Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Over at the Speccy Coffee Shop Matt d'Ancona writes a scathing response to Ming's last minute call for a referendum on Europe. He makes the point I did on Thursday about trust, only more firmly and more strongly, I predict this will indeed now become the clarion call of the Cameroons.
The trouble is that the question Ming wants to pose - In or Out - is a complete irrelevance (except for Ukip voters). The controversy over the re-heated EU Constitution, now stripped of grandiose language but substantially the same as it was in 2004, has nothing whatsoever to do with membership of Europe. It is about trust and Labour's unambiguous pledge in its 2005 manifesto to hold a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty (or Reform Treaty as it is now relabelled after the deal struck this year). Either the Government honours that pledge or it does not. It is a wearyingly familiar ploy - the hysterical insinuation that every Eurosceptic really wants to get out of the EU entirely.... the argument should not even be about Euroscepticism versus integrationism, but about political honour and transparency. A promise is a promise, or ought to be.
Yes, BUT... the point Matt misses, as I tried to argue, is that we can't have that promised referendum because the EU itself has moved on. Britain cannot stop it now from adopting the new Treaty. A new process has been adopted. Therefore a vote now would be about membership of the, to borrow a phrase "actually existing EU". (See Bill Emmott here as well.) I continue to be amazed that there is so little recognition of the fact that there is now only one way out... or in.
PS: There is a fascinating survey of Lib Dem blog reactions to Ming's pings in Iain Dale's Diary and a well deserved pat on the back for James Graham of quaequam whose blog is currently mostly devoted to when to referendum - his attack for Ming's original view that it was not necessary is already off the front page.
