Few issues are as sensitive, fraught or mishandled as asylum. Tony Blair made much of his personal initiatives to cut the number of asylum applicants; his Government has trumpeted recent falls in numbers as evidence of its success in getting a grip on the issue, although, in fact, it reflects a trend across Europe. It is therefore all the more bizarre that the Government should now be preparing to drop its veto on asylum and immigration issues within the European Union with barely any explanation and little attempt to forestall the outcry that Britain is surrendering sovereignty on an issue of crucial social and political importance.

Asylum, as well as immigration, police and other home affairs, for the past seven years has been an area in which Brussels has only a limited say. Until the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam, EU justice and interior ministers met for consultations in some secrecy, excluding any role for the European Commission. Britain was one of the fiercest defenders of these intergovernmental arrangements, and agreed to a change only if it had an opt-out from common policies. But all decisions were still taken unanimously; governments generally feared a voter backlash against any dilution of sovereignty.

The enlargement of the EU to 25 has made all agreement on all subjects more complicated. It is crucial that EU members at least harmonise, if not standardise, asylum policies to stop would-be applicants, and especially economic migrants posing as victims of persecution, from shopping around.

At the same time, deserving applicants need to be swiftly and compassionately processed. Britain had, and still has, a clear interest in enforcing tougher policies — on border controls and repatriation — throughout the EU to deter asylum-seekers heading here. But unanimity made it hard to reach swift agreement among fifteen; with the addition of ten new members, which have limited experience and differing aims, talks would be glacial.

It is certainly in Britain’s interests to have broad guidelines that make asylum policy more workable. But could they really have been agreed only by surrendering, in perpetuity, the veto? The Government is right to be concerned about a border control agency run from Brussels, a single EU-wide asylum centre to handle applications or any diktat on how Britain should handle those arriving here.

Mr Blair claims that an “opt-out” on key policies will give the country the independence it needs. But the way the debate has been conducted, or not conducted, is a disgrace. Too much European policy is kept secret for fear of stirring embarrassing debate. This is undemocratic, regardless of the merits of the regulations. These are serious issues that are hardly just bureaucratic niceties, and yet David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, and Mr Blair pretend they are “tidying-up ” or less. On this issue, the Prime Minister is being less than straight.

Labour obviously fears that any talk of majority voting on asylum will be seized on by the Conservatives as a surrender to “Europe”, stoking anti-EU feeling. The precedent could weaken Labour’s stand against majority voting on tax, foreign policy and defence. None is any reason for stifling debate on an issue where ignorance is exploited by extremists. That debate should begin now, before a chunk of sovereignty is signed away.