|
A referendum on the European constitution could serve
two functions: to guide parliament on ratification of the proposed constitutional
treaty; and to generate a debate about Britain's place in Europe.
The absence of a coherent written constitution for the
United Kingdom means that it is not possible to give a definitive answer
to the question of whether a referendum is formally necessary. The fact
that European integration advances by stages reduces the significance
of each individual stage but does not diminish the importance of the overall
process. If the next set of modifications to the Brussels system of decision-making
do not amount to a revolution, the fact that the European Union is ready
for a constitution deserves the broadest possible public discussion.
This is the reason for a renewed debate about the future
of Europe and Britain's place within it. The referendum in 1975 did not
settle the question: it is still a live issue. It would be possible to
initiate such a debate without holding a referendum but the government
does not appear to have a taste for this.
If there is to be a referendum on the constitution,
there needs to be a dose of honesty and humility about the decision to
be taken. It is not for the British to decide whether or not the rest
of Europe continues to integrate on a federal basis. They can only decide
whether or not they wish to participate themselves.
The choice to be made in a referendum is therefore not
between the new constitution and the status quo, but between the new constitution
and leaving the EU altogether. The other member states that have participated
in the convention and the IGC and accepted the terms of the new constitution
should not be prevented from adopting it because of a British no vote.
If the British vote Yes, then they will retain their place in the Union.
If they vote No, they must be ready to leave the EU and negotiate some
new kind of relationship from outside it.
|