Europe’s Tory nightmare

Brussels is not prepared for what might hit it if Britain’s Conservative Party wins the next election

See article

Readers' comments



A very amusing and speculative article indeed. I would pay to see a new modernised version of the United Kingdom, now with Ireland inside, ruling the waves and battling continental Europe, lead by Cameron himself dressed like old Maggie. Fantastic!


"... taking in allies from the ex-communist east" - wow, what a serpentarium that's going to be.


The difference between previous Conservative dministrations and David Cameron's future government is that the EU's aims are now crystal clear.

15-20 years ago, the generally sceptical British public was sure that nobody really wanted a United States of Europe. There was a large constituency for the "its going our way" story. Even the Iron lady herself was fooled.

Know we all know that it'll never go our way. This gives David Cameron much more leeway, as will the almost complete lack of Europhiles in the parliamentary party.


A very amusing and speculative article which has inspired all the regular EU bashers. The last sentence in the article, however, contains the most important point about the present situation in the EU. What if they call the Tory Party's and UKIP's bluff!! 'Hawkchurch' is spot-on about the options to the Tories.

Liberty Valence

"Europe faces a time of instability...That makes the calm that reigns in Brussels more than complacent: it is baffling." This calm is the same dream world that eurocrats at all levels live in, such that they were completely astonished when France & Holland voted down the EU constitution in 2005 (despite all the advance warnings at the time that this could happen), & when Ireland voted "No" (thank goodness!) in their recent EU Lisbon Treaty referendum. Why don't the eurocrats & their mis-guided backers like referendums? Because while they can control a majority of national politicians, they can't yet control majorities of voters.

How is it all done? Bribery & blackmail! Or if that does not work, blackmail softened by bribery which itself is then blackmailable! A procedure financed & operated originally by the French secret service (after all the EU is all about France's benefit, isn't it?), but now financed out of the annual black-hole in the EU's accounts. Th monies used to support such a disreputable & bullying programme could clearly not be revealed, & are therfore unauditable - one of the reasons why the the EU's own auditors have been unable to sign off the EU's accounts over the last 13 successive years!

Imagine yourself as an upright politician in an EU member nation, & you doubt the value of some of the 3255 (astonishingly, that was the number last year!) of EU decisions, directives, & regulations that are imposed on member nations annually. If you want to, or succeed in starting, to vote against the EU's plans, discrete reminders will come about some indiscretion(s) you committed eg in your youth, or alternatively by close family members - indiscretions that you would certainly not like to be known by anyone, especially voters. So you clam up, & deliberately avoid rocking the EU boat to preserve your new parliamentary or bureaucratic privileges.

It's particularly easy if you are an MEP. In return for co-operating against your will, there's a very generous "ask-no-questions" expenses policy on hand. And just in case you suddenly begin to get principled again, there's always the availability of a new threat that some of your expense claims were not, after all, within the EU rule book - & are therefore actionable at law. And so you co-operate again!

The same procedure can also be applied to eurocrats, national government officials, & MPs. In addition, selection of pro-EU candidates to pivotal government positions can easily be engineered this way - especially once the process is well under way, & eg several members of the new staff selection committee have now also been "compromised"!

Controlling a majority of national government figures is easy, therefore, for the EU. So, as long as there are no more referendums, the EU's integrationalist policy will be plain sailing. But as soon as there are referendums, the anti-democratic EU is in trouble. Eg, Ireland's recent referendum, & another possible one early next year. The EU would, therefore, be counting on their traditional methods of control (as outlined above) to keep Ireland in order. And will naturally try to do the same with the next Tory government - presumably from early 2010, or hopefully earlier if possible. Perhaps more bad publicity of the kind that surfaced last year accusing David Cameron of indiscretion at the age of 17! So watch out for more damaging revelations about the Tory party in the intervening period - both to damage them, & also to warn them to behave in the way that the EU likes! Ie, no rocking of the EU boat - however much one dislike whatever it proposes!


Just as The Economist decribes moderate Muslim clerics as 'midly Islamist' it shows itself here once again as mildly Eurosceptic - ie it is content to join in with the unholy alliance of EU bashers in the UK media but accepts that the EU cannot be killed off. After all at least one-third of UK exports are to EU countries.It is not a foregone conclusion that there will be a Tory government in the UK. The electoral arithmetic makes a hung parliament the most likely outcome so if the Tories were to be in coalition with the more pro EU Lib Dems there would be an interesting scenario. Even if this does not happen and the Tories govern on their own expect the whole thorny question of their EU (absence of) policy to rear its ugly head and the main reason for this will be economic. As the UK economy goes into tailspin and the pound with it we will hear talk about joining the Euro getting louder and louder. Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out to be the presently anti-EU Tory party which takes Britain into the Euro?


To SherwoodForest:
The actual net contribution of Britain (in 2007) was Euro 6 billinon, not £6,4 billion (that's 0,29% of British GNI, not a very large sum, mostly going to help poorer countries; terrible isn't it). This amounts to roughly 6% of the EU budget. Don't overstate the negotiating power of the UK. Of course the EU would hurt if the UK pulls out, but the chances are that UK would hurt even more.

Nota bene

I find this article and Economist's general EU section pathetic. It follows obediently the cliche of Brussels mandarins steeped in complacency and nonchalance. And what would Economist suggest that should Brussels do? Parachute commandos to execute Cameron? Invite the Queen to be the Head of the Union? Introduce the imperial system of measurements on the continent? Economist fails to raise from the generally low-brow level of the EU reporting in the UK press.The EU policy of the Conservatives is actually in quite miserable shape. They have to be careful to explain why they are against Lisbon but for staying in the EU. After all, nobody would stop the UK to leave the EU and join the EEA and be like Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. And this exposes the whole farce called EU policy of the Conservative party. The true reason why UK joined and is still in the EU is to put a brake on the consolidation effort of France and Germany. It just aims to put spanner in the works. That's it. But how could they sell this to their voters as "honest and upright" policy? It very much smells of intrigue and perfidy. So the Conservatives walk a very thin line of balancing between the Euro-philes and the UK Independent Party. At some point someone might call their bluff and I think this would be beneficial for Europe. The most natural resolution of this absurd and awkward situation is for the UK to leave the EU which will finally eliminate one of the main roadblocks for the consolidation. However, I don't believe this will happen easily - while the pound was strong and the economy booming UK could easily afford to be arrogant. Now the fortunes are changing and this might suddenly awaken in Whitehall warm feelings toward Brussels (or more exactly the pretense of it). So we will see fresh releases of the old soap opera called "Britain in the EU (but leaving)".


Traditionally Tories have been more pro-European than Labour. In fact it was Thatcher the one who signed the Single European Act and Major the one who signed the Maastricht Treaty, which is the most important Treaty ever on European integraton after the Treaty of Rome. The Maastricht Treaty is much more important than the Lisbon Treaty...


Povitch says neither Brussels nor the rest of Europe would care a damn about a Conservative victory at the UK's next election. They would if Cameron then gave us the referendum that all three of our political parties have promised. The likelihood is that would result in a resounding "no" to the EU in its present form. At stake for Brussels would be the £6.4 billion net that we contribute to the coffers every year. Without our money the whole bloated ediface that is the EU would collapse. Povitch might not like it but it is, in fact, the UK that has the strongest negotiating cards. It is just that Gordon Brown and his morally bankrupt government haven't got the courage to use them.


The funny part about this article and the Tories' position on Europe is that no one, even in their own party, is able to say why they actually detest "Europe" so much. There are vague wafflings about bureaucracy and sovereignty but neither of these arguments is genuine or stands up to any real scrutiny, especially as EU constitutional tenants like the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital remove state sovereignty only to hand it back to the individuals and businesses that the states took it away from in the first place.The truth is there are 2 main reasons why the Tories dislike the EU so much. The first is that, due to the way the EU insulates executive power through the Council of Ministers (and how the UK Parliament sidelines the opposition parties) opposition parties feel aggrieved by this and want the benefits of power to themselves. After 11 years outside of the halls of power in Brussels the Tories desperately want to be let back in (another reason why the Tory MEPs do not want to leave the most powerful group in the European Parliament, where they still have the last vestiges of influence). Secondly, and perhaps more importantly in Britain, is the fact that you cite 88% of people could not name a single one of their MEPs. I would wager that most Tory activists and would-be MPs could not either. This type of unawareness can only breed apathy and hostility and a few years of "banging on" about Europe might actually wake people up to the issue and not accept hostility on face value.


Rasectos raises a good point, namely the principle of "collective bargaining": the various member states of the EU negotiating in unison with, say, China.

That is not a bad thing, and I believe that it WILL happen, one way or another. Yet I draw your attention to the fact that this, like all bargaining in general, is mostly an ECONOMIC principle. The reason(s) why the "European Constitution" ("or Whatever") has hit a wall is that most Europeans view it as an encroachment in their POLITICAL life, their liberties and rights, their countries' sovereignty, etc. THAT, in my opinion, is the problem.

I also point out that your rhetorical question

"You think China is gonna care about the safety standards of 11 million Greece?"

is a scenario that is dealt with, day in and day out, by the natural economic mechanism of supply and demand. If, say, the Greeks feel that Chinese products are unsafe, they won't buy them. There is nothing an EU Constitution can do about such things. Bad products should be banned outright, and a European-equivalent of the USDA is certainly a good agency to have.

I am no psychologist or behavioral scientist, yet believe that the concerns of Rasectos (and COUNTLESS Europeans who share them) regarding China, India, Russia, et al are valid; I cannot imagine, however, how deeper POLITICAL integration of EU member states could ever begin to address such issues. In other words, sensible fears lead to rather vain hopes, I'm afraid...


When the Economist writes something about the EU, usually the opposite happens, because people in the EU tend to think the opposite of The Economist on European matters. It's not only Brussels that doesn't care about a Tory victory. The rest of the EU cannot give a damn. 27 elected governments agreed about the Lisbon Treaty. That's a fact. Get used to it. So this agenda will move on. Maybe without some countries. With or without the UK and Ireland. But it will move on because that's what 27 governments, democratically elected governments representing about half a billion people, have agreed on.


@ Mr. Stiakakis.First of all I'd just like to say that I'm not crazy about the EU (at least its current make-up). I believe something like tax harmonization would be a grave mistake as well. However your Eurocentric view does in my opinion represent the past. There are 2 huge powers emerging to our east. The US won't become any weaker in the forseeable future either. As Europeans we can in a sense only get our way if we stick together. You think China is gonna care about the safety standards of 11 million Greece? Probably not but if the EU intervenes, they will listen (or at least they'll be more likely to listen). Fact of the matter is that intra-European competition will play an ever smaller role in the future. The competition lies elsewhere and unless we co-operate on a number of issues, we won't be able to get our way.

john hopkins

I don’t agree that “Anti-EU absolutists would push Mr Cameron to hold a referendum anyway, as a prelude to Britain renegotiating the treaty”. The EU problem is bigger than the Lisbon treaty so that even the democratic mandate of a referendum on Lisbon cannot address the whole scope of this problem. All the Conservatives need to do is to promise to renegotiate the UK-EU relationship in their next manifesto and get to work as soon as elected. Their bargaining power will be greater if Lisbon has not been ratified by 2010, but the job needs doing no matter what the circumstances. In return for the UK opting out of existing EU policies we could allow other countries to integrate to their hearts content. There must be no question of the UK paying more to participate in less EU projects.The Conservatives might also want to hold a referendum on the ratification of whatever results they achieve in these negotiations, and to promise UK Constitutional reform to ensure referendums on any future EU treaties.


Mr. Stiakakis may appreciate this personal account of mine:

I was on a business-trip in Athens for 2-3 days, at the time when the 2005 "incarnation" of the Constitution/Treaty/Whatever was being discussed. There were HUGE banners proclaiming all the supposed wonders of the European Constitution (ironically, I thought, posted at Syntagma, i.e. Constitution Square). Ealier on, I had seen the same enthusiastic, in-your-face touting of the Constitution in Italy, and a couple of other countries.

Yet all the people I spoke to in Athens were either hostile to such a "collective" Constitution, or simply indifferent to it. In fact, I did not find ONE person, Greek or otherwise, who had anything positive to say about the whole thing. I kept no statistics, but simply report this total paucity in "yes" votes, so to speak. Parenthetically, I clarify that people were not "against" the EU ITSELF, only the political integration that they felt was being FOISTED on them by means of said Constitution (i.e. just like the Irish).

I hasten to add, of course, that I did not speak to POLITICIANS, who might have had wonderful speeches to give about why Europe "needed" such a Constitution. I spoke instead to --how should I put it?-- REAL people: mostly Greeks, but also Germans, one Dutchman (I think), several Englishmen and Englishwomen, a couple of Swedes... NO thumbs up!

I differ with Mr. Stiakakis prediction in only one, perhaps minor point, to wit: I don't think that the EU will "disintegrate", as the Soviet Union did, because it is not as (forcibly) cohesive as the U.S.S.R. was. In other words, the "centrifuge" is not as strong in the E.U. I predict instead that delusional federalists will stand embarrassed, with egg on their face-- that is ALREADY happening. POLITICAL integration will peter out, and die an inglorious death.

Ultimately, the EU will be "right-sized" as an institution, with the GREAT accomplishments of monetary union, and many shared standards to its credit; it will, in other words, become an orderly, law-abing, level plain for COMPETITION, as Mr. Stiakakis correctly suggests. I do not, however, believe that it will vanish ALTOGETHER.

Emmanuel Stiakakis

I generally agree with your analysis but you should note that nobody likes EU even here in Athens. I am a Greek citizen and I can send you the following message: EU is going to disintegrate peacefully in the same way that the Soviet Union disintegrated, i.e. it is an illiberall and unnatural bureaucracy created by bureucrats for advancing a unification that none asked for. The way forward is through competition not harmonization and the name of the game is differentiation not integration. EU STANDS FOR HARMONIZATION AND INTEGRATION and is against history!It will soon hit the wall.

Early Hominid

"Mr Cameron would hold a referendum . . . "It won't happen. The Tories will go with the flow. All UK governments do. Scared to ruffle feathers in Brussels. Thatcher signed Maastricht remember. The British have been sold down the river by its leaders. The celtic fringe is mostly pleased with this. The English are not.


"Mr Cameron would hold a referendum and campaign for voters to reject the treaty. Britain would then withdraw its ratification and Lisbon would be dead. One stunned EU diplomat says that “nuclear is not a strong enough word” to describe this option, and hopes that the Tories do not mean it."

The word is "dead". That's terminal, by the way.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

