so the New/old Labour tag line for the next election will be "vote Brown get Brussels"?

J. Whitfield, Bristol, UK

To those of you who are pro-EU, I ask this. Regardless of whether the EU is, or is not on balance good for the people of the UK, surely the issue here is one of the bond of trust between us and those who represent us.

Even if you *do* think our rightful place is as part of an ever growing, ever more closer union, is this really the right way to achieve our place in it? With deceit?

There are many things I wish for in life, but I want *none* of them to be achieved by deception.

If it turns out that the vast majority of british people do not wish to be involved in 'ever closer union', then is it right that the country is pulled into one against their will? If I were an EU supporter, I would make it my mission to *convince* people that it is right to be in the EU, and use the YES vote at a referendum to show that I have the people with me.

If the people cannot be convinced it is good, then we should *respect* their wish. Government is supposed to represent the people, not con it.

Andy B, London,

a Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for lunch.It's time people in the mainstream media start listening to people like alex jones of prisonplanet.com because they're the ones who have predicted the selling out of both britain and his own country the U.S by the people who are supposed to protect the sovierenty of those two once great countries.

simon lomax, warrington, uk

When is Jenkins and his anti EU brigade going to get in the real World.Nothing is 100% perfect and this document will allow the EU to move forward.Cameron Tories and people like Jenkins really want to withdraw from the UE and return the UK public back to the Bad Old Days.Fortunately they are scared to put it to the public as it would get rejected.The UK industry is nearly all EU and Foreign owned,including ICI next week.Withdrawal would be a financial disaster and create massive unemployment with inward investment drying up.

Bill Rees, Truro, Cornwall

A fine 'Democracy' without elections. A gbp1000 for whoever VOTED jb to be the pm. We have been sold down the nEU world order river. Is Britain now a mere geographical expression?

remi, uk,

Simon, in the UK we have an arrogant government which
promises and does not deliver, We have a state which has
been the greatest abuser of human rights in Europe in the
past 40 years. We have a government that introduced the
human rights act but omitted the clause on an effective
remedy.

Face the truth we need European laws to protect us from
our government.

JOHN, Notting Hill,

It's very simple. Either Brown obeys the will of the democratic majority and holds a referendum, or else he is overthrown by the democratic majority - and there's a referendum anyway.

Terry, London, Great Britain

French and Dutch voters rejected "A treaty establishing a Consitution for Europe". What was distinctive about it was not the reference to a constitution but the fact that the treaty replaced all existing treaties and the bodies established by them. The "Reform Treaty" , on the other hand, recognises that the EU already exists (cf. Article 1 of TEU - "parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called 'the Union' ") and states that "it shall replace and succeed the European Community" (proposed amendment to Article 1). This collapses the system of three pillars (economic, security of states and security of citizens respectively) and avoids problems of legal certainty and continuity. Another article specifies that the second pillar shall be subject to particular procedures (the UK government White Paper maintains that it will remain "inter-governmental"). The UK (and Irish?) opt-out/opt-in arrangements will also apply across the board. These changes are fundamental.

Denis O'Leary, Tiobrad Arainn, Ireland

Could David Boothroyd name one positive change in the
CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY
I fail to see any, we are being taken to the cleaners .
Here in France they can hardly believe how easy it was to stitch up Brown and his gullible lefties

john Sheppard, Moissac , France

There must unquestionably be a referendum. As a teacher of both French and German, I see the need for both of the countries in question to make a fresh start after their endless wars of the last two centuries. A voluntary European union/coalition would suit both of these powers better than their previous attempts at union on the part of Napoleon and Hitler. That said, the whole consequent issue of legal reform, as a function of coalition, would be completely wrong for the UK, where we have relied successfully on common sense and common law for centuries. Friendship - yes. Union - no!

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

I don't know whether the treaty is corrupt, but the EU is -and as Jenkins points out unauditable! And so are our politicians, Their word is worth nothing. Nothing but tainted air.
How long will even 50% bother to vote ?
And not only Brussels but Scotland pushing us around and bankrupting England.! O tempora, O mores!

Robert Sebag-Montefiore, Geneva, Switzerland

Richard Tracey - I whole heartedly agree with your comment. The government has broken its side of the social contract on law and order, immigration, and a host of other quite crucial policies to the survival of the UK..

Far from safeguarding the values and culture of Britain, it has handed the UK over to a radically hostile ideology, and to the hegemony of the EU.

DaveP, Beverley, UK

Labour party, Tories and Liberals are afraid of referendum because they do know people are against E.U. but at the same time they are aware U.K. can no longer be isolated. For this reason they try to avoid the referendum. Sometimes political class is more responsible than public opinion. All sensible people believe that U.K. has to fight for modifying the terms of E.U. agreement, but nowadays it's almost impossible to support a complete withdrawal from E.U. Period is changed and now it's more important Europe for U.K. than U.K for Europe.

Alessandro, Rome, Italy

Tussles between parliaments and governments about the level of tax are the stuff of history. Indeed, we can measure the power of an assembly by how much taxation it authorises. The Westminster parliament authorises taxation at 40% of GDP, whilst Brussels spends about 1% of GDP. So by this measure Westminster is 40 times more powerful. So what is the big fuss about? For most people Europe is about 20th on their list of priorities behind the NHS, schools and transport etc. As far as I can see they have their priorities absolutely right. (I'd much rather have a referendum of whether the NHS should funded by social insurance rather than central taxation, far more constructive use of a single issue vote frankly.) A referendum on Europe is an invitation for everyone of an older generation prone to nostalgia to damage the interests of future generations who are far more open to global challenges than their grandparents.

Simon, Sevenoaks, Kent

Some want the referendum on the EU Reform Treaty to be turned into a referendum on Britain's EU membership. Speaking as someone who has passionate views against the ratification of this treaty, I have to weigh in that there could be no bigger mistake than to pursue this course. If a referendum advocating withdrawal were offered to the British people, those advocating an exit would likely lose. The British are deeply ambivalent about the EU -- although they largely hate it, and anything to do with it, there is a deep suspicion among the electorate that the UK's strong economic performance over the last decade has resulted in part from membership and access to the single market. The option of a semidetached status, while attractive, is unconvincing -- I don't think that people really believe that such a status could be negotiated without a net loss and some economic hardship. This is the crux of the problem -- otherwise people would be voting as they say they believe.

Nicholas Keen, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Before signing up to anything, the UK must be allowed a referendum on this, as first promised by the Labour government. The problem is, there are so many foreigners here (whether they be EU member state citizens or come from elsewhere in the world) who are now entitled to vote here, that the vote of the indigenous UK citizen may be skewed by this chunk of people. However, these sleazy politicians should not be allowed to get around the referendum by calling it a EU Treaty not a EU Constitution. The will of the people must be adopted – not the will of the politicians. All this ‘treaty’ will do is create a Federal State of Europe of which the UK will be a small part with only a small voice. Germany must not be allowed to dictate the agenda, as they are presently doing. I can’t see French & Dutch people allowing their governments to go along with this ‘treaty’ & by-pass their vote, so we wouldn’t be on our own. British people must make a stand & stop /Brown selling us down the river

Lynda Plum, London, england

The right answer should be 'we don't do written constitutions'.
That says it all.

m wilson , bidache, france

The new treaty makes sense for Europe: why are you negative about making Europe work better?

Why waste money on a referendum that most of the people who vote would not understand. We elect politicians to go through the details, which they have done. That should be good enough in a democracy.

As for corrupt insttutions: show me.. The EU as a whole is a lot more accountable than most national governments.. In England we don't even have an English parlement nor an English Prime Minister..

I trust Brussels more than Westminster any day!

Peter Goddard, Epsom, England, EU

Firstly: what is wrong with an EU with greatly increased powers ,and requiring a written constitution as in the USA?

But on the specific issue of the Constitution or Treaty - call it what you will! - how many of the people who would be asked to vote in a referendum have the faintest idea what are the provisions of the Constitution/Treaty ,or their implications? Will the Internet be overwhelmed with people eager to find a copy of the document? And if they find one will they understand it? If they feel they need guidance will they find objective comment and advice in the Sun and the Mail for instance.

So whatever we may think of the government and MP's we are entitiled to believe that at least they will know what they are voting for.

Incidentally if the Government resiled from the commitment to a referendum it would not be the first time! What about the really important one in 1997 - that on electoral reform!

Joe, London, England

Would the above be the known Labour supporting David Boothroyd or is it just a coincidence that you are spouting the same mealy mouthed platitudes that you think the proletariat are stupid enough to accept unquestionably.

Simon Jenkins is quite right in his column and it should be writ large that the proposals mean that, instead of the Common Law currently enjoyed here, we will be subject to laws that mean we can only do what is decreed allowable and it is shills like Mr. Boothroyd who are trying to make this possible.

K.Connolly, Glasgow, Scotland

Gordon Brown is ahead in the polls by a record margin which is a good indication of how important the European question is to the majority of the electorate. 'Done and dusted' methinks.

Dave Reynolds, Selby, UK

There is no difference to the outcome of this so called "new treaty" it is simply the old constitution without the name.

Being in europe is not now, and never has been in Britains favour, we pay out of our taxes to support it, unlike the french who were receiving money from it untill 2005, only germany pays more, as for trade we have a negative trade balance with europe, but a positive one outside of it, so where is the advantage. Our lives are increasingly being run by lowest common denominator, one size fits all laws from brussells, and these laws emanate from the unelected democratically deficient commission, of which barrosso is the president. Barrosso is currently wandering around speaking on behalf of the whole of europe, although he has no mandate either from europe, or the people, no one voted him into power, to act this way.

We need a rteferendum to leave this corrupt, and uneccessary form of governance before it is to late, and we become a county of europe.

Barry Davies, Stafford, UK

I completely agree with Doreen from Leominster,withdrawal from the EU is the only way forward for the UK.We were lied to from the moment of the referendum in 1975 and have seen our country eroded by the interference from Brussels.
Mainstream politicians greatly under estimate the strength of anti EU feeling in the UK and the Tories would be onto a winner if they capitalised on this fact

John G.Price, Girne, Mersin 10,Turkey

I think that Doreen's comment is right on the money. If the Tories want to walk the next election, all they need do is commit themselves irrevocably to a referendum on the UK's continuing membership.
David Boothroyd could not be more wrong if he worked for the Foreign Office.

Jonathan Wilton, Bukit Timah, Singapore

How can anyone trust a politician that supports ratification without referendum? Its as simple as that. The majority of people in this country do not want to be ruled by Europe at all, let alone have it imposed on them.

If its such a good treaty then the Labour party should call a referendum and campaign for a yes vote.

Steve, Colchester, UK

Much of what SJ says above is quite correct. Our political class, ultra short termist and economical as ever with the truth, is now stuck between the unchartable waters of a complete exit from the EU (which a lot of people in the UK - perhaps misguidedly - would like) and remaining inside, committed by the treaties we have already signed to go along with the majority in the direction of a social democratic Europe better suited to those who do not compete internationally in trade and service provision. Open debate of anything EU-related in the UK nowadays seems to be impossible, and even it if were, the signals it would send to our EU partners would cause many problems. No easy answers here, we had our chance to decide what to do years ago and fudged it, and now seek the least bad alternative.

Colin Forbes, Shrewsbury, UK

Just what do we have to do to ditch this infamous 'treaty'? Writing letters to newspapers, MPs or whoever appears to be useless. They're not listening. So much for democracy. What's the next step? Do we have to take to the streets to get our traitorous so-called leaders to listen to us just for once? Be under no illusion people. If that treaty goes through, that's the end for us as an independent, autonomous country.

Nicholas Lee, Windsor, UK

Absolutely right. The contempt that European leaders have shown their electorates is breathtaking. What is worse is that NO-ONE seems interested.

James McFadden, Marseille, France

David Boothroyd's argument is wrong.

Initially the government said the treaty was just a "tidying up exercise" and denied that it had any constitutional significance.

Even when he announced that we would have a referendum Blair said: "This is a treaty, not a constitution absent from a treaty. It is the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. In other words, it is a treaty agreed in the same way as Maastricht or any other treaty between the European Union members."

The promise of a referendum was not contingent on the treaty being "in a class apart", because even when the promise was made the government still did not admit that it was in a class apart.

Anyway the new treaty is legally the same as the constitution, only the word "constitution" has been expunged - except in two articles which have so far slipped through the net.

After a time it would be found that the new treaty needed to be "tidied up", and the word "constitution" could then be restored.

Denis Cooper, Maidenhead, England

i am amazed that Brown is being allowed such an easy run at this???
true, thanks to the level of many of our newspapers this may become the 'straight banana' referendum but then those readers did vote them in!
(not 'Prudence' of course- no one voted for 'Prudence!)

mike, oxford, Engalnd

As an American, I'm completely baffled about how Europeans, particularly Brits, could possibly allow an EU with unelected, unaccountable "ministers." There has been an African Union since 2001. There will soon be an Asian Union, modeled after yours, and the South American Union will be finalized in December. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (AKA the North American Union) is supposed to be in place here by 2010. Fact is, Americans will never allow it. (Actually, 99 percent don't even know about it. Complete blackout here on NAU and EU resistance except for the internet and a couple brave talk show hosts) My best guess is that our Federal Reserve (not Federal, no reserves) will purposely crash the dollar, possibly this Fall. Then we will have Martial Law, the "amero" will be forced upon us and we will have a hundred million Mexicans and South American peasants with third grade educations flooding in. We really need to fight this New World Order now on both sides of the pond.

Roberta Dell, West Chester, Pennsylvania / USA

If the Tories were to offer a referendum on COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL from the EU, they would very easily win the next general election! None of the 3 main parties appear to have any idea whatsoever just how much opposition there is to our membership of the EU. Why don't the Tories wake up and capitalise on this?

Doreen, Leominster, Herefordshire

The reason a referendum was conceded on the Constitutional Treaty is not because of its provisions, but because of its status: as a Constitutional Treaty it was a class apart, more important than other EU agreements. This new treaty lacks that status; it is just a simple amending treaty like the others that are agreed from time to time.

It is very significant that the argument for a referendum is very rarely made in terms of the great changes that the reform treaty will bring about. This is because most of them are minor, and those that are not minor are positive for Britain.

David Boothroyd, London, UK

At the Scottish Parliament and Council Elections, UKIP had candidates standing in every single local and Holyrood constituency. It received a grand total of 1,641 votes!
In contrast, the SNP received a total of 980,700 votes for Holyrood and 1,020.451 for the Scottish Councils. The SNP is now the minority devolved Scottish Government and controls outright,or in coalition, over two thirds of Scottish Councils! (Statistics: Electoral Commission). The Scots couldn't give a damn about Middle England's obssession with the E.U. because Scotland is gradually moving towards becoming an independent, sovereign State. Since the introduction of the Scotland and Wales Acts, and the re-introduction of the historic power-sharing, devolved government in Northern Ireland, the political landscape of the United Kingdom has been changed forever, and it is now a federal state in everything but constitutional name!
There is NO going back!

Mr. Lachie Todd, Edinburgh, Scotland

One of the more obvious points about this referendum is that those in favour of Europe don’t need it, while those against Europe want it. The anti-Europeans would seem to think they can fiddle the result in their favour - which is interesting. Another one is that since the politicians themselves don’t seem to be able to decide what they want, how could the British electorate, who don’t even know the difference between a treaty and a constitution, let alone anything of the detail, possibly provide a satisfactory result. I think the best course is to have a referendum on whether not we should have a referendum. That would simplify the issue. You could, for example, phrase the question as :- do you want to vote on something you know next to nothing about or would you rather leave the matter to the people who you voted for as capable of governing the country.

Henry Percy, London, UK

When agreeing to the contents of a Treaty, the like of which are contained in the "Not a Constitution" Reform Treaty, they have to be obeyed, in the same way we found out that the Treaty of Rome took precedence over our Constitution and law even though Edward Heath told the people that there would be no loss of essential sovereignty. In the proposed Reform Treaty we give the EU the Sovereign Legal Personality, in other words "the Royal prerogative" that Government Ministers now use on behalf of the Crown, which is not, if i may say so, in their gift to give.
A Constitution is the very foundations on which to build. Our Constitution has been Ignored under this Government. Destroy the Foundations and the whole thing is in grave danger of collapse, and that is what is happening here in the UK at present.
Brown may well turn his back, but the people may also do the same to him.

Anne Palmer, West Midlands, England

What is the point of a referendum on this matter? The dumb Brits would vote against no matter what the "Treaty" says.
It is in our nature to bite our noses off to spite our faces. Aided and abetted by a conflict oriented Press, it doesn't stand a chance.
Gordon knows this. Go ahead Gordon and ram it down our throats. We'll moan and groan but what the hell. Six months after Maastricht who gave a damn.

michael john murphy, brightlingsea, england

The only way out of ths corruption is to vote UKIP at the next general election. Neo Labour are a bunch of totalitarian europhiles.

ks, Edinburgh, Scotland

Mr Boothroyd suggests the treaty's effect would be trivial. I wonder, then, why even its continental supporters concede that it is the constitution in all but name. Why would anyone want to have us believe (on the strength of their word alone) that such a major act was a mere tidying-up? Can one really rely on the opinion of people who, as well as going against the widely-held view of the treaty's significance, claim that its non-minor provisions are "positive for Britain"? Given that they suggest that black is, in fact, white, one would be well-advised to be sceptical of anything else they asserted.

Paul Danon, London, England

Of course there must be a referendum but who is going to organise the campaign for it?

Mr. Brown must be made aware that if he reneges on the Labour Party's manifesto pledge he will face the largest, most menacing and most vocal demonstration ever staged and that if this is not heeded then the witholding of tax and mass civil disobedience will follow. It must be made clear that the social contract has to be honoured on both sides: if a government refuses to honour its manifesto then people are perfectly entitled not to fulfil their side of the contract!

If Mr Brown holds an early election he will win and, if Mr Cameron has committed himself to the referendum , Mr Brown will say that he now has a clear popular mandate not to hold a referendum..

The leadership of the referendum campaign must not come from politicians: it must come from a united media front of newspaper editors and broadcasters.

May the editors of The Times and the Telegraph declare themselves ready.

Richard TRACEY , DINAN, France