Would Cameron have been able to block Juncker if the Tories were members of the EPP?

No major party in the UK backed Jean-Claude Juncker, or any other 'Spitzenkandidat'. It is therefore fair to say that the UK electorate had no influence over the course of what some describe as an 'election'.

The counter-charge is that David Cameron is to blame because he 'left' the main centre-right group - the European People's Party (EPP).  Former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy made this point yesterday in the Commons - which was also alluded to by Labour MPs. If Cameron was a member, so the argument goes, he could have blocked Juncker's appointment as the candidate and then had some say over the 'election campaign' and associated deals. Critics are zooming in on the meeting of EPP-affiliated leaders in Dublin in early March, at which Juncker was selected (behind closed doors no less).

It may not be that simple though:

• The Conservative Party was never a member of the EPP. It was a member of the European Democrats (ED) that was linked to the EPP in the so-called EPP-ED. As such, the Tories didn't have offical 'voting rights' and therefore David Cameron would not have had a vote over Juncker's appointment. 
• It's also worth noting that the Labour Party, although being a member of the S&D group failed to block Martin Schulz as their group's Spitzenkandidaten.
• Likewise the Liberal Democrats failed to block Guy Verhofstadt as the ALDE candidate

There's an argument that Cameron could have used the political influence and clout garnered from being associated with the EPP to stop Jucnker, even absent a formal vote. However, other EPP leaders had limited influence on the EPP candidate. Sweden's Moderaterna were opposed but were over-ruled. Berlusconi failed to attend and Hungary's Orban was hostile.

In any case, we will never know.

The reason the Conservative Party left the EPP-ED is because they did not agree with the EPP's push for further integration. The wider problem for the UK political parties - and reform-minded parties in other countries too - is that their views are grossly under-represented in the main groups. This, in turn, links to to the fundamental problem with the European Parliament itself (as we argued here).

Note:

For the record this is how the EPP delegates voted to adopt Juncker, so Cameron's vote would have made little difference - but again, we won't know:

EPP delegate votes to adopt Juncker as candidate

MEPs around Europe defy their parties on EU budget

Earlier today we looked at how UK MEPs voted on the EU budget, pointing out that Lib Dems defied the national party line (earning them a telling-off from Nick Clegg). However, we thought it would also be interesting to round up how other national delegations voted, in particular those of member states whose leaders were most insistent on imposing budgetary discipline on the EU.

Germany: Angela Merkel was instrumental in forcing through the budget cut but both her own CDU MEPs and CSU MEPs voted to "reject it in its current form", siding with their EPP group. Likewise, MEPs from her junior coalition partner, the FDP also voted against the budget. At the national level, all three parties have been steadfast in their insistence on budgetary discipline in the eurozone.

Netherlands: Dutch PM Mark Rutte was another key ally for Cameron in pushing for a cut to the budget. However, his VVD MEPs followed the ALDE leadership in voting against the budget.

Sweden: The Swedish Moderaterna MEPs remained loyal to their Prime Minister and backed the deal but in doing so had to defy the EPP group.

Finland: Despite the Finnish government being one of the strongest supporters of the deal its MEPs from the ALDE and EPP groups managed to split both ways within their groups.

Poland: PM Donald Tusk's Civic Platform party backed him and supported the deal but in the process 'rebelled' from the EPP party line.

Are certain governments regretting having given the EP more powers via the Lisbon Treaty we wonder?

The view from Sweden: Barroso is making it more difficult to be pro-EU

This is spot-on.

Sara Skyttedal, vice-president of the Youth wing of the European People’s Party – the pan-EU party Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso belongs to – has a blistering piece  in today's Svenska Dagbladet. She takes Barroso to town over his 'State of the Union' address, in which he called for Europe to become a "federation":

"As Vice-Chairman of [the EPP's] youth wing, YEPP, I can only say that representatives such as Barroso make it more difficult to be pro-EU [EU-vän] “

She continues:

"At a time when crises are raging across Europe and when countries need a helping hand, the eurocrats see an opportunity to demand extensive transfers of power and centralisation in return. Barroso suggests the creation of a banking union and argues that the EU in the end must become a federation. This is a frightening development, since even though Barroso himself says that a superstate isn’t the end goal, it is it hard to interpret his vision in any other way.”

She argues that politicians have ”time and again” ignored the subsidiarity principle. Taking aim at the Swedish political class, Skyttedal says:

“Just as there are many signs that the EU makes it harder for member states to fight the centralisation of powers, Sweden has reinforced this tendency on its own”, arguing that the requirement for EU-membership should be deleted from the Swedish Constitution.

“Those of us who are active in the EPP…must take a bigger responsibility for the liberal-conservative family in Europe. In these circles we must dare to bring up the problems that exist. Large parts of our respective parties were once active in the Yes-campaigns, both for EU and euro membership, but it’s time to swallow our pride and take up the fight against supranationalism and to show it’s possible to have a realistic attitude to the EU, which doesn't automatically mean arguing in favour of leaving the project altogether."

“The EPP-family is the biggest one in Europe, but includes members that unfortunately work in the opposite direction to the EU that we rather want to see. What we think the EU needs is less supranationalism, less political interference and definitely not a federation.”

Hear hear.

Sweden isn't exactly a European hegemon (those ambitions pretty much died in 1709) but it's an interesting country for the UK and Europe in at least two respects: first, it's actually doing well, both on the fiscal and banking front. Secondly, how the country responds to the drive for further euro integration will be an interesting proxy for how easy it'll be to reconcile a more tightly knit eurozone block with the EU-27. Most importantly, the banking union with the single market.

70-80% of Swedes oppose joining the euro, and that debate is dead (baring random calls from the occasional politician and opinion former who still cling on to that particular dream - it's almost cute), but the country has fundamental choices ahead of it - such as whether or not it joins the the ECB's banking supervision structure - so Europe needs to be discussed. 

Though a majority of Swedes would echo the sentiment contained in Skyttedal's article, there is still a contingent in Sweden, particularly on the centre-right (associated with Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister) that clings on to a vision of an ever-closer integrated EU as a liberal inroads into its dominant domestic social democratic model, and also as a catalyst for Swedish internationalist idealism, i.e. a 'peace project'.

Historically, both of these assumptions contained some truth but firstly, Sweden's social democratic domination has already been broken and secondly, the single currency - clearly - has proven less of a liberal trade project and more an ideological over-reach (think Greece). The eurozone crisis is now causing friction in Europe, rather than the opposite, and it most certainly isn't aiding either Europe in the world or facilitating enlargement (which is a legitimate EU foreign policy tool).

In other words, this traditional Swedish centre-right vision is dated and needs upgrading - which is true for other contingents in the EPP. Skyttedal's article is an important reminder that if we want to save what's good in Europe, Barroso's "federation" vision - which risks a massive popular backlash - is the opposite of what's needed.

The path for true pro-Europeans must lay elsewhere.

Glad to see our MEPs are focussed on what really matters

This won't be news to most people, but Members of the European Parliament get up to a great deal of stuff that goes pretty much completely unnoticed.

Today the slightly underground French news service Agence Europe reports that the European Parliament's political families are negotiating the membership and creation of 24 to 26 so-called "intergroups" for the Parliament's new term of office. These strange groups are made up of MEPs from the different political groupings and apparently focus on single issues, such as Tibet or anti-racism. The groups are set up if they receive the backing of three or more groupings in the Parliament.

For more on the secrecy and the bearing of lobbying on these groups see here.

Agence Europe tells us that the Christian Democrat-dominated European People's Party (EPP) (the group the Tories have now left) has submitted a list of "priority issues" that in its opinion warrant the formation of an intergroup. The list includes issues such as "small and medium-sized enterprises", "The Family and Children's Rights" and the all-encompassing "Youth".

Among the list is a proposal for an intergroup on "The Santiago of Compostela Pilgrimage". The pilgrimage, also known as the Way of St James, is a collection of old routes which cover the whole of Europe, all of them ending up at Santiago de Compostela in north west Spain.

What exactlty do they want such a group to discuss? The pilgrimage has lasted for a 1,000 years so far without the help of MEPs.

It it really one of the top 25 issues or challenges EU citizens face? Also, why propose a group that so obviously focuses on one particular religion? Why not a group looking at European Muslims carrying out the Hajj?

The EPP's proposal is obviously not a big deal in itself but it's a microcosm of the the backward-looking and introspective culture that dominates EU politics. The desire for a nostalgic homogenous European culture closely based on 'Christian values'. You might argue it's this failure to embrace diversity of opinion, attitudes, and cultures that hinders the EU's ability to look outward to the rest of the world and compete with emerging nations.

Surely MEPs have more pressing things to spend our money on?