Alex Massie Alex Massie

The Polls Back David Cameron

Brother Korski is, as always, the voice of urbane reason on all matters european. I have little idea whther David Cameron done brilliant in Brussels lately or whether he’s blundered badly. Neither verdict seems satisfactory or sufficiently nuanced. There is this, however: in one respect he has done the rest of europe a favour: had he agreed to a new treaty he would have been forced to hold a referendum in Britain and it is hard to see how any treaty, be it ever so favourable to Britain, could have passed. Cue more diplomatic shenanigans and assorted other awkwardness in Brussels.

By standing aside Cameron may have “isolated” Britain but he’s made life much easier – though it’s stll far from simple – for every other leader in europe. So there you have it, if the thing (whatever it is) works then the rest of the continent might one day thank the British Prime Minister.

Of course, since these new arrangements seem likely to apply to non-eurozone countries as well as euromembers and since budgetary restrictions are likely to be just the beginning before talk moves on to tax harmonisation and other matters, it’s hard to see how Cameron could have signed anything. If his negotiating strategy was sub-optimal then so were his options.

But the politics of the thing is a different matter. Always with the politics, eh? Yes. Cameron was hampered (kept honest you might say) by his parliamentary colleagues but also, it should be noted, by the general public. Europe is not a subject that dictates many voting preferenes or is even considered all that important by all that many voters (though it is supremely important to them that care about it) but when, as in a referendum, europe is the single issue to be debated and judged then the picture is pretty clear: the British people don’t like it.

Consider this Yougov poll summarised by UK Polling Report. Among its findings:

Was David Cameron right to use his veto? Yes 58% No 21% Don’t Know 21% Within this, 87% of Tory supporters, 38% of Labour punters and a whacking 47% of Lib Dem voters backed Cameron. Was the outcome of the summit good or bad for Britain? Good: 34% Bad 31% Neither 23% Don’t Know 22% Which best reflects your view: Refusing to sign the treaty is a good outcome for Britain and David Cameron did the right thing: 38% (Con 66%, Lab 19%, LD 23%) Refusing to sign the treaty is bad for Britain, but given other countries refused to give concessions David Cameron had no choice: 18% (Con 22%, Lab 17%, LD 25%) Refusing to sign the treaty is bad for Britain and David Cameron should have been able to negotiate an acceptable deal: 20% (Con 3%, Lab 38%, LD 27%) The deal that other european countries offered was acceptable and David Cameron should have signed up: 4% (Con 0%, Lab 6%, LD 11%) Don’t know: 20% (Con 9%, Lab 20%, LD 14%)

That last one is a five-choice question but at least presents a reasonably nuanced view of public opinion. And, given these choices, only 4% of respondents say Cameron should have done a deal, any deal. Given the margin of error in these things that means, I think, it is possible that almost no-one anywhere in Britain thinks, given these choices, Cameron should have taken what he was given. 

Finally, for now, YouGov asked if Cameron’s actions this past weak were a sign of strength or weakness. 53% of respondents said he’s been strong, 17% that he’s shown weakness while 20% say neither and 11% don’t know. Those are also numbers the Prime Minister will take. Doesn’t make him right, of course, but it’s the political backdrop to his choices. He had to bring something home for his party, certainly, but the country doesn’t much care for europe either.

Comments