Conservative MEPs and the European People's Party: Time for
Divorce
Martin Ball
Jonathan Collett
Contents
A crucial and ultimately determining issue awaits the Conservative Party
immediately after the 1999 European Election. It is whether the elected
Conservative MEPs decide to again link up with the European People's Party as
they have since 1992. The EPP, an avowedly federalist and Christian Democratic
grouping, could not present a greater contrast to the Conservative Party
William Hague is trying to create. He has declared his vision to be of a
modern, democratic, self confident and anti–federalist Party.
A formal link–up may prove superficially attractive to MEPs. They would be
part of one of the two largest groupings within the European Parliament, and
would thus retain links with parties in the majority of EU member states. The
hospitality and entertainment of the EPP are legendary. But what signals would
such a link up convey? There are huge cultural, philosophical and ideological
differences between the secular and non–denominational Conservative tradition
and that of the Christian Democrats.
Jacques Santer, the former President of the EPP and President of the
European Commission who is soon likely to be an MEP in Luxembourg and thus
again a member of the EPP declared on the 8th November 1988 that:
"We are indebted to a great tradition. From Konrad
Adenauer to Robert Schuman, Alcide de Gasperi to Joseph Bech, we Christian
Democrats have, ever since the Second World War, continuously stood up for the
further democratic development of the Community. We Christian Democrats in the
European People's Party want the European Community to become the United
States of Europe."1
In contrast William Hague declared in Budapest on 13th May 1999:
"All true Europeans should rebel against the notion that
democracy could be made to function in some form of trans–continental
superstate."
"What I am saying is that just as in every restaurant
every diner is not required to order the same food from the menu, nor should
members of the European Union be forced to sign up to every policy coming out
of Brussels."2
The present Conservative Party position is the result of an intensive and
often painful decade of debate. Since Margaret Thatcher's Bruges Speech of
September 1988 Conservatives have been forced to re–evaluate their attitudes
and instincts on European integration. It would have been inconceivable that
Conservative MEPs would have countenanced membership of the EPP during her
tenure. They did so mainly because of Chris Patten's determined efforts as
Party Chairman and the enthusiastic encouragement of Helmut Kohl during John
Major's period of "Heart of Europe" enthusiasm.
Thomas Jansen, the former Secretary General and historian of the EPP
states:
"One of the key preconditions for admitting the
Conservative MEPs to the EPP group, which eventually took place on 1st May
1992, was evidently Mrs Thatcher's resignation as British Prime Minister and
Leader of the Conservative Party, and John Major's willingness to pursue a
different policy on Europe. But Helmut Kohl's determination was critical.
Given the imminent enlargement of the European Union, he had strategic reasons
for wanting to open the EPP to the Conservatives. Without Kohl, the
breakthrough would not have come so soon."3
In hindsight John Major's "Heart of Europe" policy can be seen as a failure
in that it did not win Britain more influence but instead resulted in Britain
being dragged deeper into a political union in the EU, with huge swathes of
power being transferred to Brussels institutions. That period has now passed
and, painful as it was, Conservatives have learned from this mistake.
Throughout the Major period, the Conservative rank and file remained
resolutely and strongly Euro–sceptic. This was indicated by internal and
external polling, by the Conservative Conference motions put forward by local
Conservative Associations4 and by the huge
turnouts at Euro–sceptic fringe events at Conservative Party Conferences.
Conservatives consistently favoured a loose, accountable freely trading Europe
of independent and co–operating nation states. They wanted to retain a
sovereign Britain and for the British people to be able to govern
themselves.
Under William Hague's fresh approach and democratisation of the Party
following the 1997 Leadership Election, those grass roots are now able to give
vent to their feelings. In October 1998 84% of Conservative activists declared
that they supported Hague's policy of ruling out British membership of a
single currency at the next election. Those same activists would be horrified
to learn of the unashamedly federalist nature of the grouping to which their
MEPs have affiliated. In a modern, democratic Party elected MEPs must take
account of those activists within their Party and of the voters who elected
them. We now live in an age where action must meet rhetoric and elected
representatives must be accountable to those whom they serve.
There has never been any question of the EPP adapting to accommodate or
tolerate such thinking or even of its agreeing to disagree with those of a
Conservative or anti–federalist tradition. Jansen declares:
"The European People's Party's destiny, as I see it, is
a double one. It must contribute to the unification of Europe by bringing
together like minded political forces. On the other hand, its job is to help
bring about the cultural and political breakthrough of "Christian
Democracy".
"Those responsible for the EPP's development owe
allegiance to tradition, and to the political programme. That is not just a
personal obligation, and one to those whose work they are building on; it is
also a duty to those who have joined the EPP from other traditions. If the
EPP's identity as a European federalist and Christian Democrat oriented party
were lost, its cohesion would be in danger."5
Conservative MEPs have in the past claimed that their relationship with the
EPP is not a deep or binding one. This paper will show that this has not been
the case and that, on the contrary, they have long been deeply enmeshed. For
instance James Provan MEP is currently the Chief Whip of the EPP parliamentary
group. The organisational structure and machinations of the European
Parliament do not require Tory MEPs to be a part of such a grouping as a
necessity. Instead, as we shall show, there are other far more attractive
alternatives. If Conservative MEPs still desire to vote with the EPP on
certain issues they will be able to do so. But how can a group with the
desired objective of opposing a federal Europe and of stopping Britain being
run by Europe be part of a larger group whose loudly expressed purpose is the
creation of a United States of Europe?
The two competing visions are impossible to reconcile. If the Conservative
MEPs do decide again to become members of the EPP, it will be hard to believe
the validity of their main electoral slogan that they want to be "in Europe
but not run by Europe."6 It will be harder
still to reconcile the publicly stated policies of the Conservative leadership
with the action of that Party's MEPs. The choice is unavoidable and clear.
There cannot be two different Conservative parties, one with an agenda at
Westminster and the other with an opposed agenda in Brussels and
Strasbourg.
The European People's Party is the Christian Democratic grouping in the
European Parliament. It was formed in April 1976 to unite Europe's Christian
Democratic parties in advance of the first direct elections to the European
Parliament in 1979 with the intention to co–ordinate the efforts of the
Centre–Right continental parties in any moves towards policy harmonisation.
The roots of the EPP go back to European Coal and Steel Community Common
Assembly where the Christian Democratic Group was established.
Its commitment to a federal 'United States of Europe' was there from the
start. The Basic Programme of the EPP declares that:
"From the very start of the process of European
integration after the Second World War, the Christian democratic founding
fathers of the European Communities focused on the fundamental human and
social dimension of their vision of the future of the peoples of Europe. Forty
years later, we can see that their vision has borne fruit on an impressive
scale: European unification and the European Community have been the salient
factors in the history of the second part of this century."7
According to the then Group Chairman the EPP is:
" the group of the European federalists . . . the most
enthusiastic supporters of the European Union."8
The parliamentary group has 201 Members (MEPs) drawn from all EU Member
States and is currently the second largest grouping in the European
Parliament. The EPP Group is currently chaired by Wilfried Martens, who is
also President of the EPP Party. Their policy position is determined by five
working groups, which co–ordinates its members' parliamentary work in the 20
committees. The conclusions of the working groups are reported to the whole
EPP Group and it then decides upon what policy positions to adopt in the
plenary sessions of the European Parliament.
Alongside the parliamentary section, the EPP Party is also a separate
EU–wide political organisation. It has an eight strong presidency which
ensures the party's permanent political presence. There is a Council, which
meets quarterly, made up of Member Party Presidents and secretaries–generals,
EU Commissioners close to the EPP and the EPP Presidency. There is a Political
Bureau which decides on all the key strategic decisions, and a Congress which
meets every two years to decide upon the EPP political programmes and to elect
the Presidency. Five working groups formulate common positions and strategies
on topical issues. Prior to EU Summits the EPP Party facilitates meetings for
EPP heads of government, the EPP Presidency and presidents of the Commission
and the EU parliament, where they agree on common political positions at the
European level.
According to Jansen, the EPP is more advanced than its political opponents
in creating a pan–European political party:
"The EPP is without question further down the path to
becoming a trans or supra–national party than the socialists, the greens or
the Liberals."9
"EPP member parties in the different Community countries
had portrayed themselves as "European parties". The EPP itself demanded that
governments press forward on the road to a federal organisation. The measures
that would lead to this supranational Europe were set out in the EPP's
programme and the programme and the programmes of its national and regional
structures."10
EPP policy is clearly revealed via its Basic Programme, its
Action Programme 1999–2004 and its manifesto for the 1999 European
Election "A Europe of Opportunities". The Basic Programme was adopted by the
IX EPP Congress held in Athens in November 1992. The Action Programme was
adopted by the XIII EPP Congress held in Brussels on 4–6 February 1999.
For the EPP the introduction of the euro is only the start and they want to
take the integrationist agenda much further.
"We have already taken a great step forward towards
European integration by introducing the Single Currency. But the euro is not
the final objective, nor a mere technical improvement. For the EPP it is the
foundation stone of what we intend to be a new era, one which will bring
Europe closer to its citizens in a bewildering time."11
EPP Policy Commitments
A foreign policy for Europe
This new era will entail the EU having one external voice:
"We must act as one on the international scene. Together
we carry more weight in our relations with other countries. Europe needs a
Common Foreign and Security Policy to enable it to defend our values and
interests."
17."The EPP demands a determined application of the new
instruments which have been developed in the framework of Common Foreign and
Security Policy (CFSP)"
"It is therefore essential that the Union should in
future have an international legal personality"
A European seat at the UN
1. "The European Union needs a Common Foreign and
Security Policy to make it a political power capable of acting in accordance
with its values and common interests."
5. EU Member States which are permanent or temporary
members of the UN Security Council should not just represent themselves, but
deliberately and systematically promote EU policy."
A European seat at the IMF...
13. "To give the Currency Union a strong voice outside
the EU, the EPP calls for the President of the European Central Bank (ECB),
and the Commissioner responsible for currency questions, to be represented at
meetings of International Monetary Fund bodies."
...and at the WTO
19. "In the field of external economic relations, the
Union should be responsible for all issues being dealt with within framework
of the WTO and, as a general rule, the Commission should be endowed by the
Council and the European Parliament with general negotiating powers."
Integration of the WEU
18. "The EPP favours the integration into the EU of the
Western European Union (WEU). The WEU should become the defence element of the
Union and the European pillar of NATO."
"Whether or not to participate in such operations should
be a decision for each Member State, but the financial burden should be shared
by all Member States, and, at the end of this process, be included in the
budgetary procedure."
A common European income tax
The EPP wants to establish a federal budget within the EU; holding tax
raising powers:
Basic Programme 212–3. "The Union must be given all the
means necessary for the achievement of its objectives and the implementation
of its policies. It will therefore be given a federal–type budget with
sufficient resources managed on a "progressive" basis, taking into account the
relative prosperity of each member state. In this connection, the EPP is in
favour of a direct relationship between the European Community and the
taxpayer, thereby also giving the European Parliament direct responsibility
vis a vis the taxpayer."
A European police force
6. "Now that the Europol Convention has been ratified,
the remaining hurdles must be overcome to enable Europol to undertake the
tasks assigned to it. In due course, Europol should be accorded executive and
operational powers thereby making it possible to pursue crime effectively.
Europol should be financed from of the EU budget, and be subject to judicial
and democratic review by the Court of Justice and the European
Parliament."
13. "Consideration should be given to the establishment
of some kind of European public prosecutor for a limited number of
cross–border offences."
Enlargement
3. "They have to reform their fragile political systems
and create stable democracies based unambiguously on the rule of law; adopt
the principles of a market economy; settle regional conflicts; and establish
stable relations of mutual trust with neighbouring countries and with Europe
as a whole."
Citizens of Europe
9. "EU citizenship should be further developed as an
expression of a sense of belonging to, and identification with, the
Union."
A European Constitution
The EPP calls for a European Constitution incorporating a Bill of
Rights.
10. "As proposed by the Draft Constitution of the
European Parliament, the European Union needs a constitution in order to
define the specific decision–making processes of the different institutions of
the Union, and the competencies of the Union, individual Member States, and
regions, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity. Furthermore, this
Constitution must include a Bill of Rights which accords with the European
Convention on Human Rights."
Phasing out the veto
12. "The Council's legislative decisions must in
principle be taken by majority for a transitional period, decisions on changes
to the treaties, enlargement of the Union or increases in own resources should
continue to be adopted unanimously, and ratified by the Member States and by
the European Parliament."
"Furthermore, it is necessary to introduce a
re–weighting of votes within the Council. Alternatively double majority voting
should be introduced which takes Member States' relative population–size into
account."
"The co–decision procedure must apply to all fields of
European legislation, including agricultural policy."
Strengthening the Commission
13. "The EPP seeks a strong and independent European
Commission which continues to be the driving force behind the Union and one
which will grow into the genuine executive power of the Union. The Commission
is the guardian of the treaties and therefore represents the Union's
interests. It must be independent and retain the monopoly of legislative
initiative. The Commission ought, in the future, to further develop its
efficiency, effectiveness, and control of the financial interests of the
Union. Individual Commissioners must, as a matter of course, act only in the
interest of the Union as a whole. Once a re–weighting of votes in the Council
has been agreed, we wish to see all Member States represented by a maximum of
one Commissioner per state, as set out in the Institutional Protocol of the
Treaty of Amsterdam."
Strengthening the European Parliament
15. "In order to create equality between MEPs and to
avoid the existing distortions, a uniform and transparent statute for MEPs
should be approved by the Council, as developed by the European Parliament, in
accordance with the Treaty of Amsterdam."
BP236 "The European parliament must "have the final say
on constitutional and legislative matters."
A common voting system
16. "The European People's Party strongly believes in
the necessity of agreeing on common principles for an electoral law in time
for the 2004 European Elections."
European Political Parties
20. "The EPP strongly urges the implementation of
Article 138A of the Treaty of Maastricht (Article 191 of the Treaty of
Amsterdam) resulting in a broader development of European–wide political
parties, such as European support for better contacts with voters, policy
development, training and educational activities."
Uniform European Electoral Law
22. "The EPP undertakes to defend within the European
Parliament the principle of parity of representation of Europe's elected
representatives."
Cultural Identity
26. "To bring to life the cultural area common to
Europe's people"
Co–ordination of National Economic Policies
7. "The success of the economic and currency union will
largely be determined by the degree to which national finance and wage
policies are consistent with common monetary policy."
A European transport policy
16. "The common European transport policy is of central
importance for economic recovery and social cohesion in the EU. We need a
uniform growth–oriented and environmentally safe transport area in order to
make the internal market a reality and to promote economic growth and respect
for the environment."
19. "In order to achieve environmentally safer use of
the various modes of transport, the costs of using infrastructure must be
charged effectively and uniformly to the individual modes of transport in the
EU."
Trade Unions and Employers
12. "The EPP actively supports the legislature planning
for such dispositions, and calls upon the trade unions and employers'
organisations to reorganise their collective negotiations to ensure social
dialogue within the European Union."
Equality of Men and Women
9. "We propose a reduction in working time by taking a
whole career into account in the form of a time–credit, with the same model
applicable to everyone, which would be compulsory to take during a person's
working life, in consultation with the social partners."
10. "On the employment issue, the EPP will support all
measures which allow for suppressing effective discrimination against women in
recruitment practices, salary, and promotion."
12. "In education and training, the media plays a
decisive role in the transmission of values and the socio–cultural roles
attributed to men and women. Apart from the training of educators and teachers
(see Chapter V), the EPP demands that the European Union establish rules to be
respected by the media to ensure that they broadcast an image which values
women."
14. "The EPP attaches a special quality to Sundays as a
day for common meditation, family life and recreation for as many people as
possible."
Teachers qualifications
21. "The concepts of 'gender' and 'interculturalism'
must be integrated into the training programmes for teachers and
educators."
22. "Teacher–training must help to place teachers in a
framework of European citizenship and durable development."
Money–Laundering
14. "This will also involve surveillance of so–called
tax–havens on territories associated with the EU, and an examination of Member
States' legislation on banking secrecy."
A Common Immigration and Asylum Policy
1. "Agreed common regulations on immigration and asylum
in the European Union are of decisive importance to the European People's
Party."
2. "Divergent laws and procedures in the EU do not make
sense. The introduction of a common immigration and asylum policy is a
priority for the coming years."
Harmonising environmental policies
1. "The EPP emphasises the necessity for a common
European policy on the environment."
3. "On environmental issues, the Council in principle
decides by qualified majority. Where it does not, QMV should be
introduced."
4. "In this connection, the EPP supports complementing
environmental laws with voluntary agreements, and an energy tax harmonised on
a Europe–wide basis, one which does not affect the overall level of tax or
damage competition, and also environmental taxes."
An energy tax
11. "An energy tax harmonised on a European basis, and
based on the amount of CO2 emission, could be an instrument in achieving these
objectives."
Water
18. "The EPP commits itself to the development of a
common EU policy to protect water ... all in line with a future European
framework directive on water."
* * *
The EPP agenda and action plan is in short a blueprint for a
federal United States of Europe.
In the period after British entry into the EEC relations between
Conservative Party nominees and the Christian Democrats were described by
The Economist as being in 'bad shape'.12 Towards the end of the 1970s relations
improved as both groups invited each other to their meetings to give
presentations.
Political scientist Nigel Ashford identified four reasons why co–operation
was likely to be difficult. Firstly, the Christian Democratic parties take the
Christian element seriously and are thus suspicious of a secular Conservative
Party. Secondly, there has been a mis–interpretation on the Continent of the
word conservative as meaning fascist or reactionary. Thirdly, the Christian
Democrats have strong ties with Christian trade unionists. Fourthly, most of
the Christian Democratic parties have formed coalition governments with
socialist parties.13
The political scientist Andrew Gamble observes that "rationalist
Conservatism in the grand Continental manner has never flourished in the ranks
of the English Tories, who have generally preferred scepticism and philistine
common sense".14
A study prepared for the EPP highlighted the difference between the
traditions of Christian Democracy and the more market–orientated British
Conservatism:
"At best Anglo–American 'neo–liberal' conservatives
might accept the welfare state as politically unavoidable, a necessary evil.
Christian Democracy has a less enthusiastic view of the market and a more
benign conception of the state, which reflects the movement's fundamentally
different philosophical point of departure. For Christian Democracy, true
human fulfilment is the result of full development within an organic society,
not of complete individual success in an atomised society."15
Following the first direct election to the European Parliament in 1979, the
Conservative Party MEPs with a 60–member delegation, formed the European
Democratic Group (EDG) with the support of Danish and Spanish MEPs. Although
there were no formal ties with the EPP they co–operated closely.
The ranks of the EDG were severely depleted as the number of Conservative
MEPs elected in 1984 dropped to 45 and then subsequently fell to 32 after the
1989 election. The response to this decline in stature was for the remaining
Conservative MEPs to seek a fresh approach to relations within the European
Parliament and after the 1992 UK General Election they sought to formalise
relations with the European People's Party.
A European Democratic Group publication noted how the EDG had established
good working relations with other centre and centre–right political groups
stating:
"Of particular importance are the group's close links
with the largest of these groups, the Group of the European People's Party
(Christian Democrats). Joint meetings have been held with the EPP Group, and
the leaders and spokesmen of the two groups consult each other regularly on
matters arising both in committee and in plenary sessions."16
An early 1990s Conservatives in the European Parliament publication
prophetically claimed:
"There is a possibility that, before long, the group
will establish a formal link with the Christian Democrats while preserving its
own identity."17
The parliamentary re–alignment was presented less as a philosophical shift
than as a need to gain influence for the diminished band of Conservative MEPs,
although it was argued that the two had more in common than divided them.
Writing in the Conservative Party's own newspaper, the then Leader of the
Conservative MEPs, Christopher Prout, outlined why he believed the new
relationship to be appropriate. He said:
"Continental Christian Democrats occupy roughly the same
position on the political spectrum as the Conservative Party. Where there
seems to be division, it is often a question of vocabulary rather than
substance."18
Lord Beloff saw it differently:
"The Conservatives found themselves in an even more
difficult position since the British Conservative Party has no exact
continental counterparts. Efforts to build bridges with the German CDU and
other Christian Democratic parties ran into trouble since 'Christian
Democracy' has been and remained an essential in the continental coalition
prising for more rapid and far–reaching steps towards integration. The result
was that by the elections of June 1994 Conservative MEPs were from the
European Parliament's point of view members of the European People's Party
whose programme was the opposite of the goal of a looser Europe enunciated by
the Prime Minister, John Major".19
Not every member of the EPP were joyous at the prospect of the entry of
British Conservatives. The Dutch and the Belgians were opposed because of
lingering resentment to the UK's opposition to the Social Chapter and the
single currency. According to a leading academic on European affairs the
reason that the Conservative MEPs had been excluded from the EPP group was
because of:
"the perceived Euro–scepticism and over zealous economic
liberalism of the UK Conservative Government . . ."20
The lack of a formal role for religion within the Conservative party was
also regarded as one of the main obstacles to the Conservative MEPs joining
with the EPP.21 But the Financial Times
believed it knew why the EPP had previously been less than enthusiastic and
gave the responsibility for this situation to Margaret Thatcher:
"The Tory MEPs had little chance of being admitted to
the EPP Group so long as she was party Leader."22
Once she was gone the courting could begin, and following intense
negotiations (in which Conservative party Chairman, Chris Patten, played the
leading role) in April 1992 the EPP voted to accept the British application
for allied membership, and Conservative MEPs were formally welcomed into the
Group on 1st May 1992.
Conservative MEPs lavishly praised the link–up and Conservative group
leader, Christopher Prout referred to them as "friends". Their joy at the new
marriage is best captured in a Conservatives in the European parliament
publication explaining their work.
"The alliance with the European People's Party has given
the Conservatives a much stronger base in European politics. Whereas they used
to be fourth in the batting order they are now in the second largest group . .
. No longer "the lost tribe", as some journalists called them, the
Conservatives have a new effectiveness in working out joint policy with the
Christian Democrats. Some Conservative jibbed at the idea of a merger (and so
did some of the Christian Democrats!) but, as Sir Christopher Prout pointed
out, the two parties share a common approach to nearly all the political
issues of the day."23
Not everybody was so impressed with the new arrangements and the leading
euro–sceptic figure and former Conservative Party Chairman Lord Tebbit
exploded:
"The European People's Party is a federalist party; it
believes in a central European State in which Great Britain and the various
other parts of the Community would be provinces . . . Now that's totally and
completely unacceptable and yet our European Members of Parliament are allied
to the EPP."24
The beginnings of an exposure of the EPP agenda so worried Conservative
MEPs that a vigorous campaign was launched to rebut the charge that they were
committed to support the EPP policy. Christopher Prout wrote letters to UK
newspapers defending the loose arrangement of ties. According to Prout, the
MEPs were not guilty as charged. This was because they were only "allied
members of the European People's Party Parliamentary Group".25 To emphasise his point, he styled himself:
"Sir Christopher Prout, QC, MEP for Shropshire and Stafford (European
People's Party Parliamentary Group (Conservative))"
Whereas previously he had signed off as:
"European People's Party (Conservative)"
His successor as Leader of the Conservative MEPs was less particular in how
he styled himself. In the notes about the authors of a publication discussing
European themes in advance of another Inter–Governmental Conference, Tom
Spencer MEP is described as the "Chairman of the Conservatives in the
European Parliament (British Section of the European People's Party
Group)".26
A number of the Conservative MEPs were even less circumspect. Former
Conservative MEP Lord Bethell admitted that they had "agreed to accept" the
EPP policy agenda in full because "otherwise they would not have let us
in".27
At that time the EPP Leader Leo Tindemans was in no doubt that the
Conservative MEPs had signed up to the whole ideological package. His position
was underlined by an official:
"They are all members of the Christian Democrat party.
They agree that the policies and positions of the group are based on the
programmes of the European People's Party."28
Before the 1994 Election Mr Tindemans reminded the Conservative MEPs what
they had signed up for back in May 1992:
"The new members have individually signed their
acceptance of the rules and have subscribed to the fundamental policies of the
EPP action programmes adopted in 1988, as well as the final declaration of the
Dublin Congress in November 1990, which carried the title For a Federal
Constitution for the European Union."29
Working closely with the Conservative MEPs placated even the Dutch. The
Dutch Christian Democrat Jean Penders was initially distrustful but changed
his mind saying:
"they have more than lived up to their
promises."30
The 1994 European Elections presented more problems for the Conservative
MEPs in endeavouring to explain away the precise nature of their link with the
EPP. Fully aware that the MEPs would campaign on a separate British
Conservative manifesto, EPP President Wilfried Martens ruled out any attempts
by Conservative candidates to dissociate themselves from the EPP's own
manifesto and re–iterated how the manifesto would form the basis of a loyalty
test in the new Parliament. (The Guardian, 26th February 1994.) The
Times' Peter Riddell understood the situation to be that:
"While Tory MEPs have an opt–out from the EPP manifesto
commitments on the social chapter and monetary union, they will have to accept
other pledges of closer integration if they wish to remain within the EPP
grouping."31
The EPP Constitution is quite unequivocal on the position of allied members
and states:
"The Christian Democratic parties of the member
countries and their Group in the European Parliament make up the European
People's Party."32
It is certainly the case, however, that Conservative MEPs draw less of a
distinction between 'allied' and 'full' membership. For example, the
biographical details of all Conservative MEPs describe themselves simply as
member of the European People's Party (not Conservative or allied Members) on
the members directory of the official EPP parliamentary website. At the time
of the link up the Conservative MEPs were quite prepared to describe
themselves as being "now fully integrated with the EPP".33 In addition, the EPP was provided with an
office at Conservative Central Office, the Headquarters of the Conservative
Party.
Similarly, the Conservatives in the European Parliament's newsletter did
not shy away from publicising links with the EPP. Just why were some MEPs so
sensitive about the nature of their involvement in the EPP was never
explained. The furore over the exact relationship between the Conservative
MEPs and the EPP became so important that it was felt necessary to include a
lengthy explanation in the July 1995 Conservatives in the European Parliament
publication, 'A Guide to the British Section of the EPP Group'.
The relationship between the Conservative MEPs and the Party's Leadership
was very fraught whilst Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minster, reaching its
nadir during the 1989 European elections. Towards the end of her Premiership,
however, Mrs Thatcher held out an olive branch to her party's MEPs, whom she
had been accused of ignoring, by inviting them to meet with her early in 1990.
They, for their part, tried to play down differences with her over monetary
and political union, in order to persuade her that Norman Tebbit's charge they
were disposed to go native and desert Conservatism was wrong. Although only a
few would confess to being federalists, a number wanted to establish a unitary
central authority in Europe according to Shirley Robin Letwin.34
The likely tensions between MEPs and grassroots members over the merits and
purpose of the link up with the EPP was described by Anne Applebaum. She
opined that most MEPs "believe that to have any influence they must remain
allied to the Christian Democrat European Peoples Party" while many
ordinary members feel that "by joining this parliamentary alliance the
Tories will eventually be forced into some ghastly Euro–party led by Helmut
Kohl or some other Euro–politician, thereby losing their identity
altogether".35
From the start of the link–up with the EPP most Conservative activists were
suspicious of the relationship and one newspapers commentator relayed the
words of an EPP official of the prospects for a distinctive British
Conservative voice:
"They will be subsumed," said one official sonorously,
implying that Tory ideology, at least in Strasbourg, was about to be swallowed
up by the centrist Christian Democrats . . ."36
The fear of the grassroots was that Conservative MEPs might go native. Tony
Marlow probably spoke for many when he said: "most of the Tory members at
Strasbourg are Euro–fanatics".37
Most MEPs have denied such claims. There does seem to have been a
difference between their rhetoric in Britain, at election time and during
candidate selection procedures, and with their actions within the European
Parliament.
Lord Beloff stated:
"But the growing impatience of the Euro–sceptics in the
British Conservative Party made it difficult to fight a convincing when many
of its candidates for the European Parliament were on the party's other wing.
The European People's Party added to these difficulties by drafting a strongly
federalist manifesto, including the social chapter, though it was stated that
their associates, the British Conservative MEPs, were not bound by it. How
MEPs could act in opposition to the grouping of which they formed part was not
clear.
"The surviving Conservative MEPs were to provide with
some exceptions a continued irritant to the party as a whole, tending to treat
themselves as the voice of Brussels at Westminster rather than the reverse, as
was shown in the course of the Party Conference in October 1995."38
Electoral euro–sceptic trimming and vote seeking by many European
parliamentary candidates has not allayed all worries. There is still a
suspicion that once elections are out of the way, then elected MEPs will
revert to character and resume their love–in with advocates of a federal
Europe. The present leader of Conservative MEPs, Edward McMillan–Scott, has
warned candidates that life in the European Parliament is different to that at
Westminster. "I hope they know what they are doing. This is a very
different institution which is less confrontational than the
Commons."39
It is impossible for the present Leadership to pretend it is in sympathy
with the thrust of the EPP policy agenda. Some Conservative MEPs may oppose
any severing of the ties, either for philosophical reasons or the more base
desire to have the trappings of a large parliamentary grouping.
For example, the EPP's favoured candidate for Commission President Romano
Prodi rejected the a la carte Europe sought by William Hague.
Conservative Youth sections have previously disassociated themselves from
their Christian Democrat equivalents. In 1994 The National Young Conservative
disaffiliated from DEMYC and established a grouping of European Young
Conservatives. In a publication distributed at the 1995 National Young
Conservative Annual Conference an article about the first birthday of the
European Young Conservatives claimed that the organisation is the only
organisation in Europe committed to uniting young people around the banner of
Conservatism. It looked forward to the day when the respective senior parties
would similarly join together and called for Tory MEPs to "end their
shameful links with the Christian Democrats".40
In the last two years Conservative youth organisations have also refused to
join the Young European People's Party (YEPP) the youth section of the EPP.
Very recently Conservative Future, the Conservative Party's new Youth
organisation, dissented from a manifesto of the European Democratic Students.
Their noted objection demonstrates the fundamental division between British
Conservatism and continental Christian Democracy:
"Conservative Future is unable to endorse a document
that supports further European integration and surrendering of national
sovereignty, and, as such, does not support this manifesto."41
Conservative MEPs would not be the first to have left the EPP. Ulster
Unionist Party MEP Jim Nicholson switched to the Europe of Nations Group in
December 1996 after what he described as "careful deliberation" on key
European issues. His website states his precise reasons for leaving:
"For some time he has been concerned that the European
people's Party on its determination to achieve a single currency and a
centralised European government has started to out run the wishes of the
people in various member states. The Ulster Unionist Party has supported the
European Union as an entity for economic co–operation and trade. It is opposed
to the creation of an European Super State, which since Maastricht has become
the overriding objective for the EPP."42
The same principles that guide and shape the attitudes of youth sections of
the Conservative Party (and of James Nicholson) apply to their seniors. They
have challenged the fundamental nature of the feasibility of relations between
British Conservatism and continental Christian Democracy. After such soul
searching they have severed relations. A formal relationship between the group
of Conservative MEPs and the EPP seems equally erroneous.
Table 1. The differences between the EPP and the
Conservative Party
| EUROPEAN PEOPLE'S PARTY | THE CONSERVATIVES |
|---|
| THE EURO | "We have already taken a great step
forward towards European integration by introducing the Single Currency." EPP
Manifesto | "We will oppose entry into the single currency." CP
Manifesto |
| INCREASED MAJORITY VOTING | "The Council procedure
of unanimous voting must gradually be restricted." EPP Basic
Programme | "We will oppose... and further erosion of the British veto."
CP Manifesto |
| TAXATION POLICY | The EPP wants to establish a
federal budget for the EU and the harmonisation of income tax | The
Conservatives are opposed to the equalisation of taxes across the
EU. |
| DEFENCE | "The EPP favours the integration into
the EU of the Western European Union (WEU). The WEU should become the defence
element of the Union and the European pillar of NATO." EPP Action
Plan | NATO should remain the bedrock of British security. The EU does
not need its own army." CP Manifesto |
| CRIME | "We want to reinforce judicial
co-operation to create a genuine area of freedom, security, and justice. Only
an effective European police force is in a position to fight the scourge of
international crime." EPP Manifesto | "We will oppose resolutely moves
towards the creation of a Europe-wide criminal justice system." CP
Manifesto |
| TRANSPORT | The EPP believes in a common transport
policy. | The Conservatives will oppose moves to harmonise road charges
and other transport tariffs. |
| IMMIGRATION | "We call for the harmonisation of
European legislation in the areas of asylum and immigration, with uniform
criteria at all European borders." EPP Manifesto | "We will resist any
attempt to develop a common immigration policy for the EU as a whole." CP
Manifesto |
| BUDGET | The EPP wants to see the European federal
budget increased and "fairer" contributions from member states. | "We
will seek to reduce the size of the EU budget... and to reduce the British net
contribution." CP Manifesto |
| INSTITUTIONAL REFORM | The EPP firmly believes in
the principle of acquis communitaire and ever-closer
union. | "Government must have greater freedom in deciding which other
aspects of EU poloicy they adopt." CP Manifesto |
| ENVIRONMENT | The EPP emphasises the need for a
common European policy on the environment including common policies on energy
and water. | William Hague outlined at Budapest his vision of an a la
carte Europe. |
| EMPLOYMENT | The EPP supports the Social Chapter,
wants legislation on the equality of men and women and further regulations on
working life. | Conservatives want to see red tape and bureaucracy
reduced. |
A continued formal relationship between Conservative MEPs and the European
Peoples party would be ludicrous. Their respective manifestos for the 1999
European parliamentary elections are completely at odds with each other. The
Conservative manifesto proposed a wider Europe of sovereign nation states
co–operating freely whilst the EPP manifesto wants concrete action to create a
deeper, fully integrated federal Europe.
For its MEPs to retain credibility the Conservative Party must now sever
all formal links with the EPP. What can be the point of sitting in a group for
"influence" when you do not agree with it? Perhaps, according to this
argument, Conservative MEPs should actually be sitting with the Party of
European Socialists who, before the 1999 European Elections, are an even
bigger grouping.
It is not even true that Conservative MEPs will be bolstering the
centre–right in Europe by sitting with the EPP. The EPP is explicitly and
avowedly a party of the Centre. The Christian Democratic tradition is
completely alien to British Conservatism. Once they have disengaged
Conservatives would still be free to vote with members of the European
People's Party on issues on which they are agreed; but given the huge gulf
between their expressed aims whether this would happen in practice is a moot
point.
Claims that the Conservative MEPs are only an associated grouping do not
stand up to argument. On the official EPP website British Conservative MEPs
are not listed as Conservatives or even as associated EPP members but are
listed simply as European People's Party members. James Provan MEP is listed
as Vice Chairman of the EPP.
Neither can Conservative candidates claim that they will not be bound by
the EPP manifesto. The action plan for 1999–2004 is exactly that; an action
plan for the group to follow throughout the next parliament. Why call it an
action plan if there is no plan to take any action?
William Hague has successfully internally reformed and democratised his
party. He must now show strong leadership in Europe. It should not be for the
MEPs to decide whom they should sit with but for their party leadership. The
leader and Shadow Cabinet should determine Party affiliations. This has been
universally accepted by MEPs. The choice is to display self confidence in the
Conservative Party and its programme or to acquiesce in some bizarre attempt
at influence by cozying up to those with completely opposite stated aims and
intentions.
There are three viable and relatively attractive options open to the
Conservative Party. Firstly a possible attraction is to found a new grouping
of MEPs around their professed vision of a Europe of sovereign nation states.
Under the terms of the Amsterdam Treaty, which no longer permits MEPs of any
one country to form a grouping, only 23 members are needed to form a group if
they come from two member states , only 18 members if they come from three
member states and only 14 members if they come from four or more member
states. The European parliament can only legislate by an absolute majority of
all its members. So, in other words, it does not really matter who sits with
whom, since all the big groups must agree for anything important to happen.
There are logistical advantages to being part of a smaller group such as more
speaking time and better control of one's own press officers.
Secondly the Conservatives could join the Europe of Nations Group which has
long since functioned effectively. This is an admirable grouping of mainly
Scandinavian and French MEPs. James Nicholson, the Ulster Unionist, is also a
member. Finally Conservatives could join some sort of Gaullist coalition with
like minded MEPs (mainly French) from other member states.
The words of a Times newspaper editorial are as equally true today
as they were at the start of the 1994–99 European Parliament:
"British Tories need no longer feel isolated or
compelled to remain allied to the European People's party grouping for the
purposes of respectability."43
It is now time for divorce and an end to this distinctly unlikely and
unhappy marriage. There are members from other countries who share
Conservative philosophy and its vision of future European co–operation. who
would make more fitting partners. If the Conservative party is not to appear
split over Europe, if William Hague's leadership is to be accepted and his
programme enthusiastically supported , Conservative MEPs must willingly
support official Conservative party policy and only form alliances with
similarly minded groups. The choice is clear. Continue to affiliate to a
grouping from an alien tradition with alternative and opposite beliefs. Or
represent the views overwhelmingly endorsed by the Conservative grass roots,
its MPs and its Leader. Whatever the alternatives the time has come to bid the
EPP goodbye.
- Speech at the EPP 8th Annual Congress in 1988 as
quoted in Thomas Jansen, European People's Party: Origins and
Development, Macmillan, 1998.
- Speech in the Ceremonial Hall, Budapest University,
Budapest on 13th May 1999
- Jansen, ibid
- Martin Ball, The Conservative Conference and
Euro–Sceptical Motions 1992–95, Bruges Group Occasional Paper No.23,
1996
- Jansen, ibid
- Conservative Party European Election Manifesto,
1999
- The Basic Programme of the EPP (its central tenets and
guiding principles), 1992
- EPP Official Publication 1983
- Jansen, ibid
- Jansen, ibid
- EPP Manifesto, 1999
- The Economist, August 1976
- Nigel Ashford, Chapter in Zig Layton–Henry (ed),
Conservative Party Politics, Macmillan, 1980.
- Andrew Gamble, The Conservative Nation,
Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1974
- C. Clemens, Christian Democracy: The Different
Dimensions of a Modern Movement, Brussels 1989
- Guide to the European Democratic Group,
1989
- Your watch–dogs in Europe, Conservatives in the
European Parliament
- Conservative Newsline, May 1992
- Lord Beloff, Britain and the European Union:
Dialogue of the Deaf, Macmillan press, 1996
- Neill Nugent, The Government and Politics of the
European Union, Third Edition, Macmillan, 1994
- Peter Cattrall "The party and religion" in Anthony
Seldon & Stuart Ball (eds.), Conservative Century: The Conservative Party
since 1900, Oxford University Press, 1994
- Financial Times, 8th April 1992
- At the Heart of Europe, Conservatives in the
European Parliament, July 1993
- BBC TV's On the Record, 24th October 1993
(cited in Adrian Lee, "Time to terminate Tory Euro–marriage", Freedom Today,
August 1996)
- The Times, 22nd October 1993
- Perspectives on the 1996 IGC, Conservatives in
the European Parliament, October 1995
- "Confessions of a True Blue 'Federast'", The
Daily Telegraph, 27th April 1992
- "Tory CDs with the Social Chapter Blues", The
Sunday Telegraph, 18th July 1993
- The Sunday Telegraph, 13th March 1994
- BBC TV's On the Record, 24th October
1993
- The Times>, 1st March 1994
- EPP Constitution
- Press Statement by Conservative MEPs upon joining the
EPP in May 1992
- Shirley Robin Letwin, The Anatomy of
Thatcherism, Fontana, 1992
- Anne Applebaum, "Torture a Tory: Make him an MEP",
The Spectator, 7th May, 1994.
- Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph, 8th
April 1992
- The Sunday Telegraph, 23rd August 1998
- Lord Beloff, ibid
- The Times, 22nd October 1997
- Campaigner No.9, Magazine of the National
Young Conservatives, 1995
- Footnote to the EDS Manifesto for the Euro
Elections
- Website of James Nicholson MEP
- The Times, 19th July 1994
Website Addresses
- European People's Party
(European Parliamentary Group) www.europarl.eu.int/ppe
- European People's Party www.evppe.org
- James Nicholson MEP www.uup.org
- Europe of Nations www.eusceptic.org
- European Democratic Students www.edsnet.org
- Conservative Party www.conservative–party.org
Further reading on the nature of Christian Democracy
- David Hanley (ed.), Christian Democracy in Europe: a comparative
perspective, 1994
- R. E. M. Irving, The Christian Democratic Parties of Western
Europe, 1979
- Emiel Lamberts (eds.), Christian Democracy in the European Union,
Leuven, 1997
- Francis Jacobs (ed.), Western European Political Parties, Harlow,
1989
- Simon Hix & Christopher Lord, Political Parties in the European
Union, Basingstoke, 1997
- John Gaffrey (ed.), Political Parties and the European Union,
1996
- R. Jackson, Tradition and Reality: Conservative Philosophy and
European Integration, The European Democratic Group
- Nigel Ashford, 'The political parties', in Stephen George (ed.)
Britain and the European Community: The Politics of Semi–Detachment,
Clarendon Press, 1992
| 
