Downing Street has held out the possibility of tabling its own amendment to Monday's vote on whether to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of Europe, as the leadership of all three main parties set out why they did not want their MPs voting in favour of the poll.
The prospect of a vote in favour of a referendum had been a distant possibility before the middle of this week when only two options were being offered.
But in a motion tabled by backbencher, David Nuttall, the option of a referendum by May 2013 was put forward, arguing the public should have three options in a referendum: keeping the status quo, leaving the European Union, or reforming the terms of the UK's EU membership.
The publication of a third option changed the nature of the debate, with a larger number of MPs saying they would vote for a three-way referendum. Seventy-six MPs, including more than 50 Tories, have signed the motion.
The vote was thrust into the parliamentary schedule when a petition was signed by more than 100,000 people, including Conservative and Labour MPs, calling for a referendum.
Under new legislation, petitions with a high volume of signatures should be considered for parliamentary consideration, and members of the Commons backbench business committee agreed to hold the debate on Monday. However, because of its genesis, the government will not be bound by the outcome of the vote.
Faced with a greater number of MPs feeling able to support the three-way referendum, on Thursday morning Downing Street made clear to Conservative and Lib Dem MPs they should not support the backbench amendment, putting them on a three-line whip to vote against it.
Downing Street was sufficiently worried that it brought forward the date of the debate from next Thursday to Monday to allow it to go ahead before the prime minister departs for the Commonwealth heads of government meeting.
However, there are signs that governmental heavy-handedness is not going down well. Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative MPs, used an article in the Daily Telegraph to argue against a three-line whip being run by the government, saying: "This is a backbench debate and there is no need for ministers to participate."
"What matters is that backbench MPs of all parties should be free to vote in accordance with our beliefs and in the interests of our constituents."
The prime minister's team do not want a conflagration about Europe, mindful of how the issue split its party in the early and mid-1990s but is also concerned that negotiations about the crisis in the eurozone would not be helped by a radical change in the UK's position and a call to withdraw and renegotiate at the same time that other countries are struggling to prop up their economies.
On Thursday morning, Downing Street did not rule out tabling a government amendment to the motion. This could possibly propose a white paper examining the powers of Europe and the promise of a referendum some time in the future.
In prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Cameron said he shared MPs' frustrations with the costs and bureaucracy involved in EU membership, but would oppose calls for a vote on whether to quit.
"Of course we, the Conservative party, are committed to the return of powers from Brussels to Westminster," he said.
"We are also committed as a government that if power passes from Westminster to Brussels, there would have to be a referendum. That promise is good for the whole of this parliament and beyond.
"But I do not support holding a referendum come what may. That is not our policy and I will not be supporting that motion."
Another Tory backbencher, Mark Pritchard, told the BBC's Today programme that he would be prepared to defy a three-line whip: "The right answer is not to hold a referendum willy-nilly in this parliament when we have so much to do to get Europe to sort its problems out."
On the same programme Conservative Nadhim Zahawi said he believed the real argument against a referendum in 2013 was "terrible" timing. "We all agree there is a paradigm shift in the structures of the EU because of the eurozone crisis."
"What we should be doing is helping them get through that crisis and in return negotiating to take powers back to our country on employment law and social legislation."
by Allegra Stratton taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/eu-referendum-vote-no10-amendment
The prospect of a vote in favour of a referendum had been a distant possibility before the middle of this week when only two options were being offered.
But in a motion tabled by backbencher, David Nuttall, the option of a referendum by May 2013 was put forward, arguing the public should have three options in a referendum: keeping the status quo, leaving the European Union, or reforming the terms of the UK's EU membership.
The publication of a third option changed the nature of the debate, with a larger number of MPs saying they would vote for a three-way referendum. Seventy-six MPs, including more than 50 Tories, have signed the motion.
The vote was thrust into the parliamentary schedule when a petition was signed by more than 100,000 people, including Conservative and Labour MPs, calling for a referendum.
Under new legislation, petitions with a high volume of signatures should be considered for parliamentary consideration, and members of the Commons backbench business committee agreed to hold the debate on Monday. However, because of its genesis, the government will not be bound by the outcome of the vote.
Faced with a greater number of MPs feeling able to support the three-way referendum, on Thursday morning Downing Street made clear to Conservative and Lib Dem MPs they should not support the backbench amendment, putting them on a three-line whip to vote against it.
Downing Street was sufficiently worried that it brought forward the date of the debate from next Thursday to Monday to allow it to go ahead before the prime minister departs for the Commonwealth heads of government meeting.
However, there are signs that governmental heavy-handedness is not going down well. Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative MPs, used an article in the Daily Telegraph to argue against a three-line whip being run by the government, saying: "This is a backbench debate and there is no need for ministers to participate."
"What matters is that backbench MPs of all parties should be free to vote in accordance with our beliefs and in the interests of our constituents."
The prime minister's team do not want a conflagration about Europe, mindful of how the issue split its party in the early and mid-1990s but is also concerned that negotiations about the crisis in the eurozone would not be helped by a radical change in the UK's position and a call to withdraw and renegotiate at the same time that other countries are struggling to prop up their economies.
On Thursday morning, Downing Street did not rule out tabling a government amendment to the motion. This could possibly propose a white paper examining the powers of Europe and the promise of a referendum some time in the future.
In prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Cameron said he shared MPs' frustrations with the costs and bureaucracy involved in EU membership, but would oppose calls for a vote on whether to quit.
"Of course we, the Conservative party, are committed to the return of powers from Brussels to Westminster," he said.
"We are also committed as a government that if power passes from Westminster to Brussels, there would have to be a referendum. That promise is good for the whole of this parliament and beyond.
"But I do not support holding a referendum come what may. That is not our policy and I will not be supporting that motion."
Another Tory backbencher, Mark Pritchard, told the BBC's Today programme that he would be prepared to defy a three-line whip: "The right answer is not to hold a referendum willy-nilly in this parliament when we have so much to do to get Europe to sort its problems out."
On the same programme Conservative Nadhim Zahawi said he believed the real argument against a referendum in 2013 was "terrible" timing. "We all agree there is a paradigm shift in the structures of the EU because of the eurozone crisis."
"What we should be doing is helping them get through that crisis and in return negotiating to take powers back to our country on employment law and social legislation."
by Allegra Stratton taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/eu-referendum-vote-no10-amendment
No comments:
Post a Comment