By John C. Dyer, UK Correspondent
24 Oct 2011. London. Tonight 81 Conservative MP’s rebelled against the vaunted UK system of party discipline to vote in favour of a motion to submit an “in or out of Europe” referendum to the voters. As much as what the Prime Minister famously called his party’s “obsession” with Europe, the vote seems to embody a warning shot across the Prime Minister’s bow, fired by the increasingly disaffected right wing of the Conservative Party.
Soon after coming to office, the Coalition government instituted an experiment in direct democracy. Voters who want to see Parliament debate an issue may petition the government for such a debate, using an online petitioning procedure. If 100,000 voters sign, the Parliamentary “back bench business” committee considers whether to schedule a debate.
Hundreds of thousands of voters signed such a petition calling for the government to submit a referendum on the UK’s continued involvement in the European Union to the voters. Polls suggest that as much as two thirds of the voters favour such a referendum. The data is less clear whether or not such a referendum would result in a majority voting to withdraw.
The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary argued that such a referendum was the wrong thing at the wrong time.
The leaders of all 3 major parties invoked the well known “3 line whip” discipline rule. Under this discipline, party members must vote as directed by their leaders or face potential long term career consequences.
Not only did 81 Conservative MP’s defy the rule, including 2 junior Ministers, at least one, Adam Holloway, stepped down from his (albeit minor and unpaid) ministerial post. The final fallout for breaching discipline is not yet known.
The defiance was not confined to Conservatives. 111 MP’s voted in favour of the motion, including 19 Labour. But the imposition of the "three line Whip" by each of the 3 major parties delivered a crushing 483 vote defeat for the referendum on EU membership in the House of Commons.
Although defeated, the Conservative vote was particularly eye-catching. It was perhaps the most significant Conservative rebellion in this Parliament and the most significant Conservative rebellion on the European question since 41 Conservative MPs did so in 1993.
The issue of ceding British sovereignty to Europe may not be as hot a hot button in the UK among voters as MPs, but the believed impact of Europe on UK jobs is. In part, the rebellion reflects MPs responding to the economic angst of their constituents. The question of what level of involvement the UK should have in Europe has been credited with dividing past Conservative governments and contributing to the demise of John Major’s. This one issue has served to divide leaders from their party faithful over and over again. Once again as the Eurozone falters, British unemployment grows, and British chaffing under European rules increases, the “European Question” has taken center stage.
But speaker after speaker recognized that the vote would fail, no referendum would be held, and the leadership of not one of the three major parties had even found the timing “right” for such a referendum.
Why? Because stripped of the packaging needed to be on the right side of an MP’s constituency and the party faithful, the leaders of all 3 major parties have recognized for a generation that the UK cannot isolate itself from Europe economically.
This is especially true today. Today, Europe accounts for 40% of the UK’s export market. More significantly, the UK has considerable investment in the UK finance industry and the finance industry has considerable exposure to the consequences of a now very possible Eurozone “debt crisis” meltdown.
And the Conservative Party is deeply beholden to financiers for cash as well as support.
Some of the 81 rebellious MPs during floor debate in the House of Commons contended that they were not arguing the UK should withdraw from trade with the EU, but rather should confine its involvement to free trade treaties. It is the subordination of British law and policy to Brussels to which they object. But the current "sovereign debt crisis" in the EU is the "hook" leveraging the debate.
Even before the vote, French Prime Minister Sarkozy underscored the difficulty the UK would have should it attempt to have its cake and eat it, too, in a widely reported outburst against Prime Minister’s Cameron’s highly visible interventions into the Eurozone debt crisis.
Sarkozy was not the only one. Within 24 hours following the vote another voice underscored the practical difficulties. In an apparent effort to mollify his faithful supporters, Cameron emphasized in his speech "repatriating powers" from the EU in future negotiations. The next day Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg went public with a denial that any such repatriation is in the cards.
The reality of the UK’s position in the global economy is such it is doubtful that the UK can hold its economic ground (much less regain ground) without involvement in a successful Europe, and without even greater political integration it is doubtful Europe will be able to be successful. While there are a number of issues that make such integration a steep climb in any event, the UK is not in a position either to dictate the rules of the game or to pick up its marbles and go home.
So what was the point of the impassioned debate and doomed rebellion?
Stress Release in an economically nerve wracking environment? Playing to the constituency? A public counter balance to Liberal Democratic influence, giving the Prime Minister a reason to be tougher with his partners? A judgment that Conservatives championing Conservative viewpoints no longer need their “Europe loving” Liberal Democrat partners but can go it alone? Fear of moving from being a big fish in a small UK pond to just one more in the much larger pond of European power politics? Pretenders to the throne in the woodpile, stirring rebellion? A reminder to the Party’s leader by rebelling on a highly visible but safely symbolic issue, that he is, after all, a Conservative, and increasingly estranged from the party faithful? That he could face a more significant rebellion on unsafe issues in the future?
Perhaps it is all of the above, but in the end, "symbolic" acts often cannot be controlled. They become their own self stoking fires. Once one has taken such a stand, the stand itself works a change in what one is willing to do. It also provokes a reaction, as witness the Deputy Prime Minister's counter to the Prime Minister's "repatriation" noises. Note only one Liberal Democrat voted in favour of the referendum and he did so because he believes in direct democracy even though he opposes leaving the European Union.
To the insights of so many concerning the hows and whys of the rebellion, let me add one more insight. This Tory Bunker Hill cannot be accurately understood outside of the context of the economic crises sweeping the West, especially the Eurozone "sovereign debt crisis." The most serious unintended consequence of the European and UK approach to an economic crisis that they have chosen to dub a "sovereign debt crisis" (satisfying the anonymous "markets" and Murdoch media through neo liberal privatization, austerity, deregulation and free trade) may not be just their replay of the failure of Classical economists to deal with the worsening Great Depression during 1929-33.
The cycle of fear based on uncertainty
Uncertainty breeds fear. Fear breeds every man for himself. Every man for himself breeds more uncertainty and fear and so on. The downward cycle intensifies into conflict. Conflict breeds more fear, instability, heightened stakes, and every man for himself divisiveness. Europe, including the UK, has given in to this cycle. The US threatens to do so.
The EU referendum, the Tory Bunker Hill, the Liberal Democrat backlash, and the increasingly dodgy future were all predictable (in kind if not in precise detail) from the moment the IMF, Europe and Coalition leaders locked in on their programmes of radical Neo Liberal change on the pretext and in a time of severe economic stress, fear, and uncertainty.
What seems clear to me (and has seemed clear to me for some time) is that centrifugal forces within Europe, the Coalition, and the Tory Party itself will/have reached crisis point as cherished ideologies and interests grate against the rough toothed file of economic reality and the unwillingness of the public to accept the radical changes. In the end, thousands of finely woven words and phrases do not change reality. The Neo Liberals' attempt to implement harsh austerity measures has and will fail, much to their and our chagrin.
At least as of today no FDR has emerged (outside perhaps Scotland) to reassure us that there is nothing to fear but fear itself, to offer a chicken in every pot, and to back it up with concrete public investment in recovery.
Tag line: Expect this Bunker Hill, like the first Bunker Hill, to be only the beginning, with ever more friends tossed under the bus by friends.