So far in my series about the 2014 European Parliament Elections, I have covered why they matter, voter turnout, the different parties and alliances and the manifestos of UKIP and the Liberal Democrats. In this post, I will be looking at the manifesto for the Conservative Party.
In the European Parliament, the Conservative MEPs form part of the (relatively new) European Conservatives and Reformists alliance (ECR). This alliance has 57 MEPs. From 1979 until 2009, they were part of the European Peoples Party (EPP), which was the second largest alliance, but is currently the largest (273 MEPs currently, 265 at the start of the term).
So far, I have modified the structure of manifesto posts based on their content. For this one, I am providing a full list of policies and priorities. Then there will be a focus on three major areas and a section looking at some of the other policies. In this case, I have also placed a focus on what the party will do, instead of looking at the past too much.
Design and structure
It is certainly an interesting document in terms of design and layout. There are 74 pages – more than the manifestos for the Lib Dems and UKIP. That would perhaps indicate that there’s far more in there. However, don’t be fooled as this is not necessarily true. The Conservative document makes more use of pictures (there are more of them then there are pages in the UKIP document) and there is also a significantly larger font size. Those two things don’t give you the impression that it’s more comprehensive.
Unfortunately, there is no contents page (the Lib Dem manifesto had one, but no page numbers for the start of each section). This makes it incredibly hard to navigate to the point you are most interested in, given the word count. The PDF file also has no bookmarks for the sections.
The colour scheme is also interesting. The text is black on a white background and indicates a serious and ‘straight to the point’ nature. The only time colour is used is when there are pictures. Some people will appreciate a ‘substance over style’ approach.
There is a clear use of repetition. Towards the end, ‘Vote Conservative’ is used several times on one page. They also use ‘Real Change’ as the first words of each section heading. Definitely an attempt at psychology, but in the case of the former I feel that it is used too often.
There is an indication of poor organisation because some points are mentioned multiple times in different parts of the document. It could help refresh memories as it’s a long manifesto though.
A bad mistake was to have a priorities list that bears little resemblance to the section headings – something else that makes the document harder to navigate. These are the sections (after the foreword):
- Referendum and settlement
- Long term economic plan in Europe
- Immigration
- Justice
- Energy
- Farmers, fisheries and the environment
- Secure Britain
The wording suggests that all the achievements listed were entirely their own work. It is a stark contrast from the Liberal Democrat manifesto, where the wording suggests a more supportive role.
A big positive is a picture of their MEP leader, as well as him providing the foreword. This is excellent and lets the voters know more about who they may choose to vote for.
More effort has been put into presentation, in comparison to the Liberal Democrat manifesto. However, there isn’t necessarily more content. Whatever the case it is something much more comprehensive than the UKIP offering.
Priorities
The priorities for the Conservatives in Europe are listed on page 3 and are as follows:
- Powers flowing away from Brussels
- National parliaments able to block unwanted legislation
- Cutting red tape and improving trade links with North America and Asia
- Police and justice system unencumbered by interference from the ECHR
- Free movement to take up work, not benefits
- Support enlargement with mechanisms to prevent mass migration
- End commitment to and ‘ever closer union’
So, the general themes from this list are legislation, justice, welfare and immigration. These themes are what many people care about, although there is a case for including bailouts of foreign nations in this list (that is covered elsewhere in the manifesto though).
Referendum and settlement
From page 20:
“The British people now have a very clear choice: if you want a referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU or leave, only the Conservative Party can and will hold one. Labour and the Liberal Democrats don’t want change and refuse to give people a say, while UKIP simply cannot deliver”
The Lib Dems clearly want to stay in Europe – they stated that in the manifesto. But they did say there will only be a referendum if they can deliver change for the UK first. As for UKIP, they won’t deliver in terms of a referendum as they want to get out of the EU as soon as possible. In terms of not having the MEPs to get any change, that’s true at the moment. The opinion polls suggest they will have more, but their alliance (EFD) still won’t be the biggest. They don’t and won’t have the MP numbers in Westminster though.
On page 21, they guarantee that there’ll be a referendum by the end of 2017 (half way through a theoretical second term) regardless of whether there is a new settlement. That is different to the Lib Dems. It also gives the MEPs and MPs some time to deliver reform and change the minds of those who want to be out.
They list the following eight action points:
- In-out referendum
- End commitment to closest ever union
- Establishing a principle of ‘Europe when necessary, national when possible’
- Bigger role for national governments in setting EU agenda
- Preserve the single market by insisting on protections for those with their own currencies
- Single European Parliament location (currently two official buildings)
- Tougher scrutiny of EU budget and accounts
- Allow a system where nations can work together and block unwanted legislation
None of these points are bad ones and will be considered vote winners. The list certainly aims for the centre ground – a desire to stay in the EU, but a desire more power at the same time.
On the subject of the buildings, the two mentioned are in Brussels and Luxembourg.
The EU accounts are a frequently debated topic. This article from 2011 explains that the accounts weren’t signed off and it wasn’t the first time. There are also similar issues reported in articles from 2013 and this year. It says a lot when the EU’s own auditors won’t approve the accounts.
Long term economic plan
The action points from this section are as follows:
- Lower EU spending and reform to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
- Expand the Single market
- Reduce red tape
- Deal with the damaging effects of the Working Time Directive
- Finalise free trade deals with US, Japan and India, as well as free trade agreement with Mexico and an investment deal with China
- Digital Single Market
- Target unscrupulous practices in the financial services industry with new rules
- More students to benefit from Erasmus
Unfortunately, there are no specifics about the ‘new rules’ for practices in financial services. This means the reader does not know whether the party has any clearly defined plans in this area.
The expansion of Erasmus is a great idea. For those who don’t know, it’s a scheme that allows students to study abroad. It means that students can get experience of different languages, practices and cultures. It broadens horizons. There is a recently introduced version called Erasmus Plus and I assume the proposal relates to that. I would like to know how this expansion would be funded though.
Reducing red tape is a vote winner, although the Small Business Survey doesn’t suggest it’s the biggest problem. For more information about the SBS, see my post about the UKIP manifesto post.
As for the Working Time Directive, the manifesto uses the words ‘damaging effects’, yet there is no explanation of what is considered to be damaging. Essentially, the directive is there to ensure that people don’t work too long and that they have adequate breaks/holidays. The UK opted out of the restriction on working hours. People can work over 48 hours if they choose to (the Conservative government in the 90’s achieved this).
Immigration
The action points are:
- Free movement of workers
- End the system where where immigrants can claim welfare payments for relatives abroad
- Require a new country to reach a certain income or economic output per head before allowing full free movement
- Continuing to remove licences from bogus colleges
- Continue to prevent extremists and preachers of hate from coming to Britain
Free movement would be a problematic decision if it wasn’t for the fact that some of the other points apply restrictions and conditions. It’s not completely free movement (or more like what there is in the Schengen Area).
Other policies
Aside from the sections I have looked at earlier in this post, there are some policies worth looking at in other sections of the manifesto. There was mention of the European Arrest Warrant, the 2030 renewable energy target, food labelling, fish discards and defence policy.
The following is from page 46:
“If we opt back into the European Arrest Warrant, we will build on our reforms to make sure that it is not applicable for minor crimes”
The European Arrest Warrant is important because when a criminal escapes to another member state, it’s issued so that an arrest can be made (outside of a normal jurisdiction) and a transfer back to the country that issued it. According to this Telegraph article, the last Labour government got an agreement to an opt-out for several Home Affairs rules, such as the EAW. Some say it is flawed as there is no proportionality and no clause allowing a nation to surrender it’s own nationals. The argument is that it would unfairly affect British citizens. Whilst it doesn’t just focus on Britain, there are differing judicial standards across Europe and different implementation of the relevant framework. The Conservatives want a ‘proportionality test’, but there are no specifics in the manifesto telling us what is deemed a ‘minor crime’.
From page 52:
“Ensure that the proposed 2030 renewable energy target is non-binding on individual EU countries. In order to cut carbon as cost-effectively as possible, nuclear, carbon capture and renewables technologies should be allowed to compete on a level playing field”
My first question is – if this is to be non-binding, what’s the point of having a target? There will be absolutely no incentive for change and there is no guarantee that member states will introduce their own targets. There’s also the ‘level playing field’ point. If this is binding for all member states, then surely everyone will be in the same position. In addition, this page shows that MEPs have already voted to make it binding (and tougher).
From page 61:
“Ensure the ban on discarding perfectly edible fish, along with the wider fisheries reforms are implemented fully”
This will please many fishermen who have had to discard perfectly edible fish that they’ve caught because they’re over their quotas. According to this document, the reforms will be introduced incrementally. They have already started and should be completed by 2016. The document should mention that member states should create their own quotas and put in place procedures to reduce discards – even though they can be sold.
From page 62:
“Support the introduction of food labelling to give consumers more information about where and how our food is produced, while avoiding burdensome rules for small firms.”
I am not particularly bothered about where my food comes from. However, I know many people are and if more buy British, it can help our economy as we rely less on imports that take money out of the UK. The point about how our food is produced is good though and I would be interested in specifics. In addition to that, I would say that even more could be done with labelling. There should be standards for the display of nutritional and calorie information for all foods (either shop bought, or on a menu at a restaurant). Groups like Wetherspoons display calorie information and they still make a profit.
From page 70:
“Ensure defence policy remains firmly under British national control, maintaining NATO and the transatlantic relationship as the cornerstones of our defence and security policy”
The Conservatives want the European Defence Agency to play a central role in multi-national co-ordination, but according to this page they already do this as part of their remit. Retaining control of defence policy is certainly a vote winner though.
Finally…
This is a lengthy post, but it’s important to have a close look at something that should be considered a significant document. Essentially, the Conservatives want to remain in the EU and fix the current setup to benefit everyone. However, they have guaranteed to give people a choice if they don’t like the eventual changes.
The next post in this series about the European Parliament Elections will look at the Labour manifesto.
So, what do you think?