Hugo Robinson (London, Open Europe): In an earlier posting, Jonathan Church at the Federal Trust suggests the Government's refusal to hold the promised referendum on the revised EU Constitution is justified on the grounds that "this particular broken manifesto pledge" should not be elevated above others - and that this means there is no need for Gordon Brown to keep his word.
It may be true that politicians often go back on their promises. But does that make it ok? Church and others who believe politicians should be free to lie to their electorates should consider that this is a major cause of our current political malaise. Voters simply do not trust politicians to keep their word, whilst politicians increasingly think they can get away with such deception. Brown's breaking of his manifesto promise on a referendum can only widen the growing gap of cynicism and apathy between citizens and their elected representatives.
The same problem is evident with the EU. Brussels has become utterly detached from ordinary people, and the normal checks and balances of democratic scrutiny. Many people have forgotten the process that led to the present situation began with the Laeken declaration, in which EU leaders correctly diagnosed this problem, acknowledging that citizens "feel that deals are all too often cut out of their sight and they want better democratic scrutiny" and agreed that a way needed to be found to stop the "creeping expansion of the competence of the Union".
It is therefore ironic that this process ended with the EU Constitution - an expansionary, centralising text, rejected by citizens in two separate referendums - being then revived in secret, disguised, and brought back in a way designed to avoid demands for more referendums, lest the people vote the ‘wrong' way again. In the words of the original Constitution's author: "public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way." EU integration would continue as it had before, piece by piece and as far away as possible from public scrutiny, ensuring that the ambition of a united Europe would be driven forward by the traditional, elite guardians of that vision.
But such a deterministic view of the EU risks becoming its downfall. Symptomatic of this is Church's casual assertion that FT columnist Gideon Rachman should be regarded as "anti-European" for supporting a referendum. Church goes on to label the treaty as a "progressive document" without any further explanation (progressive towards what? For whom?).
Such comments expose an alarming strand in federalist thinking: that views which diverge from their deterministic, progressivist interpretation of Europe's future are somehow intolerable. This explains why the prospect of a referendum is such anathema to many of them - it provides an avenue for voters to disagree with their particular idea of Europe as a self-fulfilling process, a federal ‘project' - as a majority did in France and Holland when they rejected the Constitution in 2005.
The continent-wide demand for referendums cannot simply be ignored or wished away. A majority of voters in every single member state, in every social and age group want to have a vote on whether more power should be handed to Brussels. Across Europe, 75% want a referendum - that's 300 million people. Are they all "anti-European"?
Federalists must acknowledge that their vision for Europe is not the only one. Of course, they are entitled to hold their beliefs, but they must be prepared to defend their arguments on their own merits rather than through crude attempts to shut down debate by tarnishing those who disagree with them. If the benefits of this treaty are so clear, if there is so strong a case to made for it, the Government and supporters of the text should have the courage to make that case and publicly bring it to the people - openly and honestly, through a referendum.
Those who do aspire towards a united Europe must consider this: what kind of Europe do they hope to ‘construct' when achieving that end involves the will of citizens across the continent being systematically and arrogantly dismissed?
If Europe's political elites think they can bring back what is essentially the same Constitution and spirit it past voters with the specific aim of avoiding referendums, they are not only being totally dishonest, but are storing up problems for the future. If the EU is to survive as an entity fit for an age where citizens demand real democracy, it simply cannot continue to plough on with the outmoded formula of integration by stealth. Europe's citizens expect better, and deserve better than this.
In the long run, the EU can only survive if it is built on the mandate of popular legitimacy. Quite simply, the current approach is unsustainable - it is laying down foundations on sand - and will jeopardise the future of the EU.
If politicians in the UK, and across Europe, are serious about restoring trust in politics and giving sustainable legitimacy to EU institutions, the least they can do is trust ordinary people with a democratic vote on their continent's future. That, in my view at least, is what being pro-European really means.
If you believe that politicians should keep their promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution, join our campaign at http://www.iwantareferendum.com/.
