East Midlands Conservatives Launch European Parliamentary Campaign in Lincoln

The Conservatives' launched their East Midlands European Parliamentary Campaign today in Lincoln. 

Grant Shapps MP, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, joined the party's has five candidates, Emma McClarkin MEP, Andrew Lewer, Rupert Matthews, Stephen Castens and Brendan Clarke-Smith who are looking for victory in the election on Thurdsay, 22nd May 2014.  Also in attendance were several of the county's Members of Parliament - Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough), Karl McCartney MP (Lincoln) as well as Mark Simmonds MP (Boston & Skegness); together with local councillors and activists.

Mr. Shapps said that only by voting Conservative can people take part in a referendum on Britain’s place in Europe.

“Most people did not get a say in the last referendum on Europe in the 70s, which people thought was about joining the Common Market. It is time to give people a proper say. 

“A referendum means voting Conservative.”

Emma McClarkin MEP, commenting on the rise of UK Independence Party, said:

“We are fighting this election every step of the way. The reality is UKIP has no MPs, no power and no plans for the future.”

The press launch was well attended by numerous local media outlets. Despite the damp weather a large body of candidates and activists headed from the Lincoln Hotel on Eastgate, to Castle Square and then down Steep Hill, on to the High Street, in what was described by one organiser as a 'Mob-Canvass'.

Statement by Rupert Matthews on the Defection of Roger Helmer MEP to UKIP

After Roger Helmer's announcement last October that he was to retire as an MEP his successor was to be Rupert Matthews. Following Roger Helmer's new announcement that he is to defect to UKIP instead this will not now happen.

Rupert Matthews said:

"I am shocked and disappointed at Roger Helmer’s decision to betray his public promises to the people of the East Midlands and his private promises to his colleagues. 

"Since Roger announced that he was standing down as the MEP, many people in the East Midlands have spent a considerable amount of time and effort in preparing for Roger’s retirement, my taking his place in Brussels and the unavoidable upheavals that this would have entailed. I myself was looking forward very much to representing the people of the East Midlands and the Conservative Party in the European Parliament. It is unfortunate that all this time and effort has been rendered useless by Roger’s actions.  

"I wish to make it clear that I have no intention of following Roger to UKIP and that I will continue to serve the Conservative Party as loyally as I have in the 28 years since I joined the party. I will be working hard to ensure the return of Conservative candidates in the local elections in May and at the next European Election in 2014."

Roger Helmer MEP Defects to UKIP

Roger Helmer MEP (Right) with the Leader of the United
Kingdom Independence Party, Nigel Farage MEP (Left)

Roger Helmer MEP has announced that he is leaving the Conservative Party and joining the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).  

Mr. Helmer has been an Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands region since 1999, having been re-elected in 2004 and again in 2009.  He has made his concerns over Conservative policy very public in recent months.  He made his announcement at UKIP’s Spring Conference in Skegness. Commenting on his decision, Mr. Helmer said:

“The fact is that UKIP represents the values and convictions of East Midlands Conservatives much better than Cameron’s Tory Party does.  I believe I can do a better job representing those views and interests as a member of UKIP than I could in the Tory Party.  The European project is collapsing before our eyes, yet the three main parties remain wedded to the Brussels dream.  UKIP is the only party which is ahead of the curve on this issue, and on other issues as well”.

In a letter to his former colleagues in the Conservative Party Mr. Helmer writes:

Local Conservatives Welcome Rupert Matthews

Rupert Matthews, who has been part of the Roger Helmer succession sage, was welcomed yesterday to a supper club event hosted by the Gainsborough Constituency Conservative Association.

Mr. Matthews revealed the shock he had when he opened his front door to discover the senior Political Correspondent from Channel 4 News, Michael Crick, with a film crew, on his door step earlier in the week. Although one diner commented:

"It just shows what a slow news day it was; probably explains why I haven't watched Channel 4 News in three or four years."

Despite having written a number of books about the paranormal Mr. Matthews was unable to divine the future and predict if he would succeed Roger Helmer any time soon. Instead Mr. Matthews concentrated his comments, to his audience, on the European Union's history, providing a fascinating insight into the historical perspectives that are driving the European Project forward.

Mr. Matthews is an engaging public speaker who entertained those present with wit, knowledge and charm.

Roger Helmer: Futile Sacrifices

Roger Helmer is a European Conservatives & Reformists Group Member of the European  Parliament, elected as a Conservative to represent the East Midlands Region.

Roger writes:

They say that the Incas used to perform frequent human sacrifices to the sky gods, with the objective of praying for rain and preventing droughts. These sacrifices were accompanied by horrific and grotesque rituals and cruelty. If, despite these excesses, the drought came anyway, then the priests advised the people that there had been insufficient sacrifices, so more and more citizens should be slaughtered to appease the gods.

Usually, this seemed to work, the drought ended, and the credibility of the priests was enhanced (just as sick people mostly get better, and in olden times this might be taken as proof that the medicine worked -- in the days before double-blind trials).

East Midlands MEP Does Not Support Creation of European Diplomatic Service, Whilst Colleagues Vote For It.

Mr. Roger Helmer MEP, Conservative (East Midlands), today commented on recent activites of the European Parliament saying:

"Not me, Guv. I voted 'NO'."

Rt. Hon. William Hague MP, Foreign Secretary gave instructions to the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the European Parliament, in which the Conservatives' MEPs sit, were decisive in securing a crucial positive vote on the European External Action Service (EEAS).

Without a decisive call by United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary, Rt. Hon. William Hague MP, to his fellow party members in the European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR), whose members were elected on an anti-federalist ticket, the EEAS would probably not have got off the ground.

The Parliament voted on Thursday, 8th July on a decision to establish the European External Action Service, a new European Union's diplomatic corps that will be led by EU foreign policy chief Baroness Catherine Ashton.

To the surprise of many observers – including some ECR group members – the EEAS proposal was approved, in part thanks to the support of MEPs from the European Conservatives and Reformists group.

Mr. Charles Tannock MEP, foreign affairs spokesman for the ECR group, said:

"We were opposed to the creation of the EEAS but we are now reconciled to engaging constructively within the new architecture in the best interests of our countries."

He argued that some changes introduced to the proposal had made it acceptable to the Conservatives.

"I welcome that Mr [Elmar] Brok, [a German centre-right MEP] as rapporteur, has included my amendment in his text, which supports national parliamentary involvement. This is crucial to ensuring that the new service is subject to proper democratic scrutiny."

Ms Ulrike Lunacek MEP, an Austrian Green, said that without the ECR group's support, the decision would have been postponed until the autumn, allowing EU member states more time to bargain for amendments to dilute the text, or fight for positions of influence in the future EU organisation.

"Without the ECR we wouldn't have achieved it."

Lunacek explained how some MEPs from the ECR group had seemed confused following the vote after being told to vote in favour of a text which they had previously attacked.

Until days ago, leading MEPs were saying that more time would be needed for the political groups to digest a compromise deal on the proposal reached in Madrid. They were categorical in saying that the vote on approving Ashton's proposals would take place after the summer recess.

However, on Thursday, 8th July, European parliamentarians overwhelmingly voted to set up the EEAS, by 549 votes to 78. Only MEPs from the left-wing Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) and the right-wing, Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group (EFD) voted against the proposal.

Asked to comment on the political importance of William Hague's move, Lunacek said:

"This is something I wouldn't have expected from Mr. Hague, so I really appreciate that. I hope this augurs for a more pro-European stance, in the Council especially. Being in government together with the Lib Dems hopefully helps somewhat. That's a positive sign."

Mr. Guillaume McLaughlin, a policy adviser from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) group, said a few more obstacles had to be overcome before the vote could be held. The first was an internal division within the centre-right European People's Party group, with Polish Conservative MEP Jacek Sariusz-Wolski pushing for more 'geographical balance,' meaning fairer representation of Eastern Europeans in the future diplomatic service.

This view was opposed by leading European People's Party (EPP) member Mr. Elmar Brok MEP, who stood against the concept.

As discussions developed, Sariusz-Wolski apparently backed down after it had been agreed internally that Polish European Affairs Minister Mikołaj Dowgielewicz would get the job of deputy secretary-general of the EEAS. Instead of a tougher text on geographical balance, an agreement was reached that possible 'imbalances' would be taken into account during the 2013 review of the service.

Another aspect, Mr. McLaughlin explained, was the position of the Partido Popular, the Spanish centre-right opposition party, which was 'playing Spanish politics' and 'didn't want the Spanish Socialists to achieve anything during their presidency'.

During the conference of political group presidents, held before the Strasbourg plenary, all group leaders were in favour of holding the vote during the July session, except the EPP, which insisted on postponing the vote until autumn.

In this context, the votes by the ECR group proved decisive.

"The Tories, for God's sake, saved this,"

 McLaughlin fretted, adding that the coalition with the Liberal democrats had

"delivered some positive things already at European level".

He also said that a major factor in the vote's success was the absence of Mr. Brok from the conference of presidents, held on Thursday, 1st July. On that day, Mr. Brok was in Berlin on the occasion of the vote to appoint the new German President, Christian Wulff.

"There was in fact nobody from the EPP to defend Brok's position,"

The fact that the EPP was opposed to holding the vote at the July session, however, did not prevent the Parliament's biggest group from massively voting in favour of the EEAS blueprint, he added.

Champagne Socialists Disgrace Labour Party

The Mail on Sunday reports on what can only be described as the very definition of champagne socialism.

Two Labour parliamentarians took part in a champagne drinking contest on an official Commons junket to Paris, which led to one of them being violently ill.

Mr. Bill Etherington MP, Labour (Sunderland North) consumed so much champagn that a doctor was called as it was feared the parliamentarian might die after he defeated fellow parliamentarian Ms Geraldine Smith MP, Labour (Morecambe & Lunesdale), in an expenses-fuelled boozing competition.

Mr. Paul Flynn MP, Labour (Newport West), who was also attending the Council of Europe dinner is reported to have said that the meetings were a ‘pretext for shameless alcohol-fuelled jaunts’.


Read the full article in the Mail on Sunday here.

European Conservatives & Reformist Group Abstains On New European Commission

The European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) in the European Parliament has abstained in today's vote on the new European Commission, saying that it cannot offer the same confidence in the new college as a whole as it has in President Barroso.


Following the vote, ECR Chairman, Mr. Michal Kaminski MEP said:

"The 'take it or leave it' nature of the confirmation vote has meant that we must assess the college as a whole. This is lamentable because there were strong candidates who we would have endorsed, and weak candidates who we would have opposed.

"In today's vote we have signalled our support for President Barroso, expressed our concerns about the competence of some of the new commissioners, and conveyed our criticism of the confirmation procedure."

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope MEP, ECR Deputy Chairman, said:

"Having been instrumental in President Barroso's re-election we still have total confidence in him. However, we do not yet have full confidence in his entire team.

"During the hearings, some of the candidates veered away from the Political Guidelines that President Barroso himself set out for his commission's second term. We will work with President Barroso to deliver those aspects of his agenda on which we can agree, but in some cases we were concerned that members of the commission were planning to pursue their own political agendas, even before they were sworn into office."

ECR Vice-President Mr. Jan Zahradil MEP said:

"Some national governments are culpable of not sending the best person for the job, instead opting for political expediency.

"However, now that the commission has been adopted, we do not intend to go into detail regarding those candidates that caused concern. Instead, we will look ahead to a constructive relationship with the new commission in order to deliver our programme of reform for the EU."

Mr. Derk Jan Eppink MEP, who sat through twelve commissioner hearings, said:

"We intend to campaign for reform of the commissioner confirmation procedure. It is imperative that next time the parliament can assess each candidate individually on his or her merits so that national governments think twice about who they send."

Not a Disaster, Just a Catastrophe!

Had we joined the euro, the British economy would now be a catastrophe according to David Davis MP, Conservative (Haltemprice & Howden), who wrote in yesterday's Evening Standard, speculating about the economic state in which we would find ourselves, had Britain signed up to the Euro. He wrote:

"Our already damaged economy would have been crippled by a fixed exchange rate set by the so-called 'successes' of the financial sector. Instead, when our financial sector collapsed, the pound fell. Outside the euro, sterling has been trading at a competitive level in global currency markets. British exports remained at attractive prices while euro-denominated goods raced to all-time highs against the pound and the dollar in 2009. This is the main reason we had a record manufacturing upturn in January, and without the beginnings of that upturn we would have still been in recession. In Greece, Ireland and Spain, all in the eurozone, manufacturing is struggling. The biggest of these, Spain, is unlikely to see an economic recovery this year.

"So managing our own currency is critical to our ability to compete. Giving up our currency would also have meant giving up to the European Central Bank our ability to control interest rates. The ECB has kept interest rates significantly higher than rates in the UK. The Bank of England has kept our rates low and pumped money into the economy, allowing companies to absorb the shock of recession and start to recover. None of this would have been possible had we joined the euro."

It should not be forgotten that whilst the 1990s were not the Conservative Party's finest hour electorally, the party's campaign against British membership of the Euro was utterly in tune with the view of the British public, at a time when both Labour and the Liberal Democrats would have ditched the Pound if they thought they could have got away with it. Without the Conservative Party's determined opposition to the Euro during William Hague's time as leader of the party, Tony Blair would have been able to abolish our currency and the consequences would have been dire.

Top 100 EU Regulations to Cost UK Economy £184 billion by 2020

Next British Government must tackle EU overregulation

 

Open Europe recently published a 'Top 100 list' of the most costly EU regulations introduced in the UK since 1998. Based on the UK Government’s own impact assessments, Open Europe estimates that the top 100 existing EU laws will cost the UK economy a staggering £184 billion between 2010 and 2020, even in the unlikely event that no new regulations are be passed during that time period.

For the same amount of money, the UK could abolish its entire budget deficit.

 

Open Europe finds that while the UK benefits from some of these regulations, many laws originating in Brussels are overly prescriptive and unnecessarily burdensome. An incoming UK Government must take a radical new approach to EU legislation.

Open Europe’s Research Director Mats Persson said:

"Despite some attempts at reform, the cost of EU regulation continues to rise year on year. Some of these regulations might be helpful but far too often the cost of EU rules outweigh the benefits. The UK is facing a massive public deficit, so the Government should be doing everything it can to save money. Targeting even just a few of the most costly EU regulations could save taxpayers and business billions every year.

"There is almost no point in trying to cut regulation without concentrating on EU rules, since 72% of the total cost of UK regulation now originates in Brussels. The next UK Government must take a new, radical approach to cutting red tape, and this means getting smarter and tougher when negotiating in Europe.

To read the full Top 100 list, click here.

 

The top four most costly EU regulations by 2020 are:

1. The Working Time Regulations Cost by 2020: £32.8 bn Prescriptive working time rules which have caused massive problems for the UK’s public sector, including compromising NHS patients’ safety, according to a recent Government report.
2. The Climate Change Act 2008 Cost by 2020: £28.2 bn A slew of new energy targets and rules which will add £130 to £200 a year to the annual domestic energy bill for a family of four in Britain. The package does not represent the most cost effective way to cut carbon emissions.
3. Energy Performance Certificates for buildings Cost by 2020: £20.2 bn This Directive gave rise to the Home Information Packs, which have been widely criticised by estate agents, chartered surveyors and consumer groups for creating extra costs for home owners while providing little benefit.
4. Temporary Agency Workers Directive Cost by 2020: £15.6 bn New rules for temporary agency workers, which, according to former Business Secretary John Hutton, could consign “literally thousands of people to benefit dependency“ in the UK.

For more information on Open Europe’s proposals for how to tackle EU overregulation, see here (Chapter 5).

 

All cost estimates are based on the UK Government’s own impact assessments for regulatory proposals. The sources used to obtain the impact assessments included department websites, command papers produced by the Department for Business every six months, the House of Lords library, and the Office of Public Sector Information website. In a few cases, we also used other sources in order to verify costs and undertake further research on proposals.

 

Where regulations do not run until 2020, or are not implemented until after 2010, the cost estimates have been adjusted accordingly.

 

To reflect the fact that impact assessments in different years are likely to present estimated costs and benefits in terms of different years’ prices, estimates have been adjusted for inflation, so that all figures are presented in 2010 prices. The costs have been adjusted using the Treasury’s GDP deflator series, last updated September 2009. Where an impact assessment does not state which year’s prices have been used, it has been assumed that costs and benefits are expressed in terms of prices in the year that the impact assessment was published.

 

The Present Value (PV) of the cost of regulation in 2020 was calculated using the discount rate of 3.5 percent recommended in the Treasury’s Green Book. Where regulations have not been implemented until November/December of a particular year, those costs have only been counted in the year immediately after the implementation year.

 

Further information on the methodology used for the 'Top 100 list' can be found in 'Out of control? Measuring a decade of EU regulation' – Annex 1.

European Union Lies and Liberal Democrat Spin - Roger Helmer MEP

Roger Helmer writes on CentreRight today:

"With the wretched Lisbon Treaty coming into force this month, we had a briefing on its implications today in the European Conservatives Group in Brussels. This included, inter alia, a briefing from my good colleague Ashley Fox, who represents South West England, on relations with national parliaments.

"Apologists for the Lisbon Treaty, like the Lib Dem MEP Andrew Duff (Eastern England), like to claim that Lisbon enhances the powers of national parliaments. Duff is a pleasant enough chap, and I hesitate to accuse him of the mendacious deceitfulness which characterises his party. But he must know that this claim is nonsense. Let's consider the process.

"Lisbon gives national parliaments certain rights to be informed of EU decisions (as if they could not be so informed). It then offers the right for a third of national parliaments, acting together, to express their reservations to the Commission if they feel that a Commission proposal compromises subsidiarity (a right they presumably had anyway, with or without Lisbon). This is the so-called "Yellow Card". The Commission has to consider this objection but can proceed with its proposal if it doesn´t consider it is justified.

"Should the Commission ignore the "yellow card" then a simple majority of national parliaments (currently fourteen) can raise a second objection to the Commission. This is the so-called "Orange Card". And this requires action: the Commission must then refer the objection to the Council and the European parliament for a resolution.

"So how will this work in practice? For a start, there is no trans-national mechanism for co-operation between national parliaments, so it is difficult to envisage the Yellow/Orange Card procedure being invoked at all. And if it is invoked? The Yellow Card is a paper tiger. It has no teeth: the Commission can ignore it. And the Orange Card? Given that the Council consists of national governments, who broadly control their national parliaments, and given further that the European parliament always favours more, and more rapid, EU integration, it is extraordinarily improbable that the Council and parliament together would act to block a Commission proposal and to support a demand for subsidiarity.

"So the procedure is likely to have no effect at all, even if invoked, which is unlikely in the first place. Why, therefore is the procedure in the Treaty at all? It is merely window dressing and spin. It is there simply so that people like Andrew Duff can talk about "increased powers for national parliaments", knowing those "powers" to be so circumscribed as to be meaningless.

"Needless to say, there is no Red Card."

Open Europe publishes 50 new examples of EU waste

Today, the EU's accountants – the European Court of Auditors (ECA) – have published their annual report on the EU’s budget. The ECA has refused to give the EU’s accounts a clean bill of health for the 15th year in a row, owing to fraud and mismanagement in the budget. Like last year, the auditors did sign off the Commission’s own accounts, saying that they accurately represented how much money was raised and spent.

Although the ECA’s report is about the management of the accounts, the occasion represents an opportunity to take stock of the EU budget as a whole. Because while mismanagement of the accounts continues to be problematic, arguably the most important issue is the fact that the EU budget is hugely wasteful and irrational in terms of what the money is actually spent on, and where the money is spent.

The budget is dominated by two failing policies which even the current UK Government is essentially opposed to: the Common Agricultural Policy, and the so-called Structural Funds. The sheer size and complexity of these two top-down spending programmes means the EU's budget is wide open to waste and mismanagement, regardless of whether the blame lays with the Commission or the member states. The budget therefore represents extremely bad value for taxpayers' money.

To illustrate this, Open Europe has produced a list of 50 new examples of EU waste. The list is by no means comprehensive, but designed to show the types of peculiar projects on which EU money has been wasted in the past. They give a light-hearted illustration of what is wrong with the EU budget, and the need for fundamental reform.

Open Europe Research Director Mats Persson said:

"The Commission tries to put the blame for fraud and waste on the member states, but the real problem is the EU budget itself. The EU’s spending programmes are overly complex, irrational and hopelessly out of date. Until they are subject to root-and-branch reforms, or scrapped altogether, waste and fraud will continue.

"Too often, EU money is wasted on inefficient projects which are based on unrealistic expectations or for which there is no real demand. Because of the way the EU’s spending schemes are set up, bizarre or wasteful projects can receive funding which never would have received money if subject only to national spending priorities. Unfortunately, the focus of the EU budget is to get the money out of the door, not to spend the money wisely.

“Surely, in a recession, we can think of better ways to spend £100 billon a year?"

To read Open Europe’s 50 new examples of EU waste see here:

Here are the top five examples of EU waste:

• €173,000 for a luxury golf resort €173,274 in EU funds were given to the luxury golf resort, Monte da Quinta Club, in the Algarve, Portugal, where guests can choose between “the comfort of a villa with garden and private pool, or be dazzled by deluxe suites”. There is also a luxury spa, health club, several restaurants and bars, shops and a hairdresser.

• €2,500 for Chairman of Porsche’s hunting retreat Wolfgang Porsche, supervisory board Chairman of Porsche, received €2,500 in EU rural development funds for a small estate in Bavaria, Germany, where he goes hunting in his free time.

• €100,000 for a luxury Spanish hotel chain €99,877 in EU funds for 2009 alone were granted to Tils Curt, a chain of luxury restaurants and hotels across Spain, established in 1880. The funds were given as part of the Regional Development Fund.

• ‘Donkeypedia’: the blogging donkey As part of the EU’s €7 million ‘Year of Intercultural Dialogue’ initiative, the European Commission ran an art education project called “Donkeypedia”, in which a donkey travels through the Netherlands, and primary school children meet and greet the donkey. The aim of the project was

"creating a reflection of all European identities. What are the similarities, what are the differences? What is it that makes Europe as unique as it is? Donkeypedia will try to make this feeling tangible by interacting and in dialogue with its surroundings while walking a European route through several countries and collecting data to support this image."

The donkey, named Asino, also maintained a blog throughout the walk. One entry reads:

"We started really early today, Cristian slept in a bed in a house. It was a crazy morning waking up. I was under a chestnut tree sleeping in sand, when I opened my eyes there were animals all looking at me. I was embarrassed! Now I understand a little how people from different cultures may feel in the Netherlands."

• €80,000 for a Swedish ‘virtual city’ in Second LifeIn early 2008, Sweden’s third largest city, Malmo, was given an EU grant worth 800,000 Swedish kronor (€80,000), to create a virtual version of itself in 'Second Life' ­- a virtual fantasy world inhabited by computer-generated residents. The project was an attempt to reach out to young people and envisioned some of Malmo’s most famous buildings - such as its library and university - to be mirrored in Second Life. In addition, the project included plans for a virtual 'citizens' office', in which City officials could do their work and meet with those inhabitants of Malmö who were active in Second Life (the number of Malmo residents active on Second Life is thought to be very small).

In May 2009, Malmo was launched as a 'virtual city'. By then, the budget had been busted – and the project had been subject to massive criticism, as Second Life was no longer regarded as the future of social media – particularly not amongst young people. One of the politicians involved in the project said:

"Malmö wants to be at the forefront of IT, but we’re aware that Second Life is probably not at the absolute forefront anymore."

Joakim Jardenberg, of Swedish IT company Mindpark, added that he thought the project was a 'bizarre joke' at first.

"Second Life has never been particularly popular in Sweden. Facebook would have been a better tool"

. In March 2010 the project will be evaluated. If virtual Malmo does not have enough visitors by then, the project will be shut down.

Conservatives New Policy Towards European Union

The Lisbon Treaty has now been signed by President Klaus and will become part of European Union law Tuesday, 1st December. Given this situation, the Conservatives have announced a series of measures for which they will seek a mandate at the next general election. The measures are:

Unilateral measures which can be taken without reference to European Partners

• An Irish style ‘referendum lock’ on any treaty handing over further powers from Britain to the EU. Achieved through amending the 1972 European Communities Act so that any future treaty which transfers competences (powers) from Britain to the EU would have to be subject to a referendum, as is already effectively the case in Ireland.

• A legal lock ensuring a referendum if any British government tries to take Britain into the Euro. The party are pledged never to take Britain into the Euro. But to prevent any future British Government from trying to do so without a referendum, an amendment to the 1972 Act will be made.

• A United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill, to ensure the ultimate sovereignty of the UK Parliament. Unlike many other European countries, Britain does not have a written constitution. Given the increasing amount of EU law with which we have to deal, Conservatives would amend the law to insert a sovereignty clause to make it explicit that, ultimately, Britain’s Parliament is sovereign and cannot be overruled by the European Union against its will. This is similar in principle to the situation in Germany whereby the German Constitution ‘the Basic Law’ is ultimately supreme.

• Full Parliamentary control over the self-amending clauses in the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty contains a number of ratchet clauses (known also as ‘passerelles’) whereby the powers of the EU could be expanded in the future without a new treaty. Conservatives would change the law so that using any passerelle would require a British government to pass an Act of Parliament (rather than a simple motion and a 90 minute debate, as currently proposed under Labour).

These measures can be brought in unilaterally by an incoming Conservative government without the need to seek approval from our European partners.

‘British guarantees’ on the operation of Lisbon and social and employment legislation, which will require negotiation with our EU partners

It is the Conservative Party’s intention to use the forthcoming general election deliberately to seek a mandate to negotiate ‘British guarantees’ on the application of the Lisbon Treaty and on seeking to restore key powers to Britain.

These would include:

• A full opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR. Tony Blair stated that he had obtained an opt-out from the CFR. He had not. As Ministers have subsequently admitted, he only obtained a ‘clarification’ as to how it would apply. The Conservatives want to upgrade this to a full opt-out so that the CFR, which for instance would interfere with our trade union legislation, cannot be made to apply in Britain.

• Greater protection against EU encroachment into the UK’s Criminal Justice System. Lisbon provides Britain with an ‘opt-in’ over criminal justice matters but Conservatives want broader protection provided by an additional protocol. This would protect against EU judges extending their control over our Criminal Justice System, and we also want to ensure that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.

• Restoration of national control over social and employment legislation. Lastly, Conservatives want to restore national control over those parts of social and employment legislation which have proved most damaging to the British economy.

The party intends to establish a European Policy Committee of the Shadow Cabinet, chaired by William Hague (currently Shadow Foreign Secretary), to work on the detail of these proposals.

We will seek to give these measures legal effect by adding them to a future accession treaty. This is the same mechanism that will give effect to the ‘Irish guarantees’ and also the more recent ‘Czech guarantees’ and we would seek to mirror it for the above British guarantees too.

The longer term

The Conservative Party will aim to implement these measures over the course of the next Parliament, if they form the government. Further if, over the lifetime of the next Parliament, they do not succeed in negotiating the return of these powers; or if, in fact, the EU does move in the wrong direction, if those circumstances were to occur, the policy announced yesterday states that Conservatives would not rule out a referendum on a wider package of guarantees to protect our democratic decision-making, while remaining a member of the European Union. However, that would be a judgement for the future, not for this election or for the next Parliament.

Perhaps the Conservative Party’s new policy is best summarised as:

"A Conservative government will never allow us to become part of a federal Europe and we have devised a series of specific measures which will protect Britain from this. We will seek a mandate from the British people to implement these measures at the forthcoming general election."

Conference Overture on Europe from David Cameron

As an overture to the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester this week David Cameron has sent an email to activists and supporter on the tricky issue of Europe. He writes:

"Our Conference starts in Manchester this weekend. It's going to be the most vibrant and exciting for years.

"Next week, we won't be playing it safe - instead we will be offering bold plans to deal with the big problems the country faces.

"Labour spent their conference talking only to themselves - not the country.

"In contrast you will see a Conservative Party united, determined and ready to deliver the bold, tough and radical change Britain needs.

"Labour are now the party of unemployment - at this conference we will show that we are the party of new jobs and new opportunities.

"To deal with Labour's Debt Crisis we will be setting out some of the tough decisions that need to be taken and unlike Gordon Brown we won't duck them.

"To give people hope for the future the country needs to change direction, and our Conference will show how we're ready to make that change.

"But there is absolutely no complacency.

"Every member of the Conservative Party needs to remember the following: the Conservatives have never won a General Election from a starting point as difficult as we face now.

"To win a majority, we must hold every seat we won in 2005 plus an additional 117 constituencies. This would be the biggest number of Conservative gains at a General Election since 1931.

"We can do it: but we are going to have to work incredibly hard for every vote, every day between now and polling day. In this election, every vote will count.

"This weekend we will hear the results of the referendum in Ireland on the re-named EU Constitution.

"I want to make one thing clear: there will be no change in our policy on Europe and no new announcements at the Conference. There will be no change in Conservative policy as long as the Lisbon Treaty is still not in force. The Treaty has still not been ratified by the Czechs and the Poles. The Czech Prime Minister has said that the constitutional challenge before the Czech Constitutional Court could take 3-6 months to resolve.

"I have said repeatedly that I want us to have a referendum. If the Treaty is not ratified in all Member States and not in force when the election is held, and if we are elected, then we will hold a referendum on it, we will name the date of the referendum in the election campaign, we will lead the campaign for a 'No' vote.

"If the Treaty is ratified and in force in all Member States, we have repeatedly said we would not let matters rest there. But we have one policy at a time, and we will set out how we would proceed in those circumstances if, and only if, they happen.

"This is going to be a great Conference. I look forward to seeing many of you in Manchester."