Tories/UUP now as tight as arse-cheeks…

25 05 2009
Tucker presses the flesh

Tucker presses the flesh


Just had a squint at the UUP/Tory European Manifesto. Naturally enough you would expect a dose of scepticism. There is some of that in here (particularly around Lisbon Treaty) but there is a surprising amount that could keep a reasonable pro-European happy.

 Consider this bit:

‘The economic benefits are also profound: trade between the UK and the ten countries that joined the EU in 2004 increased by almost 400 per cent between 1992 and 2005, ten times the rate of growth in trade between the UK and the rest of the world. Our MEPs will support the further enlargement of the EU, including to the Ukraine, Belarus, Turkey, Georgia and the countries of the Balkans, if they wish to achieve EU membership, however distant that prospect may be in some cases.

‘We will resist efforts to set target dates for future members or to draw up a ‘final border’ for the EU. As an interim measure, applicant countries should be able to participate in the EU’s Neighbourhood Policy, without that being seen as a potential alternative to EU membership.’

This looks like a constructive and positive outlook on the power and influence of the EU. (Though some of the thinking behind this might be more strategic. The Ukraine enlargement in particular would draw the EU into direct confrontation with Russia over energy issues… erm, wouldn’t it? I’d be interested in Chekov’s take on this bit.)

But as a concept surrounding broadening the fellowship of nations and promoting shared values and exploiting opportunities, then I like the look of this.

There’s lots of other stuff in the manifesto, but I’m only going to lift out the few things that struck me as I skimmed through.

  • Problem: MEPs too distant from, and unaccountable to, their constituents.
  • Solution: review the European voting system to consider how individual MEPs can be more closely linked to individual constituencies, while respecting the required element of proportionality.


  • Problem: EU budget spends too much on old priorities, in particular agriculture and regional funding,
  • Solution: shift spending to dealing with the new challenges Europe faces. eg. Up to £1billion every year could be saved, including proposing to abolish the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, and removing all subsidies for tobacco farmers.


  • Problem: Brussels suffers a lack of transparency.
  • Solution: All Conservative MEPs have signed up to ‘right to know’ regime, making them subject to most rigorous disclosure regime of their expenses of any national delegation in the European Parliament.

They’ve also come up with a series of regional and national committees to take some of the shine off gold-plating. 

In the UK, we will examine carefully proposals for joint committees of MPs, MEPs and Peers, and in the devolved Parliament and Assemblies joint committees of MSPs, MLAs or Assembly Members and MEPs, to oversee the implementation of EU laws and guard against ‘gold-plating’.

Opposing gold-plating is one thing, but I’d be concerned if these committees turned out to be little administrative oubliettes designed to cripple EU legislation. And if one regional committee was more effective at opposing ‘gold-plating’ than another, then isn’t there a danger that this system could produce inequalities and create ‘sinks’ where gold-plating burdens linger on? The success of these committee could vary depending on the quality of the participants.

So I understand (and agree with) the motives behind this, but I would like to see more detail on how this could work in practice.

This manifesto also links EU governance with the expenses row. I think that’s overplayed. I’m not sure that the proposition of electing fallible human beings to a place that’s corrupt and corrupting is such a smart line to take (given the moat-cleaning activities of certain Tory MPs). But the Tories have pledge to go to Brussels in a crusade to clean it up – so having creating this bugbear, they’d better bloody well slay it. Let’s see how they go about doing it.

Overall? I can find enough in this to justifiably conclude that the Tories are no longer bonkers about Europe. Moreover, through this document, you could see how the integration/partnership between these two parties is more steadfast/seamless than ever. Don’t think you could squeeze a rizla between them now. Or, in the words of Malcom Tucker, ‘they’re as tight as arse cheeks’.

On the basis of this document, the ‘new force’ looks very good on paper…




3 responses

25 05 2009

I was interested to hear Hague this morning emphasise enlargement to include Turkey and some of the Balkan countries, rather than mentioning Ukraine, Georgia and so on (which obviously are mentioned in the manifesto). I have a little concern about it, but there is an acknowledgement that the countries themselves may not seek membership any time soon. The partnership agreement accepted eventual membership as an aspiration relatively recently. Even Belarus was included in that conference! Whilst Russia shouldn’t be able to dictate the political course of countries which used to be in the Soviet Union it’s my feeling that a little more sensitivity to political strains within those nations needs to be exhibited. I believe that some Conservative voices are beginning to take a more nuanced approach to the current Georgian regime, for instance. The enlargement as a bulwark against federalism tactic is effective to an extent, but it needs to be handled with extreme care.

25 05 2009

Incidentally. I fully expect a different president in Ukraine within the next year, which is likely to change the complexion of politics there and tilt power towards the Rada. So the impetus towards Nato membership and EU integration could well be slowing up.

26 05 2009

Cheers Chekov. Very useful insight. We’re in an age where the noble art of diplomacy has never been more in demand. While some areas of concern (N Korea) will likely only be decided upon by having Slim Perkins riding a warhead bareback to the earth Dr Strangelove-stylee, others (Russia) require a certain circumspection. I’m not sure how circumspect that Tory manifesto was in terms of Russia etc, or perhaps that was the point. We’ll see how things play out after June 4!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: