s decision to speak out against a referendum on Europe in a radio debate with my colleague Richard Howitt and the Lib Dem’s Andrew Duff. Not only that, Beazley actually requested that the debate focus on the contents of the treaty rather than on calls for a referendum. It’s a bold move by Beazley and should be welcomed, though it clearly won’t be by Tory Eurosceptics who will be baying for his blood.

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!

Leaping nimbly from Bournemouth to Strasbourg, I had the pleasure last night of being the guest speaker at the dinner of the British Chamber of Commerce, where I was flattered to see that the Conservatives had sent no fewer than 9 MEPs to counter me with the odd heckle and questions from the floor.

"Chatham House rules" preclude me from revealing which ones said what, but it was fun to tease them by referring to the "Alternative Treaty" published by their leader in the EP, Tim Kirkhope MEP and warmly endorsed by William Hague, which retains almost all of the practical changes contained in the Reform Treaty. It was interesting to see how they disagreed among themselves with some of them welcoming specific reforms, such as the longer-term presidency of the European Council or the new provisions for involving national parliaments, while others felt they had to oppose them (at least in public). Tory divisions on Europe remain spectacular, with views ranging from secret support for the Reform Treaty to those who support British withdrawal from the EU.

While the Tories have been loudly demanding a referendum on the proposed EU treaty, they have also released an alternative treaty of their own, though without so much fanfare.

Their “Simplifying Treaty”, is written by Timothy Kirkhope MEP, the Conservatives’ leader in the European Parliament, and is warmly endorsed in the preface by William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Having read it, it quickly becomes clear why the Tories have not been shouting from the roof tops about their “Simplifying Treaty”: because it includes the bulk of the proposed new treaty Tony Blair agreed to in June.

So, senior Tories know the EU needs reform and agree with much of what is already proposed but they also know that calling for a referendum wins them easy headlines in a period when positive coverage of their party has been at a premium.

It also highlights the Tory’s usual divisions over Europe. The extreme Eurosceptics are discontent and very vocal and, while leading figures in the Conservative Party know reform of the EU is essential, they are too scared to back the treaty (even though they largely agree with it) because it would cause an ugly spat between the two sides.

There is a detailed analysis of Kirkhope’s Simplifying Treaty on my website. You can read it by clicking here.

Have just seen an utterly ridiculous press release from the Conservative leader Tim Kirkhope MEP, accusing Labour MEPs of being “in chaos” and contradicting the government’s position on the Constitutional Treaty in today’s vote in the European Parliament.

The Tories desperately cobbled together a press release with some outrageously selective editing of the report; once the report is read in full it is quite clear the press release is complete tosh.

The Conservative press release reads: “17 Labour MEPs voted in favour of the Brok report which committed the European Parliament to ‘reaffirm its commitment to achieving a settlement of the ongoing constitutional process of the European Union which is based on the content of the Constitutional Treaty, possibly under a different presentation’"

A quick glance at the actual report shows that the paragraph above (paragraph six) is cut off mid-sentence. It actually finishes “but taking account of the difficulties that have arisen in some Member States" – the key point which they deliberately cut out.

The Tories also conveniently ignored any mention of the following paragraph (paragraph seven unsurprisingly), which is also the exact position of the Labour government, namely to have an inter-governmental conference this autumn to negotiate a new treaty.

It will be interesting to see if this weak concoction actually makes the papers. Hopefully not, but if it does it will not have been the first time an absurd Tory press release from Europe has made column inches in some of the right-wing rags.

I see there is the usual shock horror reaction to the suggestion by the European Commission (the Commission can only propose and not decide) that minimum penalties should be set across all EU countries for certain types of offence against agreed EU rules. In particular, they are suggesting that for environmental crimes of a trans-boundary nature, such as dumping of dangerous waste, minimum agreed punishments should be set. This will stop, for instance, companies facing the same standards across Europe, but different penalties, dumping waste material in countries that merely impose a small fine.

There is indeed little purpose in agreeing Europe-wide standards if member states do not treat the law seriously across Europe. If EU countries agree, for instance, to outlaw the dumping of radioactive materials or dangerous, highly toxic chemicals on waste sites, but one or another country, whilst making it illegal, merely says that the company will have a 100 euro fine, whereas in Britain they would be sent to jail, then a highly unsatisfactory situation emerges.

It is therefore perfectly sensible for the Commission to propose to do something about this - though the decision on whether or not to follow their suggestion remains with the Council of Ministers. That is why it is totally ludicrous for Tim Kirkhope, Leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament, to claim that "it is a significant transfer of power to the Commission" and that "the decision on whether or not to criminalise offences in Britain should be a matter for Britain, not for the EU".

If he really believes that, then he should never again complain about laxity in other EU member states in living up to the agreements we have reached with them.

More on the Tories, I'm afraid.

I see that the pro-European wing of the Conservative party won a clean sweep of all the top positions in the (contested) election of their leader and officers of their MEP group in the European Parliament.

Bad news for David Cameron's plans to remove them from the mainstream Christian Democrat Group in the EP, which lunatic scheme most of his MEPs opposed.

Good news for the Tory party as a whole, showing a return to common sense on Europe?

Don't count on it - their dedicated Europe-haters are already complaining and scheming to unseat pro-european MEPs in their reselection ahead of the next European elections. As their choice of candidates is done, not by postal vote of all their members, but at an open meeting which few can attend, it is usually a matter of organisation and who can bus in the most supporters. The ultra-Eurosceptics are dedicated, organised and very well financed. They are already planning their move.

The comments on Iain Dale's post about Kirkhope's re-election illustrate, on a small scale admittedly, some of the depth of feeling against pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party. View them by clicking here

Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Conservative MEPs, has claimed that Conservatives "are a pro-European party" (Radio Humberside "Breakfast" interview).

I take it that he will now crack down on his MEPs when they spread anti-EU Euromyths!

I was delighted to see that Commissioner Margot Wallström, the Vice President of the European Commission who hails from Sweden, has responded vigorously to the criticism of Tory leader Timothy Kirkhope MEP.

Unbelievably, Kirkhope had actually objected to suggestions that, in the national curriculum, schools should be required to teach children how local government, national government and EU institutions work! Local and national information was fine, but the inclusion of the European Union was labelled "brainwashing".

We should stop and think - what have the eurosceptics got to be afraid of if they allow our children to be taught about how the EU works?

Anyway, Wallström replied:

"I find it absolutely appalling. What do they mean? Should we keep it a secret that these institutions actually exist and take decisions that affect the daily lives of all European citizens? We teach people about our national political systems and decision making structures, of course they have to know what happens at the European level."

She went on to point out that "if more people knew about the CAP, maybe then we could reform it quicker".

Well done Margot!

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.

Blair's visit to Parliament today once again managed to set the cat among the pigeons. Conservative MEPs actually asked to have a private meeting with him, while the Lib Dems didn't and organised what appeared to be some sort of demonstration instead. The Tories' meeting left several of them muttering audibly about how none of their leadership contenders could ever match him for ability. Others wondered what the point of their meeting was (as, no doubt, did Blair) and speculated that Tim Kirkhope, their leader in the European Parliament, was after a peerage!

Meanwhile, Blair's speech to Parliament had to be seen to be believed - just like last time, you certainly wouldn't know who to believe in the press! Remarkably, even Eurosceptic newspapers with the same ownership couldn't agree on how to handle it: the Sun said he was “heckled and booed” whereas the Times reported that his speech was “punctuated by frequent applause”. Take your pick...