Allan Massie: I'm a natural Tory supporter – but I can't vote for them

Published on Monday 23 November 2009 21:58

THE Tory Eurosceptics – and their outriders in Ukip – are sadly confused. One might even say they are in a parlous mental condition. They dread the federal super-state and they complain that the European Union as at present constituted is undemocratic. So, indeed, it is and they should be thankful for it, since, if it was more democratic, it would have greater authority, and the federalists would have cause to rejoice.

Events of this past week have been significant. When discussions on a European constitution began, there was talk of having a directly elected president of the EU. That might really have been cause for Eurosceptic alarm. But, of course, the idea was shelved. Instead, the Treaty of Lisbon deputed the Council of Ministers to select the president, who would therefore lack a democratic mandate and be, in reality, no more than the chairman of the council and spokesman for it. However, those who wanted the EU to acquire more of the trappings of a state didn't despair.

The next suggestion was that the president should be a statesman with an international reputation, one who could open doors and set the traffic in motion. There was a candidate who fitted this description: Tony Blair. Did he get the job? Of course not; it went to the Belgian prime minister Herman van Rompuy, described by one Brussels insider as "so low-key he threatens nobody", while the post of the EU's foreign affairs representative went to the Labour peer Lady Ashton, who is even lower-key than Mr van Rompuy.

Were the Eurosceptics delighted? Did they clap their hands and sing, "everything's going our way"? Of course not: they complained that two nonentities had been appointed.

In one sense, I see their point. This was a bad week for those who want to see Europe progress to federalism in the hope that this will persuade a British government to call – and win – a referendum which would take us out of the EU. It was a bad week for them because it showed that the federal state is not going to be born and that the EU will remain a union of nation-states – the Gaullist "Union des tats". There are good reasons why this is so, even if our Eurosceptics and Europhobes won't admit it. The first is that the enlargement of the EU, from its original six to the present 27, has made the creation of a coherent federal state a fantasy or chimera. It won't happen because it couldn't conceivably hold together. The second is that political power and decision-making rest with the Council of Ministers – not with the European Commission, which is the EU's civil service – and the council is composed of national politicians who have no desire to see their own power and authority reduced.

No prime minister of the United Kingdom, no president of France, no chancellor of Germany is going to be willing to take second place to a president of the EU. That is why the job was never going to go to a "big beast" like Tony Blair. It is why it has, in effect, been reduced to that of a figurehead and chairman of the council. Likewise, no leader of any member state is eager to surrender his country's seat at the United Nations, just as both France and Britain are determined to retain their permanent membership of the UN's Security Council. But these things would have to happen if the EU ever became a state such as the US or the Russian Federation.

As for the commission, which provokes the fury of Eurosceptics, it is principally concerned with the administration of the single market and with attempts to make it function smoothly and equitably. Almost all of what are called its "laws" are in reality administrative regulations to be applied by the civil services of the member states. (Most of the really bad laws of recent years that affect us have been passed at Westminster and Holyrood, not in Brussels).

The commission is, like all bureaucracies, often tiresome and inefficient, but it employs fewer people (half of whom are engaged in translation) than any of the larger government departments in Whitehall. The EU budget, which arouses the indignation of our Eurosceptics, is less than three times the sum total of public spending in Scotland – this for a union of 27 states with a population of more than 300 million.

None of this cuts any ice with those Tories who resent the EU, dream of past glories and cling to the illusion the UK is still a global power. David Cameron and William Hague must know all this, but they dare not admit the truth for fear of the dislike of the EU that runs through their party. So they temporise and prevaricate, and, by their timidity, risk losing the ability to exert influence within the EU.

They are afraid of a back-bench revolt, such as John Major who had announced his intention to put Britain "at the heart of Europe" had to endure, and they are afraid of losing votes to Ukip. They show no awareness, however, of other votes they are in danger of losing, or may indeed already have lost. These are the votes of natural liberal Tories who are pro-European and who believe that the vices of the EU, many of which are common to all political and administrative bodies, are outweighed by its virtues and that, in general, it is a Good Thing.

They may not believe there are many such voters, or feel that those who think like this may be safely ignored. How many voters are weary of the Tories' attitude to Europe I cannot tell, but that there is such weariness I know for sure. I know because I am one of these voters, a natural liberal Tory who can no longer vote for the party, but instead is faced with the choice of voting Labour, Liberal Democrat or SNP, all of which have a more acceptable attitude to Europe – or not voting at all. The temptation not to vote is strong, but the temptation to cast a pro-European and, therefore, anti-Tory vote is stronger still, and I have little doubt that, come the election, I shall not only yield to it but urge others who think like me to do so too.