At the time of the Maastricht Treaty I was pro european and I believe many people were at that time.I remember a lot of people being very interested in the debate at parliament and as I drove round the country visiting firms, many people were listening to the debate on the radio.

Major rejected the social chapter and brought in the citizens charter. My conversion to withdrawal from the eu came when Blair came to power and accepted the social chapter but it did not change things one iota.

[...] Ming rings the EU bell September 14, 2007 at 4:12 pm | In EU Treaty, Liberal Democrats | Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): Ming Campbell has become the first major party leader to call for a referendum on membership of the EU, although of course UKIP have been calling for this since their inception. (Also, Ming has done what Anthony B scornfully suggested he was not). [...]

[...] people were demanding a proxy vote in the form of a general election? The real problem is that, as Anthony Barnett points out, we are facing a crisis of trust. If the political class turn their backs on the public, [...]

Scott: thanks for the query, but yes I meant the English. A majority of the English may say 'no' but not the Scots and the Welsh or the Northern Irish. One consequence of a true referendum on the principle of membership could at the moment mean the breakup of the Union - of Great Britain that is, not the EU.

Jon, I agree that he can get it through parliament and that there will be indifference. In this sense I guess you are right, "The only thing that can save him is the very apathy he started off trying to reverse". Save him, that is, in terms of signing up the UK to the Treaty. But he does indeed need to "reverse the apathy" if he is going to win the next election. Should he gets stamped as 'old' Brown, 'typical, can't trust him' etc, then 'new' Cameron, 'why not, at least he is against ID cards and will do something about climate change', will win. That's why the penetration of the referendum campaign into Labour's own ranks is such bad news for him. It makes the charge of going back on his word, being just like Blair, stick. The price of winning this battle, from his point of view, may be to lose the war. And as the Major experience showed, just hanging on for three more years may not turn things round for him.

Anthony

It is time for the generation of Britons which has only ever known a Europe at peace with itself and is most comfortable with the concept of Europe to make itself heard. Those who consider themselves as familiar with the Boulevards of Paris, the beer-halls of Munich and the Champions League Stadium of Barcelona, as they are with London, Manchester or Edinburgh. It is this generation, free from the nostalgia of past glory days, that must make the case for Britain being strongest as part of a united and vocal EU. It is they who realise most acutely that China, India and Russia in the decades ahead will not humour Britain’s “punch above our weight” aspirations. It is they who will live with the consequences if Europe fails to fulfil its potential as a power bloc in the future, or even worse, does so without British participation.

To achieve this awakening of European optimism amongst young people will require effort from pro-Europeans and the EU itself, not least to tackle the broader issue of Youth dis-engagement in politics. A referendum on the Reform Treaty is not the ideal time to begin this process; many people of all ages would be more enthusiastic about the EU if Brussels worked more efficiently, and if it could show some tangible results of European values being projected abroad, both things this treaty seeks to bring about. But whatever the shape of the next battle for Britain’s European soul, whether it be defined by this treaty, or the next, or even a referendum on continued British membership, on the model of that held in 1975, it is the younger generation that must speak up and be heard, because it will be their future being decided.

Since when did the English get listened to?

"One consequence of a true referendum on the principle of membership could at the moment mean the breakup of the Union"

Great - where do I sign?

I am more and more convinced that we need a referendum, but I fear that a referendum on the Reform treaty is not the referendum we really need.

The real question that needs to be settled is whether the United Kingdom wants to remain a member of the European Union (a political and economic union). This debate has been going on for the last 32 years with many arguing (with some justification) that the UK voted to join a "common market" not a political and economic union. It needs to be settled for the good of the UK and for the good of the EU.

To be fair that is the referendum that many Euro septics as the Democracy Movement and UKIP really want.

Moderator: See also the fierce debate between John Palmer and the rest on this issue HERE.

"It will not be put on hold by the English" or the UK you mean? Scotland, Ulster and Wales do have a say in the EU governance (apparently, no matter how much their requests are ignored by Westminster during negotiations) although we in the Celtic fringe do seem to be far more pro-European than our southern neighbours.

The only thing that can save him is the very apathy he started off trying to reverse. Tally is right that maastricht was a source of intense interest but I just don't feel this treaty is going the same way at the moment.

Interesting thing about campaigns like open europe is that they seem caught between making the case for a referendum (which brings in the democrats) and making the case for a no vote in that referendum (which will only really bring in the eurosceptics). They've been focussing on the former to keep their cross party coalition, but that prevents them really shouting about why they think the treaty is bad, which is the thing that might capture the imagination. Is the issue of a 'referendum' alone enough to really generate mass public interest?

I think a combination of the europhiles who realise that referendum='no', the half defence of some negotiated opt-outs and the fact that the majority of people simply feel indifferent might be enough for Brown to weather this one, TUC knives notwithstanding. But i've been wrong before:-)

This is interesting. I'm not disputing it would be healthy for the country. But is it in Brown's (electoral) interest to reverse apathy? I'm not sure it's cast iron that if Brown manages to get a massive upsurge in participation it will get people voting for him - i think the one thing that cures apathy is the feeling of necessity of getting rid of a poor leader.

Blair rode a million strong (ish) protest march, started a quite unpopular war which quickly turned very unpopular and still fought and won another election by quite a handy margin. He did this while getting a v low share of the vote - because the tories weren't effective at hoovering up those who deserted labour. In other words, a lot of people were apathetic.

As for the trust thing - yes, it could undermine trust in him. But as I say he has his half defence of the red lines and it just doesnt feel that damaging at the moment. The constitution may be 96% the same but a 4% change can make a big difference - depends on the 4%!