The word “historic” is over-used in modern political parlance, but yesterday’s Commons debate on the EU certainly qualifies for that description. The second reading of the Referendum Bill was a momentous occasion: it began a process that will doubtless prove fractious and tempestuous at times but which will allow the country to participate in a debate that has for too long been the preserve of the political elites.

As Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, told MPs in his opening speech, an entire generation of British voters denied a vote on Europe are finally to have their say. No one under the age of 58 has had an opportunity to register a view, not least because the official position of all the major parties at every general election since accession – apart from Labour in 1983 – has been to stay in the EU. It is this largely unbroken homogeneity of opinion among the political parties that justifies holding a referendum in what is essentially a parliamentary democracy. If no realistic choice about EU membership is available at a general election then a plebiscite is the only way of establishing the view of the country on a matter of central constitutional importance.

For this reason, therefore, it is essential that the process is seen to be as open as possible. It has got off to a bad start with confusing briefings from Downing Street about whether ministers will be given a free rein to campaign against the official line when the campaign proper begins. While the negotiations are under way it is right for David Cameron to insist upon a united front from his Government. But as Graham Brady, chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee, argues on another page, everyone needs to be free to campaign as their conscience dictates when the final package is agreed.

It is understandable that the Prime Minister is concerned about party management, given the way this issue has riven the Conservative Party in the past. But there is an even greater danger of leaving people on either side of the argument feeling they have somehow been cheated.

To that end the Government should heed complaints about not applying Whitehall “purdah” during the referendum, thereby allowing departments to intervene with “explanatory” papers. Since these will inevitably be in favour of staying in, the Out campaigners will claim that public money is being used to stack the case against them. It would be better to knock this on the head now by reinstating restrictions on the publication of official material in the 28 days before the vote, as happened with the Scottish referendum last year. Such a big moment in our history requires that everything is done freely and fairly.

David Fuller's view

It goes without saying that this is a hugely important Referendum for the UK, not least as the European Union today is far different from the European Common Market which we first joined.  I am glad to have a vote in this Referendum and I agree that government ministers should also be free to express their views in the debate.   

Many of us will be influenced by the terms negotiated with the EU by David Cameron.  Moreover, while some EU officials may oppose any return of sovereignty to the UK, others will also favour a loosening of Brussels’ controls.  This will also appeal to some other counties within the EU.  Therefore, the UK is now in a position to influence policies which could benefit the EU, not least in terms of GDP growth. 

EU officials may feel that they are on the brink of ‘saving’ Greece.  More importantly, they will not want to lose the UK which has the region’s second largest economy. 

(See also: Tory MPs Must be Free to Choose In or Out, by Graham Brady, Chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, also published by The Telegraph)