There could be no better place than Lisbon for European heads of government to discuss the unlikeable and unnecessary EU treaty. Lisbon gave its name to the ambitious agenda, drawn up seven years ago, designed to make Europe the most energetic, well-educated and enterprising economic area in the world by 2010.

To all intents and purposes the EU has made no progress on the commendable objectives articulated in the Lisbon agenda at the turn of the millennium. EU leaders should be returning to the Portuguese capital this week to coordinate action on trade and competitiveness, not to rubber-stamp an agreement that will truss the UK, and other member states, in superfluous bureaucracy and surrender power to centralised and woefully unaccountable European courts.

Arguments over the detail, and the extent and effectiveness of the so-called red lines drawn by UK officials around especially unappetising clauses, will dominate discussion of the treaty. The biggest threats posed by a new pan-European agreement, however, may not be visible in the words and obfuscations deployed. Indeed, the treaty may not bring about noticeable change in the lives of Britons over the next six months. But the changes wrought over six years, with small or even unnoticed rulings by the European Court of Justice, will be profound.

The shallow and narrow debate about this treaty gives no comfort to those who hope that European lawmakers will respond to public concerns in future. A whole generation of politicians and officials and sinecurists – from all four corners of the Continent – have grown up with the assumption that ever closer union is desirable and inevitable. As a result they are oblivious to the need for a proper discussion.

Consciously or subconsciously, they may also be scared of the consequences of consultation. The likelihood is that European citizens, by and large, prefer self-determination supported by flexible national and international institutions to centralised conformity.

It is instructive to recognise that socialist politicians, notably from Spain and Italy, are pressing most vigorously for adoption of the treaty. Spain’s economic vitality is already suffering the consequences of left-wing leadership: it would be unwise to import the tendencies to this country in any event. It is unacceptable to promote such causes without full, open, popular consultation.

Gordon Brown’s judgment call is a simple one. If the treaty is significant, he should either refuse to sign or allow the country to authorise his agreement in a referendum. If, as some treaty supporters suggest, it is of no meaningful significance, there is no need to sign it, and so no need to risk the humiliation of rejection by voters.

European trade, the foundation on which the European project is built and which continues to hold its valuable essence, is too important for the Government to entertain distractions. The priority must be to equip the employees and employers in the Union with the skills and appetite to compete with the US and China, and the rest of the world.

The Government appears bent on stifling debate by following a deliberate policy to bore. It would be far better if the Prime Minister dedicated his dogged personality to the pursuit of the dull but very worthy ambitions set out in the Lisbon agenda. The treaty under discussion this week is not required. But if it is approved in Lisbon there must be a referendum in the UK.