Referendum games

As Darth Vader might say, I feel a great disturbance in The Force.

One way or another, a lot of Conservative MPs are determined to get a bill for an in-out EU referendum before the Commons in the coming parliamentary year - and there are several ways in which they could make it happen.

The most obvious is to amend tomorrow's Queen's Speech. There's no problem about putting down an amendment. The annual Queen's Speech debate always provides for amendments to be put down by the official opposition and the second biggest opposition party, and an amendment from any other source would at least make it onto the Order Paper, as long as a proposer and seconder could be mustered.

But suppose an amendment went down with the names of 50 plus Conservative backbenchers, plus a lot of DUP MPs, plus a smattering of supporters from other parties? Then the ball would be in Mr Speaker's court. He could call the amendment but it still might not be reached if - purely coincidentally, of course - debate on other amendments were to drag on.

So the main effect of putting such an amendment down would be to put the government and official Opposition into a very uncomfortable position and force them to respond, even if the response is only to resort to procedural tactics to avoid an unwelcome debate on the floor of the House.

And something similar would also happen if the other most probable route was taken. Next week, the annual ballot (it's actually more of a lucky dip…) for priority in bringing forward a private members' bill will be held. If a referendum supporter came top or close to the top, they would be guaranteed a second reading debate on a Friday morning later in the year.

And they would almost certainly be able to beat the biggest initial obstacle to any private members' bill, which is closing the debate and moving to a vote. Under the (admittedly bizarre) rules for such bills, they are only put to a vote if a debate comes to a natural conclusion (when there is no-one left in the Chamber who wants to speak, so the chair calls a vote) or when 100 MPs support a closure motion, ending the debate and calling a vote.

This is the feature of the rules which allows a few MPs to drone on endlessly, use up all the available time and kill a bill by filibustering. The tactic works unless a bill can be forced to a vote, and on this subject I'm sure there are enough pro-referendum backbenchers out there to defeat a filibuster.

All well and good for second reading - but when the bill comes back to the Chamber for report stage, after consideration in committee, opponents may put down dozens of amendments. And each of these will need its own closure motion, which the chair will only allow after an appropriate amount of debate - so it will be pretty easy to exhaust the available debating time.

And here's where the nasty moment comes for the government. Ministers will then face demands to provide government time to allow the debate to continue - and will have to give an answer, one way or the other. So they either cause ructions in the Coalition or inside the Conservative Party - a serious problem, given the number of Conservative backbenchers who now feel the hot breath of UKIP on their necks.

And if they refuse, they hand UKIP a stick to beat them with. It's not hard to imagine Nigel Farage taking to the airwaves to denounce the prime minister for promising a referendum in the next Parliament, while frustrating the chance for one in this Parliament.

It's not an easy issue for the other parties either: Labour would certainly be wary of putting themselves on the wrong side of burgeoning eurosceptic sentiment and it would also be awkward for the pro EU Lib Dems who, don't forget, used to be in favour of an in-out referendum.

On the Today programme this morning, Nick Clegg pointed out that the Coalition had legislated for a referendum for any major change in EU rules in future - and there are bound to be some changes in response to the eurozone crisis at some point. He rejected the idea that a referendum now would "lance the boil".

That's probably the dominant view in the Coalition politburo - but it could soon be under siege in the House of Commons.

And there would be real trouble if Labour decided to sit on its hands or even support a referendum. From a purely tactical point of view it must be tempting, because of the mayhem it would cause in the government. And my impression is that the pro-European orthodoxy of the Blair years is weakening… and it's quite hard to think of a big Labour beast who would lead for their party in a pro-EU campaign.

Of course, it's entirely possible that a referendum amendment won't get to the wicket in the Queen's Speech debate and that no pro-referendum MP wins a high enough place in the ballot to bring in a private members bill….but the government business managers will be keeping their fingers crossed.