Moderator: This is part of an ongoing exchange between Jonathan Church of the Federal Trust and Hugo Robinson of Open Europe. You can read Jonathan's initial piece here and Hugo's response here.
Jonathan Church (London, The Federal Trust): I had the distinct impression reading Hugo Robinson's piece that he was responding not to what I had written on this website last week, but to what he presumed I had written. Why Mr Robinson felt the need, for example, to assert out of thin air that I believed Mr Brown's refusal to hold a referendum to be justified or that politicians "should be free to lie to their electorates" I am not sure. But his piece was no doubt punchier as a result.
I imagine it would disappoint Mr Robinson to discover that there are a number of things on which we appear to agree - though there is one (central) question on which I expect we don't.
To be clear about what I did write: Mr Brown's failure to present the Reform Treaty as a positive document is having, and will continue to have, the consequence of increasing the pressure on him to hold a referendum. That was about it on that question.
I should like to respond too to the insinuation that I think those supporting a referendum are necessarily anti-European. This is not a view I expressed. What I did say was that anti-Europeanism is a driving force behind calls for a referendum. I know people who want a referendum who are pro-European or ambivalent about Europe. But it is undeniable that a significant proportion of those wanting a referendum - and I would contest the most vociferous proponents - are motivated by the desire to vote "no" to the EU (for the sake of this discussion this is what I mean by anti-Europeanism - another debate in itself, admittedly). Like Mr Robinson, I highlighted other motivating factors too for calls for a referendum, not least that the Constitutional Treaty (on which a referendum was promised) and the Reform Treaty are very similar. I even - perhaps it went unnoticed - wrote that people's wish to vote "no" to 'the EU' was understandable given that the electorate is not being told the whole truth by the Government - about the EU or the Reform Treaty. But however understandable, it cannot be denied that the prevalence of this wish to vote "no" to the EU is itself an argument against holding a referendum on the Reform Treaty. How can a referendum be said to give any meaningful result if those voting will each choose for themselves a question on which to vote? A referendum on the Reform Treaty is one thing, a referendum on the EU is another. The Liberal Democrats have proposed the latter - it would at least have the benefit of clarity.
So, where else do we agree? "In the long run, the EU can only survive if it is built on the mandate of popular legitimacy". Quite right. "Europe's political elites are not only being dishonest, but are storing up problems for the future". That's certainly true of the British Government, in my opinion. "Brussels has become utterly detached from ordinary people". I wouldn't go quite so far, but there is certainly an unwelcome distance between the EU and its electorate in this country.
So why the great disagreement? Mr Robinson is right to take me to task on my categorising the Reform Treaty as a "progressive" document, because this is the central point. He and I can probably agree that the Reform Treaty continues the development of the EU towards greater sovereignty-sharing, more efficient decision-making procedures, enhanced roles for the EU institutions, a greater voice for the EU in the world, and a greater ability for the EU to address internal challenges. It is true that it represents a relatively modest development when compared with the Maastricht Treaty and others, that the UK has been quite successful in remaining semi-detached from many of these developments, and that national parliaments are given a louder voice - but nonetheless, this Reform Treaty is a 'bit more of Europe'. (My point last week was that Mr Brown is not brave enough to rile the Eurosceptic media and say so.) But whether or not a 'bit more of Europe' represents progress depends very much - even entirely - on your personal pre-existent view of the European Union. I presume that this is where our views diverge.
Europe faces great challenges. Many of these challenges transcend the nation state and in my view require, if they are to be addressed effectively, a degree of legal and political overlap among similar countries that goes beyond ad hoc bi- or multi-lateral agreements, as easily discarded as they are drawn-up (and, as it happens, subject to less parliamentary scrutiny in the UK than EU law). As George Monbiot said, "everything has been globalised except our consent". The EU is currently the one medium through which we can hope to meaningfully bring our consent to bear on the myriad of global problems which we face - from environmental destruction to cross-border crime.
Enhancing the connection between people's consent and their elected representatives is a key challenge in all democracies, however long established, the UK included. For the European Union - the vanguard of supranational democracy - it is a particular challenge. The nature of our world today means it is a challenge we must address constructively, rather than abandon all together.
