There is no doubt where the EPP stands politically, and just how far that is from basic Conservative tenets. The Group spells it out explicitly on its own website and in its many (EU-funded) publications.

The EPP believes in vastly more integration in policing and border controls. In the past, members have supported common EU border patrols with a common uniform. Huge leaps and bounds were made after 9/11, when the EPP supported measures that the Commission had previously put on the table but had seen binned as controversial. Taking shorter steps these days, the EPP today calls for intensive police and justice co-operation. The EPP supports the Schengen passport-free zone, and regularly encourages the Blair Government to whittle away the UK opt out. It supports the creation of a special European Office for missing and abused children, endorses the European Arrest Warrant, pushes for more pan-European policing (including ever more powers to EUROPOL), and permanently needles for the controversial corpus juris package. These are all a real threat to British policing methods, the Common Law tradition, the independence of our judiciary, the liberty of the individual, and good government.

On a business level, the essential Thatcherite revolution never quite made it to the EPP – which openly boasts of itself as the political “Centre”. The EPP hales from a corporatist background, not a Conservative one, and certainly not one that has a tradition of looking after small businesses. Under EPP stated philosophy, “companies need to be encouraged to hire unemployed people or lower qualified workers, for instance through tax incentives” – something of a step away from the free market, to say the least. Such dirigisme is also visible in EPP support for “a clear roadmap for structural reforms” and more EU money put into centrally-directed “research, high-quality education and training.”

On the subject of education, the EPP has been a constant supporter of providing EU funds to indoctrinate schoolchildren, elderly and the vulnerable into supporting the EU project. These groups are categorised as “opinion multipliers”. In the UK, much of such activity is legally prohibited, but funds continue to be voted through to many youth and church organisations, while a number of university seats continue to receive grants to fund courses in European integration. Attempts by Conservative MEPs to change this were opposed by EPP members.

Public health is another live wire issue. The EPP has gladly made use of the European Parliament’s increased powers in this area, not always, to say the least, to the advantage of British businesses. The EPP supports the concept of the Precautionary Principle, which essentially allows for an unproven fear to override other concerns where the science is lacking, often to disastrous financial effect. The EPP supports the Kyoto Protocol, which some on the Right view with suspicion. They also favour ever more levels of transport safety (historically including changes to working hours, brought in through the back door).

The EPP is immensely proud of the role played in more recent activity. As spokesmen put it, “We have played a major role in shaping the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in defining the lines of the European Constitution.” Both of these are anathema to Conservative thinking.

The EPP is in favour in some degree of regionalism, in some measure because of the German, Belgian and Spanish members which have federal constitutions. For countries like the UK, this obviously creates issues.

The EPP endorses the creation of an EU Diplomatic Corps. As spokesmen put it, “To be efficient and coherent, Europe needs a European Foreign Minister. The EPP-ED Group took the lead in the European Convention in the call for a merger of the Office of the High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations […] With the European Foreign Minister, Europe will have a united and influential face.”

Coupled with this is a drive for a single European Defence Policy, covering areas from peacekeeping to the ominous ‘peacemaking’. As they put it, “Foreign policy declarations and peace plans are only credible if you have means to implement them. Thus we must be able to send police on conflict prevention missions without being dependent on third countries' intelligence, equipment or technology.” And again, so as we are in no doubt, “To be able to deploy troops in conflict areas with the shortest possible delay, we also need to gain independence in military intelligence.” So, contrary to statements elsewhere, the EPP endorses the EU moving away from the NATO alliance. The EPP, quite short, is encouraging the UK to break its privileged position with regards the Pentagon.

The EPP has a pitiful policy reputation in the fight against financial mismanagement. It supports the frivolous waste of tens of millions of pounds of the EU budget on organisations and lobby groups that support the process of EU integration. And at the same time, the EPP has been disgraceful in its attitude towards whistleblowers who have turned towards MEPs when all other courses of action have been stymied. Conservative MEPs who have championed the causes of whistleblowers have been actively blocked by key EPP MEPs because of the ‘damage’ the complaints would make to the cause of European integration.

Conservatives also receive no support from the EPP in their moves to fix the Common Fisheries Policy by restoring control of the resource to the communities. This is because it would be a reversal of the sacrosanct acquis communautaire.

In short, the EPP is an integrationist group that favours corporatism, regulation, interventionism, elements of protectionism, and the development of a united EU police, judiciary and military with a single seat at the UN that tells the Americans where to get off.

Doubters can simply look at what was said by Former French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, when recently elected Vice-President of the EPP group. He observed,

“I think that from 2007-2008 we must re-launch the European political project and that it will be easier with new and rejuvenated governments in Europe. We must resolve the question of the institutions on the basis of a more modest treaty which will take up the least contested parts of the current Constitution – parts I and II – and which will be ratified by the national parliaments. The countries that have already ratified the Constitutional treaty should not be offended by that. Having accepted the ‘whole’, they will accept a slightly less ambitious text. In the meantime, we can use the current institutions to move Europe forward on a more concrete path. The heads of state showed the example at the last European Council with energy, but it can also be about a common industrial, immigration, defence and education strategy.”

This is not the natural home port of the Conservative Party. We can do better.