Referendum?

The case for a referendum on the constitutional treaty is made strongly in most of the papers, and the occasional Brown inner-circle figure is suggesting that the government might hold one. At first sight this seems obvious: Brown can't claim he is offering a new-style listening politics when there are so many clamouring voices he is blocking his ear to. And he isn't really very interested in Europe. Why not just say he has discovered some bits in the small print and is persuaded after all that a referendum is necessary? With a bit of dressing up it would look fine.

His problem is: what then? The referendum will reject the treaty (massively, if the government doesn't back it wholeheartedly) and then he has to start up the negotiations again about what to put in its place, at least a year, if not two, of blethering and posturing, time that he wants for purposes he regards as more important. And in the end he has got to hang his hat on something.

My guess, though, is that we'll get our referendum or at the very least a free vote in parliament and Brown will become a reluctant eurosceptic.