Lords skewer Open Europe

It was interesting to read yet another authoritative report from the House of Lords EU committee, this time on the future of European Regional Policy, but with unusual entertainment values as it contained some magisterial rebukes of the eurosceptic pressure group Open Europe.

Amongst the Lords' conclusions were that the EU structural funds, though not without fault, were "effective and, in general, fit for purpose". One of the purposes of structural funds is to support projects in the poorest regions, so it was welcome to read the committee conclude that "the evidence we received suggests that the size of the funding distributed to the poorest regions under the Convergence Objective is approximately correct" adding that "the absorption cap in the poorest countries operates at an appropriate level to match the ability of regions to use the funds."

Eurosceptics often try to argue that the administration and award of structural funds is both costly and inefficient. However, the committee found that "objections about the cost of management of the funds are overstated" adding that "the funding and scope of the Convergence Objective, which supports the poorest regions, is appropriate and it should remain."

But equally diverting - and also amusing - was the way that the committee, which consists of experts on European policy from across the political spectrum, dismantled the 'evidence' submitted by Open Europe.

Even the Tory members of the committee were not receptive to Open Europe's arguments, with former First Minister of Northern Ireland and now Conservative peer David Trimble responding to O'Brien's statement that: "It is a question of whether you believe you can win the argument better in Westminster…or in Brussels. Where do you feel that Northern Ireland has more clout?" with "at least in Brussels they listen to you. I do not know that the Treasury does!"

Furthermore, Open Europe were so shameless as to cite a mere press report as the source for their outlandish claim that administering structural funds costs the UK £670m per year.

As cross-bench peer Lord Kerr put it: "the Press Association does not make up a number. They report somebody giving a number" adding that "I am sorry but it will not do to tell us that this is (from the) Press Association".

Indeed, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Watson was moved to comment that:

"I am now really startled that you provide this type of evidence. It is quite clear that you are saying that you cannot get disaggregated data. Nevertheless, you offer this enormous eye-catching sum and, as we have just seen, it clearly does not stand up".

Certainly, it is difficult to imagine that a reputable think-tank would source their 'evidence' using press reports. It's a bit like seeing a Sun or Daily Mail scare story (which is probably what Open Europe did) and then claiming that to be the truth!

With the Open Europe team admitting that their claims about the cost of structural funds were not entirely accurate, Lord Kerr offered this magisterial rebuke:

"I think that is a very interesting admission of defeat. There are a number of statements in the evidence and in the press releases about the evidence which are, I think we have established, guestimates; they are speculative. The list of horror stories is sourced to newspapers. I think one needs to be told facts rather than report like a very much fear will read perhaps in the Mail on Sunday that £670 million must be the UK cost of running the structural funds because it is in "evidence" to a House of Lords committee. I think that is very dangerous."

It seems that these rather feeble contributions, and the collapse of their so-called 'evidence' under cross-examination, were Mr O'Brien's last contribution as director of Open Europe. I understand that he has just been appointed director of the right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange which was, incidentally, the organisation responsible for the widely discredited report about Britain's northern cities, which David Cameron described as "nonsense from start to finish". Let's see how he fares.

So where do the Tories stand on civil liberties?

Hugh Muir makes an excellent point in his diary piece in the Guardian today, which again highlights the disparity between what the Conservatives say in the UK and how they vote in the European Parliament.

Muir neatly juxtoposes David Cameron’s professed distaste for ID cards with the news that most of his Tory MEPs voted against a resolution in the European Parliament which condemned Silvio Berlusconi’s plans to fingerprint Roma children - a far more drastic measure, introduced in a discriminatory way against a particular group.

Of all the Tories present, just one didn’t back Berlusconi’s plans to ethnically profile the Roma. Last week’s vote of course took place in the same week as David Davis’s re-election to the Commons. Presumably this was the Tory MEPs' contribution to his debate on civil liberties.

Tory revolt against Cameron's anti-sleaze show

Conservative MEPs are today in open revolt over the announcement made yesterday by their supposed leader David Cameron to reform the Tories' system of auditing their MEPs expenses, after it was revealed that a secret Conservative memo referred to his proposals as, amongst other things, "half-baked" and "a PR disaster that would "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"

The story is all over today's papers and there is confusion over the source of the memo. The Guardian and Sun seem to think it came from the pen of arch-eurosceptic Roger Helmer, while the Telegraph claims that it was written by a group of several Conservative MEPs. Either way, it is hard to imagine that the author's identity will stay secret for too long. The memo is incredibly indiscreet; it is astonishing that Tory MEPs are threatening to sue the Conservative leader if he carried out his threat to de-select them!

The memo was found on a photocopier in Strasbourg. It says a lot about the incompetence of the Conservatives that they would leave such an explosive document in a photocopier for anyone to find.

Demonstrating a startling brass neck (even by his standards), Dan Hannan claims that Tory MEPs are actually the cleanest, and saying that Labour MEPs are keeping "schtum for a reason"! Well, the reason would be that since 2000, Labour MEPs have had their accounts annually reviewed by an independent auditor to make sure that they are in order and in compliance with the Parliament's rules. As Labour's leader in Europe, Gary Titley said yesterday, "Finally, after eight years, the Tory Party has caught up with the Labour MEPs' regime for dealing with expenses. The difference is that all 19 Labour MEPs have signed up to this, but the evidence is many Tory MEPs will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing the right thing.”

I have to say that Lib Dem Norman Baker's line that "the words 'Tory and sleaze' go together as easily as cheese and sandwich" is also worth a chuckle (but it would rhyme better if it was 'sandwich and cheese')

The memo's release took the thunder out of Cameron's press conference given yesterday to announce a so-called 'deep clean' of his MEPs expenses. It wrecked his latest attempt to portray himself as taking a tough line with the sleazier elements of his party.

The Conservatives are still the nasty party in Europe

Cameron's empty claim that his Tory party are the real defenders of social justice and equality rings particularly hollow in Europe.

In 2004, the Commission promised to draft a proposal for a "horizontal" directive under Article 13 of the Treaty to combat discrimination in access to goods amd services in the European market on the grounds of sex, race, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. At present, only discrimination on the grounds of gender, race or ethnicity is covered by existing directives and Parliament’s report called for Commission to "complete the package of anti-discrimination legislation". Such legislation would prohibit both direct and indirect discrimination in all areas that fall under EU competence. Yesterday, the Tory MEPs (with the honourable exceptions of Christopher Beazley and John Bowis) voted against a report by Liberal Democrat Liz Lynne which called for such legislation.

That the Conservatives would effectively vote for a hierarchy of discrimination shows that whilst they may talk the language of social justice and compassion actually doing something about it is a completely different matter.

It is the same in other areas too. The vast majority of the Conservatives (who have just one female MEP don't forget) have consistently voted against women's rights and aside from Caroline Jackson, didn't even support a measure to combat domestic violence.

Cameron of course kickstarted his cuddly image by going green yet Roger Helmer, their representative on the climate change committee, continues to denounce any attempts to battle climate change.

Worse still if you ever glance at "Conservative Home" or other Tory blogs, a lot of the MEPs are citicised for not being right wing enough!

Cameron talks up the importance of Europe

Having spent the first 18 months of his leadership appeasing his Eurosceptic wing by pledging to withdraw from the centre-right European People's Party and being the only non-fascist right-wing party to oppose the Lisbon Treaty, David Cameron appears to have had a road to Damascus style conversion.

In the words of Cameron, during an interview for the Yorkshire Post:

"I don’t want to leave the European Union and I'll tell you why. This is a trading nation. Yorkshire relies on traded goods and on businesses which can trade all over the world and particularly in Europe. We export more per head of the population than America, Japan or other countries. We are a trading nation and Europe is a very important market for us. If we are not in the European Union, we would not be able to have a say over what the rules of the single market are. That is the primary reason for being a member of the European Union."

All pretty sensible stuff, and light years away from the reactionary nonsense and baseless scare-stories trotted out by himself and his front-bench colleagues over the Lisbon Treaty. However, it is unlikely that such an approach will find favour with the likes of John Redwood, Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory.

When I give talks about the reasons for our EU membership to constituents and visitors to the Parliament, I often point to three sets of reasons: the idealistic, pragmatic and selfish. Cameron has at least taken up the latter. Though, even that will be too much for his right-wing MPs.

Tories align themselves with an unlikely bunch

Now that national parliaments across Europe are debating the Treaty of Lisbon, the unholy alliances of hard left and far right that are attempting to block it stands revealed.

The motley crew includes Jorg Häider's Freedom Party in Austria, the Flemish separatists Vlaams Belang, the Northern League in Italy and the Bulgarian Attak party.. These parties all fall into various shades of the extreme right - xenophobic, ultra-nationalist and/or anti-immigration.

On the other extreme, the remaining Communist parties across Europe have voted 'No', while the German Die Linke partei made up of Oskar Lafontaine's defectors from the SPD and the remnants of the communist PDS party (still enjoying electoral success in parts of East Germany) has also opposed ratification. Interestingly enough, Sinn Fein is the only major Irish party to oppose the treaty. I never thought that Sinn Fein and the Tory party would line up as close allies!

Despite Cameron's attempts to position himself as a moderate conservative, the Tories are the only main centre-right party in Europe to be opposed to the treaty. Every main social democrat, Christian democrat, liberal and green party across the EU has supported the Lisbon Treaty.

All of which highlights just how out of touch Cameron is with mainstream thinking and how isolated Britain would be if the Tories were to win the next election. As Philip Stephen's put it in today's Financial Times,

"As far as abroad is concerned, as things stand Mr Cameron's first act would be to start an acrimonious and unwinnable fight to overturn the treaty of Lisbon and withdraw Britain from the European Union's social chapter. That, not to put too fine a point on it, would be barmy."

Cameron's Euroscepticism loses more friends of influence

There’s an interesting post on the Times blogs by Sam Coates, about the awkward relationship between David Cameron and Republican front-runner John McCain.

In 2006 McCain was invited to speak at the Tory conference (it was less than thrilling) yet in the same year he criticised Cameron’s plans to pull out of the EPP, saying "I would hope they [the Conservatives] would appreciate the support they received from the EPP when they were wandering in the wilderness."

The Times blog quotes McCain as saying, "Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union. The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, and institutionalising our co-operation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance and democracy promotion."

Which perhaps explains the warm glow Dan Hannan feels everytime he mentions Obama’s name here and here

Toynbee calls Cameron's bluff

Polly Toynbee's excellent analysis of the current state of play ahead of the Commons debate on the Lisbon Treaty is well worth a read here.

It makes various valid points not least about David Cameron's position, which, unsurprisingly, is more about striking a pose than actual intent.

Cameron still playing with fire over Europe

The new year has started but David Cameron is still equivocating over whether to pledge a post-ratification referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

This piece in the Daily Mail has been cleverly spun to make it seem as though a referendum will be promised – however, on closer inspection, Cameron parrots the same words as his Foreign Affairs spokesman William Hague did during a Commons debate a month ago, that an incoming Tory government "wouldn’t let matters rest there".

This ambiguous phrase is designed to appeal to the hardline Eurosceptics, whilst not quite committing the Tories to hold a retrospective referendum on a treaty already in force. As former Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke recently pointed out, the Tories had "always accepted treaty obligations accepted by previous governments" when they came to office. Former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind (by no means a Europhile) described demands for a post-ratification plebiscite as "silly and wrong".

By ratcheting up Eurosceptic fervour by implying that a post-ratification referendum would be held in the unlikely event of a Tory government being elected, Cameron is effectively digging a big hole and then throwing what remains of his credibility into it. A referendum on the Lisbon Treaty some years after its entry into force would, in effect, be a referendum on whether to renegotiate the terms of Britain's membership of the EU. The Tory hardliners are quite candid that they would view this as an opportunity to engineer British withdrawal. Cameron needs to stop playing with fire and state once and for all whether his Tory party would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty even after it has been implemented.

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!

Tory sleaze

Cameron's astonishing appointment of former minister Jonathon Aitken to head a Tory working party shows how desparate the Tories are to bring back wayward former Conservatives to the fold.

Aitken, who supported UKIP at the last European election, was not only jailed for perjury (having initially tried to sue the journalist who blew his cover!) - he has to this day not revealed what he was up to in the Paris Ritz as a guest of the Saudis while he was defence procurement minister.

I was reminded of some of the other sleaze cases of the last Tory government - far more spectacular than any of the supposed sleaze allegations made nowadays - when Neil Hamilton popped up the other day to accuse the EU of... fraud. Coming from the man who received cash in brown envelopes in return for favours in parliament, this is a bit rich. Hamilton is also UKIP - is there something that magically attracts discredited Tories to them?

But, if they want him back, why don't the Tories appoint Hamilton as head of a working group on parliamentary standards? And Jeffrey Archer on prisons? Cecil Parkinson on child support by absent fathers? John Wakeham (of Enron fame) on corporate social responsibility? And Piers Merchant (of teenage mistress fame, but now Chief Executive of UKIP) on teenage sex?

David Cameron is dithering in the face of attempts by right-wing Tories to bounce him into pledging a post-ratification referendum on the Reform Treaty, refusing to answer when challenged by Gordon Brown in this week's Queen's speech debate. But while he fails to give leadership, others around him are trying to force a decision.

The idea to hold a post-ratification referendum is being pushed by the fiercest Eurosceptics in the Tory ranks who see it as a way to engineer British withdrawal from the EU. Indeed, the Early Day Motion on the matter that has been tabled in the House of Commons by John Redwood has been supported by 47 Tory MPs.

Meanwhile, former Thatcherite Cabinet minister Norman Tebbit (also a member of Better Off Out) has stoked up the fire, claiming that Cameron has already promised a post-ratification referendum in the Sun. Similarly, a Conservative poster released last week promised that a referendum on the treaty had been "delayed until the election of a Conservative government", although Tory central office later backtracked.

During the Queen's speech debate Gordon described the Tories' proposals as "confused, contradictory and not thought through". Quite.

David Cameron and his Tory Party are really plumbing the depths in the debate on the Reform Treaty. Cameron's article for this morning's Sun was rabid and riddled with untruths.

In particular, his claim that the Reform Treaty would "transfer power from our elected Parliament to the EU's unelected bureaucrats" is a flat out lie. In fact the opposite is the case. The Reform Treaty specifically increases the power of elected parliaments not bureaucrats by increasing the role of national parliaments and the European Parliament. It strictly limits EU action to the policy areas agreed by Member States in the treaties. Mr Cameron has either not read the Treaty or has no understanding of its contents - perhaps not surprising since he is too arrogant to meet with his right-wing counterparts in Europe.

He talks about Gordon Brown's "shameless arrogance" as being a "big cancer eating away at trust in politics". On the contrary, it is Cameron who is displaying shameless arrogance by telling lies to the British people.

Cameron's dishonest assertions follow on from William Hague's barmy claim that the Reform Treaty would see the EU take Britain's seat on the UN Security Council. This is simply not true.

Cameron thinks that he is a "euro-realist" and pledged to create a new-centre right group in Europe which would include the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topalenek's Eurosceptic Civic Democrat Party. But the Czech PM is refusing to hold a referendum on the Reform Treaty as it does not create any new powers for the EU. Topolanek's stance speaks volumes about the Tories' opportunism and obsessive Europhobia.

David Cameron and his party seem to be pursuing a policy of 'little Englander' isolationism that would greatly damage Britain's national interests. For a man who hopes to become Prime Minister, his tactics and arguments on the Reform Treaty have been gutter politics of the highest order.

A few links.

Sensible article from Peter Riddell in the Times here.

Only just found this but earlier in the month the Daily Mirror revealed David Cameron received a less than warm welcome from some Yorkshire Tories.

And finally a truly astonishing brawl between Bolivian congressmen.

William Hague is now joining the clamour that the Reform Treaty is identical to the abandoned Constitutional Treaty - but even with his position of responsibility, without looking very far into the facts.

As I said in the parliamentary debate (see blog entry July 11), the proposed Reform Treaty may indeed salvage 90 percent of the pragmatic changes to the EU institutions that had been in the Constitutional Treaty. But recent scientific research shows that human beings and mice are genetically 90% identical. However, the 10% difference is crucial - and the same goes for the Reform Treaty!

The constitutional concept has been abandoned; the High Representative has not been changed into an EU Foreign Minister; symbols such as the EU flag and anthem have been dropped; and the numerous derogations and opt-outs for the UK means that, even more for us, the Reform Treaty is substantively different from the Constitutional Treaty.

But if you don’t want to take my word for it, why not ask David Cameron’s European allies in the Czech Republic?

Cameron had pledged to create a new centre-right group in Europe to rival the EPP which would include the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek’s Eurosceptic Civic Democrat Party. But the Czech PM is refusing to hold a referendum on the Reform Treaty as it does not create any new powers for the EU. Topolanek's stance speaks volumes about the Tories opportunism and obsessive Europhobia.

David Cameron's faltering leadership means that, in desperation,
he is turning to euroscepticism to placate the right-wing of the Tory party. But, in trying to stir up fears and create myths about this treaty, he is undermining his national and international credibility as a potential Prime Minister.

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.

It's now been several days since the outline of an EU Reform Treaty was agreed at the European Council summit, and the Open Europe/Tory/UKIP campaign against it has got off to a bad start. Despite being loud and shrill it is clearly not convincing many people.

Although Open Europe are fond of claiming that British businesses are sceptical about the EU and the benefits of the internal market, this is not borne out by the evidence. A poll released by Business for New Europe showed that 52% of business leaders supported the new Treaty with just 31% opposed. The Confederation of European Business (Business Europe), which includes the CBI, is the latest organisation to welcome the proposed new treaty, saying that "the European Union comes out reinforced and reinvigorated".

Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, Tony Blair used his penultimate appearance as Prime Minister to demolish David Cameron in a debate over the new treaty. While the usual suspects on the Tory benches, led by Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory, made their outlandish claims about 'Brussels' taking over Britain, Ken Clarke pointed out to his hapless 'leader' that the provision in the new treaty to increase the role of national parliaments in EU legislation was one of the recommendations made by the Conservative party's "Democracy Taskforce". Cameron could not produce a single substantive reason why a referendum should be held on the treaty and was, as Blair pointed out, just "going through the motions".

Ever since David Cameron put himself under pressure from both sides of his party by promising to pull the Tory MEPs out of the EPP in the European Parliament, the issue has been a constant headache for him. In a bid to end the confusion, he launched his Movement for European Reform in Brussels on Tuesday.

It is, Cameron claims, “a Pan-European campaign open to everyone”, albeit a campaign which has so far gathered the support of just one other party, the Czech Republic’s Civic Democrats. To put this in perspective, 235 different parties are represented in the European Parliament, with the abominable far-right Independence, Tradition & Sovereignty group attracting more takers that Cameron’s Movement for European Reform.

There has been plenty of debate in the blogging world about Cameron’s speech and intentions on Europe with the Nosemonkey/Europhobia blog providing a comprehensive set of links on the subject.

Another pertinent comment was Kevin Maguire in the Mirror: "Confused Cameron claims he'll concentrate on 'things that matter' To be honest, I can't recall a politician who's ever vowed to focus on 'things that DON'T matter'. But Cameron can't square his declaration with pulling his MEPs out of the centre-right EPP in 2009. The EPP grouping dominates the European Parliament and has real clout. His plan to ally them with nationalist nutters, including an idiot who denies global warming, will reduce the Tories' influence."

As far as I’m concerned, Cameron’s Movement for European Reform is a failed diversion. Far more important is his pledge to pull the UK out of the Social Chapter of the Treaty, which is the basis for the legislation which protects workers across the whole of the EU's single market.

Previously Cameron has been keen to claim that he supports a better work-life balance but this is completely contradicted by prioritising the UK’s exit from the Social Chapter.

EU social chapter legislation has given both parents the right to time off when a child is born or adopted, improved the rights of temporary workers, and provided for employees in large companies to be prperly informed and consulted. Should Cameron ever succeed in pulling the UK out of the charter (which is extremely doubtful) it would be the most vulnerable British workers who would suffer most.

Curiously, what the Tories usually object to is the Working Time Directive, which is not part of the Social Charter and was adopted when they were in government. At the time they did not oppose it - the UK government abstained in the Council of Ministers. Probably a bit too confusing for Cameron’s advisors!

Cameron still tries to be all things to all men and women when it comes to Europe - not surprising if you tot up the number of Tory defections on this issue in recent years, Europhobes to UKIP and Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats.

Today, Cameron has launched the "Movement for European Reform" (not to be confused with the existing Centre for European Reform). Its and his statements to mark the occasion are a telling sign of his increasing schizophrenia on Europe.

To please the Europhiles, his MER's "New Agenda" starts off saying : "the EU helped to create prosperity and bring our continent together. More recently, the EU has helped to support and nurture new democracies in Europe. Its membership now stands at 27 nation states – this is a fantastic achievement."

But addressing his more Eurosceptic readers in the Sunday Telegraph, he writes that the MER is in fact intended to "make the EU confront its endemic flaws".

His detailed description of the MER then tries to please both. It is high on clichés and even higher on contradictions. He says that "with the welcome enlargement of the EU to include so many countries previously locked out of freedom – there is a new Europe. But, sadly, there is no new EU". No indeed - he opposed the new, reformed EU that all 27 governments agreed on in the constitutional treaty.

He rails against the cost to business of EU regulations, but says "Europe has to show real global leadership by making its emissions trading scheme more robust" - which would itself raise costs, albeit for a good reason. Perhaps he should look at whether the costs of other regulations are justified or not, rather than sounding off with sweeping generalisations. And perhaps he could at least give a passing acknowledgement that EU regulations can also cut costs by eliminating technical barriers to trade and avoiding duplication in national procedures.

He says that the EU is always "demanding more and more power from member states", yet the constitutional treaty was about improving the EU's use of its existing powers rather than increasing them. New powers can anyway only be conferred on the EU by the Member States themselves, and only if they all agree.

On the constitutional treaty, he claims that "When the French and Dutch people rejected it, the EU responded by calling the voters ‘wrong’, and reviving the idea." I'm afraid "the EU" said no such thing - it was the 18 countries that approved it that are saying that their own voters also deserve to be heard and who are calling for a compromise to be found to save at least some of the reforms it contained.

As he claims to want reform, perhaps Cameron should engage in that debate, and specify exactly what he would keep and what he would change in the current treaties and in the constitutional treaty. Does he want, for instance, the enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of EU decisions provided for by the constitutional treaty? Does he oppose the changed voting system that would make each country's vote reflect its size (strengthening Britain, by the way)? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to scrap the set of existing treaties and have just a single text? Surely he would agree that it's time to settle these issues about the EU's machinery and move on to the real policy debates, yet he persists in his opposition to the reforms. But what, exactly, does he WANT?

Or, rather, what does he feel he can say, other than vague generalisations, without alienating one wing or the other of his party?

I was delighted to be re-elected by my colleagues as Socialist Group Co-ordinator (spokesman) on Constitutional affairs yesterday. My old friend (I have known him since I was 20) Jo Leinen was re-elected as President of Parliament's Committee on Constitutional affairs.

But, the surprise of the day was the EPP Group nominating UK Tory leader Tim Kirkhope for their Vice President slot on the Committee. He has not previously even been a member of the committee and in that capacity replaces Dan Hannan, who rarely appeared.

So, why has Kirkhope, as Conservative leader, chosen to switch to this committee and, even, to be its Vice-President? Not, I assume, simply to counter me, as a fellow Yorkshire MEP. As an opponent (now) of the Constitutional Treaty, he may have decided that a higher profile Tory presence on the committee is necessary, with the issue returning to prominence. But he has not always been the most dogmatic opponent of the treaty and seems to accept the need for some of the reforms that it contains. This has caused unease among the arch-Eurosceptics in the Conservative delegation, who remain suspiscious of Kirkhope and are rumoured to be planning to oust him as leader.

Meanwhile, I had some fun showing Kirkhope the letter from David Cameron published in yesterday's Financial Times. It advocated dropping the Constitutional Treaty, but salvaging most of the institutional changes it contains, including a long-term President of the European Council, a Foreign Minister, a streamlined majority voting system in the Council, and so on. Kirkhope looked surprised and shocked - until he spotted, just before I closed my folder, that the David Cameron in question was a professor at a Yale University and not his party leader. Had I closed the folder a few seconds earlier, Kirkhope would no doubt have been rushing out a press release welcoming the new line from his party leader!

Anyway, well done to the FT for setting a cat among the pigeons!

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".

I imagine most of you will by now at least have heard of, if not seen, “Webcameron”, a series of video blogs from the Conservative Party leader.

As usual with Cameron, image is everything and policy is tucked away somewhere behind the stairs. So while we do get to hear his children shouting in the background and see him do the washing up (including his soon to be popular catchphrase: “Right, now I'm going to wash-up the porridge”), we are still no closer to actual policies.

Still, I will leave it to Marina Hyde of the Guardian to discuss Webcameron further. Read her column here.

One website with video clips I can heartily recommend is the excellent EUX.TV where you can watch an array of news clips, interviews and short programmes to do with current EU issues.

It is an innovative approach and here in the UK in particular, where coverage of the EU can be sparse, it could become a valuable tool in helping to spread a more objective view of Europe, especially as it bypasses the usual Eurosceptic media outlets.

This is not to ignore the rest of the website, which is just as useful. It has comprehensive coverage of EU news in print and includes profiles of various people involved with the EU. There is also a nifty agenda which provides a detailed list of the work the Parliament, Commission and Council will be getting through over the next few months.

Despite the glitzy 'Women to win initiative' recently launched by the self-confessed new-age Conservative Dave Cameron, the Tories have continued to show their true colours on protecting women's rights.

Although I welcome Dave's commitment to 'talk the talk' on gender equality, he still remains a member of the exclusive London dining club White's, which, in the 21st century, still requires its members to have the Y chromosome.

Moreover, in the European Parliament, Tory MEPs yesterday broke ranks from their mainstream partners in the EPP-ED in the European Parliament to reject a key peice of EU legislation on domestic violence.

However, this is not the first time that the Euro Tories have voted against measures to combat the oppresson of women.

Earlier this year the Tory MEPs voted against and abstained on a report that condemned female genital mutilation and called for rape within marriage to be a crime across the EU - apart from Caroline Jackson MEP, the only female member of the 27 strong Tory group.

In the light of this, combined with the Tory leader's membership of sexist gentlemen's clubs, I think people can be forgiven for thinking that Cameron's new talk on women's rights is nothing more than a cynical smokescreen.

So, what is the line of the chameleon Cameron Conservatives on reform of the CAP? I was interested to read the piece by James Paice, their Shadow Agricultural Minister in the Parliament on it which reads as follows:

"Does the CAP need to be scrapped? No, but further reform is necessary to reduce the overall cost of the CAP to the taxpayer, help producers in the developing world and maintain environmental payments to farmers."

In other words, they support the direction that the CAP has been moving over the last few years and can only be pleased with the recent reforms. But you wouldn't guess that from the Eurosceptic rhetoric that surrounds most Tory pronouncements on the subject!

You'll have heard about David Cameron’s baffling ides for a new "Bill of Rights", with an attack on the European Convention as being "foreign", despite being devised almost exclusively by the British!

Click here for an interesting discussion of the issue.

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.

There has been much mirth over David Cameron's tendency to ignore serious political issues with a recent Dead Ringers show featuring a sketch in which the Tory leader announced policies on coat hangers and conveyor belt etiquette in supermarkets.

The latest leaked emails also report that Tory backbenchers are tired with Cameron’s propensity to make policy “on the hoof”.

His latest plans, to "hug a hoodie", have left many mocking him for reversing Conservative Party policy from "flog 'em" to "snog 'em".

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.

Much has been made in the media of the Conservative A-list of wannabe MPs, and in particular, how the list was compiled. Conservative members, the media and the public have been scratching their heads as to why experienced Councillors have been overlooked for the sake of young soap stars.

Perhaps we should be concentrating on the more serious A-listers – in particular the inclusion of the rabidly Eurosceptic Dan Hannan, Chris Heaton-Harris and Syed Kamall. As the debate regarding the EPP-ED (see here and here) drags on, it’s fascinating to see Cameron attempting to fill his UK Parliamentary party with those against European integration. I wonder, if he allows all of his Eurosceptic MEPs to become MPs, and sacks all of his pro-european MEPs (as he has threatened to do), who will he have left in the European Parliament? More soap stars?

I suppose it’s all irrelevant to a degree, his grassroot Conservative associations seem to be ignoring the A-list anyway.

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.

No doubt you will have noticed the media attention given to David Cameron’s assertions that UKIP members are “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” on a London radio show. I couldn’t agree more, but in light of this comment it is only fair to raise concern about a blossoming friendship between the parties.

I happened to have a meeting in a restaurant, the night before last, where the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, was dining with UKIP colleagues and Tory MEPs Chris Heaton-Harris and Roger Helmer.

If indeed David Cameron is genuine in his claims of “compassionate Conservativism”, and thus disagreeing emphatically with UKIP policies, why are his MEPs working so closely with them?

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.

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)

Some choice quotes from David Cameron:

"I don't think it would ever come down to leaving the EU."
(David Cameron in the Telegraph, 22 October 2005)

"There is no doubt that a single currency would have a number of benefits. Transaction costs and exchange-rate risks would be eliminated and, as a result, trade would increase substantially."
(David Cameron, in a memo as special adviser to Norman Lamont, quoted in the Times, 15 December 2005)

"Also, a central bank and a single currency, if established in the right way, could help to make Europe a zone of permanently low inflation."
(Same memo)

“Enlargement of the EU is wholly welcome”
(David Cameron in the Commons, 13 February 2003)

“I have huge respect for countries in eastern Europe that have broken free of the communist yoke and I welcome them into the EU—I think that their joining is extremely important”
(David Cameron in the Commons, 9 December 2002)

And one from his recent opponent:

"Well, I mean - am I right wing? I'm in favour of low taxes, so I suppose that's right wing. I'm known to be a Eurosceptic, so I suppose that's right wing."
(David Davis, on Breakfast with Frost, 22 May 2006)

Does anyone think that rows on Europe in the Conservative party will fade away?