In a pre-conference interview yesterday, Ming told the FT that he doesn’t believe a referendum on the European Reform Treaty is necessary. I think he’s absolutely right: this treaty does not justify one of the very very rare occasions when the UK deviates from a system of Parliamentary democracy.

Firstly, for me it is clear that it is strongly in the interests of the UK to continue to play a leading role in the European Union. It seems to me massively in our interest to work together effectively with our neighbours on crucial issues such as cross-border crime, terrorism and climate change.

But this certainly does not mean that I think the EU is perfect. Indeed for many years I and we as a party have been arguing for reform of the EU to make it more accountable and effective. We have basically won the argument on many of these points, which are now actually embodied in this treaty. I think everyone should welcome these reforms and I very much hope they are implemented.

Clearly some anti-European groups do not agree and hence they have launched a campaign to hold a referendum on it, which they obviously hope to win.

And indeed there is perhaps a case to say that pretty much any time anyone requests a referendum on any subject, it should be held so that the public can have their say (which is not too far from the Swiss system).

However I don’t agree with that and it has also not been the traditional way of decision-making under the British constitution.

In fact I think it’s remembering just how unusual referendums have been in the process of British constitutional development.

Those who argue that we should have a referendum on this treaty because it represents important constitutional developments, need to answer the question of why therefore we have never ever had a referendum on any reform of the House of Commons, on any reform of the House of Lords, or on the introduction of a fundamental new piece of law such as the Human Rights Act. Are these not important constitutional developments?

In the late nineties and the late seventies there were a small number of referendums, but these were specifically on the question of the introduction of an entirely new tier of government, in Scotland, Wales and London.

And those advocating one now especially need to answer why we have never had a referendum on ratification of any previous EU Treaty - most of all those now arguing for a referendum on this who were actually in government and signed the previous European treaties on which they did not think a referendum was necessary.

Perhaps in response they would say that the current treaty is different because it is more far-reaching and fundamental in its impact.

However in fact the reverse is true. The really important European treaties of the last 30 years, which actually created new areas of competence for the EU and saw a significant pooling of sovereignty, were the Single European Act (1986) and Maastricht (1991). The SEA was the basis for the large swathe of harmonisation legislation that we saw in the late 80s and early 90s, which started off the British impression that Brussels was obsessed with regulating the shape of strawberries and the like. And the Maastricht Treaty created the plan for the European Single Currency (the euro), as well as creating the European Union. Industrial and monetary policy - both huge new areas of competence.

Both these treaties are far more wide-reaching that the treaty currently under discussion (which is more similar to the 1997 Amsterdam and 2001 Nice Treaties which also didn’t have referendums). Richard Laming has helpfully set out the provisions of this treaty here - where you can see that most of the changes are of a technical nature, containing such earth-shattering constitutional innovations such as that the EU Council should have to meet in public, that national Parliaments should have 8 weeks to object to proposals for European legislation, rather than 6 weeks, and there should be a maximum size limit on the European Parliament. These changes are mostly the consequence of the expansion of the EU to be an organisation with 27 member states, rather than 15 members just four years ago. Sensible, yes, constitutionally earth-shattering, no.

Under the new Treaty, any decision on areas such as foreign affairs, or taxation, would continue to require the unanimous agreement of all 27 member state national governments, as now.

So once you actually look at what this treaty proposes, the idea of making it a rare constitutional exception and taking it directly to the public to decide whether a system of “double majority” voting in the EU Council should be introduced (whereby a proposal would require the agreement of both a 55% of member states, plus the support of governments representing 65% of the EU’s population), or that in another of its measures the confusingly different legal entities of the ‘European Union’ and the ‘European Community’ should be merged, seems just bizarre.

And a referendum is certainly not justified by the status of the document. While there was a proposal for a European Constitution, it was possible to run the argument that as a constitution it was a new type of document which required a new type of response. This treaty is very explicitly not a constitution, and the UK signs treaties on a wide range of international issues all the time without a referendum, including many with more significant provisions than this one.

So the campaign for a referendum is quite obviously simply an attempt by anti-Europeans to have a referendum, any referendum at all, on the EU, and has nothing to with the treaty actually on the table. That makes sense for them but I don’t believe that people who actually believe the EU has an important role to play should fall into their trap and support a referendum on this treaty of detailed procedural points.

This treaty is a useful - if mostly very detailed - set of steps of forward for the EU, and marks the success of many proposals for reform that the Liberal Democrats have long been campaigning for. I very much hope it is implemented - and the idea that these details of European procedure, of all things, should be take to the public for a popular vote, seems truly odd.