Liberal candidate Guy Verhofstadt and the “Federalist Cause”

Guy Verhofstadt, who has led the liberal ALDE group in the European Parliament for the last few years, will be the Liberals’ candidate forthe Commission Presidency in the May elections. He has fended off Olli Rehn, the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs for the candidacy. It was unlikely that Rehn would have much appeal across Europe – he is the face of Eurozone austerity in the bailed-out countries and would represent a very fiscally hawkish face for the liberals – but he had a lot of support among the ALDE member-parties. The two will run together on a the same “ticket”, with Rehn proposed for another “senior post”. Perhaps the thinking is that if Verhofstadt doesn’t get the Presidency, he might stay as leader of the parliamentary group…?

Verhofstadt is probably a better bet than Rehn in that he’s a former Prime Minister (or Belgium) and has experience in both the European Parliament and in the European Council. He failed in his last attempt to become Commission President when Barroso first got the job in 2004… and I can’t see him having much hope this time around. Though some in his party have noted that he’s more centrist (and therefore more likely to be able to deal with either a right- or left- leaning Parliament), the liberals are probably going to have a very tough election. Two of the biggest liberal contingents – the Liberal Democrats in the UK and the FDP in Germany – are battered, with the FDP thrown out of the Bundestag last year and the Lib Dems predicted to come 4^th in the UK in the May poll.

Verhofstadt is an interesting choice given his very outspoken federalism. Having written a federalist book – The United States of Europe – and given tub-thumping federalist speeches in the European Parliament, I’ve come to think of him as the federalist Farage. He has tried to set out his vision of federalism as more democratic:

However, I can’t see a more nuanced version reaching people. And, as I said at the start of the last Parliament, a focus on federalism and pro-Europeanism is not the way to go. Federalism is a concept for organising things rather than a proper ideology that sets out values and priorities. Really, competing ideas for the Eurozone, economic growth, the CAP, etc., need to be put to people and then the decision is make on how much to do at the European level, and how to do it.

The Liberals, and Verhofstadt, will need to come out with credible policies to make their brand more bankable. It strikes me that civil liberties and data protection could be a good issue for them if they tap into it – certainly it would chime with a lot more people than vague sermons on “federalism”.

The Politics of Appointing Borg

The European Parliament has to decide whether or not to confirm Tonio Borg as the new Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy after John Dalli was controversially brought down by an OLAF investigation. Borg has met with opposition in the EP for his conservative views, particularly on divorce, abortion and cohabiting couples. The Greens, ALDE, United Left and Socialists and Democrats have concerns over Borg suitability and might reject him. Although Borg performed well in last week's hearing, saying that he will stick within the treaties and Charter of Fundamental Rights, these concerns remain, and the Parliament has released a check-list for consenting to his appointment:

"[Borg] should publicly commit to the following:

• The delivery of the legislative proposal on tobacco products by January 2013;
• The adoption of legislative proposals on animal cloning and novel food by mid-2013;
• The full respect of the March 2013 deadline for the ban of animal testing for cosmetics;
• Better enforcement of EU law on animal transport;
• Full respect of the EU Charter on Fundamental rights, in particular of Article 21, as well as of EU anti-discrimination legislation and case-law;
• Recognising the innate dignity of all citizens of the EU, regardless of their sexual orientations, actively working to address health inequalities and to acting against stigmatisation of people with HIV and AIDS;
• Actively supporting EU policies with regard to women’s rights."

There seems to be some confusion over the concerns these political groups have over Borg's appointment and  their connection to his prospective portfolio. While the battle over values echoes that of Rocco Buttiglione's rejection, the wider ideological battle is less obvious because the EP isn't electing the Commission en bloc, but is deciding on a replacement Commissioner, so the debate within the EP has been a bit more focused on the specific portfolio, so critics have been linking his conservatives views to the area of health, despite the EU's lack of power in this area. As Martin Holterman writes in his great article on how political Commissioner appointments could/should be:

"Judging, for example, from the headline of this opinion article on Public Service Europe, Mr. Borg’s critics seem to consider their objections to concern his “suitability” for the Health and Consumer Affairs portfolio in particular. They are not worried about the ideological balance of power in the College of Commissioners, and they are not even necessarily worried about ideology in general, but rather they seem to argue that his ideology will get in the way of his job performance in concrete ways. The author of this opinion article,Monika Kosiñska from the the European Public Health Alliance, for example, lists the candidate’s views on abortion, homosexuality and immigration as being particularly problematic. This is particularly curious because I’m not entirely sure how the Health and Consumer Affairs portfolio touches on these fields."

But while the views of the candidate and his or her specific competence are important, the general ideological  views of the candidate and the political make-up of the Commission does matter and is an important political issue. Commissioners vote on draft proposals before they are put to the Council and the Parliament, so the political viewpoints of each Commissioner matters for all areas of Commission policy, not just his or her own portfolio. Just this week Commissioner Reding introduced a watered-down version of her boardroom quotas law - watered down due to opposition that included fellow Commissioners who could vote to block the proposal.

This collective responsibility of the College of Commissioners means that its political make-up is a valid issue for the Parliament in deciding on new Commissioners. The fact that respect for women's rights is included on the list, and that the Commission is putting forward draft legislation in this area, shows that the ideology of the candidate is a relevant and live issue, and MEPs in the centre-ground and on the left should make it clear that the Commission should reflect the political make-up of the Parliament (or, better yet, the majority in Parliament). How will he influence policies in the areas of employment, social affairs, or justice and home affairs? For the political groups on the left, they should not vote for a candidate who holds such emphatically opposing political views unless something is won by way of coalition or concession.

Nirj Deva and the European Parliament Presidency Campaign

The British European Conservative and Reformist candidate for the Presidency of the European Parliament, Nirj Deva, has gained support from far-right MEPs despite not seeking it:

"A nomination paper leaked to Hope Not Hate, a UK anti-fascist watchdog group, and seen by EUobserver shows the signatures of Griffin, Gollnisch and five other MEPs from the far-right of the chamber, one immediately after the other, suggesting the document was passed directly between these MEPs, all of which maintain close ties with each other.

The anti-federalist European Conservatives and Reformist grouping in the parliament, which backs Deva’s bid for the presidency, was quick to distance the candidate from his nationalist supporters.

“He has been nominated by the ECR and nobody else,” the group’s spokesman, James Holtum, told EUobserver."

Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialists and Democrats group (the centre-left group), will probably win the contest as there is an agreement between the European People's Party group and the S&D that they will share the presidency during this parliament. The current president, Jerzy Buzek (EPP) will soon stand down, and Schulz will be officially backed by the EPP and the Liberal group. However, Schulz isn't the most popular MEP, and British Liberal MEP Diane Wallis is running as an independent against him.

With two challengers to the EPP-S&D carve up, it will be interesting to see who will do better. Wallis is officially acting without the support of her Liberal group, but she could attract those liberal and EPP MEPs - and perhaps even some S&D MEPs - who can't bring themselves to vote for Schulz. But how will it compare to Deva's support? Though the ECR group doesn't attract a lot of good will, and therefore is handicapped when it comes to building parliamentary coalitions, Deva is a well respected MEP who, according to EUObserver, has won "MEP of the year" in the area of development last month.

It's good to see the ECR contesting the election. The EP presidency is more political than the role of most parliamentary speakers/chairpersons as the EP President has to stick up for the Parliament in inter-institutional battles. So while I don't support the ECR, this is exactly the kind of election they should be contesting: institutional politics and questions of integration are a major reason for founding the ECR in the first place. Will Deva present himself as more than just a candidate hoping to force an election, and run on a more ideological campaign? It would be a lost opportunity if he doesn't, even if it makes it harder for him to build alliances.

The Eurozone and the Europarties: ELDR

Given that there's a lot of discussion on how to reform the Eurozone, I thought I'd send some quick questions by email to some of the Europarties on what there positions are on Eurozone reform, and what role they play in the debate.

The first to reply was the European Liberal Demoract and Reform Party, and I've included the questions and ELDR's answers below. I've included some of my own notes to explain what the links included contain, but read the links in full to get the full sense of the proposals. Thanks to ELDR for replying.

As a further note, ELDR now has Associate Membership (hat-tip Stephen Spillane). I wonder how this might start to change the party, if at all. Will the addition of the ELDR's "own" members (as separate from the membership of its constituent parties) start to have influence its positions in the European Parliament?


1. So far the high-profile discussions on economic governance have been at the level of Heads of State and Government during European Council summit meetings. What do you see the role of Europarties in this debate to be, and what role is ELDR trying to play?

ELDR has for many years already been organizing liberal Prime Minister summits preceding the European Council meeting. By those meetings, ELDR assumes a coordination function among the member parties to bring together the positions of liberal governments.

See here the links to the two past liberal summits.

http://www.eldr.eu/en/news/2010/12/european-liberals-back-common-crisis-mechanism-

http://www.eldr.eu/en/news/2010/10/liberals-support-calls-for-crisis-management-mechanism



2. Is the European Financial Stability Mechanism a good method of combating the debt crisis in the Eurozone? Are you satisfied with how it works in ensuring lending to certain countries, or should it be changed, and why?

This mechanism has been conceived as a temporary mechanism and should orderly phase-out in 2013. Permanent crisis mechanisms such as the EFSM risk moral hazard behavior of EU member states as they provide for the wrong incentives concerning budget policies. Only a comprehensive package of measures can prevent future debt crisis as called for by the ELDR in 2010.*


* Own Note: As an extract:

"[ELDR] Calls for:

Strict budget discipline in all member states of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). As laid down in the treaties, member states ought to aim for balanced budgets, with a three percent budget deficit being the maximum allowed under extraordinary conditions. Stronger emphasis should also be laid on staying below the maximum debt level of 60% of GDP as defined in the second criterion of the SGP, and on surveillance of both public and private debt;

A stronger enforcement of the criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact by creating gradual and automatic sanctions in the preventive and corrective arms of the Stability and Growth Pact which are not only financial, but also political, and calls for a new Stability and Growth Pact that would allow for temporary suspensions of payments from the cohesion and structural funds to countries that repeatedly violate the SGP. However, this does not exempt the Member States from fulfilling their obligations toward their citizens and businesses;

The depoliticisation of the power to enforce the Stability and Growth Pact, by moving the decision from the ECOFIN council to an independently enforced mechanism executed by the European Commission;

The orderly phase-out of the EFSF on 30 June 2013, as planned and promised at the time of its creation;

The introduction of European standards for EMU member states’ financial accounts, including clear and enforceable reporting standards that are cross-checked by EUROSTAT"

3. More fiscal integration is often mentioned as a key part of economic governance: what does this mean to ELDR? How far should integration go in this area (for example, should there be Eurobonds?): what should the EU do on one hand, and the Member States on the other?

Europe needs the Euro but a common currency also demands greater fiscal and economic coordination. The key is a stricter budget discipline of member states and stronger enforcement of the criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact as adopted by the ELDR Party in Helsinki in October 2010.

European Liberals are at the forefront of discussing proposals how to go about Eurobonds. Among them former ELDR Vice President and chair of the European Parliament’s economic and monetary affairs committee Sharon Bowles** or the liberal group leader in the European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt.*** In this respect it is equally clear for Liberals that the EU must not become a monetary transfer union or falling into the trap of member state to run down the same fatal spiral huge budget deficits.


** [Own Note: this proposal is for the bailed out countries to be refunded some of the high interest that they have paid when all debts have been paid off].

*** [Own Note: proposal for Eurobonds].



4. In the budget discussions at the end of last year, the European Parliament thought it was important to leave the question of own resources, including the idea of taxation (e.g. financial/environmental taxes), open for future budget discussions. Where do the European Liberal Democrats stand on EU taxation? Is this an important part of economic governance, or a separate issue?

Taxation (be it national or European) is obviously an important part of economic policies, particularly for liberals. The ELDR Party is about to launch its focus year 2011 (www.eldrfocus.eu) on the next multi-annual framework of the EU budget. The question of EU taxation will be an essential part of the discussion and the ELDR Party is expected to adopt a theme resolution on those issues at the party congress in November. The possibility of levying EU taxes has always to be reviewed in the context of national austerity measures and national taxation. Europe cannot afford to generally burden citizens with more dues.



5. Financial regulation is a big issue and the EU has tried to tackle this on a macroeconomic level and in hedge fund regulation last year. Has the EU done enough in this area? What, if anything, should be done differently and why?

At the beginning of the financial crisis there was a substantial failure in governmental supervision as well as in the financial institutions themselves. Even though everyone loves to blame hedge funds, they were certainly not the cause for the crisis.

In its resolution on a new prosperity from November 2009, ELDR has spelled out that existing regulation needs to be reviewed but that more intervention will not lead to economic recovery.

EPP President defends Hungarian Media Law

The centre-right European People's Party (the biggest in the European Parliament), or specifically its President, Wilfried Martins, has defended the new Hungarian Media Law, which blogs, including this one, are against due to the chilling effect it will have on press freedom. In the absence of any other EPP comment on the subject, it seems like it's the current EPP position.

Martins said:

""I appreciate the efforts of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his government to improve the former Hungarian media law with the aim to strengthen the freedom of the press, the culture of respect, the protection of minors and human dignity. I also understand the challenge of strengthening media accountability, while keeping media freedom intact. Discussion on the Hungarian media law should not be based on the politicaly motivated misinterpretations, but on the exact knowledge of the text.""

By politically motivated misinterpretations, I suppose he's referring to the outburst of fellow party member and Luxembourgish Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn who condemned the laws, saying: "It's a direct danger for democracy".

Or perhaps the OSCE, which produced a damning report on the law in September (PDF), and is still talking about it in strong terms:

""I am concerned that Hungary's parliament has adopted media legislation that, if misused, can silence critical media and public debate in the country," Mijatovic [OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media] said, referring to the "Law on media services and mass communication", adopted on 20 December.

"The law regulates all media content - broadcast, print and online - based on identical principles, which runs against OSCE standards on free media. It also gives unusually broad powers to the recently established media authority and media council, which are led exclusively by members supported by the governing party," Mijatovic said.

Traditionally, regulatory authorities govern broadcast media only, but the new law in Hungary empowers the authorities to also govern print and online media content.

"Such concentration of power in regulatory authorities is unprecedented in European democracies, and it harms media freedom," Mijatovic said. "Regulating print media can curb free public debate and pluralism. Even though regulating online media is considered technologically impossible, it introduces self-censorship.""

So far, two other European parties have commented: the Liberals (ALDE), and the European Greens. The Liberals are calling for the Commission to take (as yet undefined) action, and the European Greens want Article 7 TEU to be used against Hungary (the article is the mechanism for dealing with EU Member States who breach the fundamental values of the Union). Scope for EU action on the subject is somewhat limited, but it is hard to see this nuclear option succeeding against Hungary, particularly when it holds the rotating presidency. Article 7, does, however, mean that the EP could try to apply political pressure through its resolutions or even trying to start the Article 7 procedure.

Martins also stated the EPP's support for the Hungarian Presidency (Fidesz, the ruling party in Hungary, is an EPP member):

""I would also like to take this opportunity to wish Prime Minister Viktor Orbán a successful EU Presidency. Needless to say, for the next six months PM Orban can rely on the full support of the EPP," Martens added."

In this Parliamentary term the EPP have definitely been the "government party", supporting the positions of the (EPP-dominated) Council and Commission. It's a pity that the governing party and opposition aren't being tested properly on their records, particularly as EP votes and support are key to getting proposals through...



[Also, see Deutsche Welle for a broader view of the prospective Hungarian Presidency].

Note: Post edited the same day, thanks to Cédric picking up on an Article 7-related mistake.

ELDR Conference 2010

ELDR, the pan-European Liberal party that is part of ALDE in the European Parliament (and counts the UK Liberal Democrats, Irish Fianna Fáil and Dutch VVD among its ranks), is holding its last day of its annual congress in Helsinki today. I've only found out about it today, due to a blog post disappointed that the pro-European Liberal Democrats have not sent some MPs to the congress, and EUobserver's reporting of ELDR unease with the VVD-led government's reliance on Geert Wilders' PVV party in the Dutch Parliament. Recently I haven't been that attentive to Twitter, so I may have missed any party buzz from it, but a quick look at the ELDR Twitter account shows that there have only been 12 Tweets since the start of the congress, at the time of writing.

Still, now that I had discovered the ELDR Congress, I went to their website to check up on any news. So far there have been 3 news articles - on the opening of the congress, on the increased turnout at the congress, and one congratulating the VVD on becoming the senior governing party in the Netherlands. Not only is there no press release so far on discussions about the congress's theme - Demographic Change - but there seems to be no mention of the congress on the party's blog, or any of the blogs linked on its blog page, apart from a short descriptive one in Swedish.

The theme of the congress is one that's very relevant today, as immigration and welfare state reform in the face of the economic crisis are clearly the major issues, so it's disappointing that so far little has emerged on the Eurozone economy, the welfare state, or immigration. It's important to have a coherent position on this, given the free movement of workers within the EU, and that the Lib Dems in the UK and (more pressingly) the VVD in the Netherlands have to deal with demands for restrictions on immigration. Indeed, Geert Wilders has supposedly vetted the new Dutch immigration minister. The ELDR leader, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, said that she was sure that the VVD would stick to liberal principles, but also supported the mooted banning of the burqa in the Netherlands (Neyts-Uyttebroeck is from Belgium) - something that I consider to be an illiberal position.

The last day isn't over yet, and some news and party positions - or even a clearer overview of what was discussed - might emerge after the Congress ends. It seems unlikely that anything very interesting will suddenly come to light when everyone has packed up and gone home, however. Even if interest in the ELDR Congress would have been low even if it was more open and accessible, ELDR have missed a chance to promote themselves as a party online, and I wonder at the political will of a party that seems to not even bother to reach out with such an event.

[In other news, I've just noticed that ALDE's website has undergone a redesign].

Northern Ireland MEPs in the Wider European Parliament

My posts on the Northern Ireland MEPs' first year in the 7th European Parliament mostly focused on highlighting what their priorities/key policy areas are with a bit of analysis (mostly a loose comparison between their performance and the "models" of the Independent and Party MEPs). However, as Grahnlaw has highlighted, the 3 NI MEPs belong either to no Europarty or to one of the smaller ones, which affects their influence and the work they do:

"Besides influence in the political group and EP bodies, the drafting of committee reports (and opinions to other committees) would in my view constitute a crucial element when evaluating the influence of an MEP. There are huge differences in importance between reports, so here qualitative analysis is called for, and it is feasible due to the low number of significant reports and opinions drafted even by a well respected and connected MEP."

So I thought I should provide a bit of wider context about the European Parliament that our MEPs are working in and how that affects their roles.

Currently the EP is centre-right leaning (the centre-right won the Euro elections before as well):

European People's Party (Centre-Right Christan Democrats/conservatives) - 265 MEPs
Socialists and Democrats (the biggest centre-left party) - 184 MEPs
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (centrist) - 85 MEPs
European Greens (plus regionalists and the Pirate Party) - 55 MEPs
European Conservatives and Reformists (the Tory party's new EP grouping & party of James Nicholson) - 54 MEPs
European United Left - Nordic Green Left (far-left & Bairbre de Brún's party) - 35 MEPs
Europe of Freedom and Democracy (far right/nationalists) - 31 MEPs
Non-Aligned (Diane Dodds is in this group) - 27 MEPs

(Total: 736 MEPs - though this could be soon increased to bring it more into line with the Lisbon Treaty amendments of 751 MEPs)

None of the NI MEPs belong to the big 3: the EPP, S&D and the Liberals (ALDE), or even the 4th biggest, the Greens. James Nicholson belongs to the 5th biggest (or 3rd smallest) and Bairbre de Brún belongs to the 6th biggest (or 2nd smallest). The number and size of the parties gives an immediate impression of how hard it would be for an independent to get elected to a prominent Parliamentary position or to get an amendment passed, as the Europarties maneuver for influence (which is why I defined the Independent and Party MEPs as I did).

Belonging to the big parties has some advantage in that MEPs can try to influence the negotiating positions of the big players. And the European Parliament is increasingly important, so it does matter - for example, the EPP proposed Barroso for re-election as Commission President. Barroso was re-elected Commission President by the EP because the EPP won the election (though I don't think there were any EPP parties running for election in the NI or the rest of the UK when the Tories and UUP pulled out of the EPP). This was also partly due to the disarray of the S&D group, who couldn't agree on a candidate.

However, as the Commission is separate from the Parliament, the Parliament works more like a multi-party version of the US House of Representatives than the UK or Irish Parliaments as it's not controlled by the executive. So the parties generally make issue-to-issue coalitions. This means that the ECR isn't necessarily a key player in a pro-government coalition that can influence policy outcomes, so it can be outmaneuvered by the big 3. Indeed, that's what the VoteWatch.eu report on the EP's first 6 months has shown: there tends to be a centre-left winning bloc on civil rights (ALDE + S&D) and a centre-right one on the economy (EPP + ALDE). The ECR hasn't been a big part of winning centre-right coalitions, but has been left out of the loop a lot - indeed the EPP hasn't been on the winning side as often as its dominance would suggest. Perhaps this will change as the term continues if the EPP and ECR draw closer together.

As there's a hierarchy of parties, the bigger parties can get their MEPs on the important rapporteur-ing jobs, etc. Now I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with voting for the smaller parties or for independents - they play a role too, and you should vote for the party you want to strengthen in Parliament or the person you want to represent you - but we should be aware that the political battle-lines in Northern Ireland do not necessarily translate into the outcome we want in the European Parliament. If we don't discuss the question of Europarties at the Euro elections, then the election debate looses a lot of its potential value - and we have to ask if we're really making the most of our vote in that situation.

Lack of discussion of Europarties during the elections is widespread throughout the EU, but Northern Ireland is a rare example of a constituency that only returned MEPs that didn't belong to any of the main parties. I'd urge people to check up on their MEP (VoteWatch.eu is a very handy tool for this), and other bloggers and Eurobloggers to check up on and write about their MEPs.

The MEPs' profiles on the Parliament website give links to the speeches, etc., that each MEP has made. I read through these for the NI MEP series (speeches in the EP are generally set at about 1-1.5 minutes long), but for other MEPs in the bigger parties, the rapporteur drafts and Committee work could/should be bigger and provide better meat for investigation. Further into the term there should be more information for a better qualitative analysis.

Guy Verhofstadt becomes leader of ALDE

Guy Verhofstadt has become leader of the Liberal group, ALDE, in an unopposed contest after UK MEP Diane Wallis dropped out of the race at the last minute. ALDE is the third largest group in the European Parliament after the EPP and PASD.

Politically it means that if he decides to challenge Barroso for the Commission Presidency (it's unlikely since he would need the support of the EPP, and the - even less likely - support (or acquiescence) of the Council to manage it) he may have a stronger base in the ALDE and would be part of the Presidents of the EP who will decide on whether or not to put Barroso's second term to the vote in July. This is all a big stretch, though, but if the Commission Presidency vote is delayed to the autumn, then Barroso's candidature enters dangerous waters and it would give any Parliamentary challenger time to gather support.

At this point, and even if the vote is deferred, the most probable scenario is that Barroso will be re-appointed, and the Liberals or the PASD will win a half-term of the European Parliament Presidency.

It will be interesting to see how Verhofstadt will work in the EP (and if he'll use much of his group's speaking time. Will he try to make the Liberals a more coherent group, and will he work towards a coherent European campaign for the next elections (though it should be noted that ALDE consists of 2 Europarties), and how would he go about it?

Fianna Fáil MEP not to contest election

The FF MEP for Ireland North West, Seán Ó Neachtain will not contest the election as expected. He said that he was not going to run for the European Parliament for health reasons. This will put FF in a awkward position in the North West as they don't have anyone with the same profile/electoral base, and it is current FF policy not to risk putting a serving TD (MP) in the race for fear of losing the by-election and whittling down the government's majority.

The Irish Times has reported that this will boost Declan Ganley's chances of getting elected - he is running in the same constituency.

Cowen Throws his weight behind the move to ELDR

While Brian Crowley, Fianna Fáil MEP and current co-leader of the UEN group, tried to reverse the decision of the FF party at their recent Ardfheis to join the Liberal grouping of ELDR in the EP, it seems that there's no backing out this time. Brian Cowen, FF president and Irish Taoiseach, has thrown his weight behind the decision - Cowen's position may have been weakened by the economic crisis, and his government's bumbling (and at times frankly incompetent) response to it, but I'd say that there's no chance of Crowley getting his way now.

Not only did Cowen hold private talks with ALDE head Graham Watson, but he appeared in a Liberal press conference alongside leading liberal-aligned politicians from the national political arena of other member states.

I wonder what the outcome for Crowley will be within the FF party at the end of all of this? He should be safe electorally since he's the biggest vote-winner for FF in European elections, but will he loose more than a co-presidency of a EP group?

Transitional Troubles?

Could Brian Crowley, leader of Fianna Fáil in the EP and co-leader of the UEN, derail the planned move of FF to the Liberal EP group? It is widely believed that he was the force behind the failure of the last attempt to leave the UEN. He claims that:

"I think the UEN has worked well for Ireland and for Fianna Fáil, we've been able to deliver policy at a European level, partly because I'm the leader"

What policy exactly? The UEN doesn't stand for much, if anything - it's a random collection of parties grouped together to benefit from the group perks (you could say this of the other groups, but it goes more so for the UEN than it does for the big 3). Perhaps someone could point out these policy gains he has achieved? I think the reason for his support for UEN can simply be cut down to: "because I'm the leader".

As for his preference for Lisbon II to be held ASAP, I would be strongly against. The Irish public may accept Lisbon when it comes with the guarantees, but you need to show you've the guarantees in the bag first. Also, it'd be a bad idea turning Lisbon into a bigger issue in the run up to the EP elections because it would give Libertas a platform without making them do the leg-work in an election which will be dominated by the economy.

Fine Gael MEP Colm Burke is also advocating a sooner referendum.

Fianna Fáil go Liberal

The Fianna Fáil party in Ireland (the senior party in the governing coalition) is going to join the Liberal group in the European Parliament, after delegates voted in the party's Ardfheis (party conference) to accept the move. Provided that the Liberals accept them of course. It is unlikely to be much of a boost to the Liberals in the coming election, though as support for the party has collapsed in Ireland recently. Though since the party did so badly at the last European elections, there may not be a massive drop in the size of its delegation to the EP.

There are also plans to tighten rules about campaign funding for groups engaged in referendum campaigns. The move is clearly targeted at Libertas, whose funding has been a source of controversy and speculation ever since Lisbon I.