Andrew Duff MEP

Tied up in constitutional knots

Britain badly needs a fresh, bipartisan consensus about its role in the EU, but a referendum will only serve to divide.

The European Union is being forced into some strange constitutional contortions because the British government is so intimidated by the rampant nationalism of the Tory party and its hangers-on in the CBI, the crustier layers of the civil service and the vast rightwing press. The sheer laziness of the BBC and the Westminster parliament in addressing the European dimension also contributes to the wave of Euroscepticism that has swept the country at large.

Unfortunately, the ostensibly pro-European Liberal Democrats are not being much help. They have yet to recover from their lapse of concentration in 2004, which caused them to lead the call for a referendum on the original constitutional treaty. This is a pity. Unless pro-EU parties unite against populist sirens, it will be difficult to settle Europe's constitutional problems. Gordon Brown is wise, therefore, to follow the example of Nicolas Sarkozy in France and insist on the parliamentary route to treaty ratification. Ming Campbell should back him.

In the meantime, the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) continues its work on the reform treaty. This consists of making structural alterations to the 2004 package while minimising retreat from it in terms of substance and making subtle improvements where possible. At Viana do Castelo in Portugal last weekend, the political discussions focused on the many British demands for opt-ins, opt-outs and cop-outs, as well as on the chaotic position of Poland. With all these problems, the IGC will not produce miracles. Its room for manoeuvre, both legally and politically, is limited. Its outcome next month will be highly complicated.

The reform treaty will have no direct effect on the British constitution, but it will institute some important changes to how Europe is governed. The argument commonly advanced, that a referendum is not now needed because the changes proposed are no longer important, is therefore a bad one. Instead, a robust case needs to be made against the instrument of the referendum on this issue - namely, that it would be simplistic, deceptive and unparliamentary.

Take the wording of the question (to be crafted by the government). The only honest one would be: "Do you like this treaty, which you are unlikely to have read and which you would be unlikely to understand even if you had?" Obliged to give a blunt answer to a problematic, multi-layered question, democratic people tend to be capricious. So one would be sure to get plenty of candid answers, including, "Go away and leave me alone," and "Get out of Iraq," that had nothing to do with the official matter in hand.

Years of dissembling and distortion about Britain's place in Europe and about the scope of European integration bodes ill for a referendum campaign. There is (as yet) no European media or political party to put the constitutional issue in its proper post-national context. A rushed and inevitably defensive campaign by the Labour government trumpeting its fairly spurious "red lines" would enrage Europhobes while disappointing Europhiles.

Britain badly needs a fresh, bipartisan consensus about its role in the EU. But a referendum only divides. By accentuating the split within public opinion and political parties, a referendum would never settle the future direction of European policy. Given the emotions that cloud rational debate on this issue, the losing side would be bound to be provoked and unforgiving.

One of the features of the reform treaty is a proposal to get national parliaments (and political parties) more engaged in EU politics. There can be no better time to start this engagement than during the ratification process of the treaty itself. Informed parliamentary debate about the compromises, checks and balances involved in what will be a comprehensive and sophisticated package deal is badly required at Westminster. MPs should not shuffle off their constitutional duty on to the shoulders of the hapless citizen.

Referendums should be reserved for more revolutionary circumstances than those we face today, such as regime change, national independence or, indeed, EU membership, where visceral instincts can legitimate one clear option and eliminate another. And if the future of Europe is still an issue of such overriding importance to the British people it should be the one to determine the outcome of the next general election.