The European Union’s constitutional treaty. The voter’s charter

Date: 24/04/04

Why Tony Blair is right to propose a national referendum on the draft EU constitution

FOR a prime minister who professes to have no reverse gear, it was quite some reverse. After months of rejecting the idea, Tony Blair conceded this week that British voters should have the final say over whether to adopt the new European Union constitution that heads of government hope to agree in June. Britain thus joins a growing list of countries - the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain (almost certainly), Poland (probably) and, after Mr Blair's move, maybe France as well - in putting the document to a popular vote.

Mr Blair's volte-face mainly reflected grubby domestic politics. In 1975 a previous Labour government, also for domestic reasons, held a referendum to approve its “renegotiated” terms of accession; but no European treaty has ever been put to the vote in Britain, including the Single European Act of 1986 and the Maastricht treaty of 1992, both of which took big lurches towards greater integration. A British referendum increases the risk that the constitution (more properly called a constitutional treaty) may never come into force. But it is right to hold one, for two main reasons.

The first is that there is still time to improve the text. This is not just a matter of delivering Mr Blair's “red lines”, such as preserving national vetoes on tax, social security, foreign policy and defence, even though these remain crucial. Just as important, encroachment into areas of criminal and civil law ought to be curtailed, and made subject to unanimous vote; and the idea of a European public prosecutor should be dropped. It would be desirable, too, to junk the verbose Charter of Fundamental Rights - though it may be hard to persuade others to accept this - for it risks inviting, or even obliging, the European Court of Justice to act as an integrationist force.

But the biggest area for improvement should be “subsidiarity”, an ugly term for the proposition that powers are best exercised at the level closest to the citizen. Last year The Economist lamented the draft treaty as an opportunity missed: to simplify the hotch-potch of arrangements governing the European Union; to present a shorter constitution that would be easily intelligible to the layman; and, above all, to clarify and settle the balance of powers between the centre and member governments. It is in this last area that the constitution's provisions need most strengthening. One promising idea floating around is to add a “red flag”, whereby if one-third of national parliaments, say, object to a legislative proposal because it encroaches on their powers, it must be withdrawn.

People power

Europhiles have often argued against a referendum on the EU constitution because - like the European project in general - it seems so unloved. In brute terms, they fear that it will be rejected. But this is in fact the second reason why a referendum is a good idea. For a big factor contributing to popular disillusion with the EU, which is felt well beyond Britain, is that a huge gulf has opened between what is seen as an elite project run from Brussels and the day-to-day concerns of ordinary voters. And the best way to try to bridge that gulf is to stage a full-blown campaign that gets voters to focus on European issues - and then decide whether they want the constitution that the Brussels elite is proposing.

What happens if they say no? Nobody knows for sure. In legal terms, the new constitution, like all EU treaties, must be ratified by all member countries (including ten new ones joining next month) before it can come into force; a rejection in one country, whether Britain or somewhere else, is enough to stop it in its tracks. But the experience of Denmark and Ireland, both of which voted to reject previous treaties, suggests that a more likely outcome is that, after minor titivations, a single naysayer would be asked to vote again. If, however, the naysayer is big or recalcitrant, or if several countries say no, it is more likely that the entire constitutional treaty will fall.

Eurosceptics who have been baying for a referendum would doubtless welcome that. But voters may also learn during the campaign that this is unlikely to be the end of the matter. The countries that want more European federalism might go ahead without those that prefer to entrench the European project as solely inter-governmental - especially if the main or only foot-dragger is Britain. It is thus possible that the endgame will be one in which the foot-draggers have to choose whether they want to be in or out of the EU. And it is precisely because the stakes could be this high that it is right to put the constitution to a referendum.

Editorial argues that UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is right to propose a national referendum on the draft EU constitution.

• Primary Source