The EPP's internal problems, especially those of the parliamentary group EPP-ED, which brings together MEPs of this party and the British Conservatives, have come to the surface. They have been talked about for a long time behind the scenes, but in a recent official meeting of the group, a few notable MEPs voiced their uneasiness, some even going so far as to say that they may leave the group (see our bulletin of 13 February, p.5).
A legitimate aspiration and partly-contested tactics. The starting point of all this is a legitimate aspiration: along with its allies, to remain the largest group in the Parliament to be elected in June. The contested part can be summed up in one question: in order to achieve this, to what extent will the group be prepared to put up with MEPs that could be described as "Eurosceptic"? The group's president, Hans-Gert Pöttering, has proposed to go quite a long way in this direction, making it optional for the group's components to subscribe to the traditional political orientations of Christian Democrats in European terms. Changing the statute to this end will allow co-operation with the British Conservatives and open doors to nationalist movements, some of which are openly Eurosceptic, from some of the new Member States. In other words: the positions of the British Conservatives (against the euro, against some elements and aims of the draft Constitution, etc) would no longer be simply tolerated, but officially allowed. Mr Pöttering has logically stressed that European integration "remains a political priority" of the group, but we all know how many ways "European integration" can be interpreted, and a British Conservative, Michael Howard, gave his unambiguous interpretation of the new rules (I refer to information carried in our bulletin of 13 February: "we oppose any greater integration as proposed in the draft Constitution, and will now be free to promote these ideas at the EPP-ED in the European Parliament". Mr Howard then re-affirmed and clarified his position, removing any doubt (see our bulletin yesterday, p.7).
Forecasts indicate that Mr Pöttering will win the battle, and that March will see the new statutes formally adopted. The importance of remaining the EP's largest political group will thus take precedence over ideological purity. We can understand the reasons which, amongst other things, include the Presidency of the future European Commission and (possibly for the second half of the term) of the Parliament itself. Mr Pöttering and his supporters may say that this position of strength will help us to defend our ideas and European integration itself more and better that ideological purity, because we must judge our tactics on their results.
The extent of and the reasons behind the uneasiness. But at the same time, we can understand the uneasiness,, misgivings and in some cases the outright rejection of these tactics. The EPP descends directly from the old parties of Robert Schuman and Alcide De Gaspari, Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl. This kind of heritage cannot be forgotten and most certainly should not be betrayed! The article in our bulletin referred to earlier speaks of a "profound uneasiness" in people such as Jacques Santer, Gérard Deprez, Jean-Louis Bourlanges. Other sources go even further. For example, "Le Figaro" said that by the reform of the statutes, "the EPP group is more and more clearly engaged on the path of Euroscepticism" and that "the Eurosceptic fringe of the European right thus receives the credibility it's been looking for for years". The newspaper believes that the pro-European "ideological gift" had already been shifted considerably within the group by the arrival of Silvio Berlusconi's "Forza Italia" and José Maria Aznar's Partido Popular, and assumes the group will be abandoned by "French, Belgian and Italian centrists" (probably to a new pro-European party, the creation of which is, according to several sources, being looked into).
It is true that as a party, the EPP could stand at the elections with a pro-European label similar to that of the planned party, distinguishing between its ideas and its programme on the one hand, and the role of tactics on the other, which is inevitable within the Parliament, in order to build majorities. To which its adversaries may retort that it is the political group which should apply the programme on the basis of which it asks the electorate to vote for it…
As they say in these circumstances: to be continued. (F.R.)