Can the Tories take on the Europhiles in Brussels?

Civitas, 12 August 2009

Four years ago David Cameron announced his intention to leave the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) – the largest group in the European Parliament – and form a new centre-right group in 2009, writes Ariane Poulain, which would specifically oppose the EPP’s pro-European stance. Bucking the EU trend of rhetorical talk and no action, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group was established after this year’s European elections and officially formed on 14th July, 2009.

Timothy Kirkhope, Conservative MEP, argued that ‘the new ECR Group will be a powerful vehicle to drive forward our ideals’. The Prague Declaration of Principles outlines the ECR’s Ten Commandments and reads somewhat like the British Conservative manifesto encompassing ‘free and fair trade and competition’, ‘end of […] excessive bureaucracy’, ‘effectively controlled immigration’ and ,of course, ‘sovereign integrity of nation states’. Nicolas Watt in the Guardian, May 2009, commented on Cameron’s anti-federalist action as ‘the most hard-line Eurosceptic ticket of any mainstream political leader since Britain entered the EEC in 1973’.

So who else secured a place on Cameron’s Eurosceptic Team?

Well, to launch a new group in the European Parliament specific criteria must be met. Firstly, the new group has to include a minimum of seven member states. Secondly, it must contain at least twenty-five MEPs. Unsurprisingly, the Tories make up the majority of the ECR with twenty-five MEPs but the two other main players are the Polish Law and Justice Party (Pis) with fifteen MEPs and the Czech Republic’s Civic Democratic Party (ODS ) with nine MEPs. There are also five lone MEPs each from a different member state which Watt noted makes the ECR ‘potentially unstable’. Amongst the members there are those that have attracted negative attention due to having questionable moral beliefs: the Pis for condemning homosexuality arising from its far-right Conservative foundations, the ODS for denying the existence of climate change, and a Latvian MEP whose domestic party has been connected to neo-fascism. For obvious reasons Cameron has commented little on these claims but it does make you wonder about the sacrifices made to meet the criteria required to achieve being recognized as a new group and receive EU funding. Then again all is fair in love and war, and Cameron made a promise to the British public in 2005 and has carried it out, despite recruitment difficulties, which for any politician is an admirable achievement.

Moving on from raising our eyebrows about the composition of ECR there is justifiable defence for this strategic move. In terms of British politics, the Conservative Party has now further entrenched its ideological stance and created greater coherence between its presence at the national level and the regional level. In terms of EU politics, the MEP’s of the ECR have more room to manoeuvre in decision-making compared to being a part of the EPP. Think of it like ‘pick and mix’; the ECR can ally itself with old friends, the EPP, when they agree on a policy but when the EPP starts humming Ode to Joy, the ECR now has the option to oppose them and seek coalitions with the smaller groups, like the Green group or the Liberals. The new group certainly does not substantially reduce the ‘democratic deficit’ but it does provide the Tories and their new European colleagues in the ECR with a bonus point which they could not have gained if they remained in the EPP. But former Conservative MEP, David Curry, disagrees arguing that the Tories would have been better off in the EPP – remaining at ‘the heart of decision making not on the fringe’.

However, we must diverge from speculating about the ECR’s future capacity in the Parliament and return to raising eyebrows about the individual MEP’s of the ECR because the ECR’s grand entrance into the Parliament arena was swiftly overshadowed by internal turmoil caused by the Tories longest standing MEP, Edward McMillan-Scott. Every two to four years, fourteen vice-presidents are formally elected to function secondary tasks under the President in the European Parliament. Even though Polish MEP, Michal Kaminski, was the official candidate to uphold this post for the ECR, McMillan-Scott defied his Party’s wishes by standing for vice-president because he was unhappy about the ECR’s connections to extremism. McMillan-Scott succeeded by gaining the necessary 40 votes, leaving Kaminski amongst the other candidates who failed to gain a vice-presidency. This debacle left the ECR without a vice-president and McMillan-Scott’s rebellion caused the Tories to expel him from the Party; therefore McMillan Scott became a non-attached MEP and the ECR moved from fourth largest group to fifth. The New Statesmen commented that this was an ‘embarrassing political blow’ for the new group. Yet, the new group demonstrated solidarity; the two Tory MEP’s who were potentials for leading the ECR stood down and allowed Kaminski to fill the role instead.

The ECR’s role in the Parliament is certainly going to be of interest, but will Cameron’s new club be victorious?

Last month, William Hague spoke about the future of British foreign policy stating that ‘our opposition to the greater centralisation of power in the EU’ is ‘well known’ and the introduction of the ECR empirically proves the depth of this belief. The Tories’ arguably drastic repositioning in the European Parliament can be partly attributed to their fear of British sovereignty being swallowed by the EU machine. Moreover, the potential ratification of the Lisbon Treaty does not cool their concerns about increased supranationalism. In light of the impending General Election in Britain, and the mounting likelihood of a Conservative victory combined with principles of ECR there is a remedy close to hand to address their concerns which Conservative MP, Robert Goodwill, supports because now the Tories are ‘better able to protect British interest’.

On 22^nd August, the European Parliament reconvenes after the month long summer break and the real contest begins.  Will the ECR overcome its initial teething problem to be successful in the Parliament? Europhiles beware. The ECR aims to create new decisive coalitions, halt deeper EU integration and return capacities to the nation state. Ernest Benn famously said, ‘politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy’. There is little doubt that if one goes in search of trouble in the EU they won’t be looking for long. But the question remains – will removing their MEPs from the EPP fulfil the Tories’ objectives? The new group may provide the Tories with the greater efficacy intended in decision-making and as Goodwill argued ‘giv[e] them a seat on the front row of the parliament’ but abandoning the EPP could just as likely weaken their previous capacities and relegate Britain to the sidelines of Europe. Since the Conservatives are probably going to be the leading party of this country soon, people will be watching the ECR closely for evidence of how the Tories might shape Britain’s relationship with Europe in the coming years.