I know the Party hierarchy didn't want it to. I know they (wrongly) regarded it as a distraction. I know they hoped to rest on the substance of their excellent European policy, believing (vainly) that the Party would be patient with them and they wouldn't have to deal with the issue for five or ten years. But now they are out of options and they are out of time.
Europe needs a new mechanism of economic governance. That was always an inevitable part of the euro project, an inevitable stage in the development of the Single European State. And that's a good thing, and a necessary thing. The problems with Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and so on illustrate that the lack of economic governance mechanisms creates perverse incentives for governments and leaves the French and German taxpayer carrying the burden when things go wrong. The Germans have now recognised and accepted this. So we shall have a new Treaty.
Some commentators appear to believe that we can rest on previous promises of a referendum concerning any new Treaty. But the issue of a referendum arises only if there is a Treaty! Are Cameron and Hague planning to agree to a Treaty in which Britain is subject to economic governance led by Mr van Rompuy, then? I'm guessing not. Are they planning to refuse to have any Treaty at all, then? I'm guessing not. So what is the plan? Obviously we don't need every jot and tittle of the negotiating position. But what's the broad concept?
Is, perhaps, the broad concept that economic governance ought to apply only to Eurozone members? But is that it? After all, this is a new Treaty, a new negotiation, a new opportunity for us to amend our arrangement with Europe in a number of ways we desire. Another opportunity for a Treaty negotiation may not come up for years - perhaps for a decade. So Cameron and Hague cannot miss this opportunity to seek the other key Treaty amendments we want. For a start, we would presumably be committed to seeking to undo those parts of Lisbon that we objected to? But that would be only the beginning. For there were many aspects of Amsterdam and Nice that were unacceptable, and perhaps also aspects of Maastricht. We don't want to be part of the common criminal space or the common defence space. We obviously need to clarify that we are not pre-ins to the euro but "nevers" (this will require a Treaty amendment). We need to work out whether our clarification that British sovereignty is not subordinate to EU sovereignty can be done just by domestic legislation or whether it would be important to include something in the new Treaty. And many many other things.
These are not matters that can just sit on the backburner. A new Treaty is already under negotiation. The voters are entitled to know where we stand, and how we are different from Labour, and more specifically what we shall seek from this new Treaty.
We cannot expect the Election campaign to go by without journalists asking us about this. And if Cameron and Hague will not give answers, then journalists will find candidates and sitting and former MPs that will give answers.
It was always a mistake to believe that the Europe question could be avoided. But we all make mistakes. Time to man up, accept you got it wrong, and find a new credible position. You have about one week. The clock's ticking.
