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.
Showing posts with label Roger Helmer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roger Helmer. Show all posts
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Thursday, November 05, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
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:
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Image choice is crucial
Apologies for the lack of recent updates as I've been kept busy by several matters. There's quite a few subjects I'll blog on over the next few days, but to start with one I've just noticed...
ConservativeHome: "The Eurosceptic way to voters' hearts should be through their wallets." reports on MEP Roger Helmer's latest campaign. Whilst he's got a good message, his posters have picked completely the wrong image:
Yes it's provoked people's reaction that they want the shirt off that back! It's not exactly the reaction the poster's hoping for, is it?
Oh and don't worry, there is apparently another version of the poster for those whose taste is male.
ConservativeHome: "The Eurosceptic way to voters' hearts should be through their wallets." reports on MEP Roger Helmer's latest campaign. Whilst he's got a good message, his posters have picked completely the wrong image:
Yes it's provoked people's reaction that they want the shirt off that back! It's not exactly the reaction the poster's hoping for, is it?Oh and don't worry, there is apparently another version of the poster for those whose taste is male.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
