THE spotlight on Europe has never been brighter.
With the Prime Minister in Brussels, we all hope he will adopt the bulldog spirit which was evoked at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday.
This week, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, joined the clarion call for a referendum on any new treaty.
A lot is riding on David Cameron’s shoulders at today’s eurozone crisis summit.
He has already sought to manage expectations in his Times’ article this week, telling us that his priority is our national interest, rather than any repatriation of powers.
The EU is currently deciding between a tighter fiscal union for the 17 core eurozone members, or a more general treaty change for all 27 EU member nations.
If it is a general treaty change, the Prime Minister has promised to safeguard our interests.
That’s political speak, in my view, for not holding a referendum.
This summer, we passed a law stating we would hold one in the event of any treaty change.
We must stick to this commitment, especially after promising a referendum in our manifesto.
But the legislation does allow wriggle-room, as I described it at the time, in regard to what actually qualifies as a treaty change, and herein lies the potential problem.
One scenario is that the 17 eurozone countries sign their own treaty on tighter fiscal union, which it might be claimed does not affect the UK.
Another, is that deciding any new treaty with the existing 27 countries does not impose a risk to our interests if it ensures what Mr Cameron calls a “fair and open single market” for our key industries and financial sector.
Both cases warrant a referendum, in my view.
If eurozone members wish to pursue closer fiscal integration, let them.
After all, as MEP Daniel Hannan pointed out this week, we can still trade with them on the basis of mutual interest.