Conservatives will be at odds long after we leave

Splits over free markets and social concern made Brexit possible – but will continue to divide Tories

Britain’s relationship with Europe has tormented the Conservative Party for decades. Parliamentarians, advisers and activists have long deliberated about how the party can overcome its divisions caused by EU membership. The blunt truth, however, is that it will never get over them, because the divisions represent a contradiction within conservative philosophy that is here to stay.

The origin of the contradiction lies in conservatism’s attitude towards the freedom of the individual. “Conservatism is about freedom,” the philosopher Roger Scruton argues, “but it is also about the institutions and attitudes that shape the responsible citizen, and ensure freedom benefits us all. Conservatism is therefore also about the limits to freedom.”

Those limits, conservatives believe, come in the form of personal restraint, social norms and customs, and the law. They should be policed not only by the state, but by individuals, society and strong institutions. These limits to freedom are vital, because they are what give confidence to citizens that their trust, charity and good behaviour towards others will be reciprocated.

Consider the “gig economy”. Some liberal conservatives see the rise of companies such as Uber and Deliveroo as unambiguously good news. Other conservatives worry about their effect on the labour market, because gig economy workers are often paid less and have fewer protections than people with traditional jobs.

The contradiction manifests itself in issues ranging from personal taxation to public health, but it exists most obviously in the tension between support for free markets and the conservative desire for continuity: the respect for community and culture, and the importance of institutions and identity. History tells us that this is where the contradiction is most dangerous to the Conservative Party.

It was what lay behind the great split over Robert Peel’s decision in 1846 to defy the protectionist Tory majority and repeal the Corn Laws. And it was behind the party’s second great split, in 1906, when it went to the country divided over whether to stick with free trade or protect imperial trade with tariffs. The first split kept the Tories out of power for 27 years. After 1906, the party did not govern alone for another 16.

Since Britain joined the Common Market in 1973, the tension between free markets and social conservatism has driven the party’s divisions over Europe. Advocates of EU membership have made mainly economic arguments, while Brexit supporters have tended to emphasise sovereignty or, in the language of the Leave campaign, “taking back control”.

The divide is not a neat one, however, and it has changed over time. In Harold Wilson’s 1975 referendum, for example, the Conservative mainstream was largely united in support of the “In” campaign. But as Europe changed, Tory attitudes towards it changed, too. Economic liberals largely supported Britain’s membership through the Eighties and Nineties, but some – including Margaret Thatcher and later Nigel Lawson – joined the growing band of MPS who were concerned about our loss of sovereignty, the damage done to British institutions and, later, uncontrolled European immigration.

But it was not only these issues that led Conservatives to the Eurosceptic movement. Over time, the coalition of Tories who supported Brexit grew as libertarians argued that, as the world economy changes, Britain must look beyond Europe and “go global”.

Brexit was therefore made possible by two different splits. The first: a division between economic liberals, who were often advocates of EU membership, and social conservatives, who wanted to leave the EU. The second: a division among economic liberals, between those who wanted to prioritise trade with Europe, and those who want Britain to become a bigger global trading player.

The fundamental divide within conservatism – between free markets and social concern – will not, however, fade with Brexit. In fact, it already defines the arguments about what Brexit must mean. Conservative remainers, who are mainly economic liberals, support a so-called soft Brexit. Many Brexiteers favour a cleaner break, but they are now dividing.

Some want to keep our economic model broadly similar, but see the chance to reduce immigration and fix problems such as skills shortages. Others see Brexit as a moment to deregulate radically and adopt a more liberal approach to immigration. Only two weeks ago, for example, The Spectator complained that ministers are pursuing “the wrong Brexit”. But their favoured form of Brexit would never have won the referendum.

Whatever the nature of Brexit, conservatism’s philosophical divide – between freedom and the limits of freedom, between free markets and social conservatism – will persist, and regenerate. When we have left the EU, and we negotiate our own trade agreements, grapple with immigration as the world population becomes even more mobile, and prepare for future waves of globalisation, one thing is inevitable: the Tories will disagree about what to do.