Questions for those favouring a referendum

Why is the EU constitutional treaty good for Britain? We may be giving up a trifling forty or so policy vetoes - but to what end?

If the government felt they had a good political answer, be sure that we would be hearing it. But we don't. Instead, those opposed to a referendum concentrate on two other tactics.

First, they attack those calling for a referendum. For instance, today's Financial Times leader (dissected by Richard North) refers to "the motley band calling for a referendum in Britain on the European Union's constitutional treaty". When 82% of voters want a referendum, it's not surprising that they don't all have the same reasons. It's not surprising that 82% of voters don't all belong to the same organisations. It's not surprising that some of the organisations those 82% of voters belong to seem unlikely allies. But to call 82% of voters a "motley band" seems excessively élitist even by the standards of the Financial Times. The Europe Minister even labelled those calling for a referendum as "mad". Mad and motley. What a country to govern.

Second, the government insists that it is protecting its red lines. The Foreign Office insists that no matters essential to national sovereignty have been surrendered. This implies - as we have noted before - that other concessions have been made. And indeed the government has confirmed that some forty vetoes will be given up.

What do we get in exchange? The best the Financial Times can come up with is that "the treaty is a tidying-up exercise". Then why is it so important to EU leaders? And why would the UK want to surrender 40 vetoes for a "tidying up exercise"?

That is why the government needs to be pressed on why it is signing up to this treaty in the first place. Their argument that "we're not surrendering everything" doesn't begin to answer this.

So here are the questions the motley pro-referendum band should be asking.

1. What will the treaty achieve?

2. What areas do the 40 surrendered vetoes cover?

3. Why is it worth giving up those 40 policy vetoes to get this treaty?

4. Why is it worth breaking an election manifesto commitment to get this treaty?