Constitutional purists decry referenda as inappropriate in a parliamentary democracy.  The argument is that if you elect representatives it is their job to make, amend or reject proposals for legislation.  Because voters have given these powers to Members of Parliament to exercise on their behalf, there is no justification for MPs resorting to a referendum as a form of passing the buck back to voters, especially if it addresses an issue covered by a manifesto pledge.  Particularly as the remedy of calling a General Election is available where a government feels it needs a fresh mandate or is no longer able to command a majority in the House of Commons. 

This is all well and good in the abstract until you come up against the thorny issues of Europe such as our terms of membership of the EU and the far-reaching proposals for change by treaty when all the signs are that a majority of people are not happy about what they understand is being put forward.  Most of the time European issues languish down at ninth or tenth in people’s list of priorities of political issues that concern them.  Until, that is, a specific question about Europe is put to them and then it is as if a button has been pressed to inflame people’s passions. 

And I think that is because pressing the button serves to remind people that they are subject to decisions being taken by bodies or institutions which are outside our country and, worse, dominated by a majority which is foreign.  This leaves us with a strong sense of injustice in being subject to forces beyond our control yet they are being exercised under powers we have ‘given away’ or transferred by treaty.  And people feel they have had little or no say in these transfers of sovereignty in several treaties, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, the Constitution and, now, the Constitution Treaty under another name just signed by Blair as his last act.  And it is a fact that our national interest is being diluted.  When I was first elected we were one of twelve member states in the Council, now twenty seven, and we British MEPs made up nearly 20% of the Parliament, now just over 10%. 

It was to address these concerns head on that we Conservatives in the European Parliament launched a campaign in 2003 for a referendum on the then draft constitution.  We felt that it was necessary to consult the people when such major transfers of powers were being proposed by a Labour government with an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons under the tight control of Blair’s sofa style rule, a sort of modern version of that description ‘elective dictatorship’ coined by Lord Hailsham in the 1970’s.  Curiously, despite professing to be confident that the UK should sign up to this treaty, the then Prime Minister maintained there was no need to have a referendum.

I say curiously because I believe he persuaded President Chirac that France should hold one on this issue.  Also curiously because Mr Blair had held referenda aplenty when it suited him to give electoral legitimacy to major constitutional changes in Scotland and Wales.  Not to mention referenda to introduce directly elected mayors in local government or in pursuit of Prescott’s ludicrous and misconceived regional government agenda which received such a glorious bloody nose from the voters of the north east.  And, of course, Labour has previous form dating back to the 1975 referendum on whether we should accept re-negotiated terms and stay in the then EEC. 

Perhaps it was a recollection of all these precedents that persuaded Mr Blair to change his previous ‘under no circumstances will there be a referendum’ position just a few weeks before the 2004 European Elections to say yes we will have one.  Or perhaps he was more interested in the effect that his u-turn would have on the Conservative campaign for those elections.  He later went on to include a pledge in the Labour manifesto for the 2005 General Election to hold a referendum.  Yet, luckily for him, the French and the Dutch referenda on the Constitution Treat let him off the hook by, in theory, stopping it in its tracks and giving him the excuse to say we didn’t need one after all.  He has certainly been a luck politician! 

Now we are confronted by a so-called Reform Treaty, a clever move that to re-name it by the way, whose text is virtually indistinguishable from that of the Constitution which was clearly rejected by two founder member states in referenda.  If the content is pretty much the same then the case for putting it to a referendum in Britain is just as strong now as it was in 2004 and 2005.  The only difference is a new Prime Minister and I ask myself whether he will prove as opportunistic, fickle and flexible in his position as was Mr Blair. 

From all this I hope it is clear I strongly support the case for holding a referendum.  I think it is very important people should feel they have an opportunity to express their views because they will feel less excluded from the democratic process on such constitutional issues.  I sense there is a large majority that does not want us to go any further down the road to a European United States.  But I also believe there would be a majority in favour of remaining engaged in and with Europe.  If the questions put to the referendum were, for example, should we ratify this new treaty, should we join the euro and should we leave the EU altogether I believe the answers would be no, no and no.  Let the people speak!