Backbench rebellion - another headache for Cameron.

Awkward George is often how its peers on the continent refer to Britain. For centuries, Britain did not interfere with the administrations or the wars taking place on the continent. Britain was a seafaring nation and although it dabbled in several continental wars, most notably against the French, it preferred to look further afield with its international policy. It was not until the Battle of Blenheim in 1704 (part of the War of Spanish Succession) where the Duke of Marlborough, Randolph Churchill (relation to Sir Winston), helped defeat Louis XIV and the French forces, that Britain became a force to be reckoned with on mainland Europe. Fast forward three centuries of warfare at Waterloo, the Crimea, Flanders and World Wars One and Two, Britain still appears to be uncertain of its relationship with Europe. For Prime Minister David Cameron, it will continue to give him and the Conservative Party a headache.

Last night, MPs voted on a motion (that had no legal binding) on whether there should be referenda to decide whether Britain should remain in the EU. For many, during a time when the 17 countries that are within the Eurozone and debating the currency’s future, it was an opportunity for Britain to redress the power balance and restore powers back to Westminster. They see the EU as an undignified institution, full of overpaid bureaucrats based in Brussels and Strasbourg, who lack any accountability, squandering taxpayers’ money and dictating laws to European Parliaments that supersede the national sovereignty. Many Eurosceptics believe that EU legislation and red tape is placing barriers on UK businesses and stifling growth, something that could send the UK back into another recession. Last night’s vote saw 81 Conservative MPs back the motion, and despite the vote being unanimously put down, it could certainly be the beginning of trouble.

For backbench Conservatives, many who voted for and against the motion were displeased by the apparent aggressive nature used by the party whips. The vote was not binding and yet the Government sought to kill the bill as soon as possible. In doing so, it managed to generate more press coverage and appeared to reopen old wounds within the party that destroyed it from within back in 1993 up until 1997. The issue for Conservatives was highlighted by many of the speeches they gave to the House during the debate, some said they have promised to their constituents and associations that a referendum was something they believed in and to back down would appear to renege on their promises. The other points highlighted the fact that it has been over 35 years since Britain’s previous referenda on EU withdrawal, and within that time far from the economic market that the EU was, it has become a giant political project. Finally, if the debate wasn’t raised now, then when would be a good time to address these questions.

These displeased members are part of the first Coalition government in 70 years and for them climbing their way up the Ministerial ladder will be much more difficult than in previous administrations. They not only have to contend with Liberal Democrat appointments but with a party that is keen on promoting women into Government, this may be the best way of making their voices heard. In the vote on Maastricht in 1993, 41 MPs rebelled compared to last night’s 81. It took almost six years of the Blair Government to reach that mark and as political scientists pointed out; people enjoy the taste of rebellion and are only more likely to continue.

For David Cameron, the vote became a disruption as a leader and for his reputation in Europe. French President Nicholas Sarkozy apparently told him that he was fed up of Britain trying to meddle with Eurozone politics and many of his own MPs have deemed his leadership as weak. Cameron is part of a generation of politicians that are generally Eurosceptic and many of the comments he put forward to the house highlighted his displeasure with the organisation exactly. Yet, for Britain, one of the big players in European politics, to be outside of any discussions would be stupid. As Chancellor George Osborne and Foreign Secretary William Hague have pointed out, a fiscal union within Europe would make sense, yet with Britain on the outside, it would not take long before France and Germany would take control. Who is not to say this could affect the revenues of the City of London and all the while Britain is powerless to do anything. Britain has an important trading relationship within the EU and is too a big country to simply do what Norway and Switzerland do. For most Europeans the debates raised by Britain and the nation state is something they would associate with 19th and early 20th century politics, not early 21st. Cameron, Osborne and Hague are all aware of this but will be wary of the displeasure it brings among their own party and electorate.

When Britain joined the Common Market in the early seventies, Western Europe contributed almost 50 per cent of global trade and today it stands around 16%. Britain is right to question its relationship within the EU and what economic benefits it provides but we must have a sensible conversation and one that takes in all factors. Most British businesses have highlighted their issues with the EU but still remain reliant on its relationship. As long as the Euro crisis continues and Britain continues to contribute towards bailouts the debate isn’t going to go away.

Foreign relations: placing Britain on the map.

Looking at Britain's place in the world, it is easy to think pie in the sky amidst International Relations theory and group our interests as an integral part of Europe, mixed with a 'Special Relationship' with America, not to mention the lasting historical and cultural ties with the Commonwealth. Britain is a nuclear power (albeit under the US's defensive wing), it is the seventh richest country in the world and its soft power is vast in terms of language, law and culture.

Since the Coalition Government came to power there is a renewed sense of soul-searching in terms of the British footprint across the world, through its Foreign Policy and Armed Forces. In times of economic hardship it is becomes apparent that a hefty defence budget is an easy target to slice, particularly when the public are more concerned about health, education and the economy. What can Britain effectively do when it is fighting an isolated and expensive war in Afghanistan and expect major cuts at the MOD?

Britain has Trident, a weapons system that is more appropriate to the Cold War than the modern mobile insurgency that we see today. Yet, if the country were to dispose of this costly yet 'necessary' weapon (figures range between 20 to 130 billion sterling) would we lose our top seat at the UN? Certainly, you could take Tony Blair and New Labour’s opinion that they are needed in an ‘uncertain world’ or the opposite gambit that the money could be spent on more effective defensive equipment like cruise missiles, helicopters or investment in special forces. Ballistic missiles and particularly submarinal warfare is only likely to take place against a superpower, but how likely is that? Would Britain’s voice still continue to be heard if it is willing to send thousands of its troops abroad, even if it doesn’t have tactical nuclear weapons.

The fact the coalition government has decided to ring fence Trident suggests that it is to maintain Britain’s continuing defensive force. This seems utterly stupid when it will have to mothball two Royal Navy aircraft carriers, retain and probably store needless amounts of Typhoon Jets that are too expensive to operate and maintain a combat force of 10 000 fighting a thankless war in Afghanistan. If Trident is necessary then have a debate in Parliament, the Government will win if its case is overriding of any moral or budgetary opposition. The politics of defence procurement is that military contracts and defence budgets can show real muscle flexing but ultimately they are expensive and can be out-dated once contracts are fulfilled. The British tanks in Iraq seem superfluous to today's combat missions.

Defensive reviews and cuts of all natures lead to the same thing: hurting people on the frontline, something very costly to all those men dug-in in Afghanistan. One telling statistic this week was that the U.S. spends £75 billion a year on military intelligence, that’s more than the entire UK defence budget. Spending reviews give no long term answers and only an decision by the government can ultimately decide Britain's future. The Foreign Secretary William Hague is fully aware of the great statesman of the nineteenth century and their policies, maybe it is time for some Disraeli-style pragmatism.