GVO Dac 2010 A5 La 1 26/08/2010 15:14 ... - Geoffrey Van Orden · 3 Geoffrey Van Orden MBE MEP 4 Supporting our local fishing ... Director General, British Chamber of Commerce

GVO Dispatch 2010 A5_Layout 1 26/08/2010 15:14 Page 1

CONTENTS

3 Geoffrey Van Orden MBE MEP

4 Supporting our local fishingindustry

5 Helping Local Business

6 Working Time Directive

7 Supporting our Farmers andThe rural Economy

7 Animal Welfare

8 Keeping the lights on

9 The Great Immigration Debate

10 Time for Brussels to trim itswaistline

11 We are not xenophobes

12 Thoughts on defence

13 Trident

14 The EU Institutions

15 Being a Conservative MEP

16 Breaking the EU Mould

18 Why we shouldn’t Changethe Voting System

19 Questionnaire

That great moment - 7 May 2010

Geoffrey Van Orden MEP can be contacted at: 88 Rectory Lane, Chelmsford, CM1 1RFTel: 01245 352 872 Email: [email protected]

The Conservative MEP Team representingthe East of England comprises:

Geoffrey Van Orden MEPRobert Sturdy MEP

Vicky Ford MEP2

DISPATCHFROM BRUSSELS

Promoted by and on behalf of Geoffrey Van Orden MBEMEP, Conservatives in the European Parliament (ECRGroup) at 88 Rectory Lane, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 1RFand printed by Metloc Printers Limited, 37 Victoria Road,Romford, Essex RM1 2LH


DISPATCH - Geoffrey Van Orden MBE MEP - 20103

SIGN UP FOR E-DISPATCHEvery month Geoffrey Van Orden MEP sends out by Email a short summary of recent events in the Parliament and of his activities.

If you haven’t already signed up, please fill in the form on the back cover.

Geoffrey Van Orden MBE MEPWhat a great year it has been for Conservatives!

The climactic moment was to see David Cameron enter10 Downing Street on 7 May as Prime Minister - theeighth Conservative to hold this office during theQueen’s reign.

In the East of England, Conservatives won 52 out of the58 seats – with Labour reduced to just 2 (Luton Northand South), and the LibDems 4.

Given the enormous damage that Labour has done toour country over the past 13 years - wrecking thefinancial balance sheet; eroding our sovereignty;deliberately encouraging mass uncontrolled immigration;debasing educational standards; ruining private pensionschemes; reducing our standing in the world - we haveto ask how they still managed to hold on to 258 seatsacross the country.

Your Conservative MEPs have fought hard on all theseissues and many more. When you read that “MEPs havevoted for” something barmy or damaging to Britain’sinterests - you can bet we weren’t among them.

But there are just 25 Conservatives in a Parliament of736 MEPs from 27 countries. We have increased ourclout through creation of a new political group – the ECR– which I explain in these pages.

In the East of England I work closely with Vicky Ford andwith Robert Sturdy. Besides our common interest in thebread and butter issues that directly impact on so manyof you – business regulation; agriculture and fisheries;animal welfare; roads and railways; funding support -we each have our specialisations – in my case this isdefence, terrorism and foreign affairs.

In this booklet, and through my e-Dispatch bulletins, I try to explain a little of what I do on your behalf. I have always regarded it as a great privilege torepresent you. Thank you for all the support that yougive. And please continue to keep in touch and let mehave your views..

With very best wishes,


From the Wash to the Thames Estuary -through Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, West Mersea and a dozen other small ports -our fishing industry has an importancebeyond its shrinking size.

It makes a significant economic contribution inmany areas where jobs are scarce. It is verymuch part of the local tapestry. There are stillfish and shellfish in the sea and our localfishermen are the first to want to husband them– that’s why we want more local control and tohelp our fishing industry in every possible way.

I have always argued that the EU’s CommonFisheries Policy (CFP) is bad for the fish and evenworse for the fishermen – we have seen decadesof mismanagement and waste from Brussels,growth in Spanish and other fleets, andcontinued decline in our once great British fishingindustry.

We now have a Conservative-led Governmentcommitted to reform of CFP. I have been in close

touch with our Ministers – Caroline Spelman andRichard Benyon – who are pushing hard forchange to Brussels policy, particularly in relationto “discards” – what is caught above quota andwhich currently has to be thrown away.

I shall continue to campaign strenuously onbehalf of our fishermen. I am delighted to havebeen able to play a part in securing nearly£1,000,000 from the European Fisheries Fund(EFF) to help consolidate the fish processingindustry in Lowestoft. This will create jobs,promote the local fishing industry and act as areal boost for the local community.

I am strongly supporting the bid by WaveneyDistrict Council for EFF money to rebuild the northwall at Southwold Harbour. This would give aboost to the local fishing and tourist industries,and help coastal protection.

Fishermen are crying out for a simpler policy, lessbureaucracy and more local control.

Sustainability of fish stocks and fishermen's livelihoods should be a priority. We need to create a significant, sustainable fishingindustry for the East of England...

...NOT THIS!!!

DISPATCH - Supporting our local fishing industry - 2010 4

Supporting our local fishing industry

Local fishermen said to me:

In all my 25 years, I haven’t seen somuch cod as in the

last 2 years

The EU says ‘stilltoo many boatschasing too fewfish’ – but whoseboats, and where

are they?

You see moreofficials in white

coats thanfishermen at the

fish market


5 DISPATCH - Helping Local Business - 2010

Conservatives understand that it is business –mainly small business – that provides thefoundation for our future economicprosperity.

We aim to make the UK the easiest and bestplace in the world to set up and grow abusiness. As Conservative MEPs we want to getthe best from the EU for the benefit of businessand our people while preventing excessive andburdensome European laws and regulations andthe creation an EU superstate. We lead action toimprove the single market for the benefit ofBritish business, trade and investment.

On 15 March 2010, VickyFord and I held a verysuccessful conference in

Cambridge for ahundredbusinessrepresentativesfrom across theEast of England,to listen to theirconcerns andexplain howConservativeswould helpbusinesses toprosper if electedto government.

Caroline Spelman MP and Jonathan Djanogly MP,both now key Government ministers, set outproposals for abolition of taxes on new jobscreated by new businesses, cuts in corporate taxrates, and simplification of the tax system.

If you are running a business and haveproblems over EU or other rules, we need tohear from you. Please get in touch.

Your local Conservative MEPs

Geoffrey Van Orden and Vicky Ford asked:

The Conservative MEPs for the East of England are: Geoffrey Van Orde

n MEP Robert Sturd

y MEP Vicky Ford ME

P

what can we do for your

in 2010?

Geoffrey Van Orden and Vicky Ford welcomedbusinesses from across the East of England to aconference in Cambridge on 15 March 2010.Given the dire economic situation, the additional powersthat the government has transferred to the EU, and theimminence of a General Election we thought it timely tobring local businesses up to date on developments, listento their concerns and unravel some of the mystery of ‘EUfunding’.

Changes need to take place in 2010 and beyond to getour country moving again in the right direction. Ourtheme was: “what can your politicians do for business?” A Conservative Government aims to make Britain theeasiest and the best place in the world to set up and growa business. Shadow Ministers, Caroline Spelman andJonathan Djanogly set out some of our policy goals.These are summarised in this pamphlet. Mark Spelman,Accenture's Global Head of Strategy gave a picture oflikely global trends, emphasising the need to learn fromdynamic economies such as Singapore and Finland. Your Conservative MEPs know European legislation isalso of great concern to many of you. In this pamphletyou will find an introduction to the EU legislative processand see something of the role of MEPs.Conservatives want to get the best from the EU for thebenefit of business and our people while preventingexcessive and burdensome European laws andregulations and the creation of an EU superstate. Welead action to improve the single market for the benefitof British business, trade and investment.The UK makes the second largest net contribution to theEU budget. The EU funding coming into the East ofEngland – effectively British taxpayers’ money recycledthrough Brussels – should primarily be used to boostbusiness, research, skills and employment and improvethe vital infrastructure that underpins our economy. Between 2007 and 2013 approximately £83 million isavailable for investment in the region from the EuropeanRegional Development Fund. And this is just one ofseveral funding streams. We know that the process forapplying for and spending EU money is excessivelybureaucratic and opaque. We want to find ways ofovercoming this and ensure that resources are used in away more helpful to our local economy.We therefore need to hear from you about yourconcerns and experiences. Some that attended theConference have already given their views (seeopposite). If you weren't represented there, it would bevery helpful if you would kindly respond to ourquestionnaire on page 10.

Contents:

What businesses told us 2 The EU institutions 3 What's the difference between

an EU "directive" and a "regulation"? 4 How EU laws are made 5 EU laws affect you and your business 6 Some of the legislative proposals

before MEPs at the moment 7 Focus on small businesses in Europe;

Case studies 8 Making Britain open for business 9 Questionnaire 10

Left to right: Jonathan Djanogly MP, Geoffrey Van Orden MEP, Caroline Spelman MP, David Morall, Vicky Ford MEP, Mark Spelman

Helping LocalBusiness


In Brussels we have had a running battle tomitigate the effects of the Working TimeDirective that the last Government imposedon the UK in 1998.

It is estimated already to have cost business£13.6 billion! It means you can’t work more than48 hours a week even if you want to or yourfirm needs you to.

But the UK had an opt-out from some of itseffects. I was personally involved in defendingour opt-out against EU efforts to remove it.

Many sectors would havebeen hit by this. If the opt-outhad been lost, retained fire-fighters with a main, full-time job would have beenunable legally to work morethan 48 hours a week, andwould have had to give uptheir fire service duties.Training of young doctors isalso threatened.

But, the Parliament's Employment and SocialAffairs committee (better known to us as the‘Unemployment Committee’!) has found a newtarget - self-employed lorry drivers.

Regulating the working hours of self-employedpeople is not only unprecedented but alsocompletely unnecessary. Their inclusion in theWorking Time Directive would heap more redtape and costs onto an already heavily regulatedroad haulage industry. We were defeated in ourefforts to block this move and will now beencouraging the European Commission to stickby its original (perhaps surprising) commonsense approach. The battle goes on.

Letters to the Editor 1.7.10Regulations on lorry drivers' workinghours harms the haulage industry

SIR – In June, the European Parliament votedto include self-employed lorry drivers in thescope of a 2002 directive regulating theworking time of lorry and bus drivers. This means that drivers will now be limited toworking a total of 48 hours a week, includingall the loading, maintenance and administrativework. Previously, self-employed drivers couldspend up to 56 hours a week actually driving,so long as they drove no more than 90 hoursover a two week period.

The supporters of this change had cited roadsafety as their main reason. However, thereare already two strong measures to guaranteeroad safety: the tachograph and the need forthe self-employed to keep their operatinglicence, which is reliant on the reporting oftheir tachograph. The European Commissionhad aimed to exclude self-employed lorrydrivers. Certain MEPs have now set adangerous precedent by interfering in themanner in which the self-employed organisetheir working time.

This vote is the last thing wanted by a roadhaulage industry that is already suffering fromover-regulation, high fuel prices and therecession. We therefore urge the EuropeanCommission to stand firm and ask MEPs tothink again.

John Walker - National Chairman, Federationof Small Businesses

David Frost - Director General, BritishChamber of Commerce

Tina Sommer - President, European SmallBusiness Alliance

Geoffrey Van Orden MEP (Con) -Chelmsford, Essex

...And 96 others.

DISPATCH - Working Time Directive - 2010 6

Working Time Directive


DISPATCH - Supporting our Farmers and Rural Economy - 20107

The Government is committed to support thefarming industry, protect biodiversity andencourage sustainable food production.

Conservatives have long campaigned for reformof the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and itssimplification. Next year’s EU budgetnegotiations and the 2013 CAP renewal presentthe opportunity for change. Conservatives wantto do all we can to help the internationalcompetitiveness of our farmers.

We also want more EU resources directed intoresearch. I have specifically called for moreresearch into the causes of bee colony collapse.In relation to the EU directive on pesticides, wefought hard to ensure a sensible balancebetween safeguarding public health and farmers'ability to produce our food.

I believe meat labelled'British' must be from ananimal born and bred inBritain. After many yearsof campaigning we havehad success with EU ruleson food labelling. Thismeans the real country oforigin of all meat, poultryand dairy and othersingle-ingredientproducts will have to beshown on the label.That’s good news for ourfarmers and for shoppers.

Animal WelfareWe continue to be active on animal welfare,recognising the high standards alreadymaintained in Britain.

We want to ensure that our farmers do not faceunfair competition from foreign producers thatdo not have to meet these standards.

I have strongly supported the campaign byWorld Horse Welfare for enforcement of rules ongood conditions for horses being transported forslaughter.

This is yet another problem that applies tocontinental carriers. And it is enormouslyimportant that our thoroughbred horsebreeding and racing industry is not affected byinappropriate rules. Its ‘registered’ horses arealways moved in excellent conditions.

I am a great believer in freedom and ourtraditions and I am supportive of rural pursuits. I support the Government’s commitment toenable the House of Commons to vote on therepeal of the Hunting Act. This legislation wasnever about animal welfare.

Supporting ourFarmers andThe rural Economy

Listening to a bit of horse sense


Energy supply underpins our economyand our daily lives. It needs to bereliable and secure.

But coal is now frowned on. Economiccapture of wind and wave power is in itsinfancy. Nuclear power has beenneglected. North Sea gas is running out,reserves are too low, and we are indanger of becoming increasinglydependent on supply from Russia.

I am closely involved in these issues – both asMEP for a region which is a key energy hub, andas a defence and security specialist that isconcerned about the strategic resilience of ourcountry.

Last November, I visited the Shell Gas Plant atBacton in Norfolk. This facility processes naturalgas from North Sea installations and is a criticalnational hub, processing some 25% of the UKgas supply.

Our region also has a vital role to play as the UKseeks to diversify its energy sources and toreduce its carbon emissions. I am stronglysupportive of our nuclear industry and want tosee the new Sizewell C constructed as soon as

possible. Offshore wind farms, new technologyto harness wave power and other renewableenergy developments have great potential atthe heart of the region's economic future.There are nearly 500 wind turbines eitheroperating or under construction off our easterncoast - in the Wash, off Great Yarmouth andClacton.

Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft both have majorsupport industries. But if we are going tocapitalise on these new industries as well asnuclear – to be at the forefront of research andmanufacture as well as installation, we need toencourage young scientists and engineers andstimulate the training provided by our collegesand universities. Many of the companies whoattended our business conference in Marchcomplained of lack of home-grown skills.

I shall do all I can to promote these vitalindustries; to ensure that we access R & Dfunding available in the EU; to focus more ‘EUfunding’ on skills training; and to safeguard ourrelationships with countries (such as Turkey)which will have a key role in guaranteeing asecurity of supply that avoids Russianmanipulation.

DISPATCH - Keeping the lights on - 2010 8

Keeping the lights on


Immigration rankedalongside the economy interms of top issues duringthe General Electioncampaign.

There had been so much spinon the subject that peoplewere confused and distrustful.We do not have reliablestatistics for legal immigrationlet alone illegal. And the EUissue was allowed to muddythe water even further. The factis, non-EU immigration vastlyexceeded anything from the EUand responsibility for thisrested entirely in the hands ofthe previous Government.

Over the years, I have written andspoken regularly on the subject subsequent tomy 2005 lecture and monograph“Multiculturalism – a destructive New Dogma?”

I believe that many immigrants have broughtgreat benefit, skills and wealth to our countryand have proudly integrated into our way of life.It is the settled immigrant population that hasbeen most disturbed by the uncontrolledimmigration of the Labour years. Thisuncontrolled immigration – a deliberate act onthe part of the Labour Government - and thedisastrous policy of multiculturalism, have beendamaging to our country.

I am pleased that the Government is alreadybeginning to take steps to remedy theproblem by:

l Introducing an annual limit on the number ofnon-EU economic migrants;

l Introducing new English-languagerequirements for migrants applying to comeas a spouse or partner;

l Creating a dedicated Border Police Force

l Supporting E-borders - the electroniccollection and checking of individualpassenger details - while cancelling thecurrent E-borders contract, worth almost £1billion (as the contractor was not delivering)

However, public concern will not bewholly allayed until the facts are laidout clearly and action is seen to beeffective. That is why I believethere would be great merit inestablishing a Royal Commission onImmigration, with a wide-rangingmandate but finite reportingperiod.

Its terms of reference shouldcover the scale and nature ofimmigration; collection andanalysis of statistics; the needs ofindustry; impact on nationalcohesion and security; the effecton areas of public policy such asemployment, welfare,education, health and crime;the role of our consular anddiplomatic missions in keycountries; the influence of the‘immigration industry’ - special

interest NGOs, lobbyists, andlawyers; the remit, manning and functioning ofthe immigration tribunals and the Border &Immigration Agency along with its passport andvisa departments, and other parts of the controlstructure; removal policy; and the constraints onnational policy imposed by internationalconventions and EU law. What do you think?

As I said in my letter in The Daily Telegraph on5 April 2010: “The priority must be to integrateour resident immigrant population and to bringa rapid end to mass uncontrolled immigration.The first cannot happen without the second.We then need to have the truth about what hasreally been going on over these past 10 years”.

DISPATCH - The Great Immigration Debate - 2010 9

An example of how a Royal Commission Report might look

People Coming to Britain

The Impact, the Controls and Improving Integration

The Report by

The Royal Commission on Immigration

Chairman: Professor Very Astute

Presented to Parliament by

Command of Her Majesty

March 201Z

Cm XYZ £25.00 Sterling

The GreatImmigrationDebate


Net Migration to UK 1998-2008(inflow minus outflow)

EU NON-EU

1998 33,000 129,000

1999 7,000 214,000

2000 6,000 213,000

2001 8,000 180,000

2002 7,000 234,000

2003 11,000 224,000

2004 86,000 266,000

2005 95,000 198,000

2006 101,000 215,000

2007 129,000 205,000

2008 64,000 163,000

TOTAL 547,000 2,241,000

DURING LABOUR YEARS 1998-2008

From EU:547,000

From Rest of the World:

2,241,000

Time for Brusselsto trim its waistlineGovernments across Europe are tightening theirbelts but the costs of the Brussels bureaucracykeep growing.

Britain is the second largest net contributor to the EUbudget. We therefore have a particular interest insaving money for our taxpayers and cutting back onwaste and unnecessary expenditure. That is why Iam leading a campaign to cut the costs of the coreEU institutions – the Parliament, the Commissionand the Council.

Contrary to widely held views, it is not the MEPsthat cost the money – it’s the Parliament’s largelyunaccountable and ever expanding bureaucracywhich has increased by 14% to an astonishing6,000 in just 3 years.

The Secretary-General of the Parliament has nowsubmitted a draft budget for 2011 equivalent to £1.5billion, just to run his institution. That is an increaseon the previous year of 6.5 percent and nearly threetimes the cost of Westminster

There are many ways the budget of the EuropeanParliament could be cut. The Parliament’s‘information offices’ in each of our nationalcapitals should be closed.

They employ over 200 staff and cost some £40million annually. The one in London is the mostexpensive at nearly £5 million in 2009.

The unjustifiable back and forth between Brussels,where committees meet, and Strasbourg, wherethe plenary sessions take place, should be ended.It is indefensible both in annual costs - £179 million- and in CO2 emissions.

The trouble is, any criticism of the Parliament’soperations is quickly dismissed as being hereticallyun-European. We should be sufficiently mature toget beyond this and better reflect the views of ourcitizens.

The total EU budget is £127 billion. My proposedsavings - scrapping the Parliaments’ InformationOffices and the Strasbourg circus - would reap £220million every year for starters.

This might be just a small proportion of the overallbudget but in real terms it’s a lot of money. To putEurophile minds at rest, cutting it would have noeffect on EU core functions. It’s time for someradical thinking – doing less better, and for muchlower cost.

DISPATCH - The Great Immigration Debate Cont - 2010 DISPATCH - Time for Brussels to trim its waistline - 201010


11

We are not xenophobesA guest article from fellowConservative MEP, DanHannanBy labelling those who question theEU, Europhiles are trying to take dissentand debate off the agenda

I am, Guardian readers keep tellingme, a xenophobe. Never mind thatI speak French and Spanish, that Ilove Europe, that I've lived a highproportion of my life abroad.

The fact that I oppose the politicalamalgamation of the European Union'sstates is ipso facto proof that I dislikeforeigners.

Last week I took part in a debate inBrussels about the euro crisis. The pro-integration speakers carriedthemselves, as they often do, with theself-congratulatory air of men who hadventured among savages. When oneof them was asked why he keptreferring to our side as "Europhobes",given that we comprised a Swede, aBriton and a Belgian, and that ourarguments were largely economic, hewas nonplussed. But they areEurophobes, he repeated. They've justbeen attacking the EU. Weren't youlistening?

Some of myEurophilefriends arenow, atleast on thenarrowissue of the

euro, cominground to our

point of view.

But, even as they quote the argumentsthat we sceptics have been makingthese past 15 years, they make a pointof attacking the arguments theyimagine we were making:

"We need to determine our owninterest rate and exchange rate. You see, I'm against the euro foreconomic reasons, Hannan, not forxenophobic reasons like you."

Intrigued, I posted a blog inviting criticsto quote a single xenophobic argumentthat I'd levelled against the EU. Several commenters responded bytetchily repeating the charge, asthough it were self-evident.

I'm beginning to realise something.The whole Eurosceptics-are-xenophobes shtick isn't just, as I usedto believe, a debating tactic – it is thebasis of a belief system. For manypeople, this isn't really about the EUat all: it's about showing that you'rebetter than all the Little Englanderswith whom you've peopled yourimagination.

Which may in turn explain why somany lefties – who, in a domesticcontext, favour (as I do) the dispersalof power – line up in Europe behind anessentially elitist and anti-democraticproject. Why do the heirs of Wilkesand Paine support a system in whichsupreme power is wielded by 27unelected functionaries?

I put these questions recently in anarticle on Comment is free. The threadthat followed was magnificent: "Bigot","Little Englander", "Why is this manallowed to peddle his lies in TheGuardian?", "same old Tories", "F*ckoff", "die die die die die".

Some readers engaged with what Ihad written, of course. A few agreed,and several intelligently disagreed. But many more took issue with whatthey imagined to be my secret agenda.

As one put it:

"I mistrust the proposals because Idon't trust Tories. I'm looking for whatthey are really aiming for."

Perhaps the answer lies in falseinference of motive, which may itselfbe a function of biology.

In his book The Blank Slate, StevenPinker argues that we are soprogrammed that, when someonedisagrees with us, we automaticallyassume he or she isn't being honest.This would certainly explain the Europedebate.

In 1999, a Guardian article began:"Conjure up if you can an image ofthose people sceptical about Britainjoining the single currency. Not difficultis it? The gin-sodden golf-club bore, thelager-swilling football hooligan with hisunion flag tattoos, a blimpish colonel ortwo." In fact, the piece went on toreveal that most online Guardianreaders, while cosmopolitan andinternationalist, opposed the euro. Yet, 11 years later, the stereotypemarches on unscathed.

In my experience, Eurosceptics arelikelier to have lived abroad and tohave entered fully into other culturesthan Euro-enthusiasts, many of whomseem to have latched on to the EU as away of compensating for their poorlanguage skills. Then again, dismissingyour opponents' motivation is morepalatable than asking whether theymight have a point. When he was atthe European Commission, thedeterminedly monoglot Neil Kinnockproclaimed that critics of the Brusselssystem were all xenophobes, and thattheir xenophobia was in no sensediminished "just because they happento speak fluent Catalan or whatever".

I'd have thought that learning Catalanindicated a certain openness to otherEuropean cultures. But from Kinnock'spoint of view it must be a reassuringthing to think. People complain thatthe EU budget is full of irregularities?That's just their way of saying that theyhate continentals. They wonder whyBrussels keeps swatting asidereferendum results? They would,wouldn't they, the chauvinists. They ask why Eurocrats are gettingmore generous perks when nationalcivil servants face cutbacks? The bigots!

It's a handy way of sidesteppingcriticism. And it puts a certain kind ofEuro-enthusiast literally beyondargument.

This article originally appeared in “The Guardian” on 4 July 2010

DISPATCH - We are not xenophobes - 2010


Liam Fox and key members of his newMinisterial team at the Ministry of Defencehave dedicated themselves to defencematters for many years.

They understand defence and – even moreimportantly – their hearts are in the right place inwanting Britain to maintain strong, flexiblemilitary capabilities with global reach.

But unless the nation is in immediate peril, it willbe economic factors that dictate the size of thedefence budget.

We know that the defence procurement systemneeds radical overhaul. Massive projects aredelayed and over-costed. It is a sad fact that ourarmed forces have often had to make-do withequipment that wasn’t up to the task or that wasgood for the last war but not the next.

The Afghanistan campaign has been a saga ofinadequately armoured vehicles and insufficienthelicopter support. We went through most ofWorld War 2 without a decent tank. At Jutland in1916, Admiral Beattie commented as yet anotherof our great battlecruisers went down “there’ssomething wrong with our ships”.

So there is scope for great change.Unfortunately, we are likely to see cuts that gobeyond improvements in efficiency. Wholecapabilities are under threat.

My cautionary word to Ministers has been –remember how often previous defence reviewshave got it wrong. We try to save money in theshort term but this often costs us so much morea few years later – not just in financial termsbut also strategically and in dangerous loss ofinfluence. We do not know what threats andchallenges we shall face in 10 years time.

We should be reassured by David Cameron’searly initiative in establishing a National SecurityCouncil. This recognises that many departmentsof government have a contribution in dealingwith threats to our security. I have long arguedthat there was little point in our troops sallyingforth from the castle to engage the enemy at adistance, when the rear drawbridge was downand we couldn’t even control who was in thecastle.

Generations of soldiers engaged in counter-insurgency campaigns have been the first tounderstand that success comes not just frommilitary means but from use of many other,largely civil, instruments – diplomatic, economic,and humanitarian. What we used to call “heartsand minds” is now loftily termed the“comprehensive approach”.

But we must not lose sight of the fact that thearmed forces are there primarily to delivermilitary effect, to fight. That is their uniqueand essential contribution. We diminish thecombat power of our armed forces at our peril.

DISPATCH - Thoughts on defence - 2010 12

Thoughtson defence

The planned Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier


DISPATCH - Thoughts on defence - 201013

NATO continues to be of greatest importance tous. It binds the United States to the security ofEurope. It has time-tested structures that includenot just the UK and US but also Turkey andNorway, as well as France, Germany, Poland, theNetherlands, and all the other EU countriesexcept the four ‘neutrals’, Cyprus and Malta.NATO itself is going through testing times. Its mission in Afghanistan has been under strain,the costs of alliance operations are borne by toofew, and the EU’s defence ambitions are, at best,a constant distraction. The EU’s commonsecurity and defence policy (CSDP) is describedby its enthusiasts as "complementary" to NATO.That’s the wrong word – ‘duplicative’,‘overlapping’ or ‘competing’ would be moreaccurate. Particularly at a time of financialstringency, we cannot afford separate EUstructures making competing claims on thesame limited pool of military resources.

Is it surprising that many European countries giveonly lukewarm commitment to NATO's front-lineforces in Afghanistan, or that pirates off theSomali coast are ineffectively confronted with avariety of naval forces under different commandsbut drawn from the same diminishing pool ofnaval forces.

The EU's Treaty of Lisbon (which we vehementlyopposed) will compound these difficulties. It empowers a new EU High Representative forForeign and Security Policy to propose EU militarymissions; it introduces a mutual assistance clause,replicating NATO's Article 5; and it offers the baitof 'permanent structured cooperation' to get anadvance guard of countries to intensify theintegration of their armed forces - but it brings noadditional resources. The German ForeignMinister has confirmed that ' the long term goalis the establishment of a European Army'.

This is about politics, not military endeavour. It is about someone else’s foreign policyinterests, not ours.

Our emphasis should be on revitalising theNATO alliance rather than creating structures todisplace it.

TridentThe reasons we need Trident

Its role is strategic. It’s an insurance policy. We needmany capabilities at any one time to meet a range ofdifferent security challenges.

“The rationale for maintaining the nuclear deterrent isbased on the existence of nuclear arsenals in at leasteight other states, the fact that nuclear technologies,know-how and desires are proliferating, the implicitassumption that more states are likely to acquirenuclear weapons in the future, the risks of rogue statesacquiring nuclear and other weapons of massdestruction, and the calculation that nuclear aggressionrealistically can only be deterred by the possibility ofnuclear retaliation”. (Analysis by the Royal UnitedServices Institute)

Can we afford it?

The MOD has calculated the cost of the Tridentreplacement at £30 bn . Figures are lifetime costs for asystem with a 35 year life expectancy. Worst casetherefore is £2.85 bn a year, and more objectively it willbe £1bn. To put this in perspective, it is less than 3% ofthe defence budget. It equates to the additional amountthat has been surrendered by Labour to the EU each yearfrom the reduction in our rebate. It is equivalent to thecurrent annual rate of benefit fraud. That’s the price ofstaying safe.

DISPATCH - Thoughts on defence - 2010

“It takes in reality only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutionsin favour of vegetarianism whilst the wolfremains of a different opinion”,

William Inge - former Dean of St Paul's Cathedral


14

The 4 key EU Institutions...

Council - where national Ministers sit and decide

Commission - proposes and executes EUpolicies

Parliament - where elected representatives(MEPs) sit and decide

Court of Justice - where judges rule on EU law

British MEPs are elected by you every 5 years

Like MPs, we are: Law makers Campaigners Inquisitors Commentators

Currently, there are: 736 MEPs of whom 72are from the UK of whom 25 are Conservatives

of whom 3 represent the East of England.

What’s new? At a time when our citizens want closer controlover the decisions that affect their lives, theprevious Labour government conceded amassive transfer of further powers to the EUthrough the Treaty of Lisbon. Conservativesopposed this.

This Treaty establishes two major new posts – of ‘EU President’ and ‘EU Foreign Minister’. It creates an EU Diplomatic Service (“ExternalAction Service”) with a chain of embassiesaround the world. It removes the national vetoin 50 areas, incorporates a Charter ofFundamental Rights, extends the jurisdiction ofthe European Court of Justice, and introducesmajor changes in the budgetary and financialprocedures, greatly enhancing the role of theEuropean Parliament.

While the European Commission retains its nearmonopoly on initiating legislation, it is Counciland Parliament which have the power ofamendment and approval. This co-decisionprocedure is now known as the "ordinarylegislative procedure".

The Parliament's powers are thereby greatlyextended to include agriculture, fisheries,transport and structural funds as well as thewhole of the previous ‘third pillar’ of justiceand home affairs.

The EUInstitutions

DISPATCH - The EU Institutions - 2010

Commission

Council

Parliament


It is my privilege to have been elected as oneof your Conservative MEPs, representing theEast of England (Suffolk, Essex, Norfolk, Beds,Herts, Cambs) since 1999.

My first priority is the United Kingdom. I do notsee myself as a spokesman for the EU; rather I goto Brussels to speak up for you. But whateveryou might think about the EU, I urge you to takeit seriously – it is a powerful set-up whichimpacts on so many aspects of our lives – toomany in my view.

I have consistently and very actively opposedall moves towards further EU integration whileseeking to get the best from the EU for ourcountry and, in particular, the people of the Eastof England. It’s not easy because, unlike yourConservative MEPs, most of the MEPs in othercountries have been selected by party bossesthat are fully signed up to the EU project of “evercloser Union” – in other words, the eventualcreation of a state called Europe. Our ultimatesafeguard is our Conservative-led nationalgovernment whose Ministers are regularly inBrussels to attend EU Council meetings. Councilhas the final say - that is why it is so importantthat our national vetoes are preserved and thatwe hang on to the purse strings.

In a typical week, I travel to Brussels orStrasbourg on a Monday and return on Thursday. I am well supported there by a team of threeexcellent graduates - James O’Dowd and EdwardSims and Hannah Richards who is shortly to handover to Caroline Ricketts.

MEPs’ activities are centred on the work of theParliament’s 20 committees – I sit on two ofthese, Foreign Affairs and Transport – as well asthe Defence & Security Sub-committee and theDelegations to India, to Iran, to Turkey, and tothe NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I also chairthe Parliament’s Friends of Sri Lanka and am aFounder Member of Friends of India and Friendsof Turkey and have recently been invited to chairthe EU-India Chamber of Commerce.

Back home, assisted by my wife, Fanny, I visitlocal organisations, businesses and farms,engage in political campaigning, and speak atConservative lunches and dinners as well as non-Party events – Rotary, WI, business groups etc – I very much welcome invitations from acrossthe East of England constituency with its 58Westminster seats and over 4 million voters. All the time I am looking at the impact of the EUon business, on farming, the fishing industry, andon consumers as well as trying to ensure betteruse is made of so-called “EU funding”, that ourborders are better controlled, that our coastline islooked after, and that I do all I can to support ourenergy needs.

Before entering politics I had a wide-rangingcareer as a British Army officer involvingoperational intelligence duties in many parts ofthe world starting in Borneo in 1965. My lastappointment was at NATO Headquarters inBrussels 1991-94. My specialisation in counter-terrorism, which I continue from a politicalstandpoint, began during my years in NorthernIreland at the height of the Troubles.

As Conservative Defence Spokesman, I take aclose interest in our armed forces and have ledopposition in the European Parliament to EUdefence policy, which I believe wastes scarceresources and is detrimental to NATO. I havespent many years involved in efforts to removethe scourge of anti-personnel landmines andassist landmine victims. I have alsospearheaded the Parliament's action againstthe Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe.

15 DISPATCH - Being a Conservative MEP - 2010

Being a Conservative MEPLooking at costal protection needs in the Blyth estuary

Campaigning in watford with Fanny, Richard Harrington(elected as MP) and Belgian MEP Derk Jan Eppink


DISPATCH - Breaking the EU Mould - 2010

Our new Conservativegroup in the EuropeanParliament

The European elections on 4 June 2009 inBritain had one very clear outcome – peoplevoted overwhelmingly for parties that didn’tagree with the way the EU had developed andwhere it was heading. Conservativesrecognised this concern as their own.

We want less Europe but we don’t want toabandon the continent to Paris and Berlin. Our aim is to shift the EU in a different direction– one that safeguards our national sovereigntyand focuses on the economy and internationalcompetitiveness instead of political integration.This approach has beengiven both practical andsymbolic effect by ourdecision to leave thefederalist EuropeanPeople’s Party Group(EPP) and form a newbloc in the Parliament –the EuropeanConservatives andReformists Group (ECR).

Political Groups:

The work of the European Parliament is largelyorganised on the basis of its Political Groups.There are seven in the Parliament. For someyears, Conservative MEPs had been affiliated tothe EPP, which comprises many of the mainpolitical parties that you would imagine would beour natural allies. That may be the case on manyLeft/Right issues, but not on the issue of Europeanintegration.

Why we left the EPP:

The EPP regards itself as "the motor of Europeanintegration" and was the prime mover behind theEuropean Constitution and Treaty of Lisbon. It wants EU embassies, an EU army, an EU ‘Charterof Fundamental Rights’, an EU immigration

system, an EU justice system and an EU "FBI". It also wants an end to the British rebate on ourEU budget payments and to the UK's permanentseat on the UN Security Council. And of course itwants the euro and a Europe-wide tax system.The Conservative Party profoundly disagrees withall these positions.

There were criticisms of our leaving the EPP whichcame from our political opponents and federalists.These related to so-called “loss of influence”,“isolationism”, and to keeping bad company. Let me address these points.

“Influence” presumably refers to the remotepossibility that we might have swung another240, otherwise contrary votes to support our viewsthrough the EPP.

This is a superficiallyattractive claim, butthere is plenty ofevidence that it isunrealistic. Even ineconomic and fiscalpolicy, where wesupposedly had themost in common,Conservatives rarelyinfluenced the EPP but,instead, werecompromised by its

agenda. We could help arrange those hundreds ofvotes, provided we agreed with EPP policy in thefirst place. The EPP, and other Groups, take moreaccount of our policy positions now that our voteshave to be courted rather than taken for granted.

Real Influence:

Far from being ‘isolated and without influence’,the ECR now has the chairmanship of theCommittee of greatest importance for the UK,the Parliament’s key Internal Market Committee,as well as the Delegations to Iraq, Canada,Ukraine, and the Caucasus. We also have Vice-Chairmanships of the Development, InternationalTrade, Industry, Transport, Agriculture, Fisheries,and Constitutional Affairs Committees.

16

BREAKING THE EU MOULD

Creating the ECR - Meeting in Krakow with Polish &Czech allies on 1 February 2009

ECR Group meeting in Strasbourg


17

With David Cameron asPrime Minister, we hearlittle of the bogus argumentthat the German Chancellorand French President wouldcold-shoulder theConservatives because wehappened to be in adifferent political group inthe European Parliament!

What company do wekeep?

To form a political Group, aminimum of 25 MEPsfrom at least 7 countries isrequired. The ECRselection process wasmore rigorous andexclusive than any otherGroup in the Parliament.Nevertheless, MichalKaminski, from the PolishLaw and Justice Party,attracted the greatestslander when hebecame our Group leader.He was accused of anti-Semitism. Curious thenthat one of his first invitations was from the IsraeliGovernment, to give a keynote speech at theannual Israeli Counter-terrorism Conference inHerzliya! Had we stayed in the EPP we wouldindeed have found ourselves sitting with partieswith fascist origins such as the Italian AlleanzaNationale.

Practicalities:

Besides the core issue of political principle, therewere other good practical reasons to break our EPPaffiliation We were less visible than our size andstanding deserved. For example, our views werenot represented in the Conference of Presidents,which makes all the important decisions about therunning of the Parliament and its business. Our voice was not heard in big set-piece debates.

For example, it was always the leader of the EPP-ED Group (a German, then a Frenchman) whospoke on our behalf when the British PrimeMinister addressed the European Parliament.

What is now really exciting is that we have anactive, mainstream, reasonable, anti-federalistgroup of European Conservatives and Reformists,harnessing their resources for new politicalpurposes that would at last project the views ofenormous numbers of people across Europe.

With 54 members, we sit withthe party of the latePresident of Poland and ofthe Prime Minister of theCzech Republic as well as withexcellent Belgian, Dutch,Hungarian, Lithuanian andLatvian MEPs. While there areareas of policy differenceamong us, as in any group ofparties, we all share acommitment to the principlescontained in The PragueDeclaration (see scroll).

I am proud to have drafted theseprinciples and to have been theBrussels end of the operation toform the ECR, working closelywith the Rt Hon Mark FrancoisMP, then shadow Europe Minister,in London.

Now that we have a politicalgroup, we are able to create atransnational alliance of politicalparties extending beyond theEU , as well as a political

foundation to provide intellectual stimulus andpractical assistance to take forward our ideas. Its very name, New Direction – The Foundation forEuropean Reform – sums up our aims.

DISPATCH - Breaking the EU Mould - 2010

Patron: The Rt Hon The Baroness Thatcher ofKesteven LG OM FRS

President: Geoffrey Van Orden MBE MEP

Aim: To steer the EU on a different course.

To promote policies and valuesconsistent with the Prague Declarationto help shape the views ofgovernments and key opinion formersin EU member countries and beyond.

Major Policy Themes will include:

1. Economy (especially competitiveness; EU budget;opposition to EU tax harmonisation)

2. Energy Security

3. Foreign, defence and security policy

4. Individual freedom and responsibility

5. Immigration

Email: [email protected]


The Coalition deal includes a referendum onchanging the current ‘First Past the Post’(FPTP) system for Westminster elections withthe Alternative Vote (AV) system. 5 May2010 is the date that has been announced.

Neither David Cameron nor the ConservativeParty is in favour of this change. It’s theLibDems that want it because it would meanthey are permanently in Government. I don’tcall that democracy.

I accept that our electoral system is in constantflux and that no system is democraticallyperfect. Confusingly, we now have 6 differentelectoral systems operating in the UK – mostlyintroduced under Labour. I already experienceMr Blair’s bright idea of a ‘regional party list,proportional representation (PR)’ system for theEuropean elections. But the proposal is toreplace FPTP with AV, not a PR system.

What is AV?

l Voters rank the candidates.

l If no candidate has 50% of first preferencesthen the bottom candidates are eliminatedand their second preferences re-allocateduntil someone has a majority.

l The aim is that MPs have the theoreticalbacking of 50% or more of their constituents

l This would not result in proportionalrepresentation

l Applied to the 2010 election, the Tories wouldhave had 281 seats (instead of 306), Labour262 (258) and the Lib Dems 79 (57)

Churchill called AV “the stupidest, the leastscientific and the most unreal” of the systemsfor voting, with the outcome of an election“determined by the most worthless votesgiven for the most worthless candidates”.That was in 1931 when the matter was lastbefore Parliament. Little has changed.

My reasons for rejecting AV are therefore asfollows:

1. I want an electoral system that allows votersto put in or turf out a Government. With AVyou won’t know who will be in Governmentuntil the politicians have done their deals.

2. As coalition government is more or lessinevitable under AV, a small party, with fewvotes, will decide who it will get intocoalition with. It’s the junior partner, not theelectorate that decides on the Government.

3. You won’t know what you are voting for asParty Manifestoes will be worthless – to forma coalition the parties will need tocompromise on their policies and so younever get what you thought you were votingfor. The Government will have no electoralmandate.

4. The smaller party will always be ingovernment by changing its allegiancesbetween larger parties despite having no realmandate itself – that’s probably why theLibDems like AV so much. As a rule underAV, Conservative seats would decrease;Labour remain about the same; and LibDemsincrease!

5. Candidates would have to court the leastpopular, perhaps extreme, parties to increasetheir ‘second preference’ votes.

6. Even if you think the current system isunrepresentative and you like the idea ofproportional representation (which I don’t),AV doesn’t deliver it. And if coalitions appealto you, just remember the present Coalitioncame about through FPTP. But, in normaltimes (currently we are in deep economiccrisis), wouldn’t you rather have aConservative Government deliveringwholly Conservative policies?

7. If there was a real case formaintaining a Coalition thenthe parties concerned shouldput this to the electoratethrough a jointManifesto –using thepresentsystem.

When you get thechance, I urge youto reject AV.

DISPATCH - Why We Shouldn’t Change the Voting System - 2010 18

Why We Shouldn’tChange the Voting System


QUESTIONNAIRE:GEOFFREY VAN ORDEN MEPwould like to know what youthink...A survey is more accurate and effective themore people respond. I had 700 responses tomy last major survey. I would appreciateyour views on the following issues:

The Coalition.

1. Are you comfortable with the currentCoalition?

Yes q No q

2. At the next General Election, whenever thatcomes, would you prefer:

A. The Conservative Party to stand on its own

manifesto q

OR

B. Coalition manifesto jointly with LibDems q

Voting System.

3. If there was a referendum on changing thevoting system for Westminster elections, howwould you vote?

A. Retain present “First Past the Post” q

B. Alternative Vote q

C. A proportional system q

Immigration.

Provided that businesses could recruit skilledemployees from overseas to meet genuineneeds and that there were still ‘seasonal worker’schemes to help meet temporary needs in foodproduction,

4. Do you wish to see immigration:

A. Slightly reduced q

B. Drastically reduced q

C. Remain the same q

5. Would you be in favour of a “Royal Commission on Immigration”

Yes q No q Not sure q

Foreign Policy.

6. Would you like to see Britain’s relationshipwith the following countries become strongeror weaker or remain the same:

A. United States

Stronger q Weaker q As it is q

B. India


C. Turkey


D. Israel


E. France


F. Germany


Afghanistan. 7. Should our troops be withdrawn:

A. Now q

B. By 2014 at the latest q

C .When the job is properly done q

Other Concerns.

8. Apart from the economy, what one issue (local,national or international) most concerns you?

................................................................................

................................................................................

................................................................................

................................................................................

................................................................................

................................................................................

9. Is there a particular law you would like to seeremoved?

................................................................................

................................................................................

................................................................................

................................................................................

................................................................................

DISPATCH - Questionnaire - 201019

!

!Please complete, cut out and return (as shown overleaf) as soon as possible.


From: ................................................................................

Address: ...........................................................................

.............................................................................................

............................................... Postcode: ......................

Tel: .....................................................................................

Please send me your free m

onthlye-D

ispatchbulletin by Em

ail with new

s of your activities.

My Em

ail address is as follows:

Email: ................................................................................

I would like to receive m

ore information on the

following topic: .............................................................

.............................................................................................

Standing up for British interests in Brussels

Promoted by and on behalf of G

eoffrey Van Orden M

BE M

EP, Conservatives in the European Parliament (ECR G

roup) at 88 Rectory Lane, Chelmsford, Essex CM

1 1RF and printed by M

etloc Printers Limited, 37 Victoria Road, Rom

ford, Essex RM1 2LH

To:

Geoffrey Van O

rden MBE M

EP

88 Rectory LaneChelm

sfordEssex CM

1 1RF

!

!


Documents

GVO Dac 2010 A5 La 1 26/08/2010 15:14 ... - Geoffrey Van Orden · 3 Geoffrey Van Orden MBE MEP 4 Supporting our local fishing ... Director General, British Chamber of Commerce