A dialogue of the deaf is being conducted in Europe’s capitals. The rejection of the European Union’s draft constitution by French and Dutch voters two years ago has not dissuaded some EU leaders from trying, trying, trying again. Angela Merkel, the otherwise able German Chancellor, seems strangely set on reviving this in the form of a slimmed-down constitution which would be substantially similar to the old draft. She admitted this weekend that her new version contained “different terminology without changing the legal substance” of the original. She is aiming to increase the EU’s authority over its members and to impose a Social Europe of unnecessary regulations — at a time when the Union should be heading in precisely the opposite direction.

The British Government’s professed desire is for a less ambitious “mini-treaty” that would deal mainly with the internal anomalies created by the enlargement of the EU from 15 members to 27. It is clear, for example, that voting weights need to be reformed, although this will not be painless. The price of enlargement will inevitably be a diminution in Britain’s ability to block legislation. The proposal to replace the rotating six-month presidency with a permanent position could also, perhaps, provide more focus.

Those two measures are really the only ones that can be justified. For claims of EU “inertia” have been greatly exaggerated. In the past two years, when its institutions were supposedly paralysed, the Union has built an entire carbon emissions trading scheme. A recent French study claims that the EU has in fact been adopting new rules faster since enlargement. The desire to “streamline” is really a hunger to centralise.

It is not clear that Tony Blair has a sufficiently minimalist view of what is necessary. He has said that a mini-treaty could be agreed without a referendum, because it would not contain any constitutional changes. But he has not yet said how far he would go in extending qualified majority voting. Any such extension would surely be a constitutional issue. The new post of EU foreign minister is presented as another modest matter of streamlining. But the post will be supported by an EU diplomatic service, and is likely to trigger the abolition of some vetoes over foreign affairs, as envisaged in the original constitution.

Every erosion of a national veto hands power to unelected judges in the European Court of Justice. The mission creep of this court has been phenomenal. Europe’s judges have taken every opportunity to extend their scope, even claiming jurisdiction in public health matters.

What is desperately needed is an acceptance that powers can be returned to member states: that the Union is not just a one-way ratchet, accruing ever more power to itself. This was the stated belief of the EU leaders who first called for a constitution six years ago. That principle should be enshrined in any treaty that is now agreed.

It is Gordon Brown, not Mr Blair, who will have to live with the consequences. It is very much in his interest to avoid any treaty which contains profound changes necessitating a referendum. Nicolas Sarkozy, if he wins the French presidential election, could prove a useful ally. He also has little interest in getting bogged down in an unpopular referendum. Mr Brown needs to look closely at the fine print. A modest mini-treaty is the way forward. But it must be truly minimal, not a ruse that allows inflated egos and unelected judges to extend their power.