You may have read Elaib Harvey’s coverage concerning the British Conservative MEPs’ relationship with the ultra-federalist European People’s Party. David Cameron has been attacked by several Euro-enthusiasts for promising to end this unhappy link.

It is usually the way in politics that, when a change is proposed, its opponents become hyper-active while its supporters sit back and take things for granted. I hope, though, that, on this issue, those who support Cameron’s line will give him public backing. If you are a British Conservative who would like to restore honour and consistency to our position in Brussels, please tell our new Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague. His email is [email protected]. You might also like to copy in the leader of the Conservative MEPs, Timothy Kirkhope ([email protected]), and David himself: [email protected]. I am sure they will appreciate your support.

For those unfamiliar with the issue, there follows a short briefing note.

What is the European People’s Party?

The European People’s 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 may 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 Italy’s “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: Chirac’s UMP was involved in a number of funding scandals, while many of Silvio Berlusconi’s 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 IDS’s 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 Cameron’s 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 Cameron’s 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.