A good question

Will there be a vote on the Euro constitution?
One of the most disingenuous things Lib Dems have done thus far during the general election is, in interview after interview, to brush off questions about the EU with the incoherent assurance, 'not to worry, we'll settle all these matters during the referendum campaign'. Even though this leaves out a host of issues pertaining both to the single currency, and the very fact of EU membership itself, the most slippery aspect of this response lies in the fact that there very well might not be a referendum in the UK at all. Soon after our own general election we have the famed French vote, then, three days later, the Dutch, and in due course the Poles and the Czechs are all slated to vote. I mention these four countries because each of them is sceptical enough to pass a NO vote, all of them might, but, and here's the crucial thing, baring some extraordinary development, all of them will vote, on schedule and regardless of the outcome in other, earlier member state polls. This, defiantly, is not the case in Blairite Britain. Our current fourth party, UKIP, have made what little running there has been on this theme, but the typically unwritten nature even yet of our constitution means that the Prime Minister, if enough No votes are raked up elsewhere, can cheerfully dispense entirely with our own vote. Should he, will he and ought he to are questions which a competent press would at least ask of our politicians once during a general election.

The case, as seen from the FCO, for dumping a British vote, is painfully simple. It's going to be hard enough to win the thing, even if we are the last boy standing, and therefore the government can play all the plentiful national insecurity left about being isolated from the continent. But if upwards of half a dozen other countries have said no, the No vote in Britain is bound to be an apathetic landslide of negativism. This prospect appals pro-EU civil servants and politicians alike, because such a vote will benchmark Britain's negotiating limit in subsequent European councils, and hence will rob the Foreign Office of their beloved flexibility. Indeed, as the most likely real world circumstance where the Constitution is killed off before we can get to work on it is, a French Non, the renegotiations, genuinely feared by UKREP, will be all about the 'less Anglo-Saxon' document that will succeed the present constitution. And with no little foresight, they, that is to say, our sincere pro-Europeans, can see the dreadful situation arising where the British public will be confronted with an explicitly federalising text (in order to appease the French) where we could, if we still say No to that, set the scene for British departure from, at the very least, the EU mainstream. Which, in the eyes of our dimwit diplomats, would rob them of what they love second best of all — influence. So Britain wants a yes vote, if by Britain we mean, our government and our governing classes. They'd dearly like us to say yes to the Constitution even as it stands (this would, by their calculations, put pressure on the French to give way and vote again, which is not an impossible scenario), but they fear that if allowed a vote the British will easily vote No. Quite the dilemma then.

The grosser dishonesty though that pervades this entire process is that the Constitution, as a live political issue, is almost entirely a red herring. As the European Parliament, with the Commission’s generous help, has already implemented, by way of 'preparation', a very large volume of its provisions. In other words, even without consent, it is already being implemented. And whatever one thinks about the EU, it's exactly this means of proceeding that disillusions so many people.

In terms of simple party management, while there is a substantial if discounted quantity of Labour Euroscepticism, both among the Labour electorate and the parliamentary party, there's no reason to think that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown don't think they can manage this. If anything, poor old Michael Howard, or rather his heirs and successors, have the greater problem in that honest and effective opposition to the Constitution effectively requires at least flirtation with consideration (see how circumspect this statement has to be!) with withdrawalism. At the moment, nothing could be further from the minds of men like Michaels Ancram and Howard, and most certainly a majority of their parliamentary party. These things have to remain guesswork, but while a majority of the next parliamentary party could just about reconcile themselves to Britain being outside the EU, everyone from Denis MacShane to excitable Tory phobes who imagines that there will be a majority in the party for leaving the EU, whatever the cost, whatever the circumstances, is kidding themselves.

At the moment, the consensus of pundits and people sympathetic to the problems inherent in managing great parties alike is that, if the Government can, they’ll dump a British ballot. The opposite conclusion, however, seems far more plausible. However and why ever it is that Gordon Brown is going to replace Tony Blair, it stretches belief that the Euro referendum is not going to be central to this. Either the Prime Minister, as one last great hurrah proves that his miracle working ability even means his career will end in his success and he wins the thing, or, he loses, and for Labour's electoral redemption is crucified accordingly (and those who don't think Mr Blair wouldn't mind a bit of martyrdom have learnt nothing at all from his handling of the Iraq war).

The interests of the British state, which after 8 to 9 years in office, the Labour party have both come to identify with, and to some extent, determine, favour putting pressure on France to accept 'merely' the current constitution, whilst keeping the UK in the EU that leads to. This is the optimal result for our foreign policy establishment. The best weapon Britain has to that end, is to be on the side of the goody two shoes, and to firmly put the pressure back on France. At the most, I see Britain's referendum being postponed until the French have had a second one, after cosmetic changes to the Constitution, and after whatever political dislocation there is in France has worked itself out. As ever since 1991, the key matter is this: will the Germans decide to leave the French no option but to accept Berlin's preferred policy? For any hint of an Anglo-German entente destroys France's entire position. This certain knowledge in Paris ensures that, after voting Non, France's politicians, far from being full of resistance to Brussels, are going to fearfully have to persuade their voters to say Oui. It's that or risk losing Germany.

That these are all matters for the Labour party and Foreign Office to contemplate quietly, without the serious threat of a popular Eurosceptic electoral challenge this May, is commentary enough on the state of British politics, and the sure enough outcome of the general election.

For the duration of the campaign, the Social Affairs Unit will be publishing regular commentaries on the progress of the UK election. These commentaries represent the views of the anonymous commentator, not those of the Social Affairs Unit, its Trustees, Advisors or Director.