OPINION:ONE COULD be forgiven for thinking that Monday's House of Commons rebellion by Conservative MPs was just a re-run of the 1990s contortions on the issue that helped destroy John Major's government. However, that would be wrong.
In the past, the Eurosceptic Conservative was a slightly ageing, somewhat obsessive male, dressed in a tailored suit, convinced of the righteousness of his cause and equally incapable of persuading the majority of voters to his colours.
Things are changing, however. Some of the Eurosceptics’ previous warnings, particularly about the euro, have greater credibility now than they did back when William Hague – then a struggling leader of the Conservative Party – warned the British a decade ago that they had a fortnight “to save the pound”.
A new generation of Eurosceptics has emerged and they – particularly following the arrival of those first elected in May 2010 – now form the majority of the Tory ranks in the House of Commons.
Andrew Percy, born in 1977, is one of “Thatcher’s children”. Like other Conservatives, he wants a referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EU, or quit. “We have never been asked that before, and it is about time that we were,” he said in the final minutes of the debate.
Percy is not unusual. One veteran of the bloody Maastricht Treaty debates, Leader of the House of Commons Sir George Young said that the party as a whole, including the leadership, is much more Eurosceptic than it was in the 1990s. “We have all shifted. Right at the beginning, David said he wanted a fundamental reform of the EU. He wanted to refashion our membership and he wanted to bring back powers, so to that extent the party is united on the broad objectives.”
The motion put down by Conservative MP David Nuttall sought a three-question referendum. The public would be asked if they wanted to stay in, get out, or if they wanted to stay in but with revised terms and conditions.
Cameron has been accused of provoking a fight that he did not need to have. According to this theory, he could have let MPs have a free vote on the issue after they had wittered on for hours about the EU, unnoticed by the world outside.
Such analysis, however, is flawed. A debate would never have been ignored, vote or no vote, while the rebels were determined on a confrontation since it could have been an issue MPs “considered” – ie, with no vote, rather than one on which they divided.
Rebel MPs against the prime minister’s wishes amounted to 81 with 15 further abstentions, far worse than the 41 who voted against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. However, that vote, unlike Monday’s, was binding on the Major administration.
The reality is that all Conservatives want to alter the UK’s relationship with Brussels; some by a little, others by a lot, many completely. Cameron and Hague’s ambitions, however, have had to be tempered by the reality of office. Cameron says change is coming, but he cannot say exactly where.
All Tories complain about European Union employment laws. However, that could become unpopular when voters realise that may mean cuts in holidays, not just the freedom to work more than 48 hours a week.
Most Conservative MPs believe that the UK can exert pressure on France and Germany in any EU treaty negotiations to sort out the euro zone crisis, thus repatriating powers by the score from Brussels.
Perhaps this is so. But Cameron may have more than enough to do to protect the UK’s interests when talks of “a core Europe” get going, if they do – particularly those of the City of London, a great tax-generator when it is not needing multibillion bailouts.
Middle-ground British opinion dislikes the EU intensely with three-quarters saying they want to quit. But there is more than a lack of clarity here since just 4 per cent voluntarily list it as their most important issue.
If faced with a three-option referendum, the public, if today’s polls were reflected in the result, would most likely opt to stay in but with changes in terms. However, this could afford Cameron a far weaker negotiating hand than Tory rebels seem to believe.
The internal debate within the Conservatives’ own middle ground is reflected by MP Aidan Burley. He dislikes the EU intensely, passionately wants a referendum before any more sovereignty is shared, yet he worries about the consequences of an “in/out” referendum.
“I am 32, and I find it incredible that the last referendum took place four years before I was even born. One has to be 55 to have voted on it. It is therefore understandable that people of my generation do not feel that they have had their say on Europe,” he told the chamber.
Following a conversation with a businessman in his Staffordshire constituency, Burley, however, said he feared the “devastating effect” on business confidence such a referendum could have, leading United States investors to question future investment.
For now the Conservatives agree on strategy, but disagree on tactics. While Cameron faces an insatiable audience he does not want to quit the union. But unless fortune favours him, he will fail to recover enough powers from Brussels to satisfy the most concerned.
Furthermore, Monday was not just about Europe. During prime minister’s questions yesterday, he sought to put the difficulties of the week to one side. But such problems will not disappear since some of the rebellious backbench anger is directed at him for the way he does business.
The promotion recently of 29-year-old Chloe Smith – regarded as bright, but hardly exceptional – to be economic secretary is seen by many MPs as evidence that Cameron will never promote them. Such MPs present a clear and present danger for any PM.
Mark Hennessy is London Editor