Cameron's referendum gamble reveals his weakness

Originally published January 2013.

I watched the entirety of the PM's 'Bloomberg' speech yesterday and having got over the feeling of being slightly patronised throughout I  feel compelled to interpret the speech thus:

"I haven't got the courage to put renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, and subsequent withdrawal in the event of failure, in my Party's manifesto for the 2015 General Election, as there's too great a chance that:
1) I will fail.
2) The electorate will reject the manifesto as they sensibly do not want to run the risk of the negotiations being a (most likely) failure, and us ending up out of Europe.

Now, I really do want to remain Prime Minister by whatever means, as I was born for this job, but I have to get this EU thing and UKIP off my back in order for that to happen.  So I will duck the decision about the manifesto and hand it over to the British people so that I can dress up normal day-to-day, week-to-week, year-to-year EU negotiations and evolutions as though I have succeeded. and then let the public take the in/out decision for me.

Obviously, if I had:
1) Balls (that's testicles, not Ed)
2) The backing of my Party
then I would just say 'We're staying in, and I'll continue to negotiate the best deal for Britain. Vote for us or don't vote for us in 2015 - it's your choice' like a grown-up politician would. But I have neither of the above, so I can't. So it's over to you."

I find it very puzzling that he cannot answer the question as to whether or not he would recommend withdrawal in the event of failure. Presumably the answer must be 'yes' or else why would he propose a renegotiation if it's not broken now - he couldn't possibly recommend staying in after telling us how dysfunctional the EU is currently.  Unless it is purely a political tactic as pointed out by Ed Miliband. I can only conclude that his position is even more weak than I had previously imagined.  I think he has 2 and a half years in which to regret this decision.