A majority of British people would vote to leave the European Union in the wake of the migrant crisis engulfing the continent, a shock new Mail on Sunday poll has found.

If a referendum were to be held tomorrow on whether to remain a member of the EU, 51 per cent of British people would vote ‘No’.

It follows a string of polls over recent years which have given comfortable leads to the pro-European camp. Significantly, it is the first measure of public opinion since the Government changed the wording of the referendum question, lending weight to claims that the new phrasing boosts the chances of victory for the ‘Out’ campaign.

Scroll down for video

A majority of British people would vote to leave the European Union in the wake of the migrant crisis engulfing the continent, a shock new Mail on Sunday poll has found

The survey also found strong backing for David Cameron’s stance in standing up to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who wants the UK to take in a greater share of migrants.

Growing public support to cut all ties with Brussels came as it was revealed the Prime Minister told Merkel to her face: ‘I could walk away from the EU.’

At a private dinner in Downing Street, Merkel accused him of being ‘too forceful’ in demanding concessions from the rest of the EU. That was why ‘we all hate you and isolate you,’ she said.

The astonishing exchange is the latest in a series of bombshell disclosures in a new book, Cameron At 10, by Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon, which is being serialised in The Mail on Sunday.

The Survation poll for this newspaper suggests that despite the wave of sympathy for Syrian refugees following the publication of harrowing pictures of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi, who drowned when his family tried to reach Greece from Turkey, British voters are opposed to opening the door to large numbers of refugees.

The survey indicates that the outcome of the referendum, which could take place as early as next year, could be hugely affected by the migrant crisis.

See the latest European migrant crisis news and updates

Despite the wave of sympathy for Syrian refugees following the publication of harrowing pictures of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi (above), British voters are opposed to opening the door to large numbers of refugees

In contrast to today’s 51-49 majority for quitting the EU, a Survation poll in July showed a 54-46 margin in favour of staying in.

The ‘in’ camp has been consistently ahead in ten polls since May. In 2000, at the height of pro-European Tony Blair’s premiership, one survey showed support for staying in the EU at 62 per cent, with only 38 in favour of pulling out.

Furthermore, of those who told today’s poll they would currently vote to stay in, 22 per cent say they could change their mind if the migrant problem gets worse. That would give the ‘out’ camp a substantial majority.

Revelation: Anthony Seldon's book reveals David Cameron's clash with Angela Merkel

The Government is expected to announce plans in the next few days to accept several thousand Syrian refugees. But the poll shows the public thinks that numbers should be strictly limited. Nearly three in ten say the UK should accept no refugees at all, while nearly half think we should take 1,000 or fewer.

Only one in four favours taking 10,000 or more – the number urged by Labour leadership contender Yvette Cooper. Her proposal for every town to accept ten families, making 10,000 nationwide, is rejected by a margin of 42 per cent to 34.

Musician and campaigner Sir Bob Geldof has offered to take four Syrian families into his own home. But most people are less keen on the idea. Just 16 per cent said they would be ‘happy’ if a Syrian refugee family moved in next door, while 34 per cent would be ‘unhappy.’ The rest were neutral.

The Prime Minister will take comfort from support for his handling of the issue so far. He beats Merkel by a clear two-to-one margin.

And nearly two out of three say he is right to refuse to sign up to Merkel’s plan to divide up the migrants among all EU countries, with the larger and richer countries taking the most.

Only one in five say Cameron is wrong. Overall, 38 per cent think the Prime Minister has responded well to the migrant crisis, against 29 per cent who disapprove.

The poll also reflects concern that letting more refugees in could make things worse not better.

Nearly six out of ten say it would encourage more people to come to the UK. And there is little appetite for British military intervention against Islamic State to solve the crisis. Nearly half of those questioned oppose such action, against a third who are in favour.

The referendum question has been changed from a straight ‘Yes/No’ vote on whether Britain should stay to ‘Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?’ which is seen as more neutral since voting ‘no’ is seen as intrinsically ‘less attractive’ than voting ‘yes’.

PM to walk into the guns of EU rebels tomorrow

David Cameron faces a Commons revolt this week by Eurosceptic Tory MPs demanding that the Government blocks the European Union from using its spending might to influence the EU referendum.

When the Prime Minister returns to the Commons tomorrow for the first time since the summer break, he will walk straight into a rebel ambush, as MPs debate and vote on the European Referendum Bill.

Tory MP Steve Baker has placed an amendment to the Bill, which sets out the terms for the vote on this country’s future in the EU, preventing ‘the EU institutions, including the Commission, from direct campaigning’.

David Cameron faces a Commons revolt this week by Eurosceptic Tory MPs demanding that the Government blocks the European Union from using its spending might to influence the EU referendum

The move, which is expected to be supported by dozens of his colleagues, comes as Lord Lamont calls in today’s Mail on Sunday for a ‘level playing field’ in the referendum.

The former Chancellor argues that even without the EU using its funds to influence the result, the current rules on election spending mean that the pro-Brussels camp will have a war chest of £25million, while those wanting to leave the EU will be able to draw on £11million.

‘To many this will look worse than unfair – it will look like a stitch-up,’ Lord Lamont writes. ‘Even if the playing field is levelled in respect to how much each campaign can spend, there will still be one body that finds itself subject to no spending or campaigning restrictions, despite its key role in the campaign.

‘The ability of the EU to use its budgets to affect the result of the vote, either directly or through intermediaries, is a serious challenge to the referendum process.’

The Tory rebels have already forced the Government into a climbdown over the so-called ‘purdah’ rules, which normally impose a ban on Ministers publishing relevant material in the 28 days before the referendum, which insiders expect to be held next autumn.

Mr Cameron had claimed the rules should be suspended to allow departments to deal with EU matters, but the sceptics argued that the pro-EU campaign would benefit from the use of the ‘machinery of government’ by the establishment.

Last week Ministers accepted the purdah rules should apply, albeit with some restrictions to allow Ministers to conduct EU business.

Sources among the rebel MPs say they are ‘still not happy’ and will continue to harry the Government, including voting with Labour if necessary.

Last night, Mr Baker, the Wycombe MP, said that the need for restrictions to be placed on the EU during a referendum campaign had been demonstrated by the vote on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland in 2009 and Croatia’s referendum on membership in 2012, when European institutions were accused of disseminating pro-Brussels propaganda.

Although British Ministers do not have jurisdiction over the European institutions, it is understood that if the amendment was passed, ‘out’ campaigners would be able to take out injunctions against media outlets which repeated information sent out by Brussels.

According to Business for Britain, a group which campaigns for a renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with Brussels, the EU spent more than £2.8billion last year on budgets which included promotional spending. More than £10million was spent subsidising TV shows which promote its own aims.

The Conservatives For Britain group, which was founded by Mr Baker, has asked its 115 MPs to back the amendment.

The madness behind rules of the millions we're spending on EU vote, by NORMAN LAMONT, former Chancellor of the Exchequer

Lord Lamont has called for a ‘level playing field’ in the referendum, with the pro-Brussels camp currently allowed to spend more money than the campaign for leaving the EU

The forthcoming EU referendum will be a defining moment in modern Britain, giving this country a long overdue opportunity to forge a new relationship with Europe.

Ever since I helped secure our opt-out from the euro during the negotiations over the Maastricht Treaty in the early 1990s, it has been clear that the federalist course pursued by the Brussels establishment is increasingly at odds with the instincts of most British people.

If the Prime Minister delivers on his pledge to engineer a ‘fundamental change’ in our relationship with the EU, it will represent a great personal triumph, placing our membership on a more stable and democratic footing. If he fails, the unreformed institutions will gallop towards greater integration, escalating tensions between Britain and the EU.

The stakes could not be higher.

I am happy to wait until the conclusion of David Cameron’s negotiations with the EU before deciding how to vote. However, the referendum must not just be fair, it must be seen to be fair. It will lose all legitimacy if it has not been fought on a level playing field.

Even if the Government enacts proper ‘purdah’ rules to stop the pro-European establishment from spending taxpayers’ money to advocate their cause during the campaign, there is still a significant unfairness – the huge imbalance in the amounts which the two sides are able to spend.

A 2000 law places a spending limit on each side, calculated by reference to the number of votes received by each political party supporting either side. Under this perverse Labour legislation, the lead organisations for both the ‘Yes’ campaign and for the ‘No’ campaign will each be entitled to spend £7million.

But on top of that the Conservative Party will be entitled to spend another £7million supporting ‘yes’ and so too will the Labour Party, while the Liberals will be allowed to support the ‘yes’ campaign to the tune of another £4million.

That totals £25million. But the limit for the ‘out’ campaign will be less than half that, only £11million: £7million by the lead body and £4million by Ukip, the only party officially supporting the ‘no’ campaign.

The Electoral Commission obviously thinks these huge amounts of money might be spent by the ‘yes’ campaign since it has increased the limits from the amounts laid down in the 2000 legislation.

Even if the political parties don’t have that money now they could receive money from companies and EU institutions to enable them to spend up to the limits. There can be no doubt in whose favour the rules are weighted.

To many this will look worse than unfair – it will look like a stitch-up.

The wording of the EU referendum question has been made fairer, but there is still a huge disparity in spending limits for each campaign

Worse still, there seems no accounting for the fact that many parties will be divided internally. There are likely to be many activists, voters and even MPs who disagree with the stance their party takes – but that is not reflected in spending limits.

Of course even if the playing field is levelled in respect to how much each campaign can spend, there will still be one body that finds itself subject to no spending or campaigning restrictions, despite its key role in the campaign.

The ability of the EU to use its budgets to affect the result of the vote, either directly or through intermediaries, is a serious challenge to the referendum process.

It is frankly absurd that while UK institutions, UK politicians and UK campaigners will find themselves the subject to rules about what they can spend, the EU Commission will be subject to precisely no restrictions on its activity.

Despite the pressure on public expenditure across member states, research has shown that the EU’s budget for self-promotion has increased significantly over recent years. Given the unique nature of the EU referendum, it is surely sensible to adopt a broader version of purdah which would also apply to EU campaign spending.

A group of cross-party MPs has already proposed an eminently reasonable amendment to the Referendum Bill, to be debated this week, which would put this into effect.

It is also important that the manner in which this decision is taken allows the Conservative Party to come together after the vote to continue providing the economic leadership and reforming zeal which Britain needs. Failing to adopt straightforward protections against an EU campaign would risk not only skewing the result, but also prolonging tensions in the Conservative Party after the referendum.

Mr Cameron has been the first PM in more than 40 years to try to change our relationship with Europe and to give the British people a say on the outcome. For this, he deserves congratulation.