Re-joining the EPP is the best way to protect British interests

I've been out of the country for a few days so I missed the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the humiliation of David Cameron which followed. Despite squirming as the cast-iron guarantee of a referendum turned to rust with astonishing speed, he appears to have emerged relatively unscathed. As Jackie Ashley says, the Labour party is now in such a mess that it can't land a punch on David Cameron, even when has so obviously made an arse of himself.

Of course, the situation in which the Tories now find themselves has been predictable for some time. Once the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by all member states a referendum was pointless. Mr Cameron gave his cast iron guarantee as a sop to the Europhobes in his party, hoping, like Mr Micawber, that something would turn up, in the form of a rejection by another EU state, which would allow him to stage his referendum. When pressed on the obvious what-if scenario of all the other EU countries ratifying the treaty, the Tories could only respond with a weak promise not to let matters rest.

David Cameron may be a lot of things but he isn't stupid. He knew that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would kill his referendum. The treaty is now a done deal and it can't be amended without the agreement of all member states. There is nothing left to have a referendum about.

That hasn't stopped the Europhobes in the Tory Party demanding one though. Like spoilt children, they are threatening to stand in the middle of the shop, stamping their feet, screaming and screaming until they get what they think they were promised. Not that it's clear what such a referendum would actually be about. At the moment the working title seems to be Britain's relationship with Europe. I'd like to see them draft a simple referendum question on that.

Mr Cameron is trying to offer them some other sweeties to keep them quiet but these are just as vapid as his not-letting-matters-rest promise. His proposed sovereignty bill would simply confirm what already exists. The Telegraph's Bruno Waterfield dismisses it as a "symbolic crowd pleaser". It would be a farcical waste of Parliamentary time.

Most boneheaded of all, though, must be David Cameron's desertion of his mainstream conservative allies in Europe in favour of a fringe grouping of eccentrics and no-hopers. Whether or not these characters are Nazi sympathisers is irrelevant. Even if they were a well-meaning and principled bunch, they would still be powerless outsiders. The group is inherently unstable. Five of its component parties only have one MEP. It would only take two of them to leave the group, or to decide they don't want to be MEPs any more, and the whole grouping would fall short of the minimum requirements for a European Parliament Group, thus depriving the Tories of what little influence they have left.

Now, more than ever, it is crucial for Britain's governing party to have influence at the European Union's top tables. Even those who have looked at it closely find the Lisbon Treaty confusing. No-one is really sure what it will mean in the longer term. Like all sets of rules and regulations, the subsequent interpretation will determine how it comes to be applied in practice. That interpretation will happen through the usual EU horse-trading processes and, increasingly, in the European Parliament. The people likely to have the most influence over this process are those in the European People's Party, the group from which David Cameron has just walked away.

We don't know what Europe will be like in ten years time, when we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, but we can be sure that it will have been shaped by people like Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Donald Tusk, together with their allies in the European Parliament. If David Cameron really wants to protect British interests he should ignore the tantrums of the Europhobes and go back to join the grown-ups in the EPP; the people who will make the real decisions about where Europe goes next.

Comments

[Asterix]

Steve,

A few things:

1) a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would not be pointless as it would strengthen the hand of any future govt. that wished to withdraw unilaterally from the EU.

2) there are no Europhobes, as you call them in the Conservative Party; though there are so-called Eurosceptics, which is a misnomer because no-one is actually 'sceptical' of the continent; just the EU and its institutions.

3) the EPP is a federalist grouping 'The EPP is committed to European integration, based on the principle of subsidiarity', and a political party opposed to a federal Europe on principle and the shibboleth of subsidiarity in particular is unlikely to be able to influence such a large pan-European party such as the EPP from the inside.

4) your penultimate paragraph is twaddle, demonstrating that you haven't read the requisite information on the Europarl's function and have not seen the reality in pratice.

[Steve]

Astrix - you've just contradicted yourself there. You say there are no Europhobes (or EU-phobes if you must) but say that the rationale behind a refurendum on the Lisbon Treaty would be to strengthen the hand of a government wishing to withdraw from the EU. Sounds to me like that's the real agenda of those calling for the referendum.

Integration, based on the principle of subsidiarity is what has been going on for the past thirty years or so. You can't have a single market and a trading bloc without some form of integration. British governments have worked within that framework for the past three decades.

If my penultimate paragraph is twaddle can you please explain how cutting the future UK government off from the other mainstream conservative politicians in the EU is going to help our national interests.

Since you have set yourself up as someone who knows so much more than me about the workings of the EU, I'm expecting your reply to be really good.

[Asterix2]

Steve,

**you've just contradicted yourself there**

There's nothing 'mental' about wishing to be free of the tentacles of the EU and its institutions. I love travelling in Europe and speaking European languages, but just because I reject the concept of pan-European federalism does not make me, or anyone else for that matter dislike the continent.

**Sounds to me like that's the real agenda of those calling for the referendum.**

One thing that Lisbon does provide for is the opportunity to secede from the EU, as Greenland did from the EC. The vast majority of those proposing eventual withdrawal from the EU would do so on the understanding that this would be the only mechanism whereby the UK could recalibrate its relationship with mainland Europe.

**Integration, based on the principle of subsidiarity is what has been going on for the past thirty years or so.**

Not quite. Subsidiarity only became an issue once the Treaty on EU was signed, before this, the EC was a de jure trading bloc. However, precisely because subsidiarity is impossible to qualify or quantify, and partly because of the process of bureaucratisation, the Commission has formed a legislative 'straightjacket' wherein the domestic politicians and their civil servants have been in effect rewarded for their zealotry in transposing directives and furthering the cause of a federal Europe. The spirit of sibsidiarity will be further eroded now that the Council formally becomes an EU institution.

**You can't have a single market and a trading bloc without some form of integration.**

Why ever not? NAFTA, to give but one example, has not led to a federal superstate, and nor has it led to the degree of trade diversion and other market distortions consonant with the EU.

**British governments have worked within that framework for the past three decades.**

No. Subsidiarity only became an issue upon the creation of the EU in '92.

**If my penultimate paragraph is twaddle can you please explain how cutting the future UK government off from the other mainstream conservative politicians in the EU is going to help our national interests.**

Well, to put it simply, you seem to be acting under the misapprehension that the Europarl is a legislature, with adversarial political parties, whips and such like. This is not at all the case and, where the Europarl does help to 'shape' EU legislation, the reality is that there is far less internal dissent and cross-party consensus building than we see at Westminster.

If I defined the Conservatives acting in 'the national interest' as providing an effective check on the powers of the executive, then leaving the EPP has had absolutely no deletrious effects on 'the national interest'. Perhaps you could point out an occasion when the Conservatives' formal presence in the EPP could be shown to have been in our 'national interest'?

**Since you have set yourself up as someone who knows so much more than me about the workings of the EU, I'm expecting your reply to be really good.**

Now, now. You've taken umbrage at my use of the word 'twaddle' and inferred that 'I know more than you' and hence must be 'an expert'. There's a logical error in there somewhere, but suffice to say that I'm not an expert - who is? what with the Byzantine nature of EU governance. I may very well know more than you, but that does not qualify me as an expert, old thing...what!

[Greg. Tingey]

"Once the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by all member states a referendum was pointless"

NO

A British government can witdraw from or retract its siganature from ANY treaty, provided a Parliament so votes.
Precedent - the peace of Amiens, if nothing else.

A NO vote at a referendum, would certainly send shock-waves through the corrupt Euro-Elite.
Wouldn't that be "luverley" ??

[Steve]

Come on Asterix, the EU is not a federal superstate and the chances of it becoming one are extremely remote. As for NAFTA, even with its limited trade agreements it still has a central court for dealing with disputes and its members agree to be bound by its decisions. So even here there is some agreement to be bound by an external judgement. You can't even have enforceable trade agreements without some supra-national body to enforce the rules. If you go much further, as the EU has done, and have a single market, then yby definition you need common institutions to make it work.

As for the EU Commission, its directives are passed by the Council of Ministers from the member states. That is why it is crucial to build alliances with other member states if Britain wants to block something or get something through. Being in a formal allienace of conservative leaders would give us a lot more clout. Sure, the EPP doesn't operate formally outside the European Parliament but the alliances between parties inside the parliament reinforce the informal aliances outside it. That's why the EPP leaders (or the leaders of the parties represented in the EPP, if you must) had a pre-meeting before the last European Council meeting - one from which, next time, future PM Cameron will be excluded.

If we are going to quit the EU, which seems to be what you want, then there is no point in building these alliances.

If we are going to stay in, which most people, and even the majority of Tory MPs, think we should, then it makes no sense to isolate ourselves from powerful allies in the decision making process. The Tory party was part of what is now the most influential political bloc in Europe. It has thrown that trump card away to appease the EU-phobes in its own ranks. It is sheer madness.