Why we should all be worried by Mr Cameron's muddle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33073704

Version 0 of 1.

Generosity of spirit is a virtue and one should perhaps give the prime minister the benefit of the doubt, and presume he is telling the truth.

But accepting that his briefing to journalists at the G7 - at which he was reported as saying ministers would have to back him on EU reform or quit - was about the behaviour of ministers right now before any reforms have been negotiated, rather than in a future referendum on the UK's membership of Europe, leads to some worrying conclusions.

One possibility is that this was at the forefront of his mind - that he was reflecting on a huge internal row that we know nothing about.

I've seen it before - the public words only make sense when we read the private memoirs many years later.

It is possible, with a dash of that generosity - and a couple of handfuls of vivid imagination - to imagine some cabinet ministers are telling the prime minister his renegotiation is pointless and they want to shout from the rooftops that Britain should leave the EU come what may, even before he has started talks.

If this is the case, and they aren't even willing to pay lip service to his plan, even for a few short months, then he would have every right to demand they should exit from his presence forthwith.

It is hard to see how any minister could have the extraordinary temerity to demand to stay on the inside, while playfully soaking the tent.

So if that is why Mr Cameron interpreted the questions in such an odd way then he is in a whole world of pain, and the government is on the verge of revolt and disintegration.

If it is not the case, but Mr Cameron did genuinely misunderstand the clear point of the journalists' questions, then it is worrying that he is allowed anywhere near vital negotiations involving simple comprehension, or indeed putting nouns and verbs in the proper order.

To misunderstand the point of the inquiries you would have to be, to use a technical political term, a bit thick.

But most observers do not presume the PM is either daft or facing an imminent revolt.

Dangerous politics

They assume he meant what he said at the time, and subsequently had his spokeswoman row back at a rate of knots because he came under a lot of pressure from ministers who want to leave their options open when negotiations are concluded.

On one obvious level this is dangerous politics.

Shooting the messenger is all very well - gunning down the men and women who cover politics day in and day out, leaving them wounded, aggrieved, and distrustful is not smart.

But it is wise of Mr Cameron not to box himself in.

He is a master tactician unburdened by too much strategy, and will need plenty of wiggle room in the future, to work out which option is less likely to make his supporters squirm.

Whether or not to allow ministers the right to campaign either for an "In" or "Out" in a referendum will be a profound decision.

It implies the lesser, but still important, question of whether there will be a single, official Conservative Party position - a near impossibility, I think.

There won't be a good decision for Mr Cameron - only a less bad one.

Much will depend on the political realities at the time.

Facade of unity

From Mr Cameron's point of view, there is obviously great merit in having a government position, presumably for a 'yes' vote and demanding loyalty from ministers.

It gives the country a firm and decisive message.

But if he insists on a facade of unity the risk is that it will fracture.

It almost certainly would to an extent. The question is how big the cracks would be.

There is a range from the terminally damaging - half the cabinet resigning - to the negligible (the junior minister for spoons going off in a huff and having his five minutes of glory on the Today programme).

The reality is likely to be somewhere in between.

While there are attractions for Mr Cameron in showing a liberality of spirit and allowing ministers to follow their inner instincts, there is a risk that a herd of them will head off to the "No" campaign, knowing there will be no penalty for undermining their leader and making the government look chaotic and split.

It doesn't take much to turn that from a matter of consciousness to a leadership challenge to a man you have judged to be selling a duff deal.

It is worth noting Boris Johnson has suggested it would be "safer and more harmonious" to allow minsters to campaign as they wish.

On the other hand if cabinet ministers who are well known sceptics, like the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, do declare that they will back the UK staying in the EU that would be a powerful boost for the prime minister's case.

Continent watching closely

This is all being watched with extreme frustration across the continent.

Many in Westminster are misjudging the position of Mr Cameron's European allies.

Mrs Merkel's emollience and genuine alarm at the idea of the UK leaving the EU should not be taken for tolerance of the British debate.

The view is that Mr Cameron has no real burning desire to reshape Britain's relationship with the Union, but that he has got himself into a profound pickle trying to soothe his insatiable and fractious party.

They are wearily willing to lend a hand to pull him out of a morass of his own making, but don't expect to be lectured in the process.

The level of distress the continuing debate causes within the government is important for all of us.

Dealing with such a profoundly important question as the UK's future destiny is exhausting.

Sitting on a tiny majority and keeping together a party that is well versed in civil war is nerve-wracking.

The prime minister and chancellor may have boundless skill and enthusiasm, but they are only human.

Impossible job

Scaling twin peaks of such magnitude may not leave them with a great deal of time and energy to focus on bread-and-butter issues.

It is uncomfortable being a passenger in a vehicle where there is an argument over which way to go, more so if someone is actually trying to grab the steering wheel.

The prime minister has a nearly impossible job.

It is not just that his party is split on Europe - it is more that it isn't.

Conservative manifesto commitment on Europe:

"We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain's membership of the EU before the end of 2017.

We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave.

We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome."

A majority in the Conservative Party have a widespread contempt for the European Union.

They will take some convincing to temper that, and argue Mr Cameron has changed the world.

Nevertheless, some Conservatives, including, I would guess, the prime minister and chancellor, feel that on balance it is in the national interest to stay part of the club, at least after a few cosmetic tweaks.

The strength of belief on the other side is deeper, and more passionate, if just as hard-headed about what is in the national interest.

It makes the tone of debate difficult, and the risk to the Conservative Party serious.

It may be easier for a self-declared two-term prime minister to choose country over party but it will be a dangerous moment.

It is always difficult when a country's leader has to choose between perceived national interest and party unity, and it is unsurprising Mr Cameron has chosen to look muddled now rather than face a revolt before talks have even begun.