Bill Emmott (London, writer): The case for a referendum on the EU’s new treaty is stronger in all the other member countries of the Union than in Britain, especially the 10 that held or planned to hold a referendum for the previous version of the treaty (sorry, constitution). The treaty has not changed substantially between that version and this one: it still transfers power from member states to the EU, principally through the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the extension of majority voting in justice and home affairs, though also, for some countries, because of the change in the voting system itself. So if a referendum was justified before, it must be justified now.
The question in Britain is whether this also applies to us. Tony Blair negotiated opt-outs from the Charter and from the justice and home affairs provisions. So if no powers are being transferred, no referendum? Although I accept that the argument is weaker this time, I don’t think it can be shrugged off that easily, as Gordon Brown is finding.
It cannot be, partly out of precedent. The Labour Party promised a referendum and is now being seen to break that promise on what seems to most people to be a technicality. Ah, all constitutional matters are technicalities, in a sense, I hear you say, but they are no less important for that, which is why I doubt that Labour’s opt-outs provide a real get-out.
There is plenty of room to doubt whether the opt-out from the Charter is really watertight: it will depend on what the European Court decides as and when someone tries to challenge it in a case. It seems to me pretty strange anyway to opt out of something that is supposedly fundamental both to European citizens’ rights and to the European Union itself: a currency is just a policy choice, but rights are rather basic. European judges may well feel the same way. Neither the opt-out to the Charter nor to the justice and home affairs provisions look tenable. Within a decade Britain is likely to have dropped both of them, either because it is forced to, or because a government chooses to. Will there be a referendum then? I doubt it. It will be a transfer of power by stealth—exactly the sort of thing that erodes trust in politics and faith in the European project.
By the way, I would favour our own bill of rights, amid our own written constitution, and a referendum on that. Any substantial constitutional change should be ratified by referendum, it seems to me: you can’t have representative institutions legislating over their own powers. That is also why I favour referendums on European powers—not because I am against Europe, nor indeed most of the provisions of the new treaty, but for reasons of constitutional principle.
In truth, those who favour referendums tend to be sceptics and those who reject them are Euro-fans. This just leaves Britain in a permanently fractious, suspicious state about everything European. I would rather see Gordon Brown and Labour have the courage of their convictions, hold a referendum and campaign vigorously to win it. They’ve got the Tories on the run, haven’t they?
