Clegg's EU referendum move raises the pressure on Miliband

The Deputy PM has said it is now a question of "when, not if" a referendum will be held. Does Miliband agree?

Nick Clegg's declaration at PMQs that it is now a question of "when, not if" an EU referendum will be held was a significant advancement on his previous position. The Deputy Prime Minister has long supported the coalition's "referendum lock", under which a vote is triggered whenever there is a transfer of powers to Brussels, but this is the first time that he has suggested that one will be held at some point in the next three-four years.

It remains unclear whether Clegg believes this would be a yes/no referendum on a new treaty or an in/out vote on EU membership. The referendum lock, introduced through the government's European Union Bill, suggests the former but the Lib Dems' 2010 manifesto, which said that an in/out referendum should be held "the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU", suggests the latter. At PMQs, Clegg misleadingly conflated the two, stating: "That's what we had in our last manifesto and that's what we have now acted on in government by passing legislation together in the coalition just two years ago."

But this ambiguity is less important than the fact that he now believes some kind of referendum is inevitable. One question that follows is how Labour will respond. In an interview in January, Ed Miliband explicitly stated that he would not repeal the coalition's referendum lock ("there is legislation on the books that we don't intend repealing," he said) but has yet to say whether or not he believes a vote will or should be held in the next four years. Clegg's move means it will now be harder for him to avoid answering this question. 

Ed Miliband speaks at the CBI's annual conference on November 19, 2012 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.