The Waugh Room

Wednesday 19th October 2011 | 10:06

Cam retreat on Europe?

The fury on the Tory backbenches at the idea of a 3-line whip over the Nuttall referendum debate cannot be overstated.

But could it be that No.10 has realised that it has been a tad too heavy handed? I'm hearing that the whips may relax a little in the face of the speed with which MPs have signed up to the motion. Instead of a three-liner, maybe we could get a one-liner?

The names on the motion are ominous for Cameron, particularly given his weakness on the Right in the post-Fox world. David Davis is certainly among them. The 46 Tories (out of the 58 MPs) signed up within less than an hour.

What's fascinating is just how the Euroscep groupings on the backbenches are now a 'family' of differing views rather than a homogenous whole.

Some MPs fear that George Eustice's new grouping (90 MPs turned up rather than the touted 120, some say) is a front for Downing Street to keep the issue under a lid. They suspect it is like the new '40 group', which is itself viewed by cynics as a mere No.10-encouraged counterbalance to the 1922 Committee.

Most Eurosceps, however, welcome the Eustice group but believe it doesn't go far enough with its insistence that the priority is renegotiation rather than a referendum.

The significance of the Nuttall motion is that it offers a crucial Third Way for Eurosceps: a trade-only relationship with the EU that isn't quite full withdrawal. "In-out is too divisive, while pure renegotiation is too vague. We need an alternative," one MP says.

The problem with the pure in-out vote would have been that the PM could have mobilised his whips might to ensure only a tiny number backed it. He could then claim to have drawn a line under the referendum issue for the whole Parliament.

This EFTA-plus idea is seen as a way of avoiding a split in the party but also as a way of garnering as much public support as possible. It looks like Mark Pritchard kicked off this Third Way with his landmark Daily Tel piece the other week that proposed a trade-only type arrangement. 

I understand that the trade-only Eurosceps are themselves mobilising and will have some new faces on the TV and radio in coming weeks. Watch for Baker, Dinenage, Percy and Drax all popping up.

David Davis became the first senior Tory to back the idea when he appeared on Newsnight during the Tory conference. Now we get Nuttall's three-part motion.

I hear that Eurosceps made plain their dissatisfaction with the Government's handling of the referendum issue at last week's meeting of the '22. William Hague was on the receiving end of his worst monstering there for ages, a source tells me.

The Indy's Andy Grice quotes a Tory source this morning pointing out that with boundary reviews triggering a raft of reselections, local associations are determined to keep their MPs honest on the issue of a referendum. Anyone who voted against one would be "cutting their own throats", the source said.

Maybe if we get a one-line whip, no throat cutting need happen....

 

UPDATE: No. 10 is keeping its options open. The PM's spokesman just said "The preicse whipping arrangements have not yet been set out." They will be decided next week, nearer the vote.

But the spokesman added: "As a general principle, the Prime Minister would expect MPs to support the Government's position on that issue".

AFTERNOON UPDATE: No.10 sources said straight after PMQs that "anything's possible", when asked if a one-line whip was possible.

The PM's own garbled wording at PMQs has also sparked a flurry of fresh speculation that No.10 are looking for an amendment to add to the motion next week.

Cameron referred to the "opportunities to hold a referendum" in the same breath as talking about repatriation of powers. That led to the thought that there may be an amendment that put the two together.

Downing Street has just told us at the Lobby that the PM's words should not be misinterpreted. "I don't think he intended to link return of powers to a referendum. I don't think that was his intention," his spokesman said.

As for any amendments: "We will wait and see if there are any amendments. I don't think there will be a Government amendment."