The EU treaty was last night sent a step further towards being accepted by British parliament as the Labour party successfully managed to vote out the possibility of a referendum on the document. As the debate showed there is a lot of hostility towards referendums as a way of making decisions, contrasted with the moral dilemma of breaking a promise to the country. The following are a few of my thoughts and I have to say watching the debate sharpened my mind on the issue and was very worthwhile for me personally.

It all started in PMQs yesterday afternoon, the PM taking a barrage of questions on the subject of the treaty and the EU. In typical style Brown answered very few of the questions put to him, and instead chose to attack, irrelevantly, the opposition. But the framing is important. Throughout the PMQ session we were treated to answers that stated a referendum held in 1975 on EU membership is enough (even though anyone under the age of 57 has therefore not had a say on Europe in that manner), and also that he felt that referendum was an inconvenience in itself. He also attacked the Tories in what would become a front bencher stalwart over their record of voting regarding a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, as if previous and relatively ancient voting habits of a party actually matter to current day. This annoyance will be the subject for another post on another day though.

But the debate to come that evening was truly born of Geraldine Smith's question that labelled referendums as a process "abrogating [parliaments] responsibilities." I have to admit I was shocked when I heard it, an MP standing up and saying that asking the people really is a pain in the arse to parliament. Perhaps a little outrage was in there too. But as we moved to the backbenchers debate it was clear that she is not the only one with this view born of the supposedly unique aspect of parliamentary decision making.

The debate was actually well mannered and despite a few partisan attacks here and there was a sombre and detailed discussion about referendums and about promises. Kenneth Clarke was one of the more commanding voices on the floor, agreeing with Mrs Smith that legitimacy of parliament is undermined by referendums, and in particular on issues such as this he believes they render parliament powerless.

But for all of the inner sense of injustice such statements make me feel inside, he does speak sense. We are only a member of the union, far from being an over-riding power, and a small member at that. Clarke says that for this reason a referendum is largely pointless in that sense, that the EU is not going to bend over backwards for us. Indeed the precedent the EU set by voting to ignore the outcome of Irelands referendum on the subject goes to show that it doesn't feel public opinion is a viable gauge of viability any more.

Of course I say that generally the backbenchers debate was well mannered, but Sir Gerald Kaufman still managed to make eyes roll by supporting what Kenneth Clarke had to say by bringing up how referendums were supported by Hitler. Hitler probably also found kittens cute, does that make them minions of the dark lord too? In fact Sir Kaufman was the only sour patch on an otherwise excellent debate, trying to squirm out of promises the government made with weaselly language almost as insulting as comparisons of public wishes to those of Nazi Germany. Perhaps this back bencher who "supports the party line so much it pains him" should look inwardly first at where fascism and authoritarianism exists before casting aspirations on other members of the house and their constituents.

Unfortunately once the Front benchers came back in the debate stopped being interesting and returned to Punch and Judy politics, as put in Big Sticks and Small Carrots, and this is where I stopped really listening and went about my other business until I heard the vote come. All in all the result was the right one I believe, and one that hopefully the British people will understand even though I doubt any MPs are really going to explain to them how and why the decision was made this way.

You see, although we were promised it by all parties, and governments need to realise that they cannot renege on their promises without the best of reasons of which simply believing the public might not support you is not good enough, I believe the weaknesses of referendums outweigh the treachery of breaking their word.

Referendums are tools, sometimes tools for political favour and sometimes because they are the best way to make a decision. Ownership of an issue that a referendum gives to the general public is an amazing tool for restoring faith in politics, but only generally when the result is pretty much a foregone conclusion. The fact of the matter with this treaty is it's a complex document, it is long and it is fiddly, and in reality requires some kind of idea about current practices and constitutional frameworks to get a bearing for what is the right thing to do.

To expect the media of this country to devote pages to explaining all of this in an appropriate manner rather than post pictures of eastern Europeans and smug Frenchmen, declaring that they're trying to take our power and dissolve our parliament as we know it, is to expect water to turn in to wine when Paul Daniels rocks up to your house party. We simply cannot at any point on this issue reasonably say that the majority of the public would be informed. For all of us, such as myself, that would make sure they are informed, there are hundreds if not thousands of people that either don't care and will vote however someone influential to them says if they vote at all, or will vote based on what the papers say to them. Leaving our fate and the fate of the EU in the hands of the Sun and the Daily Mail is hardly a positive sign of democracy working.

In fact Mr Clarke went further than that, talking about the ambiguity of referendums. If a population votes down the treaty how do we know why they did so? At least in structured debate it is clear where the issues with a document lie and amendments can be tabled. The essence of parliament, the debate, he said is the key to ensuring that policies such as this are taken seriously and are the best they can be.

However it must be said, if referendums are supposedly no good because of lack of information, lack of clarity over why a decision has gone the way it has and because the act of debate is supposedly so essential to democracy in Britain, why have three line whips been used in this vote meaning that this great debate held yesterday is effectively nullified by party lines, and why has the time allotted to the debate been insufficient to actually fully debate the issue and thus leaving even our MPs only partially informed when they come to make their decision?

To argue that a referendum is not appropriate is one thing, but to then ignore that despite avoiding one abrogation of parliament the MPs have simply stepped through a separate, albeit less severe, abrogation of parliament in this process is truly moronic. The one things I would hope MPs will take from this debate is that parliament is important, debate is key…unhindered voting and appropriate time given to debate all subjects regardless of how long that takes is the only way to ensure that parliament acts as it should.

A final thought rings in me though, is the fact we all think we have a right to make a decision on this matter through a referendum something of a sign of triumph for Blair's labour and just how much it has made people feel that they deserve and have a say in the running of the country, or a indicator that people feel less like they have a voice at all?