Glyn Morgan: We have nothing to fear from a referendum

What are the pro-Europeans so afraid of? Tony Blair left Brussels claiming victory, but insisting that the Government won't hold the referendum that he promised only recently. This position is short-sighted, undemocratic and unnecessarily defeatist. Britain needs a wide-ranging rational debate on its place in Europe; and it needs a referendum to ensure that this debate engages the bulk of the electorate. There is no good reason to believe, whatever current polls might suggest, that the Eurosceptics will win this debate.

British voters deserve a chance to reject or accept the European Union that has grown up over the past 30 years. The EU has "widened" and "deepened" to a point that no one could have expected at the time of the previous referendum in 1975. Even back then many people failed to recognise the legal and constitutional significance of joining the "Common Market". Thus we still hear talk today of how the newly proposed treaty (whatever it's eventually called) will for the first time subjugate national laws to European law. A rational debate will allow the truth to emerge: that European law takes priority over national laws in most areas to do with the single European market - and this has been the case, without the evaporation of Britain's national identity, since 1972.

Related articles

• Sarkozy claims victory over Britain as EU strikes deal
• Cécilia Sarkozy: The First Lady vanishes
• Search the news archive for more stories

Britain needs a comprehensive debate on Europe as much as it needs a referendum. Voters themselves must wrestle with the problem posed by the conjunction of three inescapable facts: one, Britain must remain - if only for reasons of its own national interest - at the centre of debates about the future of Europe; two, to remain at the centre, Britain must be a fully co-operating member of the EU; and three, to be a fully co-operating member, Britain must sign a treaty agreed upon by all the other member states.

Eurosceptics must be given the chance to explain which of these inescapable facts they can wish away. Doubtless, we will be entertained by prospects of abandoning the EU, where roughly two-thirds of our exports go, in favour of Nafta (the North American Free Trade Agreement) or some yet-to-be-created union of the English-speaking peoples. We will hear how Britain can better advance its interests as a former or ex-officio member of the EU. And we will finally learn the Eurosceptics' cunning plan to get our European competitors to trade openly, while we reject, as our sovereign right, their rules and regulations.

No one but a fool thinks that the EU, as currently constituted, is a perfectly well-run organisation that pursues only sensible policies. The Common Agricultural Policy is a costly disgrace; and efforts to regulate the scales of the local greengrocer an embarrassment. For too long, the European Commission has used the topic of economic regulation for purposes of an "ever closer union". Perhaps such a union is a good idea. But progress towards this goal must come directly from the will of Europe's peoples not indirectly from the European Commission. National political leaders must, in the meantime, insist that the EU return all unnecessary responsibilities to member states.

The EU's flaws need to be fixed. The current proposals don't fix everything, but most of them are quite sensible. A Europe of 27 big and small, wealthy and poor, member states needs a more effective way of governing itself. A president to chair regular meetings of the European Council is better than the current rotating arrangement. Likewise, it makes sense to create a more unified foreign policy agency under a high representative. These proposals will be enough to give Eurosceptics the willies about an emergent superstate. On one issue, however, Eurosceptics are right: these proposals, if adopted, will lead to a more powerful European Union, if only because they will create a more effective European level of government. But that's precisely why Europe's citizens also need, whatever the current British Government might think, a charter of fundamental rights that all levels of government - whether local, national, or European - must respect. Whatever their merits, the proposals present a giant problem for Gordon Brown. If he doesn't hold a referendum, he's seen as an autocrat; if he holds one, he might lose. Recent polls suggest that only about a third of UK voters consider EU membership "a good thing".

Another third wants to exit the EU now. And the rest don't know. So what's the poor man to do? He could hold a referendum focused specifically on the new treaty itself. Voters could be asked, "Are you in favour of signing the new European treaty?" Unfortunately, this question is unlikely to stimulate the debate that Britain needs about its place in Europe. Furthermore, the full meaning of any "no" will remain unclear. Are voters rejecting the treaty, EU membership or Brown's government?

For all his claims of open-mindedness, the signs are that Brown would prefer to shut his eyes and shout a defiant "No referendum!", but my suggestion is that he pursue a two-step strategy which would serve both his political and the national interest. In the first stage, he would be advised to seek parliamentary approval of the treaty. If he were to lose this vote, he would have to go back to Brussels to negotiate alternative proposals. If he were to win, he would be advised - as a second step - to hold a referendum on the big question: "Are you in favour of withdrawal from the European Union?".

This was roughly the question posed in 1975. There are two reasons for posing it again: one political, the other ethical. Politically, this is a question that Brown could win. As an old political bruiser, he will also be aware that a referendum on EU membership would be a party political nightmare for David Cameron. The Tory leader claims that he wants a vote, but maybe that is a cynical position born of a desire to seem to be on the side of the people, while knowing that Brown is unlikely to agree to a vote. Up to now, Cameron's rather vague European policies have escaped their smouldering wrath. In a referendum on EU membership, Cameron, who would likely vote with Brown, would face embarrassment at best and at worst a splintering of his party and a shot in the arm for UKIP.

The ethical rationale for an EU referendum is even more important than the political rationale. It is not healthy in a democracy for people to believe - as they will, if there is no referendum - that the political classes are a rule unto themselves, heedless of public opinion, and eager to remove from the political agenda fundamental constitutional issues. It doesn't matter that the current proposals change little, and much of what they do change is in Britain's interest. It matters that people, rightly or wrongly, believe that the EU has gone too far, too fast and without their proper consultation. For that reason alone, Britain needs a referendum.

Glyn Morgan is Associate Professor of Government at Harvard and author of 'The Idea of a European Superstate'

Further browsing: For the EU's deliberations see eu2007.de/en/News/Press_Releases/