The Tories should hope there is a referendum. They are the one party with everything to gain whatever the result. If Tony Blair holds it and loses, Conservative fortunes will be transformed. But if he holds it and wins, they'll be only a little less improved. Finally the poisoned mother lode of Tory rancour could be buried. The party's identity would at last stop being tested against a single issue that will always tear it apart. Leaders and members would be free to begin trying to reconnect with the British people on subjects the voters really care about, which have been neglected for the last four years, and on which Kenneth Clarke thinks pretty much the same as Ann Widdecombe.
No one can be sure if they will get this opportunity. Plainly they must prepare to go into the referendum led by some kind of Eurosceptic. That's the only way to fight for a No, and bid for that preferred route to a quick rebirth. But they have to choose between an old option and a new one. The leadership contest will resolve itself into a struggle between the hard right and the inclusive centre, perhaps under Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Portillo. Both are Eurosceptics. But one stands for the never-say-die ultra anti-Europeanism that helped the party do so well on Thursday, the other for a version of the party that might, for example, invite Clarke back into the shadow cabinet and license him to fight for the euro. What Tony Benn was to Harold Wilson in the 1975 referendum, Clarke could be to Portillo some year soon.
This may not be how all Tories now see it. And the particular device of a Portillo-Clarke ticket might soon turn out to be unviable. But this will be the dilemma, whoever is in the field. Nothing else matters because, until this one is resolved, the reform of modern Conservatism cannot be accomplished. The party could start to crack open the tundra under which it has imprisoned itself - or swear allegiance to the pound until hell freezes over. Given a parliamentary party that is the righteous fag end of defeated Thatcherism, it will take a great leader to persuade it that the time has come to think new thoughts. But if it chooses not to, it's hard to see what point there would be for any pro-Europe Tory remaining in the party - unless it was to await the future this small faction wants, which is for Blair to hold the referendum and win it.
Watching the Tories bleed, Blair might find here another reason to postpone it. That's part of what happened when he delayed in 1997. The one way to be sure of a third election might be to keep his warring opponents playing patriot games at each other's expense. But Blair has grown bigger than that. Yesterday he brought the need to help the British change their minds on Europe into his tone-setting speech in Downing Street. Among other things, this keynote address was a reminder of what a triumphant prime minister can say and do that a chancellor cannot dream of. After winning his victory, one man sets the agenda if he wishes, as Blair quite obviously did wish yesterday.
Even so, now purdah is ended, several acutely difficult issues remain. The one most relevant, this first weekend, is timing. Some enthusiasts are saying: don't delay. They fear the loss of political momentum. They also think the markets, already sliding helpfully down, will demand an urgent answer. They're talking about the economic tests being made in the autumn, with a referendum by Christmas, well before the months of currency chaos on the continent which are now seen as likely to have a more potent bearing on British sentiment than the sweet experience of jingling euros across frontiers on next year's summer holidays. There are serious people who believe that if the referendum isn't held in 2001, economic and political circumstances will combine to prevent it being held at all.
The other main camp says: wait. It fears the loss of the final contest. The best tactic, it is convinced, is to start campaigning in favour of the euro now, and watch how the opinion polls move. If they move enough, then go for it. A tentative strategy, but a pragmatic one, bearing in mind that the consequences of a failed referendum would reach further than the euro, cutting the ground from under every other initiative the Blair government has taken to normalise relations with an integrationist EU. Keen though they are on the euro, these people are even prepared to contemplate waiting yet another five years, and seeing another Tory defeat, before combat is joined.
Another possibility presents itself at this creative post-election moment. It is to decide that, after all, there will be no referendum, but instead a reversion to parliamentary democracy. The pledge, after all, was only made for one term, the one just started. The subject could be deemed inappropriate for testing now. All those who bemoan the decline of parliament could be challenged to argue with the proposition that parliament ought now to be restored by being required to take the biggest decision the country faces, after another election.
The next election, in other words, would decide what happened to the pound. Under their new leader, the Tories would fight against the euro; Blair and Charles Kennedy would fight for it. If the answer were No, the damage would be limited to the loss of a government. Judging by what happened on Thursday, that's an unlikely outcome. Such vast majorities are not overturned in a single term. But the worst aspect of this election would assuredly be dealt with. The 60% turnout, instead of showing that the apathetic British have deserted their moral responsibility for democracy, would prove to be a one-shot aberration.
I doubt that this will happen. But it would be a defensible arrangement. The government will find it hard to postpone beyond autumn at least the decision to make clear whether it is heading towards a referendum or not. If it says not, the next election will be available for re-definition as an event without artificial frontiers. Whatever happens, we can already see how Europe does to politics what Lord Denning once said it did to the law. It is an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back from settling the fate of both parties and leaders in Labour's second term.
Useful links
Results
Ask Aristotle about your constituency
Talk about it
Who should lead the Tories? Should Hague have quit?
Video
See Hague make his resignation statement
Election headlines
Triumphant Blair reshuffles cabinet
Hague: I quit
Comment and analysis
George Monbiot: Labour's victory rings hollow
Austen Chamberlain: history's first Hague
