In the UK, treaty-making is a matter for the Crown acting in conjunction with Parliament. The few instances of referendums and the like are insufficient to give rise to a constitutional convention saying that a referendum must be held if a treaty such as the European Union (EU) Reform Treaty is to be ratified. Whether or not there should be a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty is therefore a political rather than a legal question. This is except for the idea once floated by the Conservative Party of holding a referendum after ratification with a view to backing out of the Reform Treaty if it found against it, which does have legal implications. The professed purpose of such a post-ratification referendum is to engineer a breach by the UK of a legally binding promise that it had entered into freely and in accordance with domestic procedures and processes.

The arguments against a referendum seem very strong.

It is the nature of things that complex documents such as the EU Reform Treaty do not please everyone, even those most committed to their aims. The EU Reform Treaty is therefore the kind of document about which reasonable and informed people can have widely differing views without either being entirely right or wrong. Deciding whether or not to sign up to it involves a complex judgemental exercise. That exercise is best undertaken by people who have direct knowledge of the problems that the Treaty seeks to address and a proper understanding of the reasons why the Treaty takes its current form.

Further, the EU Reform Treaty, like the Maastricht Treaty before it and the original decision of the UK to join the European Community, is a long-term proposition ill-suited to a decision by short-term thinkers. Whether or not to ratify is a one-off decision only if the outcome is negative. If it is positive, it requires follow-through. Those who understand what the aftermath of ratification entails have a better idea of the pros and cons.

Further objections to a referendum on the Reform Treaty are that it could be diverted into a referendum about the UK's continued membership of the EU or else that the way in which people (or some people) would vote would be affected by extraneous considerations (there is plenty of evidence from other countries that this does happen in referendums). Accordingly, practical and legal reasons suggest that the EU Reform Treaty should be dealt with without a referendum.

However, that pre-supposes that our elected representatives would deal with the Reform Treaty maturely, eschew short-term or tactical considerations and abide by the outcome. If they are not prepared to do that, reserving matters to Parliament adds nothing and a referendum would be a far better solution.

Unfortunately, there is no political tradition in the UK of abiding by the outcome in Parliament because, traditionally, no Parliament can bind another. Neither of the two main political parties in the UK has evinced any willingness to abide by an outcome with which it (or the predominant faction in either party) disagrees.

Neither party seems to be able to handle 'Europe'. The Labour Party does not talk much about it, possibly because of a fear that discussion will lead to dissension (particularly given the Labour Party's anti-European past), and the position of the Conservative Party is well-known. In recent times, when in power, each party has pursued a curious and unsatisfactory policy that leaves the UK as a kind of semi-detached member of the EU, uncommitted to many things that other member states wish to do and unwilling or unable to influence them to do something different. When in opposition, each party adopts an anti-European stance and snipes away for tactical and short-term gain, in the hope that the government of the day will put a foot wrong.

Interestingly, public opinion polls have for some time suggested that Europe is much lower in the priorities of the ordinary voter than it is in the priorities of our politicians. We seem to have a situation in which politicians are not only deeply divided between themselves but also divided from the electorate.

There is no long-term national consensus and no basis for the development of a consistent policy by government; and that is no way to carry out a long-term commitment. A referendum would clear the air. It would not answer every question about the UK's involvement in the EU but it would make it possible for our elected representatives to start building a long-term national policy – if they are able and willing to do so.

Paul Lasok QC is head of Monckton Chambers.