EU referendum: Cameron is determined to face down his backbenchers - The Daily Telegraph

The PM will win on the referendum, but the aesthetics of his victory are important

By Matthew d'Ancona9:00PM BST 22 Oct 2011592 Comments
Tomorrow’s Commons vote on a motion calling for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union has its distant roots in the ferocious Tory politics of 1994-95 – and one night in particular. I remember the occasion well: there were photographers and television crews outside in Lord North Street, so great was the controversy of the speech being delivered within the elegant Georgian house.
Inside, at a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group at Jonathan Aitken’s home, Norman Lamont, recently sacked as Chancellor, declared that it was time to think seriously about leaving the EU. He was not the first to say as much. But for a recent occupant of No 11 to go this far was sensational indeed.
Meanwhile, the billionaire Sir James Goldsmith had founded the Referendum Party, a movement with a single policy objective: to force a plebiscite on Britain’s membership of Europe. His intellect, drive and huge resources made the campaign a force to be reckoned with, a flash of colour in the last, grey years of the long Tory reign. This was the backdrop to the leadership contest called by John Major in June 1995 – “put up or shut up” – in which he defeated his Eurosceptic tormentors, but only at immense cost to his political dignity.
One of the great accomplishments of the Conservatives’ 13 years in Opposition was the gradual achievement of unity over Europe. The party learnt the hard way that “banging on about Europe”, as David Cameron put it in 2006, does not impress the electorate. Yes, the public, like the modern Tory party, is broadly Eurosceptic. But few voters regard Europe as a priority. In a survey conducted by Ipsos MORI shortly before last year’s general election, “Europe/EU’’ was ranked only 16th in a list of “very important” issues, cited by a mere 3 per cent of those certain to vote. It is not just “splits” over Europe that the Tories should avoid. It is shrillness.
Tomorrow’s motion, submitted by the Conservative MP for Bury North, David Nuttall, has come before the House thanks to a new mechanism which gives Commons time to e-petitions that have secured more than 100,000 signatures and then been selected by the Backbench Business Committee that was founded in June 2010. It was open to Cameron to treat the whole business as a bit of a lark, an opportunity for backbenchers to let off steam, before a free vote that would not be binding upon the Government.
RELATED ARTICLES
Eurozone debt crisis is a 'real danger' to UK 22 Oct 2011
Voters have been cheated over the European Union for too long. Let them decide 22 Oct 2011
Free Britain to grow by taking power from Europe 23 Oct 2011
David Cameron must show he is not powerless before the storm 08 Oct 2011
David Cameron needs to offer tough love - even to the Bullingdon Club 03 Sep 2011
Instead, the PM insisted that the debate be brought forward to tomorrow, so that he and William Hague could be present, and imposed a three-line whip. A parliamentary wheeze has become a trial of strength between Cameron and his increasingly testy backbenchers. This weekend, he, George Osborne and other senior members of the Government are hitting the phones, urging potential rebels to “be reasonable” (in the Godfather sense of the word).
The PM will win, but the aesthetics of his victory are important. At the time of writing, 68 Tory MPs have signed up to defy the whip (not far shy of the 77 who backed Mr Nuttall’s Ten Minute Rule Bill to relax the smoking ban). Such a revolt would be a challenge to the authority of the Prime Minister, and each rebel vote will be interpreted unambiguously as a gross discourtesy. “The PM will be reading the division lists afterwards very carefully,’’ says a senior Government source, with due menace.
Cameron’s allies know full well the risks of appearing too heavy-handed and forcing a fight that could have been avoided. There has been bad blood between the leadership and the backbenchers every since the expenses scandal, during which less affluent Tory MPs felt they were being thrown to the dogs by millionaire Cameroons. Most Conservative backbenchers believe that the Lib Dems have disproportionate power in the Coalition. They are bitter that Nick Clegg was allowed a referendum on AV, an electoral system that not even the Lib Dems really wanted.
The PM’s allies are conscious of all this ill feeling, which is why they hoped privately that George Eustice – once Cameron’s press secretary, now leader of the “Fresh Start” group of Eurosceptic MPs – would come up with a compromise. Mr Eustice didn’t pull it off, but has earned the discreet gratitude of No 10 for trying (he’s the one rebel who’s still got a good chance of promotion). There will be much repair work to be done between leadership and back benches in due course.
None the less: Cameron is determined that tomorrow’s debate should dramatise robustly his refusal to let Europe engulf the party once more – a Clause Oh-For-God’s-Sake, if you like. He fears the party resuming its lethal embrace with a single issue, lost in introspection, arguing over how many Bill Cashes can dance on the head of a pin while the public, anxious about jobs and inflation, watches in bafflement. What Ed Miliband wants more than anything is to say that the Tories are “out of touch”: in the next 24 hours, he may be justified in this claim.
The irony is that the Cameroons are all for an EU referendum: just not this one, and not now. Steve Hilton, the PM’s closest adviser, is keeping a low profile this weekend, keen not to be drawn into parliamentary politics. But his campaign to bring about a revolution in public sector delivery – constantly thwarted or slowed down by Brussels directives – has persuaded him that a reckoning of some sort is essential.
The Nuttall motion proposes three bald options: stay in the EU, leave, or renegotiate the terms of our membership. The Tory manifesto committed Cameron to repatriating “key powers over legal rights, criminal justice and social and employment legislation”, although the Coalition Agreement promises only that “we will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences”. In private, senior Tories have long been uncertain about how exactly they would bring powers back from Brussels to Westminster, and what leverage they would have.
The eurozone emergency is precisely the wrong moment to force this debate. Marriage counselling is pointless when the couple’s house is on fire. But the European crisis means that, much sooner than expected, an EU Intergovernmental Conference will be necessary to discuss sweeping changes to the Union, its fiscal structure and much else. Britain will be in a potentially strong position to barter, and to achieve the repatriation of powers it seeks. There would be a Treaty and a referendum on the renegotiated terms of membership. In private, Cameron’s team believes that all this is achievable – but not yet, and certainly not during the Coalition’s lifetime.
The seductions of tomorrow’s motion, meanwhile, are deceptive. As one senior minister put it to me: “The one referendum the sceptics would probably lose is whether we stay in or out.” Or to put it another way: be careful what you wish for. In politics, as in life, the greatest strategists are patient. They know that true victories never take the form of shiny gimmicks.

I honestly don't think we will ever, ever have a referendum on whether to leave the EU.

If miracles do happen - we will be treated the same way as the Irish. If we come up with the wrong answer - i.e. YES - we want to leave the EU.

We will be asked over and over again until we get it right - i.e. NO we want to stay in the EU.

Thanks Angelique,

The way things are in Europe .....read the article I posted on the EC thread by the University Professor, ... the crisis in the EU is far reaching
and will take a long time to get better. a fiscal policy whereby every Country operates in the same way is never going to be acheived,
neither will a Eurobond . I think the EU as we know it now will not prevail, some Countries will default and leave the EU and new membership
will be halted until all these existing problems are ironed out. Actually, although I"m all for it , it"s a bad time to have a Referendum but David
Cameron can certainly bargain for a withdrawal from the EU Human Rights Law since Britain, more than any other Country is shackled by it
because we have probably 3 times the number of immigrants coming here without a job and bringing their Families because Britain is a soft
touch for the Welfare State. Not to mention the illegals who Judges too often refuse to deport because they either have a cat or got married two hours before they were due to leave.

Panda

Yes - I saw and read your article you posted. I know we are bashing our heads on a brick wall of "humungas european size" - I think it will spread further than Italy, Spain - it will be the newer countries that have joined as well as they don't produce enough - they just emigrate here as you say because they can get money without contribution.

Before we even joined the EU my PaPa used to say the only reason France & Germany wanted us to join was to "bleed us dry" and I think he was right! We put BILLIONS in and get "miserable millions" out.

The three main parties have reneged on promises of an EU referendum
A possible vote on Britain's relationship with Europe


Here is just one of the letters sent to the Editor regarding the above:

"
SIR – MPs and others supporting the option of renegotiating British membership of the EU forget one crucial fact. The process of acquis communautaire is embedded in the treaties. It is a one-way ratchet. Once the EU has taken “competence” over an area of government, it cannot be returned to the member states.
Our only realistic alternative to membership is to walk away, take our billions with us, and wish them well. If that is how Europeans want to govern themselves, that is a matter for them.
We were far better off as a global player, and can be again. Europeans are our neighbours. They should be our friends. They cannot be masters in someone else’s house.
***** *******
Binsted, Hampshire" - I have removed the name of the poster.

Yes Angelique, good response. When we joined the EU in 1973 it was called The Common Market so voters were fooled into thinking it was just a Trade agreement. To give Maggie Thatcher her due, she stood up for Britain and got us a fair deal. In the meantime, we were paid to keep
fields fallow because there was a surfeit of Farm produce, our fishing rights in the North Sea were curbed and slowly but surely Germany and France became the "Government", not the 17 Members who joined the EURO, nor the 27 Members in total. We have the expense of paying MEPs who do bu**er all to protect the rights of Britain , a EU so big that the Auditors couldn"t write off the Accounts for several years because of the lack of proper book-keeping. Yet from Tony Blair, to Gordon Brown and now David Cameron, we are not granted a proper Referendum.

It was said it is too difficult because we have since joining signed more binding Treaties, but Angela Merkel now says they are not Taboo
and can be altered because she needs them to be altered, so why is our Government not making alterations to suit us.?

Didn't the Dutch have to go through a rerun or two before the "right" answer was achieved!

I know no one who believes that joining the Euro is a good idea and most of my friends can't understand why UK is a "net contributor" to the European Union and supports countries that cannot balance their books any better than the EU can itself.

Even my son (he reads the news and generally otherwise disagrees with me - as sons do) directly says what is in it for us? What can I say? Nothing?

Yes gillyspot, it was a grand design which no one figured out properly on how it could be managed. A plethora of rules and regulations verging
on Dictatordship for which Britain gave up a Commonwealth trading partnership. Little slovakia voted no, but it has a coalition Government
so was virtually forced to change it"s vote. An analyst said recently that Politicians should be Economists because they have no grasp of
how to Govern effectively.

there is a report of an interview with Simon Hughes, LibDem saying now is not the time to have a referendum, I won"t C & P because it is not very interesting, but this comment is:-


Posted by: scarvesandgloves from ConDemend Britian on October 23, 2011 3:46 PM

HA.
The vast majority of the public want out of the money draining shambles
of the EU. They don't want EU law. They don't want EU immigrants
walking into our country. They don't want EU companies absorbing the
British contracts.

We all know the EU pays in your pocket Cameron and Cronies. Just like
the EU paid into the pockets of Blair and Brown. I'm sick of this
country's government. I think EVERYONE in this country is sick of it.

• Recommend (5)
  

Panda wrote:there is a report of an interview with Simon Hughes, LibDem saying now is not the time to have a referendum, I won"t C & P because it is not very interesting, but this comment is:-


Posted by: scarvesandgloves from ConDemend Britian on October 23, 2011 3:46 PM

HA.
The vast majority of the public want out of the money draining shambles
of the EU. They don't want EU law. They don't want EU immigrants
walking into our country. They don't want EU companies absorbing the
British contracts.

We all know the EU pays in your pocket Cameron and Cronies. Just like
the EU paid into the pockets of Blair and Brown. I'm sick of this
country's government. I think EVERYONE in this country is sick of it.

• Recommend (5)
  

Panda

Exactly - that just about sums it up - but that I believe was the reason why Cameron and his predecessors made sure we didn't have a Referendum. Why would any politician or PM want to vote away their jobs. Because if you are not on the trail as an Advisor like Blair (which Brown wanted to get on but has failed miserably - I wonder why) then being an MEP or of to the Lords guarantees one an income for the rest of their natural. Also don't forget, it has just been published that Thatcher (bless her cotton socks because like you say in some ways she did try and govern for the people) - there is this very,very,very special fund that ex Prime Ministers can draw on for appearing or speaking at functions (wine & dine in our vocabulary). Can't remember the exact amount - they were published in The Telegraph so may go and have a scout.

Boy - I am really angry now - can you tell?

Hi Angelique,

I saw that Article, Maggie received over £500,000 Pension since she retired, John Major over £4,000.00 and Tony Blair, because he is not yet pensionable age, over £169,000.00. The EU is so corrupt it will never work, Neil Kinnock and his Wife are other prime examples of money for
nothing.

The biggest problem we have is trying to find honest, caring Politicians to rule Britain to get us out of this mess and rapid decline of "Britishness."

Hi Panda

Yes and yes. I totally agree "trying" is the right word because IMO you will never achieve it.

This whole "idea" that we need Political Parties to be elected to govern us, the people who raise the money for them to spend it, is wrong. They make these little schemes to ferret away as much money as they can and all the Global Warming - swanning of to see these foreign islands during their summer break (paid for by us) to inspect "rising sea levels" with their wives and hanger's on.

Why should they even want to put in place anything which will block all these little "perks" that will see them to the end of their lives and their children's lives, and their children's children who would fall foul of a law that will take it all away. You would honestly now have to admit they are better off than Royalty - they can top them any day.

I don't know what to put in it's place, but again IMO this whole "franchise" is one BIG PONZIE SCHEME which in turn begets other PONZIE SCHEMES and so on ad infinitum.

As for "Britishness"- oh I so agree. I used to feel quite proud and felt I belonged to a race of caring and honest people. Now I just feel sick when I see the Union Jack or even the St. George's Cross flag. I don't feel at all patriotic towards our country any more. Well, maybe it's because it's not our Country anymore.

Angelique wrote:Hi Panda

Yes and yes. I totally agree "trying" is the right word because IMO you will never achieve it.

This whole "idea" that we need Political Parties to be elected to govern us, the people who raise the money for them to spend it, is wrong. They make these little schemes to ferret away as much money as they can and all the Global Warming - swanning of to see these foreign islands during their summer break (paid for by us) to inspect "rising sea levels" with their wives and hanger's on.

Why should they even want to put in place anything which will block all these little "perks" that will see them to the end of their lives and their children's lives, and their children's children who would fall foul of a law that will take it all away. You would honestly now have to admit they are better off than Royalty - they can top them any day.

I don't know what to put in it's place, but again IMO this whole "franchise" is one BIG PONZIE SCHEME which in turn begets other PONZIE SCHEMES and so on ad infinitum.

As for "Britishness"- oh I so agree. I used to feel quite proud and felt I belonged to a race of caring and honest people. Now I just feel sick when I see the Union Jack or even the St. George's Cross flag. I don't feel at all patriotic towards our country any more. Well, maybe it's because it's not our Country anymore.

The Political and moral decline of Britain has been going on for Centuries, I think Clement Attlee has been the best Prime Minister we have had this Century!!!!! A Sony presentation which appeared on youtube but I have been unable to find since, is very interesting. It says,

1. Because the Western World Families have 2 children but the Muslims 4 or 5, in two Generations, the Muslims will rule the World.

2. What children are taught in school today will be obsolete by the time they leave school because technology is moving so fast.

Panda

Odd you should talk about that video. Not that I have seen it but the couple of facts you listed.

"1. Because the Western World Families have 2 children but the Muslims 4 or 5, in two Generations, the Muslims will rule the World.

2. What children are taught in school today will be obsolete by the time they leave school because technology is moving so fast."

I wonder if this has had a knock on effect. You know that we down here, the populace, don't really look far enough ahead to realise that those in charge have been planning decades ahead. Recent changes in the "line of succession" and Catholics as partners may have something to do with your No. 1.

Angelique wrote:Panda

Odd you should talk about that video. Not that I have seen it but the couple of facts you listed.

"1. Because the Western World Families have 2 children but the Muslims 4 or 5, in two Generations, the Muslims will rule the World.

2. What children are taught in school today will be obsolete by the time they leave school because technology is moving so fast."

I wonder if this has had a knock on effect. You know that we down here, the populace, don't really look far enough ahead to realise that those in charge have been planning decades ahead. Recent changes in the "line of succession" and Catholics as partners may have something to do with your No. 1.

Apparently, English is not the first language in London and where I live , the influx of Muslims in particular over the last few years has been
very noticeable, so much so that the indigenous population feel like outsiders now.This is happening in Cities all over and all I can say is I"m
glad I"m not growing up today.