It is time to look ahead to a referendum on the European Constitution. The first and most obvious place to look is at the draft constitution itself. It is not a quick read. The introduction alone, placed on a scale, would comfortably outweigh the ten commandments, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, all placed on the other side together.
This is not a flippant point. Some constitutions, like those mentioned above, like the UN Charter, like the Irish Constitution are brief documents. They are statements of principle. Their language is social and political. However, the draft European Constitution is very much a legal document. It currently covers more than 260 pages. Much of it is fuliginous, couched in densest legal language. The brightest of lights, the calmest of minds would be needed to construe its meaning.
And yet it is this very document that will be the subject of protracted political fighting. It is certainly hard to imagine that process will clarify the constitutional treaty. In fact, the most likely pattern of debate is all too easy to imagine. The anti-supporters will cherry pick a couple of paragraphs that set out the powers of the EU. The pro-supporters will reply with a couple of paragraphs they have picked out that stress the nationally reserved powers, and the limits of Brussel’s power. With that in mind, it is easy to forecast a debate boring and pointless enough to make the most hardened political junkie go cold turkey. Even the heart of Westminster people will be switching off Sky News and Newsnight.
As for the public, a factional, fractious and impenetrable debate would stir up apathy and cynicism around the country. But it does not have to be that way.
The case to be won is the case for Europe itself. This is as true for a referendum on the constitution as for a referendum on the Euro. The case has to be made now and up until the point of the vote. That involves finding channels through to the British people, to stress the benefits of the EU to the individual freedom to work and travel, the benefits to national wealth and trade.
But more than that it involves a policy shift. How much easier would it have been to win a referendum at the time of the Lisbon summit, when Britain was clearly pushing the EU towards economic reform – even to the reported discomfort of France and Germany. There are clearly goals for Britain to champion in Europe. The Common Agricultural Policy must support growing trade with the developing world, and the rural environment, as well as the incomes of the factory farmers. The frankly stalled process of economic reform (the Lisbon agenda) must be revived so the EU economy can start creating more jobs. Cultural chauvinism must not prevent Turkey from joining the EU, should it successfully reform its human rights record.
Of course, many British diplomats would rightly protest that these are precisely the causes they spend their time championing. The point is that to be sure of wining a referendum, the government will have to demonstrate consistent progress on a recognisably British agenda for years before a vote. Only some of that is presentational.
When the time of the vote comes people will be asking themselves, as much as anything else, do we think the government can advance our national interests through Europe? That argument begins now. And it is very welcome.