Does Europe matter to voters?

After the recent EU summit, David Cameron declared himself a "Eurosceptic".  Here's what he said:

Q: Are you a Eurosceptic?

A: I’ll give you a very direct answer, which is Yes

Am I sceptical about granting more powers to the EU? Yes. I am sceptical that money in Europe is well spent? Yes. Do I think that Europe should be members states working together rather than a superstate? Yes

Does that qualify me to be a eurosceptic? I’ve always thought that yes that it does.

But a practical, sensible reasonable one at the same time.

So, for Cameron being a Eurosceptic is nothing to do with renegotiating our position within the EU or taking powers back from Brussels.  It is about being "sceptical about granting more powers to the EU", "sceptical that money in Europe is well spent", believing "that Europe should be members states working together rather than a superstate."  On that definition, Ken Clarke would appear to be a Eurosceptic.  Indeed, I suspect that even Angela Merkel might count.

Three quarters of Conservative members believe that Cameron failed last week, by not seeking to use the opportunity of a new EU Treaty to renegotiate Britain's position within the EU - by failing to honour a key manifesto pledge not just from the 2010 General Election, but from the 2005 and 2001 General Elections also, on a central issue of politics that drew many Conservative activists to political activism in the first place.

Some 91% of Conservative members believe in either renegotiating our position within the EU or withdrawing altogether.  Indeed, as I feared would happen, straightforward get-outers now outnumber renegotiationist Eurosceptics.  That our leadership imagines it can simply ignore numbers like these - that it can break such a fundamental manifesto pledge on such a central issue without consequences - is astonishing.

There are two reasons, I think, why it imagines it might get away with it.  The first is one of its own strategems.  The leadership has deliberately concocted a row about the EU budget to try to distract from the central issue of the new EU Treaty and the foregone opportunity to renegotiate.  Cameron correctly says that the Budget wouldn't have been on the agenda last week had it not been for him.  That's because that wasn't a meeting about the budget - it was about much more momentous issues than mere money!  Our fellow EU Member State leaders would have been mystified by his insistence on putting such a petty point on the table at such an important event, were it not for the fact that they understand a thing or two about distracting their own populations from the consequences of EU decisions.

The row about the EU budget was the sort of thing that seems like cleverness in Cameroon circles.  If they had won, they could have distracted attention from their failure to renegotiate by claiming a great victory.  If they had lost - as they did - they could bear the flak on this small question, distracting attention from the much larger one.

The second reason is that examined by Mike Smithson recently.  Europe has gone right down the pollster rankings as a major political issue recently.  Smithson wants us to conclude that the voters don't care about Europe.  I interpret the finding differently.  I haven't checked, but I confidently assert that there has never been a serious opinion poll in which "Ending death" featured as a major political issue.  I'd be surprised if "Achieving world peace" has been a regular in the top 10.  Why not?  Is it that no-one cares that they die?  Is it that people don't think war a bad thing?  No.  The reason is that the voters don't believe they can do anything about it.  So they shrug, life goes on, and they focus their political attentions on issues they do believe they can affect.

When Europe was a more salient issue, that partly reflected a belief amongst the electorate that things could change.  I think they've given up.  Furthermore, they've adjusted.  It's not so bad, is it, living in a country in which half our laws are determined outside our borders?  (At least, it's not so bad whilst things go okay-ish - we might think differently if something bad happened that could be specifically attributed to the EU.)  That's doesn't mean it couldn't be better some other way.  It doesn't mean that voters don't care.  But why get excited about things you can't change when those things aren't all that bad in the first place?

Voters need politicians that lead them, that tell them what matters, what can be changed and what to simply sit back and accept.  At least...that's what they need when times are good.  When times are tougher, then Tea Party-style grass roots activism can overthrow much we take for granted.  It remains to be seen how content Conservative grass roots will be to see solemn undertakings to them simply ignored by our leaders in respect of the European Union.