The negotiations over the European constitution neared their climax in the European council summit. This presents an opportunity to take stock and ask serious questions about our democratic credibility on the issue of the EU, in view of the overwhelming majority in favour of holding a referendum.
Political parties need to provide leadership on political issues and, of course, that does not mean always swaying with every opinion poll result. However, while it may be right for a government to depart from the opinion polls to provide leadership on a policy issue, there is a big difference between policy and constitutional issues.
While the electoral cycle may guarantee policy accords closely enough with public opinion, where constitutional power is concerned it is not for politicians to transfer the power lent to us by our electorate to other bodies without the people’s assent.
In a modern liberal democracy, the creation of a constitution, or changes in constitutions, should be subject to the will of the people if they are to be legitimate. If the European constitution makes real changes of constitutional significance, then there should be a referendum, so that the people can decide on their future.
So is the European constitution a case of genuine constitutional reform? It may seem obvious that a document that calls itself a constitution should have constitutional significance, but that has been disputed.
Before the government started to spin the line that the constitution is not important enough for a referendum, ministers were happy to acknowledge its importance. When he was minister for Europe and one of our delegates to the European convention, Peter Hain said, ‘Our task is nothing less than the creation of a new constitutional order for a new united Europe.’
Of course, the precise details will not be clear until the final text is agreed, but we can have a fairly good idea of what this document will look like from the draft that was published in July by the European convention. All indications are that it will contain some or all of a number of measures that will have real constitutional impact.
The EU would be allowed to expand its field of activities after agreement of heads of state but without reference to national parliaments. For example, the government has laid down Britain’s foreign policy veto as one of its ‘red lines’. The new draft of the constitution actually increased the scope of qualified majority voting on foreign policy. We also now know that there will be a common defence clause in the constitution.
Even outside of the ‘red lines’ issues there are other issues of constitutional significance. The inclusion of the charter of fundamental rights in the text of the treaty is a significant step. The creation of a new president of the European council will also have real effects.
But, aside from the new reforms contained within the constitution, there is another, perhaps more important, reason for having a referendum. The constitution is a long-term settlement for Europe. We are making a decision on the structure of the EU. Such fundamental decisions should be the preserve of the people.
The constitutional process agreed on at the Laeken summit in 2001 was supposed to bring the citizens closer to the EU, but the convention that it set up has not engaged with them. The people should not merely resemble spectators at a sports event, watching the negotiations swing between the aspirations of the French and Germans and the red lines of the British, Polish and Spanish.
If the constitution were to be agreed without the consent of the people, then there is no question that it would lead to further disenchantment with the EU and with the political process as a whole. We should embrace this opportunity to bring people in to make decisions about their future. The alternative is to damage even further the esteem in which we are held as politicians.