Sick man of Europe

IT IS rare that a politician unites the entire country, but last week Tony Blair managed it: he left everyone completely baffled. Is there to be a referendum on the proposed European constitution or not? The Sun and The Times, two newspapers linked by Batphone to Number 10, printed roughly the same story on the same day: that the Prime Minister was rethinking his long-held opposition to a vote.

Officially, however, Downing Street insisted government policy had not changed: "Our consistent position has been ‘no’ to a referendum on Europe." Speaking on the Today programme yesterday Blair was vague: "You will have to wait and see what occurs on any of this."

It’s not just the voters who are confused. Inside Downing Street a number of the Prime Minister’s advisers are scratching their heads. "I can’t believe The Boss [as Blair is known in Number 10, if not Number 11] is seriously considering it," said one. "He was totally opposed to a referendum before and, you know, he doesn’t like entering into any battle he might lose."

That may once have been the case, but is it any longer? Times have changed, and Blair has changed with them; he is no longer the risk-averse frontman of his early years in office. He was once regularly and justifiably accused of government by focus group, of allowing his policies to be dictated by the calculations of a cold-eyed band of pollsters and spin doctors. Now he is his own man, hardened and scarred by backbench rebellions, geopolitical scraps and a hostile media firing on him from both left and right. Some British voters (and some MPs) believe he is a mass murderer who should be tried for crimes against humanity.

These things have the effect of toughening a man up: thus we see foundation hospitals and university tuition fees shoved through parliament in the face of ferocious Labour opposition, war waged in Iraq despite negative poll stats and international opprobrium, a close and publicly-worn friendship with an unpopular right wing American president, the ending of a friendship with a French president who outlived his usefulness. Tony Blair, version 2004, doesn’t try to sneak round his problems - he takes them out at the knees.

Let us suppose, then, that tough-guy Tony, muscles oiled, tie knotted tightly around his head, is looking for his next fight. Iraq will work out or it won’t; the bulk of his domestic reforms have been passed; he only has three years left - max - before he must hand over to Gordon. What’s left? Well, Europe. Blair is regarded as the most pro-European Prime Minister since Ted Heath, and yet his achievements in the continental arena have been negligible. He wanted to take Britain into the single currency, but missed his chance. Had he held a Euro referendum in his first gilded year in office he may well have won the argument, but he bottled it. Since then Iraq has driven a further wedge between the UK and its European "partners". His passion for putting Britain "at the heart of Europe" is the itch Blair has been unable to scratch.

As a result I believe there is a good chance the Prime Minister will hold a referendum on the constitution. It would be in keeping with his recent political behaviour - wouldn’t he fancy an aggressive assault on the Eurosceptics? It would also have been rather silly to float the prospect to Rupert Murdoch’s two most powerful newspapers, with a general election due in a year’s time, if he had no intention of following through.

And then, really, what does he have to lose? There are already seven of the 25 EU and accession states planning a plebiscite, and more are likely to follow suit. If any vote against the constitution, and one has to suspect that, say, Ireland or Denmark will do just that, then it is sunk for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, and for the first time in 30 years, Britain has an opportunity to have a proper public debate on the nature of its relationship with Europe, and a vote at the end of it. It is a chance to drain a swamp of misinformation and unthinking, tribal adherence on both the pro and anti-Europe sides.

The country wants that debate, and that vote. An ICM poll last year suggested 88% of Britons back a referendum. ‘The Vote 2004’ campaign, set up to lobby for a referendum, now draws support from both sides of the constitution argument, and from an astonishing variety of individuals, including Anthony Beevor, Martin Bell, Jilly Cooper, George Carey and VS Naipaul. The Tories want a referendum, as do the Liberal Democrats. Both parties have threatened to ambush the constitution legislation once it reaches the Lords, unless there is a public vote. And last week the Sun claimed Jack Straw, Gordon Brown, David Blunkett, John Prescott, Margaret Beckett and Peter Hain believe Blair should go for it.

Who, then, is against it? It’s hard to find anyone outside Blair’s circle of advisers, who fear he could not win. And, up until now, Blair himself.

The Prime Minister makes three main arguments: that a referendum is not necessary because the constitution will not change Britain’s relationship with Europe in any "fundamental" way; that he has set out "red lines", which enshrine the areas of British policymaking the constitution must not interfere with; there is also, he points out, no precedent for holding such a referendum.

It may be that the proposed constitution would not fundamentally change our daily relationship with Europe. I suppose this depends on your definition of "fundamental" - the constitution would certainly extend the areas of lawmaking that could be decided by Qualified Majority Voting; Blair has already agreed to allow one of his initial "red lines" to be crossed (on control of aspects of the UK’s justice system); since New Labour took office it has held 34 referenda, most on less important constitutional changes (ie elected mayors) than the one currently before us. And, just because we didn’t have a national vote at the time of Maastricht or the creation of the single market, does that mean we can’t have one now?

But there are two far stronger arguments in favour of a plebiscite, and for me they are clinchers.

First, we are being asked to take a hugely symbolic step - the first time Britain, with its evolutionary, piecemeal approach to lawmaking, will have signed up to a written constitution. As any politician knows, symbols are important. How can it not be right to ask the British people for a legitimising vote?

Second, we are deepening our links to a Union which is in some trouble. According to the EU Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, Europe "has broken down". In the last six months 25m Europeans have gone from having an "essentially positive" view of Europe to a "negative" one.

Since the 1970s EU-wide voter turnout has been in continual decline - to less than 50% in the 1999 elections. In Britain turnout was 24%. In a more pro-Europe nation, Holland, turnout was 30%; in gung-ho Germany, it was 45.2%. Perhaps the most important EU project - the Lisbon agenda of economic reform - is firmly stuck in the mud, with EU GDP per capita running at 30% below US levels, a gap which will grow in the years ahead. In Berlin, as we report today, disenchanted Germans are introducing a "Berliner Mark" to replace the loathed euro. The sick man of Europe, it is clear, is the EU itself.

For decades, the European project has been driven forward by politicians in the absence of a fresh democratic mandate. The pro-Europeans have insisted every step towards deeper integration was nothing of the sort; the anti-Europeans insist there is a secret plot to create a super state. When has the voice of the people been heard? The preamble to the draft constitution quotes Thucydides: "Our constitution... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number." It does not feel that way at present. Blair should let the people decide.