David Cameron’s decision to allow ministers to choose sides in Britain’s EU referendum is, like the referendum itself, a consequence of his limited authority over a divided party. The prime minister was pressed into holding the referendum by Eurosceptic backbenchers and he has been forced into the latest concession by the threat of multiple resignations from the cabinet.
At least six cabinet ministers could have resigned rather than campaign to remain in the EU, making the challenge of uniting the Conservatives after the referendum more daunting. Work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Commons leader Chris Grayling and Northern Ireland secretary Theresa Villiers are almost certain to campaign to leave the EU. Home secretary Theresa May, justice secretary Michael Gove and business secretary Sajid Javid could join them.
Labour prime minister Harold Wilson allowed his cabinet to choose sides in the 1975 referendum on EU membership, a decision that allowed divisions within the government to heal quickly after the vote. But as Ukip leader Nigel Farage pointed out last night, the move will embolden ministers and other Conservative MPs who might otherwise have feared their careers would suffer if they campaigned to leave the EU.
Divisive effect
Former chancellor
Ken Clarke
, a passionate pro-European Conservative, warned of the impact on government of allowing ministers to still hold office while feeling free to criticise the policy of the prime minister.
“That is likely to have a lasting weakening, rather divisive effect,” he told Channel Four News.
Cameron's announcement might have been more embarrassing had it not coincided with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's protracted attempt to reshuffle his shadow cabinet. By the time the prime minister addressed MPs, the Labour reshuffle had already been under way for more than 24 hours, but Corbyn's Night of the Blunt Knives had claimed just one scalp – that of culture spokesman Michael Dugher.
"Can I apologise for interrupting what's clearly the longest reshuffle in history?" Cameron sneered across the despatch box in the Commons.
“You could have watched the entire run of Star Wars movies but we still don’t yet know who’s been seduced to the dark side. There’s absolutely no sign of a rebel alliance emerging either, I can see that.”
Cameron hopes that next month’s EU summit will produce a deal that will allow him to claim to have changed Britain’s relationship with the EU sufficiently to allow him to recommend staying in. He told MPs that he wants to hold the referendum without too much delay but said there should be a gap of at least three months between the renegotiation and the vote, which would allow for a referendum in June.
Renegotiation
Opinion polls suggest that the perceived success of Cameron’s renegotiation could have a decisive effect on voting intentions, particularly among Conservative supporters. A ComRes poll for the Open
Europe
think tank last month found that if the referendum was held now, 56 per cent of voters would vote to remain in the EU while 35 per cent would vote to leave. But if Cameron fails to secure some of his demands, support for remaining in the EU falls to 45 per cent and support for leaving increases to 46 per cent – an 11 percentage point swing to the Leave side. When asked how they would vote if Cameron won agreement on all of his demands, 65 per cent of voters said they would vote to remain compared to 26 per cent who would still vote to leave.
It could, however, be more difficult for the prime minister to present his deal as a success if many of the leading figures in his own party reject it as inadequate.
Answering questions from MPs, Cameron gave his strongest indication yet that the campaign to stay in the EU would make the case that leaving would threaten national security.
“In many of the debates about Europe that we have had in the past 10 or even 20 years, much of the focus has been on economic questions. When this debate comes, a lot of it will rightly focus on security questions,” he said.
“Of course, arguments can be made on both sides, but I think the security argument will be crucial in determining what is the right future for Britain.”