No Say on 'The Snip'

This week’s Economist has a brace of letters on the European reform treaty, nee European Connstitution.

The first, from a titan of European politics in the ample shape of former Irish Commissioner, Peter Sutherland; and the second from a, well, semi-titan, in the form of Europe Minister Jim Murphy.

Both are at pains to point out that the reform treaty needs speedy implementation and not the grandstanding of a referendum.

Indeed, admonishing the Economist’s temerity in backing a referendum, Sutherland says it would simply be a “recipe for confusion”.

The problem with Britain and the EU is that the project for greater European integration has never been openly admitted. From the very first moves towards applying to join the then EEC in the early 1960s, the entire concept of the ‘European project’ was kept under a cloak.

“It’s just a common market” we were told.

“It’s just about trade” they assured us.

Indeed the Government maintained this fiction by telling the public that the original constitution was simply a “tidying up exercise.”

The truth is that the British public have been systematically lied to by the political elite of all three main parties for forty years.

Instead of being honest with the public and explaining the issues involved, all governments have conspired to play down the significance of European integration. (All apart from the ultras on the Tory right and Labour left).

None will admit that the EU is effectively a political vasectomy. It snips off pieces of sovereignty from Member States and ties their economies together to prevent another war. Co-operation has replaced conflict for half a century; and the price for that co-operation is a measure of shared sovereignty.

So should there be a referendum on the current treaty? Well Messrs Sutherland and Murphy are right to say that both the Single European Act and Maastricht treaties were massively more important and there was no referendum on either.

But the wider issue of the political elite taking decisions that the public have neither consented to, nor, frankly adequately understand, is no longer tenable.

A referendum? Finely balanced, but not in this case. An honest debate? Most definitely.