What's all this about David Cameron wanting the Conservative Party to leave the
European People's party?
The following explains the issues involved. It is taken from a briefing
from Daniel Hannan MEP
What is the European Peoples Party?
The
European Peoples Party (EPP) is a union of Centrist and Christian Democratic
parties founded in 1976 to promote European integration. Its Basic Charter
commits it to compete for the realisation of a United States of Europe.
Its current manifesto advocates:
· A European police force and army
· Single EU seats on the UN, the IMF
and the WTO
· A European president and foreign
minister
· The abolition of the national veto
· A pan-European income tax, to be
levied by the European Parliament
Isn't
the EPP the main Centre-Right grouping in Strasbourg?
No.
British journalists keep calling it Centre-Right, but the EPP itself angrily
rejects the label. It insists that it is the Party of the Centre, steering a
middle course between the command economy demanded by the Socialists and the
free market supported by the Liberals. According to its Basic Charter, the chief
goal of economic policy is social solidarity, so that the fruits of economic
success many be evenly distributed. The EPP campaigns for a high minimum
wage, strong trade unions, a larger EU budget, a barrage of anti-discrimination
measures and an extension of the Social Chapter.
Why
do some Tory MEPs want to sit with the EPP?
It
is largely a generational divide. Many of the MEPs elected during the 1980s have
a view of Europe not very far removed from that of the EPP. Their careers have
been built within the EPP, and some of them now enjoy positions in consequence.
They fear that, outside the EPP, they would have to start all over again. The
Conservatives would still have the same per capita entitlement to committee
posts, overseas delegations and so forth; but there is no guarantee that the
same people would hold them, since the Tory Euro-philes would be the minority in
a Euro-sceptic Group.
Are
there logistical advantages to being part of a large bloc?
No;
quite the contrary. The British Conservatives are entitled to staff and
financing in proportion to their numbers. But all such resources go through the
Groups. As things stand, the EPP top-slices the Tory financial quota and spends
it on various pan-European projects such as a campaign in favour of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights. It even supported the Yes campaigns in the recent
referendums. It is a similar story when it comes to employees. The British staff
are paid by, and answerable to, the EPP. Many of them were hired during the
1980s on the basis of their commitment to federalism rather than any
Conservative leanings and, far from answering to the Tory MEPs, they sometimes
work directly against Conservative interests. Outside the EPP, the Tories would,
for the first time, have significant resources with which to pursue their
agenda.
Where
would Conservative MEPs go?
They
could either sit as Independents or form a new Group with like-minded parties.
This is easily done: the rules of the Parliament stipulate that a Political
Group must contain at least 19 MEPs from at least five member states. There are
already 27 Conservative MEPs, and it would be a straightforward matter to
attract respectable, Atlanticist parties from four or more other nationalities.
In particular, many of the free market parties from Central and Eastern Europe
have repeatedly sought to create a new Group under Tory leadership, and cannot
understand why the Tories themselves are reluctant to leave the EPP. It is worth
stressing that there is no question of sitting with extremist parties, or with
parties that have a colourful past, such as Italys post-fascist Alleanza
Nazionale (which is, incidentally, negotiating to join the EPP). It is also
worth pointing out that several of the parties currently in the EPP are tainted
by sleaze or extremism: Chiracs UMP was involved in a number of funding
scandals, while many of Silvio Berlusconis allies have been accused of
corruption.
Why
can't the whole question be left to the MEPs?
It
never has been before. Every past leader from Margaret Thatcher onwards has
recognised that this is a question to be settled by the Westminster leader. The
question goes wider than seating arrangements in Strasbourg: it encompasses the
Tories relationships, as a whole, with other parties. Those who are currently
taking this line strenuously argued the opposite when it suited them. When, in
2004, Michael Howard reversed IDSs decision to leave the Group, pro-EPP Tory
MEPs insisted that the question was up to him as the national leader.
Isn't
leaving the EPP at odds with David Camerons modernisation agenda?
On
the contrary, nothing could be more modern than breaking with the 1950s
federalist Euro-dogmas of the Christian Democrats. In forming a new Group, the
Conservatives would be turning their backs on Old Europe and embracing New
Europe. David Cameron has stressed the need for the party to change. It is
striking that his fiercest opponents on this issue are palaeo-Tories of an
earlier era: Geoffrey Howe, Michael Heseltine etc.
When
should the break come?
Immediately.
That was David ' pledge during the leadership contest. Suitable foreign allies
are lined up and ready to go. If the issue is postponed, they may start to lose
interest.
Does
any of this much matter?
Yes.
Leaving the EPP was the one firm commitment that David gave during the
leadership campaign. He has since repeated it in public on at least four
occasions. If he doesn't deliver on the one thing that is in his gift as
Opposition leader, voters will be reluctant to believe that he would deliver on
his manifesto as Prime Minister. It is, as David himself has repeatedly said, a
question of consistency and integrity. The Conservatives cannot say one thing in
Britain and do another in Brussels.
If you know anyone else who would like to receive these mailings, please send
their email address to dhannan@europarl.eu.int
