A constitution should be something that people demand of a government, not have forced on them to enhance “efficiency”

In March this year, as the Treaty of Lisbon bill proceeded through parliament, the New Statesman warned Labour that it had to start making the case for closer union with Europe. We said that it had dealt cleverly with calls for a referendum but that voting strategies and arguments about the precise nature of the treaty missed the point. Sooner or later, Labour had to fight for the principles behind closer European union, a task more challenging, and more honourable, than evading a popular vote.

Now Ireland has had such a vote and rejected the treaty. If Britain were to do the same, as promised in the manifestos of all three major parties, British voters would also be very likely to reject it.

David Miliband has frequently argued that the EU can be the motor of progressive politics. Yet too often Labour's presentation of such issues as the Lisbon Treaty has been technical rather than based on principle. But with a right-wing press virulently and consistently hostile to Europe (we should ask why), Labour needs to answer the question "What did Europe ever do for us?" with a little less managerial acumen and a great deal more passion (Catherine Fieschi makes a bold argument for putting emotion at the heart of politics on page 24). For, from protecting workers and upholding human rights to leading the world on strategies to combat climate change and global poverty, the answer to the Pythonesque challenge is, "Rather a lot, actually."

What the EU has not done is make itself likeable, or even much understood. For too many ordinary people, it is remote, bureaucratic and repressive. Where voters are given a chance to vote (Ireland this time, but France and the Netherlands, too, in 2005) they display their hostility.

The danger now is that the EU could fragment. Europe's eastern countries want more cash; Germany and France want continued cheap labour; Spain wants a looser public spending discipline. Although the EU has been resilient in good times we should not assume it can survive all changes of fortune. Instead of railing against Ireland's voters and threatening them with expulsion, the European elites have to recognise that opposition to closer union is at least in part a consequence of the failure of open markets to provide greater economic security. The EU has come to be seen as part of the globalisation problem rather than the solution. It has failed to address the anxieties of ordinary people.

Because economic union (the creation of a single market on liberal principles) has not been matched by social mechanisms and institutions capable of regulating that market in the public interest, the rural poor and urban working classes feel the EU offers them very little. The Lisbon Treaty could make modest corrections to that imbalance; paradoxically, its rejection could strengthen the neoliberal bias in EU policy and increase scepticism about integration.

Ireland has as much reason as any other nation to celebrate its membership of the Union; it has enjoyed great economic growth and prosperity in recent years. No doubt, as its vote against the treaty is "respected" with threats of expulsion from the club, the country will vote again (as it did after it rejected an earlier treaty in 2001). No doubt, with its prosperity in jeopardy, it will vote Yes.

But we should be grateful to Irish voters. They have given other Europeans pause for thought. A constitution should be something people demand of governments, not have forced on them with promises of "greater efficiency". It is often said that Europe needs to address its democratic deficit with more transparency. But there is a more important - political - deficit, which also needs attention. Why is there only one political story (ever greater economic liberalisation and freer trade) in Europe? Why do people feel the idiosyncrasies and identities of their nation are threatened?

If the EU were shown to serve the people of individual states well; if its MEPs were encouraged to consult electorates; if parliaments were to risk arguing for the policies they sign up to in small committee rooms in Brussels, then there could come a time when the people of Europe would not just reluctantly accept constitutional reform, but actively seek it.

Labour voters deserve a choice

The New Statesman has opposed the extension of detention without charge for terror suspects to 42 days from the moment it was proposed by Gordon Brown. The argument for detaining these suspects for six weeks has never been made to our satisfaction, nor, indeed, that of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This magazine could never endorse the candidacy of David Davis in the coming by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency. Davis is a right-wing Conservative, as can be seen from his stance on a range of issues from the Human Rights Act to the death penalty. But neither do we share in the general sneering that emanated from the Westminster village following his resignation. The former shadow home secretary has succeeded in his main aim of keeping the issue of civil liberties in the public eye, and we applaud him for that.

Already, Gordon Brown has been forced to address Davis's concerns in a point-by-point riposte. There is briefing that Labour will not put up a candidate in opposition. This would be disrespectful to the people of Haltemprice and Howden, who deserve the chance to hear Labour, on the ground, making the case for 42 days.

However, it is also a good opportunity for an independent candidate to make the genuinely liberal argument against 42 days, putting up a robust defence of the universal human rights that Davis does not support.

Such a candidate would receive the full backing of the New Statesman.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website