The failings of UKIP

There's an excellent piece in the Telegraph entitled Why no decent Tory should vote Ukip by Abhijit Pandya, who spent a year advising UKIP, has seen up close just how useless, ineffective and incoherent a party it is. Amongst the damaging charges:

[The] party's MEPs are obsessed with infantile stunts. These include wondering around Brussels, at the taxpayer's expense, singing "there is a hole in my bucket". Entertaining as it is watching Mr Farage doing this, and giving bombastic speeches in the European Parliament, it does nothing to curb the powers of the EU.

...[T]here is not a single amendment to a European regulation forced by Ukip, despite being Britain’s second-largest party in the European Parliament... [I]t is extraordinary that Ukip has not, in over a decade, managed to develop a strategy to undermine European law by appropriate subtle and strategic amendments.
...
The party is more interested in ranting and raving than in the more thoughtful task of fully engaging with its opponents on policy terms. This is why its failure to alter the course of Europe away from a social-democratic federal state has been immense.
...
...[A]s a consequence of being a one-issue Party, they are just about split on everything else. Ukip will go Left, Right or centre to grab the next available vote.
...
For Tories yearning for the old years of glory, a move to Ukip would be a move back to the feeling of looking at the remnants of the Tory Party after its 1997 catastrophe... Worse still it would benefit Labour, and another Labour victory is the last thing this country needs.

It just confirms that UKIP is not a striding force for anything, but just a protest vote accumulating, rabble rousing, whinge-the-whinge not fight-the-fight shouty movement.

Roger Helmer - Goodbye and good ****ing riddance

It is no secret that I am not a fan of Roger Helmer, one of the most useless Conservative MEPs. Quite apart from his regular bigotry, he has achieved sweet FA for this country in Brussels, just ranting the rant unlike other MEPs who actually work to get the best results for the UK's interests - and he himself has said all he's achieved is talking the talk. I've called for him to be deselected before and so I welcomed the news that he was retiring, only to curse when he retracted it.

Now comes the news that Conservative MEP Roger Helmer joins UKIP (BBC). Being a bunch of ineffectual talk-the-talkers rather than achievers, UKIP and Helmer are well mad for each other.

Meanwhile the Conservative team in the European Parliament has become much more efficient per MEP.

The UK's most disloyal MEPs

It was once said if you want to make something absolutely secret in politics you should announce it in the European Parliament. And the to this day the UK media give the parliament next to no coverage whatsoever, thus hiding much of what happens there. For example how may of you have heard that UKIP MEP Nikki Sinclaire has just walked out of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy grouping in disputes over policy and personalities? Very few as it's had hardly any media coverage.

And what is also not noted much is that certain MEPs and political parties are not helping give their country a strong voice in the parliament. However there is a website called VoteWatch.eu which helps tracks MEPs' voting records and it throws up some surprising revelations.

The big one that stands out to me are the results for "Loyalty to member state". Can you guess which country has more of the 50 least loyal MEPs than any other?

Yes it's the United Kingdom. Even more astonishing is that of the 32 least loyal MEPs, 16 consist of the entirety of the British National Party, the UK Independence Party and the Democratic Unionist Party delegations. They rank as follows:

2. Nick GRIFFIN - BNP
3. Godfrey BLOOM - UKIP
6. Andrew Henry William BRONS - BNP
12. Mike NATTRASS - UKIP
17. Nicole SINCLAIRE - UKIP
18. Marta ANDREASEN - UKIP
19. Nigel FARAGE - UKIP
20. William (The Earl of) DARTMOUTH - UKIP
22. Derek Roland CLARK - UKIP
24. John BUFTON - UKIP
25. Trevor COLMAN - UKIP
26. John Stuart AGNEW - UKIP
27. Gerard BATTEN - UKIP
28. David CAMPBELL BANNERMAN - UKIP
31. Paul NUTTALL - UKIP
32. Diane DODDS - DUP

Not a great list is it? So much for their claims to be different from one another. Or to be giving the UK a strong voice in Europe!

Oh and this is not a phenomenon exclusive to the UK had and far right. Other MEPs in the top ten include the following members of the BNP's and UKIP's sister parties:

1. Philippe de VILLIERS - Movement for France
8. Krisztina MORVAI - Movement for a Better Hungary
9. Jean-Marie LE PEN - French National Front
10. Marine LE PEN - French National Front

Oh look it's another resignation

And another MEP has resigned from the front bench over the new Conservative policy. (BBC News: MEP resigns in referendum dispute) Wow things must be really serious.

Oh it's Roger Helmer. This is the equivalent of Dennis Skinner resigning the Labour whip. It's just the same old difficult names causing trouble again.

Daniel Hannan has resigned

Two months ago the seemingly impossible happened. Daniel Hannan finally started to actually do something in the European Parliament when he became the Conservatives' front bench legal affairs spokesperson.

It could never last. Hannan has spent all his political career as a shouter not a doer, rabble rousing rather than negotiating. (If ever one wanted an argument for restricting leadership elections to parliamentarians, the fact that Hannan would win an activists' ballot for leader of the MEPs despite being utterly unsuited to the task is one.) And today the inevitable happened and Hannan has resigned. (Evening Standard - Paul Waugh: Cam's "EU-turn" backed by 1922..but not ConHome)

I'll post my thoughts on the new Conservative policy later, but for now I'll just say that Hannan will not be missed from the front bench. And I doubt he will have much influence on party policy either, after the mess he dragged the party into in the European Parliament. He will just have to rant in the wilderness.

It's finally happened

I've just heard the news flash that our MEPs have succeeded in forming the "European Conservatives and Reformists" grouping in the European Parliament.

So I was wrong in my prediction that the new group wouldn't succeed. (How long before we're back in the European People's Party?) I've not yet seen the full list of parties we're caucusing with but I have no doubt that Labour and the Liberal Democrats will throw whatever mud they can and have incredibly selective amnesia about their own partner parties' records.

Meanwhile across the country literally dozens of anonymous commenters on ConservativeHome will be rejoicing. And everyone else in this country will get on with something more interesting.

Sweet 2

I'll post my main comments on the Euro elections later, but for now here's a map showing every single region that has a Conservative MEP:

Yes for the first time ever one party has members representing every single part of the UK. And it is the Conservatives.

David Cameron's Election Day Message 2009

The dangers of knee-jerk constitutional change

So far I think Tom Harris has made the best suggestion about how to respond to the expenses scandal - you can see his brilliant idea at And another thing...: The only possible response to the expenses scandal.

I'm afraid I can't come up with anything quite so spectacular but here's one that would change politics as we know it and that I know many people would be glad to see: Outlaw the Liberal Democrats. That will restore faith in democracy and end the scandal I'm sure!

More seriously there are numerous wild suggestions for constitutional change flying around, some of which seem to have been given no more thought than a brief contemplation in the pub. They are then advocated with an aggressive "any idiot can see this is a good idea" type of reasoning, often with pejorative terms like "reform" and "democracy" used as though they magically validate everything, with those who dare to question just how it will solve the problem at hand bluntly dismissed.

This is in no way a sensible approach to constitutional change. It needs to be carefully thought through, with the knock-on effects considered and with a more permanent basis of support than heat of the moment desires. There are many changes being advocated at the moment which are getting support in the opinion polls, but will people really be happy if they're implemented?

For example one proposal flying around is a standards board that would have the power to suspend or even sack MPs for misconduct. It sounds like a no-brainer doesn't it? Indeed a similar standards board exists for local government. But remember when that board suspended Ken Livingstone from office as Mayor of London? (It was overturned before the suspension took place.) The reaction was against the standards board for seemingly overriding the democratic choice of the people.

The idea of recall elections is taking off. Leaving aside the need to ensure that such a tool is not abused for mere partisan gain, has anyone advocating this ever actually knocked on voters' doors during a parliamentary by-election? I have and to put it mildly voters are not exactly happy that they've had yet another election land on them. Next time there's a by-election on, remember to ask the voters if they want more elections inflicted upon them!

Or there's the simultaneous demands for fixed term parliaments and a snap general election. But the whole point of fixed term parliaments is that you can't have a snap election!

(And fixed term parliaments don't exactly work well either. Germany supposedly has them but this hasn't stopped successive German Chancellors from manipulating the system to call an election whenever they want to. If people want to create the desired effect they need to change the political & popular culture to the point that a Prime Minister calling an early election for political advantage will risk displeasure being felt in the ballot box. But why bother trying to be effective when you can just pass tokenistic ineffective constitutional changes that make you feel good?)

I've also heard calls for more demands for referendums, including ones that the voters can initiate. Direct democracy - it sounds so wonderful doesn't it? But is it always the best thing? Referendums have been used to impose values upon people. In California the courts have just upheld that a referendum can take away basic rights, in this case the right of people to marry. Is direct democracy automatically the best thing if it can be used to deny people their rights?

Then on another level we have suggestions that the whole question of MPs' salaries and expenses should be handled by an independent review body. But one of the reasons why the expenses culture developed the way it did is because MPs did not wish to be seen to be accepting the full salary increases recommended by past reviews and instead an entire culture developed that allowances and expenses were meant to be generous to make up for the wages not being as high as they "should" have been.

And of course the usual suspects have once again pounced on every little thing to demand proportional representation. Apparently this will make it easier to get rid of MPs the public don't like.

So can someone tell me how the majority of voters of London can get rid of Richard Barnbrook from the London Assembly? He was elected by proportional representation after all. Or how are the majority of voters of South East England able to reject Daniel Hannan if they want to, when he is at the top of the list most likely to win the most votes in the proportional representation election on Thursday? Or, if we're taking the single transferable vote, how are the majority of voters of Northern Ireland to reject Bairbre de Brún if they wish? There's no alternative Sinn Féin candidate to choose instead. The harsh reality is that "safe seats" exist not because of magic but because a lot of people vote for political parties regardless of who the individual candidates are, and there's not much that can be done to change that.

Now a lot of this is critical and it's meant to be. I don't believe that there is a set of changes that will act as a magic wand to suddenly transform British politics and end all the expenses issues. Indeed one poll has found that two-thirds of voters agree that there is "nothing fundamentally wrong with Britain's constitution providing that MPs are honest and competent". (Daily Telegraph: MPs expenses: Six in ten voters want autumn general election)

But whilst "if it ain't broke don't fix it" suffices most of the time, it clearly doesn't at the moment. So here are some ideas, no more, no less, to throw into the discussion on ways forward:

* Initiate prosecutions against MPs who have committed criminal offences. If found guilty send them to jail and automatically vacate their seat.

* A standards board with the power to dismiss MPs. Yes this would be a trampling on democratic choice, but frankly there are times when the needs of the country as a whole should override the decision of one individual constituency. The principle has already been conceded at local government level, even if it took the Livingstone case to bring it up.

* That good old standby of an independent review body for MPs' salaries & expenses. However I would give it the power to actually set salaries not merely make recommendations that are politically difficult for MPs to vote in. That may not be popular in the short term but it would be better than the current mess. For oversight I would have the Lords as the chamber in control of the review body.

* For MPs who need a second home in London, instead of giving them the money to rent or buy one, perhaps the Commons should buy the home instead and the MPs only live there for the duration. This is an adaptation of the "hall of residence" idea often floated but repeatedly shot down on security concerns.

* Consider the constitution in a calmer state of affairs - that will produce better results than knee-jerk changes that just jump on the bandwagon.

A lot of this isn't sexy, it isn't dynamic and it isn't radical. But it's targeted at the problem itself, it isn't seeking to exploit the crisis for ends that have nothing to do with it and it isn't proposing the shake up the country. Calm reflection is always better than instant reaction.

Recycling, political style

There are some politicians who seem remarkably adept at comebacks in different positions - on the international stage the many returns of Shimon Peres spring most readily to mind. But it's more unusual for a politician to enter the politics of a different country.

News has reached me of rumours in Brussels that the UK Conservative MEP Christopher Beazely is contemplating trying to continue his career by seeking election as an MEP from Poland. He has reportedly been offered a seat, presumably by the Platforma Obywatelska (Civic Platform), which would allow him to remain in the Parliament when he declined to seek renomination as a Conservative in the UK, but would also allow him to continue to sit as a member of the European People's Party.

Beazely has been so staunchly opposed to the Conservative proposals to leave the EPP-ED caucus that he recently formally transferred from the European Democrats section to the EPP part and announced his retirement in the UK because of his opposition to the departure. Now it seems he is determined to stay in the EPP at all costs, even travelling halfway across the continent to do so.

So rather than retiring quietly it seems Beazely is hoping to recycle himself in a new country. The last MEP I can think of who popped up in another country's politics was Sir James Goldsmith, French MEP and founder of the UK's Referendum Party. I never thought Beazely would turn out to have much in common with Goldsmith!

The Conservatives in the European Parliament - A History

I've done a few posts about the European Parliament lately but one other thing I've noticed that is not so well known about is the actual history of the UK Conservatives' groups in the European Parliament. So here's my best attempt to briefly detail it:

When the UK, together with Ireland and Denmark, entered the European Economic Community (as was) in 1973, the European Parliament was not directly elected but instead appointed by national parliaments. Upon entry the UK Conservatives and the Danish Conservative People's Party (Det Konservative Folkeparti) jointly formed the "European Conservatives" group (the first point of confusion as a lot of names get recycled). In 1979 direct elections to the Parliament began and at the same time the number of seats were increased, benefiting the European Conservatives no end. After the elections they had 64 members, albeit very lopsided with 61 from the UK (including the solitary Ulster Unionist) and 3 from Denmark. The group at this point renamed itself "European Democrats" (another name that would be later recycled).

However the group's numbers then went into decline over the next decades, not least because of the deteriorating position of the UK Conservatives in the Euro elections. In 1984 the UK Conservatives won 45 seats, the Ulster Unionists 1 and the Danish Conservatives 4. With the accession of Spain, the group was joined by the Spanish People's Party (Partido Popular). Up until 1989 the group was usually the third largest in the European Parliament, behind the Socialists and European People's Party.

But 1989 saw a dramatic downturn. The Ulster Unionists held their seat, but the Danish Conservatives dropped to 2 and the UK Conservatives fell to 31. The Spanish People's Party switched to the European People's Party. The result was that the 34 member European Democrats fell to the fifth place in the Parliament, now also behind the Liberals and Communists/Far Left, and only four seats ahead of the Greens.

This prompted the UK Conservatives to reconsider their options, as many believed that being in a small grouping on the fringes of the Parliament would make it impossible to achieve their goals, and so during the last years of Margaret Thatcher's leadership an application was made to join the European People's Party. However, in a move that will now surprise many, it was the EPP who were sceptical about the move. The initial application to join was rejected, because the European People's Party is a Christian Democrat grouping and was sceptical about taking on non-Christian Democrat parties. The situation became more intense with the Danish Conservatives also seeking entry to the EPP, leaving the UK Conservatives potentially ever more isolated. However the prospect of narrowing the gap between the EPP and the Socialists appealed and in May 1992 the UK Conservatives were admitted as associate members of the grouping in the parliament, without joining the wider Europarty federation.

The UK Conservatives' number of MEPs plummeted in the 1994 elections, dropping to just 18 MEPs. (The situation was enhanced by the UK then being the only country to not use proportional representation. It was the result of this that was a major factor in making the Socialists the largest grouping in the Parliament.) Meanwhile back home the Conservative Party was getting ever more Eurosceptic, whilst at the same time demands for a widening of party democracy meant that the party's link with the avowedly federalist EPP was starting to come under pressure, although I can't recall it being much of a factor in the 1997 (MPs only) leadership election.

In 1999 the UK changed voting systems for the parliament, with MEPs from Great Britain now elected by regional lists (although Northern Ireland retained the Single Transferable Vote). With the Labour government suffering severe unpopularity and the Conservatives getting a boost a reversal in numbers would have come in any case, but now the delegation was doubled with several new MEPs who questioned the link with the EPP from the outset. However the viability of an alternative grouping was doubtful, especially as the election as a whole saw the EPP overtake the Socialists to become the largest grouping for the first time since direct elections. UK Conservative leader William Hague also felt that it would not be advantageous in domestic politics to be isolated from the main centre-right parties in Europe. Consequently he negotiated a compromise arrangement whereby the "European Democrats" were formally revived and the overall grouping became a nominal coalition of the EPP and the ED. It was also hoped that with the forthcoming expansion of the European Union the ED subgroup would pick up further parties from new member states.

However this arrangement did not satisfy everyone and a low level campaign against the EPP link rumbled on in the UK Conservatives. Once again I don't recall it being a factor in the 2001 leadership election, the first to have the grassroots members voting, but at the time it was the position on the European single currency that was the main point of interest and litmus test for Euro issues in the party. Iain Duncan Smith investigated trying to revive the European Democrats as an independent separate grouping, but could neither find the numbers nor get the support of the party's MEPs. In 2004 the UK Conservatives ran on a manifesto that included sitting with the EPP, but the ED subgroup picked up very few new members - from the new states only the Czech Civic Democrats (Občanská demokratická strana - ODS) came on, whilst the group was also joined by the one member Italian Pensioners' Party (Partito Pensionati) and the two member Portuguese Social Democratic Centre – People's Party (Centro Democrático e Social - Partido Popular - CDS-PP).

At the same time the growth of the internet has transformed the way in which the UK Conservative grassroots discuss issues, and this has been seized to the full by those campaigning against the EPP link. In the 2005 leadership election the candidates were asked their stances on the link, with Kenneth Clarke supporting it, David Cameron and Liam Fox opposing it and David Davis declaring he would leave it up to the MEPs (I can't remember Sir Malcolm Rifkind's stance). However, although a few MPs did make something of the issue, it wasn't that major to the leadership campaign and the precise wording of what was actually pledged by Cameron seems more elusive than the missing Doctor Who episodes.

David Cameron was elected leader and intense speculation and arguments soon broke out about what to do in the European Parliament and what promise to follow. Several UK Conservative MEPs declared that they would defy a withdrawal and stay with the EPP, in line with the 2004 election manifesto. The grassroots had been spun a tale of how there were many "Atlanticist Eurosceptic Conservative parties" just waiting for the UK Conservatives to take a lead and soon a viable alternative grouping would be formed. This has proved elusive in the 2004-2009 parliament, enhanced because a 2006 agreement with the Czech Civic Democrats stated that a new group would not be formed until after the 2009 election, because of domestic Czech political requirements. The issue has become ever more a litmus test for the Eurosceptic grassroots, many of whom place far more priority on ideological consistency than on influence and access to posts in the European Parliament.

Now recently the UK Conservatives have formally lodged notice with the EPP of their intention to no longer sit with them after the 2009 elections, and together with the Czech Civic Democrats, the Polish Law and Justic (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość - PiS) and whichever other parties can be scraped together for a new grouping. It remains to be seen if this group will get & keep the numbers to be a recognised grouping in the European Parliament...

"A peace process too far"?

Thanks to Iain Dale's Diary: The Daley Dozen: Wednesday for pointing me too Slugger O'Toole: Fianna Fail's European dilemma..., which in turn points to Irish Examiner: FF's Euro wing is trying to wriggle between a rock and a hard place.

Can anyone tell me which party produced the Irish Taoiseach who wrote the following? And which party produced the UK Prime Minister he was writing to?

I would like to testify that you did more than any former British Statesman to make a true friendship between the peoples of our two countries possible, and, if the task has not been completed, that it has not been for want of goodwill on your part.

The answers are, surprisingly, Fianna Fáil and the Conservatives. (The men in question were Éamon de Valera and Neville Chamberlain.)

As I've noted before, the Conservatives are not the only party who have had problems relating to alliances in the European Parliament. The Irish party Fianna Fáil have had similar. Even the recent announcement that they are going to join the European Liberals has provoked criticism and internal rows. But Fianna Fáil can't stay where they are forever as the Union for a Europe of Nations is in danger of dropping below the rules for being a recognised group in the parliament, not least because the Conservatives are seeking recruits for their new group from it.

The Examiner makes an interesting hint:

The Tories and FF might have more in common than they both realise. Both consider themselves natural parties of government and both are instinctively suspicious of ideology.

Indeed there is so much in common that there are many Conservatives who admit they would strongly consider voting for them if they were voting in Ireland. Might a linkup in the European Parliament be a solution to both parties' problems here?

Unfortunately there are some rather major stumbling blocks on this possibility:

Trouble is the Tories want to be with Europe but are not of it, to use Churchill's phrase.

And then there's the issue of the North. Everyone's for the Agreement these days but there's about a century's worth of bad blood between the two parties. It would be a brave Fianna Fáiler who made the case for a Tory link-up. It's probably a peace process too far.

There's also the not insignificant problem of Fianna Fáil's support for the Lisbon Treaty in spite of the Irish "No" vote last year, which would be the major stumbling block at the Conservative end - would the grassroots be happy.

But the latter problem is a temporary one that will fade with time - who now even remembers which parties were for and against Maastricht? The former - well other past bad blood has certainly been overcome, but this isn't exactly an insignificant one, even for a notoriously pragmatic party like Fianna Fáil. There have been times when the two parties' leaders have been close, as shown above, but it would take so much more.

And yet... the European Parliament has certainly thrown up other strange alliances. How many years will pass before this one doesn't seem so unthinkable?

Posts in the European Parliament - in response to Roger Helmer

I was going to post this as a response in the comments to this one by Roger Helmer MEP, but as it's long and technical I'll make it a new post in itself.

It is not strictly true to say that posts in the European Parliament are allocated on a per head basis - there is a bias towards larger groupings - but also if an alternative group is to be formed then most of the other parties involved would not be automatically entitled to positions such as chairs and vice chairs and we Conservatives would probably have to give them some of our allocation just to get & keep them on-board.

The allocation formula is D'Hondt, which has a bias towards larger groups and coalitions - see this conference presentation for an example of the number crunching. One practical outcome is that the European People's Party-European Democrats group currently has one more committee chair than a strict "per head" basis.

To my awareness the best analysis of not only the likely numbers involved but of the entire situation is P. Lynch & R. Whitaker (2008) "A Loveless Marriage: The Conservatives and the European People's Party." Parliamentary Affairs 61(1) (January 2008): 31-51. (Those with access can see the article via the online archive.) In the article (amongst other matters) Lynch & Whitaker modelled two hypothetical groups in the European Parliament in 2007 to demonstrate the numbers and allocation. (Whilst the 2009 elections will bring changes, they do not anticipate these to be so great as to have a significant impact on the numbers involved.) The two groups include a "smaller" one, based on both a limited number of recruits and six Conservative MEPs staying in the EPP-ED (although Ulster Unionist Jim Nicholson would be in), and a "larger" one with all the Conservatives on-board plus further countries. The impact on posts is clear.

For the record the smaller group consists as follows:

1. 22 Conservatives & Unionists (with six staying in the EPP-ED) - UK
2. 9 Civic Democrats (ODS) - Czech Republic
3. 7 Law and Justice (PiS) - Poland
4. 4 For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK (LNNK) - Latvia
5. 1 Pensioners' Party - Italy
6. 1 Independent - Kathy Sinnott - Ireland

Total: 44 MEPs

The larger group consists of all the above, the remaining six Conservatives and the following:

7. 4 Centre Party - Finland
8. 3 Movement for France (MPF) - France
9. 2 Social Democratic Centre–People's Party (CDS-PP) - Portugal
10. 2 United Democratic Forces (UDF) - Bulgaria (and this was based on the January to May appointed interim delegation before the UDF failed to win any seats in the subsequent election)

Total: 61 MEPs

Now others can comment on the ease of obtaining each of these nine, or for that matter whether they will have seats after the elections (e.g. the UDF didn't get anyone elected in the 2007 elections and this led to a change of leadership that makes them more unlikely to join up if they get the chance). But these hypothetical groups show well who would get the gains and losses.

The allocation of committee chairs and vice chairs becomes a factor here. The parties that would be in the smaller group currently have between them 3 chairs and 6 vice chairs. In the larger group it's 3 chairs and 10 vice chairs. But if the new groups were formed then the smaller group gets 1 chair and 4 vice chairs. The larger group gets 1 chair 6 vice chairs.

And assuming the use of the D'Hondt formula to divide up the allocations within the group then the losses overwhelmingly hit the other parties, not the Conservatives, again because of the D'Hondt bias towards larger parties. In the smaller group, the Conservatives will retain 1 chair and 3 vice chairs. In the larger group the Conservatives actually gain another vice chair entitlement. So from a Conservative point of view the raw numbers suggest there's nothing to lose (but we'll come to the question of which committees) and possibly a little bit to gain. But the changes for the other parties are as follows (smaller/larger):

ODS -1 chair/-1 chair
PiS -1 chair/- 1 chair + 1 vice chair
LNNK -1 vice chair/-1 vice chair
Pensioners same/same (nothing to start with)
Kathy Sinnott -1 vice chair/-1 vice chair
Centre Party NA/-3 vice chairs
MPF NA/same (nothing to start with)
CDS-PP NA/-1 vice chair
UDF NA/same (nothing to start with)

So what exactly is in it for these parties to move away from their current groups? And remember some of these groups are already quite Eurosceptic so it's not the same issue as between us and the EPP. The best I can see is that the Conservatives would have to hand over some of their entitlement, along with other posts in both the parliament and the group to other parties (e.g. giving the ODS the post of group leader).

And this doesn't even address the fact that as well as the drop in raw numbers, the choice of committees is allocated on the basis of group sizes. The larger group would get onky the 8th choice, the smaller group the 12th choice. These are not going to be the most influential committees.

Similarly the rapporteurs, who "prepare reports on bills that set out the EP's position and propose amendments", are allocated in a similar way so once again it is the large groupings who will get proportionally more rapporteurships and, crucially, the more important bills. (And once again the Conservatives might find they have to give over some entitlement to others in the new group.)

Now all this talk about posts in the European Parliament does not in itself matter one iota to voters. What does matter is output. It is the holding of posts that enhances a party's ability to influence the output of the European Parliament. It is here that MEPs can best stand up for the interests of the public and get the best results.

How long before we're back in the European People's Party?

Yesterday came the announcement that the Conservatives have formally informed the European People's Party of our intention to cease caucusing with them the end of the current Parliament and seek to create a new grouping of Eurosceptic Conservative parties. (ConservativeHome: Tory Diary - The Conservative Party's exit from the EPP would seem a step closer) This issue has excited a few, bored many and bewildered more for years now but I'll make a couple of prediction - the new group will not succeed and the Conservatives will return to caucusing with the EPP before too long.

The first thing that gets overlooked is that groupings in the European Parliament tend to be very broad churches because the member parties come from quite disparate political circumstances. The groupings are largely vehicles of convenience designed to strengthen the individual parties' position and enable them to do more than they could achieve in isolation. So individual parties are frequently able to put up with a lot of ideological disagreement without taking themselves into the wilderness.

It's also worth noting, as Nicholas Whyte does in his good post From the Heart of Europe: Fianna Fáil and the liberals, that being in a grouping confers potential benefits beyond the Parliament itself:

In addition, the growing importance of the pan-European parties as political vehicles is starting to rub. At the height of his powers, Bertie Ahern was being talked about for one of the top EU jobs. Although that prospect seems much less likely today, the fact is that the internal dynamics of EU politics meant that no FF candidate could ever be a serious runner in the first place. FF's current political grouping is fourth in the pecking order, a long way behind the Liberals, who themselves are not exactly snapping at the heels of the Socialists or the EPP.

Nicholas's full post is worth a good read as it traces the history of a major conservative~ish party (in so far as Fianna Fáil has any core ideology) sitting outside the European People's Party (in their case because Fine Gael blocked entry) and having to make alliances with either the products of temporary divisions in other country's rights (e.g. the French Gaullists or Forza Italia) or the flotsam and jetsam of politics, the latter of whom are not exactly the best bedfellows:

It was all very well to be in with the Gaullists, but times have changed; when the two largest delegations in your group are the Italian post-fascists [Alleanza Nazionale] and the Kaczyński twins [the Polish Prawo i Sprawiedliwość - Law and Justice], you may want to start thinking about moving.

Fianna Fáil has finally managed to join the Liberals, despite not being a liberal party. (Once again this is partially down to the repercussions of the domestic politics of a country - in this case Ireland's liberal party, the Progressive Democrats, have just collapsed and so removed the main veto wielder on Fianna Fáil's application.)

Now whilst Fianna Fáil itself has always been a very unlikely candidate for this proposed Eurosceptic Conservative grouping, its problems are indicative of the calculations that many parties make when choosing their grouping, invariably gravitating towards the largest blocks who offer influence and jobs. Tiny groups on the fringe offer only ideological purity or a temporary berth whilst waiting to get into a larger group. This does not bode well for any attempt to lure other parties out of the European People's Party.

And British-style conservatism is not that popular in Europe - the Czech Civic Democrats are a very rare example of a major party who truly are a mirror image of us. In most countries the main centre-right option is Christian Democracy, and it is the differences between Christian Democracy and British-style Conservatism that are at the root not only of our long term uneasy relationship with the EPP (remember that some two decades ago it was the EPP who were sceptical about our caucusing with them, not the other way round) but indeed with the EU project as a whole, a project that is very much a Christian Democrat one. The result is that there are very few natural allies for the Conservatives in a separate grouping, a problem compounded by the requirement to have members from at least six or seven different member states, and several of the parties already in smaller groups are not exactly comfortable bedfellows.

So I predict that this proposed new grouping will struggle to get the numbers needed to be a recognised party and that once more attention is focused on the flotsam and jetsam that is the only alternative then the entire project will collapse. This leaves only two options, only one of them viable, for the Conservatives in the European Parliament.

One theoretical option is to not sit as any party as all but to sit as independent "non-inscrits". The idea that a serious major party of government in any member state would sit totally in isolation in the European Parliament is laughable. Much is made by Conservative critics of sitting with the EPP of the position of Roger Helmer and Daniel Hannan in sitting as non-inscrits after being expelled from the EPP. But can anyone tell me what either has actually achieved? I don't mean what speeches they've been able to make, I mean what difference have they made to the output of the European Parliament from their position?

(Tumbleweed rolls.)

And so this will leave only one realistic option - begrudgingly return to sitting with the European People's Party, with all the previous measures negotiated to give even a fig leaf of separation (the whole notional "European Democrats" grouping) lost.

Now frankly there's been far too much time spent in the party rowing about this issue. But the situation is far more complicated than many of the extremists have claimed it is, and so the outcome is not going to be the most optimum one. And rowing about it even more is not going to make the slightest difference.

So who are the Conservative sister parties?

Over on ConservativeHome, Charles Tannock MEP has contributed the piece Conservative MEPs - what are the options for alliances? in the latest stage of the ongoing discussion about where Conservative MEPs should sit in the European Parliament.

I've blogged before that I don't entirely care about this specific issue (Who cares where someone sits on the wrong train?) but it does raise some key wider questions about where the Conservative Party stands internationally.

It's now often forgotten that when the Conservatives originally joined the European People's Party back in the early 1990s it was the EPP who were the most reluctant about the arrangement, questioning whether Conservatism really does sit easily with Christian Democracy, the dominant strand of centre-right opinion in much of Europe (although the Czech Civic Democratic Party is an exception, drawing its inspiration from the Conservatives). Conservatism and Christian Democracy are not entirely compatible and to a large extent it is the differences that have resulted in very different attitudes to the European Union.

It's also worth considering the preferences of Conservative party members, particularly as the EPP issue has been driven from the grassroots. Fourteen months ago ConservativeHome included in their regular survey the question "who is your favourite right-of-centre/ conservative (and elected) leader in the world today?" The options were George W. Bush, Stephen Harper, John Howard, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. The result was a landslide for John Howard (sadly not repeated in the Australian election the following month). Only 27% of respondents chose the Europeans Merkel and Sarkozy. I don't think that was just because of their relative merits.

(Of course how would such a poll gonow? In a couple of months it seems the options will be just Merkel, Sarkozy and John Key, with the last evincing the "who he?" reaction that Harper got last time, and even Sarkozy may drop off for his leftward drift.)

The Conservative Party is notable as one of the few parties that are members of the European Democrat Union that is not also affiliated to the European Peopl's Party, making the connection in the European Parliament even more strained. Whilst strong connections have been made with centre-right parties in the Anglosphere (in the case of some of the US Republicans the connections are too strong), where are the equivalent strong links with parties in Europe?

In praise of General Franco?

It's rare that anyone ever notices or cares what happens in the European Parliament:

John Major did once say that if you want to keep something secret, announce it in Parliament. If you want to make sure the media will never spill the beans, announce it in Strasbourg.

But this week there was a surprise when Polish MEP Maciej Giertych spoke in praise of General Franco in a debate to mark the seventieth anniversary of the Spanish Civil War. He said:

Thanks to the Spanish army and Franco the communist attack on Catholic Spain was thwarted. The presence of such people in European politics as Franco guaranteed the maintenance of traditional values in Europe and we lack such statesmen today. Christian Europe is losing against atheistic socialists today and this has to change.

Does anyone know if the Pope agrees with this assessment?

Fransisco Franco is an exception to the maxim that history is written by the winners, and as he is still dead he hasn't been able to mount his own defence. And yet it seems there are those who still hold him in high regard. The readers' comments on the BBC story give a good mix of views. Personally I think that if Franco hadn't won the civil war then Spain would probably have capitulated to Germany faster than one could say "Vichy France" and that ultimately Franco's presence made winning the war easier. Victory for the Communists would have merely moved a defeat by Germany to 1941.

But there are a couple of very interesting comments there which have never really been adequately answered:

I don't get it. It's wrong for one MEP to praise a totalitarian hispanic dictator like Franco but right for another to praise a totalitarian hispanic dictator like Castro? What's the difference?

* * *

Will there be similar uproar in Brussels the next time some MEP praises Fidel Castro? And why is fascism always considered to be 'extreme right' when it has far more characteristics in common with socialism. After all, most of the 'founders' of fascism were themselves former socialists.