British MPs take an important vote today on the Treaty on European Union.

A fine British Parliamentary moment looms. The Conservative Party are calling for a referendum. The Labour Party say that one is not necessary. The LibDems are being ordered not to vote, or something.

From the classic UK point of view (basically that we like EU integration, but not too much and not too fast) this Treaty looks to be an improvement over the ill-fated Constitutional Treaty which crashed so spectacularly back in 2005 in the referenda in France and the Netherlands. It brings in more ‘nation state’ hand-brakes.

Which is why the whole business is so embarrassing. Since it was not that long ago that the Constitutional Treaty itself was being praised as a "success for Britain".

This week sees the latest FCO Leadership Conference, which brings all our Ambassadors and High Commissioners back to London for a series of pep-talks, including this year their first one one from David Miliband.

I recall the similar event back in 2005 just after the Asian Tsunami disaster. One of the very few highlights of that grim event was a presentation on the horrors facing the UK and its standing in Europe if (as then seemed likely) everyone else in the EU voted to support the Constitutional Treaty and we then had our promised referendum and voted No.

We would be Isolated. Reviled.

Our very membership of the EU could be called into question. Aaaargh. (Note: intriguing in this context that the FCO explanation of Article 50 of the new Treaty reassuringly says that "for the first time, the Treaties will explicitly confirm that any Member State can leave the EU if it wants to, and they explain how this would work.")

Then, as if by magic, along came the French and the Dutch referenda which solved our problem. And enabled us to try to get the rusty European bicycle upright again from a stronger position.

So today Parliament takes a view on the new text. Yet it is not easy or even possible to find a clear account in the media today of the issues at stake which answers the basic questions in language anyone should be able to follow:

  • what problem are these ‘constitutional’ Treaties purporting to solve?
  • what were the main features of the Constitutional Treaty text which have now been abandoned?
  • and why are the new Treaty passages an improvement?

At the heart of all this is a Pretty Big Question.

What is Democracy in the European context?

David Clark today opines that "there is nothing democratic about allowing one or two members of a club of 27 to block change wanted by the rest. What opponents of Lisbon are asking for is not democracy at all, but the right of a single-country veto to frustrate the will of the majority."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It depends on how the rules are set up. If every member of a Club agrees that in some circumstances a single club member can block decisions, when a block takes place that in fact is an expression of the democratic agreement to set up those rules in the first place. See the Greece/Macedonia name row, still alive today. Annoying. But not ‘undemocratic’.

Moreover, the whole point of the EU is that it is not ‘democratic’ – voting (when it happens) if not the whole European integration process is skewed in favour of reassurance-via-influence for smaller member states so that the biggest MS do not predominate. Plus MS are allowed to play a ‘national interest’ trump card now and again to stop things they really do not like. That is just another way to incorporate some checks and balances. Without those deeply incorporated the EU would not work; there is just not enough basic trust between European peoples and leaders.

But David Clark is spot on here (emphasis added):

"..pro-Europeans ought to feel some degree of embarrassment at the way the Lisbon treaty is being railroaded through to ratification. What started as an effort to involve European citizens in a more open process of treaty change, including a European convention, has ended with a return to decision-making by the elite. It may be expedient, but it is still a retrograde step.

The problem is one of trust, or lack of it. Many European leaders are now reluctant to take the risk of holding a referendum on the EU because they don’t trust voters to judge the issues on their merits, or even consider the issues at all. As with the failed referendums on the constitution in France and the Netherlands, there is a feeling that people tend to see a vote on Europe as a cost-free opportunity to lash out at unpopular national governments or express some other generalised frustration at the state of the world. It is the fact that EU treaties appear so remote to the concerns of voters, rather than the idea that they pose any great threat, that tends to produce negative outcomes. The result is democracy without responsibility."

What is clear is that all this is not clear.

So if a referendum on this subject has been promised to British voters, what is the best thing to do?