Is it time for a vote on Europe?

The draft proposals have been drawn up over 15 months by the 105 members of the European Convention, drawn from all 15 EU members. While the driving force may have been the desire to streamline decision making in advance of the admission of ten new countries to the EU next year, it has opened up debate over what the EU is for - and, just as importantly, where it is going.

Key proposals in the constitution include the creation of the posts of an elected EU president and foreign minister, backing for a common European foreign policy, ditching the veto in favour of majority voting on a range of issues including immigration and criminal justice, and giving EU law precedence over domestic law.

For the Government, these proposals are simply good housekeeping, a way of simplifying the way the EU is run to make it more efficient. To opponents, they are a major step towards the subjugation of Britain's interests to the wider European cause, and a further step on the road to the creation of a federal Europe, by stealth if need be.

But while some of the proposals are significant, there is every prospect that not all will make it into the final treaty, according to Dr Anthony Zito, lecturer in European politics at Newcastle University.

"At the moment, nothing has been decided. The potential could be very significant, but if there is enough opposition they might not happen. If you look at the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, where they had a similar remit, the actual outcome was a couple of bumps along the way, rather than a significant reform," he says.

"It is easy to downplay it, but then some of these changes, just in terms of pinning down what the rights of citizens are, could have implications for a country like the UK, where a lot of the law is based on historical decisions. Even if it is symbolic, it has the potential to be very meaningful."

The arguments have crystallised into a debate on whether the changes are profound enough to be put to a referendum, and Martin Callanan, North-East Tory MEP, is in no doubt that they are.

"I certainly believe there should be a referendum on it, because it is a massive centralising document which gives significant new powers to the EU," he says. "Giving up the veto on judicial, home affairs and immigration matters means Britain can have immigration and asylum policies imposed on us. Incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights allows a whole range of social rights, none of which are legal in Britain at the moment."

He sees the movement towards a common EU foreign and defence policy as a threat to both Nato and the UK's status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It's only a matter of time, he argues, before the EU seeks to purloin that seat for itself.

"It is a major shift in the way Britain is run, and it involves a significant diminution of powers of the member states, and for the first time it says EU law takes precedence over British law. This has been a grey area, but now it is stated for the first time ever," he says.

But if the European Convention's proposals demand a referendum, why did the Conservatives not put the Single European Act of 1987 and the Maastricht Treaty of 1993, which involved similar extensions of EU power, to the vote? Surely, their calls for a referendum are as much to do with political opportunism as with any principle involved.

For his part, Mr Callanan says the Maastricht proposals should have been put to the vote, and rejects charges of political grandstanding. The real reason the Government does not want a vote, he says, is because it would lose.

"How is it political opportunism to say this should go forward to a referendum. If the Labour Government is so sure of its arguments, then surely there is nothing wrong in putting that to the vote?," he says.

"For the first time, this Government has introduced a number of referendums on a whole series of issues. It is alright to have a referendum on whether Hartlepool should have a mayor, but not on whether the EU should have a president or foreign minister.

"At the moment, the EU is producing something between 50-60 per cent of all new legislation in the UK. That will go up to between 60-70 per cent. Already we're being subjected to a lot of EU laws, and we will be subjected to a lot more."

But the Government line is that a referendum is unnecessary, that the changes are not fundamental and are merely setting down in black and white what is already happening. This is an argument espoused by Stephen Hughes, Labour MEP in the North-East, although his personal view is that he would welcome a referendum.

"I think it would be a useful way of having an open debate about our involvement in the EU and draw a line under a lot of the nonsense," he says. "But we should have engaged far more with the public over past treaties, and that is why a lot of suspicion exists in the minds of the British people - they feel they weren't consulted."

He says the European Convention's proposals will have a far narrower impact than the Single European Act, which did away with the power of veto on a range of issues, but says this is not to downplay the importance of the Convention's work.

"Their proposals are significant, but most of them are already in place, and what we're talking about is getting more democratic control over areas like foreign policy, which at the moment is entirely dealt with by foreign ministers behind closed doors.

"To a large extent what is being proposed is a codification of a lot of things that are already going on - the range of new issues is minimal.

"The content of this constitutional convention does not justify a referendum, but I think the climate in Britain in relation to Europe is such that a national debate would be a good idea."

But he says it is important to remember that the proposals have still to be agreed by the national governments, and there is some unease, not just in London but other capitals as well, about extending EU influence over criminal justice and immigration.

Some countries are planning to put the constitution to a referendum, including France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland, although in some of these countries any changes in EU treaties can only be approved through a referendum, and not through an Act of Parliament, as in Britain.

Nor is the argument that Labour is frightened of a referendum because it would lose one that will wash with Mr Hughes. "Everybody is saying that we would lose it, and one on the euro, and if you look at the opinion polls today that would be true. But after an intensive campaign I think a referendum campaign would be carried on the euro, and I think it would be the same with this."

As the campaign for a referendum mounts, that particular proposition may well end up being put to the test.