TONY BLAIR has become the third consecutive prime minister to fail over Europe. The coup against Margaret Thatcher in November 1990 was triggered by the resignation of Geoffrey Howe, her deputy, in an argument over EU integration, while John Major’s Government was fatally weakened by the bitter rows among Tory MPs over Europe.

Mr Blair’s failure is not the result of internal party disputes. In many ways it is more serious. He came to office in 1997 promising to end decades of ambivalence in our relations with Europe. Britain would no longer be obstructive, but would take a lead in new European developments.

He has been more involved in Europe than any prime minister since Edward Heath. He talks about the EU as “our destiny”. The prickly minimalism of the late Major years has gone. Britain has led the drive for economic reform (the Lisbon agenda). Tripartite talks with France and Germany and the three-way moves on Iran’s nuclear programme have highlighted Mr Blair’s desire to remain a major European player. This is despite all the criticism he faced over the Iraq war and his closeness to President Bush. Mr Blair has been willing to face criticism from Washington to pursue Euro- pean defence co-operation. Yet the whole is less than the parts.

As he flies to Brussels tonight for the EU summit, Mr Blair looks a defensive, battered figure in his final phase (possibly a long one). Revealingly, one EU ambassador recently entitled a dispatch home about British politics “the long goodbye”.

The indefinite deferment of a decision on euro entry symbolises this failure. Mr Blair has always known that, outside the euro, he could not put Britain at the centre of the EU. He missed his opportunity in October 1997, when he handed political control, and a veto, to Gordon Brown. Since then, the consistently better performance of the British econ- omy compared with the main eurozone economies has exposed the fatuousness, and self-delusion, of Mr Blair’s “wait and see” reassurances to pro-Europeans that he is still serious about euro entry. The talk about preparatory “roadshows” has evaporated. A referendum has receded so far that the “no” campaign has wound down its campaign.

Yet the revival of talks about an EU constitution has highlighted his dilemma. Many Labour advisers were content with the breakdown in December when Spain and Poland refused to agree over voting shares. For Mr Blair and Jack Straw, the only real gain for Britain in the constitution was its creation of a permanent president of the Council of Ministers, to provide consistency in an EU of 25. But they could live without a deal, which would not prevent enlargement on May 1.

However, the Spanish Socialists, who will not take office until next month, want a compromise as part of rebuilding relations with France and Germany. And the Polish Government has also sounded more conciliatory. So the Brussels summit is likely to aim for agreement by the end of June.

The constitution is obviously more than just a tidying-up exercise. There will be more integration. But much involves a codification of existing powers, such as the supremacy of EU law. In some areas, such as asylum, Britain has agreed to an extension of majority voting, though ministers still insist on maintaining the national veto on taxation, social security and foreign policy. In British eyes, the constitution is desirable, but not vital.

But neither the Tories nor the Eurosceptic press view the constitution so benignly. The outrage of the Europhobes about the biggest change since the 17th century is grotesquely overdone. However, Tory warnings have a resonance, particularly when combined with calls for a referendum, which both sides believe the Government would lose. Past Labour and Tory administrations have not held referendums over more important treaties, such as the creation of the single market in the mid-1980s. But opposing a referendum sounds arrogant and anti-democratic. It confirms the loss of trust and indifference that the Electoral Commission and the Hansard Society found in their audit of public attitudes towards politicians yesterday.

Labour does not want a battle over the constitution in the run-up to the general election. If a deal is agreed in June, a treaty will be finalised in the early autumn. Each country then has two years to ratify. The Government will be hard- pushed to get legislation through Parliament before the election. Proposals for a referendum could be passed by the Lords, though the Liberal Democrats and the Tories would be split.

But playing the issue long — partly in the hope that the treaty might be rejected in one of the seven referendums promised elsewhere in Europe — is no solution. It risks putting Europe at the heart of the election campaign. As he showed yesterday in his Today interview, Michael Howard is very skilful at not sounding like an extremist. His flexible, “live and let live” Europe sounds appealing, even though it would put Britain at the margins of the EU.

It is a measure of Mr Blair’s political weakness now that ministers want to avoid a battle over the constitution. After seven years of new Labour, the old doubts and suspicions about Europe remain. Chris Patten said recently: “the debate is still dominated by red lines and talk of defeats and victories, but Mr Blair to his credit has not yet retreated megaphone in hand to the bunker.” Mr Blair’s pro-European commitment and instincts are not in doubt. His political will and ability to convince the British public are.

Times Recommends

• Time the law caught up with over-65s
• Don’t fear rate rises, fear stagflation
• I could be a celebrity – get me out now!