Home What's New Speeches & Articles Newsletter - Jul 2008 Biography Diary Contact Information Photo Album Parliamentary Highlights Publications Links MEPs' Transparency   Conservative Party Latest News from Conservatives.com Conservative Party Website
		Time for a new Conservative policy on the EU European Journal - June 25 2004 (journal of the European Foundation) The euro election results are out, and the political establishment has been rocked by the success of UKIP. In my East Midlands region, both we and UKIP achieved 26% of the vote - so a majority of votes were cast for euro-sceptic parties. UKIP's 12 seats massively exceed expectations for a fringe, single-issue party. They prove, conclusively, that public disillusionment with Brussels is hardening into hostility - and that the Conservative Party's stance on the issue is well behind the curve. Before the election, there were still Europhile Conservative MEPs arguing that to be electorally successful, the Tory party had to be a broad church, to be inclusive, to be moderately pro-Brussels. This nonsense has been cruelly exposed by reality. With poignant poetic justice, two of the prominent purveyors of this snake-oil, Tory MEPs Roy Perry and Jimmy Provan in the South East, have lost their seats in the EU parliament precisely because their electorate preferred UKIP's uncompromising message to our carefully nuanced ambiguity. I wish them both a pleasant retirement, pondering the poll result. Large numbers of Conservative Party members and activists in my own East Midlands region defected to UKIP in this election. And this despite the fact that my regional colleague Chris Heaton-Harris MEP and I have spent five years selling a strongly euro-sceptic message in the region. During the campaign I had calls from Conservative agents with stories of party members who intended to vote Conservative in the local elections, but for UKIP in the euros. I heard of one Conservative branch that had decided to vote UKIP en masse. I have the highest regard for Michael Howard, and I am prepared to work my socks off to see him in Downing Street, but I believe his EU policy has been determined more by issues of party management and Westminster tactics than by principle, or by the interests of the British people. He wants to keep the old dinosaurs like Clarke and Heseltine on-side, but he risks seeing the electorate slip away. On the one hand, he talks of a Europe of nations, of independent states working together, of a flexible Europe of "live and let live". Sceptics in the party - the huge majority of members and activists - warm to this theme. But his promise that Britain under the Conservatives will remain a full member of the EU comes as a slap in the face. The idea that we can reinstate the independence and self-determination of our country by fiddling at the margins, by renegotiating a couple of policy areas, is simply too sophisticated and nuanced. It is neither compelling nor credible. After all, we have seen the ratchet of integration roll ponderously on for thirty long years, under both Labour and Conservative governments. As one critic said to me in Oundle market, "There is Conservative ink on all the main European Treaties". A touch on the tiller is no longer good enough. The public perceives all three major parties, with more or less enthusiasm, acquiescing in the plot to undermine our prosperity and independence by creating a United States of Europe. Indeed some see Labour and Liberal Democrats as more straightforward. At least they declare their intention, while we do much the same things while pretending otherwise. So a party like UKIP that comes along with no "ifs" and "buts", a party that promises withdrawal from the EU, has come from nowhere to score a famous electoral victory. The Tory party's equivocation on EU integration is nowhere better illustrated than in the furore over the association of Tory MEPs with the EPP-ED group in the European parliament. This has been cited repeatedly by disaffected Tories as a reason to vote UKIP. What should have been merely an internal parliamentary administrative matter has become a litmus-test of our commitment to the independence of our country. IDS had more or less decided that Conservative MEPs should leave the EPP group at the end of the 1999/2004 parliament. Michael Howard decided to remain with the EPP, under a "new" deal which was supposed to ensure our independence. Yet while Conservative Central Office was trumpeting the "benefits" of the new deal, the leader of the EPP-ED Group, Hans-Gert Poettering MEP, was assuring his Christian Democrat allies that they could vote for the new deal with confidence, as it made not a scrap of difference. On this point, HGP was right, and CCO was wrong. With in days of the deal being struck, HGP was repudiating, publicly and repeatedly, two of its key elements. The deal allowed MEPs from EDU parties to join the "ED pillar" of the EPP-ED group as of right, and allowed the ED pillar to nominate a Vice-President of the group. HGP simply denied these two elements of the deal. Indeed his attitude showed such a monstrous contempt for the Conservative Party in general, and for Michael Ancram and Michael Howard in particular, that I am shocked and ashamed that the Party seems to have taken it lying down. Just recently, as Michael Ancram has pointed out, one EDU party, the Czech ODS, has in fact joined the group. But the EPP continues to insist that it has a veto, making nonsense of the so-called "new deal". The fact is that the "ED pillar" is merely a cosmetic device. It has no officers, no meetings, no budget, no statutes, no programme, no manifesto. The "new" arrangements on funding and staffing are virtually unchanged from the old arrangements. The EPP will continue to receive over half a million pounds a year of "our" parliamentary funding, which it will use to promote its federalist agenda. Our party then compounded the problem with a singularly inept decision to demand a blood-oath of loyalty to its EPP policy from all euro-candidates, including incumbent MEPs. It was apparently acceptable for candidates to disagree with party policy on a range of key European issues - the euro, the Constitution, repatriation of the CFP - but not OK to disagree about the EPP. Like many colleagues, I responded that I would accept the policy, albeit with a heavy heart, provided that the deal was delivered as specified - but given HGP's subsequent remarks, delivery remains in doubt. The promise that we would have the right to pursue our own policies and manifesto under the new deal, and to enjoy the respect of the group for our distinctive positions, was shown up for a sham within weeks. A cross-party group of MEPs, including my regional colleague Chris Heaton-Harris, then our Chief Whip, tabled a motion of censure on the EU Commission for its failure to resolve the Eurostat scandal. Under parliamentary rules, the motion required signatures from 10% of all MEPs - a total of 63. When I signed it, it already carried the signatures of the Leader of our delegation, Jonathan Evans, and the Chief Whip. Eventually nearly all the British Tories signed it. But the EPP were appalled. They could not vote against the motion, and seem to be soft on fraud ahead of the euro elections. But neither did they want to vote for it, and undermine the credibility of the Commission and therefore of the whole EU project. Evans was called before HGP, and given a tough dressing-down. It was his opportunity to demonstrate our policy freedom under the new deal. Opposition to EU fraud was a clear 1999 manifesto commitment. Evans should have done his duty as leader, and as ultimate guarantor of our manifesto commitments. Instead, he meekly agreed to act as a lieutenant for the EPP (and inadvertently, as a recruiting sergeant for UKIP). He withdrew his signature, and pressed colleagues to follow suit. Under intense pressure and arm-twisting, most did, until only seven, including myself and Chris Heaton-Harris, remained. Private Eye styled us "the Magnificent Seven". It is quite literally impossible to explain to the voter on the doorstep that we are committed to opposing EU integration, yet are allied members of a passionately federalist group in the parliament. The Conservative Party risks consigning itself to irrelevance on Europe unless it takes a clear policy position, in line with the overwhelming views of Party members. Over and over again, members and voters say to me "We voted in 1975 for a common market, for a free trade deal, not for political union and all this interference from Brussels". That is the position which the Conservative Party must now adopt. We want a relationship with Europe that is based on market access, free trade, voluntary inter-governmental co-operation - and nothing more. It is not enough merely to reject the euro and the Constitution, and to promise to repatriate the CFP. We need to disengage from the acquis communautaire across a broad front. We must repeal the 1972 Act, and the ECHR. We must reclaim the freedom, independence and self-determination of our country. Tony Blair will claim that this amounts to withdrawal, although personally I prefer Bill Cash's phrase "Associate Membership". But what matters is the substance, not the semantics. We should look Tony Blair in the eye and say "You may call it what you like. But that's what the British people demand, and that's what we intend to deliver".