The upcoming EU summit is regarded by all as being crucial to determining the future of the EU. The dust has now settled from the rejection of the EU Constitution by the French and Dutch people, but the opportunity to create greater democratic engagement with the EU has been missed. Running scared from a bruising encounter with democratic politics, the EU seems to be returning to what it has done in the past: treaties agreed by government ministers out of the public eye.

As someone who is broadly pro-European, I find this disturbing. Political institutions can only be sustained if they respect the rights and views of the people. And once again, our government is doing absolutely nothing to reconcile the need for democratic accountability with the need for EU reform. Today we learn that the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has had to write to Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, to express "deep concern" at the lack of information or consultation given to MPs. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that whatever the government is going to do at the summit, it wants to avoid talking about it. The timing of the summit - likely to be one of Tony Blair's last official duties as Prime Minister - means that whatever news emerges from it is likely to be buried. For a summit so important to the future of Britain and Europe, this is unacceptable.

Let's be clear here: this summit is about reviving, in whole or in part, the EU Constitution despite the earlier rejection of this document by the French and the Dutch. This is not something that can be done behind closed doors, with no consultation. In fact, this is not something that should be done at all. The 'No' votes in France and Holland should have been a signal that the EU needed to go back to the drawing board, to create a simpler, streamlined constitutional document, for proper public debate and decision. Instead, the old constitution, a gigantic document which few at the heart of European politics can claim to comprehend, let alone the average citizen, is being kept alive and our government is essentially complicit in this.

This is a classic example of short-termist thinking - the need to pass a treaty, seemingly any treaty, regardless of public opinion - is being placed ahead of the long-term interests of the EU and its citizens. A proper EU constitution would set out some core principles which all member states sign up to, entrenching the freedoms of movement, trade, communication and religion which the EU stands for. It should set out clearly what the purpose of the EU is, and what it is not. And it should be comprehensible to everyone in Europe. As a liberal, I believe that the EU constitution should guarantee that power is not placed in the hands of summits of national politicians, but is instead left at the level closest to the people. What we seem likely to get is the exact opposite of that, and we should all be downright furious about it.

Britain today is at a crossroads. The ideological foment of the 20th century has given way to an uneasy consensus, with no obvious way forward. Government does more than ever before, but provides less accountability for its actions and little thought seems to be given to the long-term consequences.

We now face a stark choice: do we want to continue with ever-greater encroachment on the lives of private citizens, ever more information being gathered on our movements, actions, words and thoughts? Or do we want to be a free country, promoting the values of fairness, tolerance and trust?

Under Blair, Britain has been governed as though it were a huge open prison. House arrest, DNA databases, ID cards, double the length of detention without charge - we liberals know the litany of illiberal legislation that has become the defining feature of New Labour. Thuggish illiberalism seems to have become almost a reflex for some within New Labour, applied apparently without consideration of anything more than keeping the tabloids at bay. But a law is for life, not just for tomorrow's headline and Tony Blair's legacy is to be a dangerous collection of legislation that has progressively accelerated the decline in trust between the electorate and politicians; accelerated the decline of voluntary civil society; fundamentally altered the relationship between citizen and state.

Gordon Brown has been at great pains to wrap himself in the flag and to talk up the notion of 'Britishness'; in his farewell speech Tony Blair described Britain as the 'greatest' country in the world. Both of these miss the point: greatness is not something you own, it's something you achieve. Do we really want our national achievement to be the record for the most CCTV cameras for the fewest people? Can we rightly feel proud of a government that seeks to belittle its citizens at every turn? If Blair and Brown really believed in the greatness of the British people, they would start by trusting them more.

This choice is of fundamental importance, and the path we take really does matter. Liberty is fragile, and will not withstand another ten years of constant erosion. Liberal Democrats must stand up for the positive virtues of a free Britain, where people are respected as free citizens, not potential suspects to be monitored; where imprisonment is reserved for those who have committed a crime, not those who happen to fit a 'profile' and where all citizens are free to carry on their lawful business without harassment.

There is much more to our vision of Britain than this, but the fundamental values of liberty are the foundation upon which everything else is built. We must defend these values, and be prepared to fight those who, whatever their intentions, seek to diminish them.

One of the most obvious things one can say about the present government is that they have increased public spending. From low (by 20th century standards) levels in 1997, public spending has increased substantially under Gordon Brown's Chancellorship. It was always obvious that taxes would have to rise in order to pay for this, and that was part of the implicit bargain New Labour made with the electorate. But has this actually led to a fairer society?

Chris Dillow has pointed out some evidence that it has not: look closely at the table on page 7 of this PDF and you will see that the poorest quintile of the population are paying 36.4% of their income in tax, whilst the richest pay only 35.5%. Let me reiterate: the poorest in Britain pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest, according to the government's own statistics.

This is an outrageous situation for a supposedly progressive government to have created. And it's not as if Gordon Brown's latest Budget did anything to reverse the trend; the abolition of the 10p starting rate of income tax will hit the poorest most of all. Increasing focus on environmental taxation also hits the poor, which is why the Lib Dems advocated a substantial increase in the personal allowance as part of the 'Green Tax Switch' proposal. Green taxes raise more revenue for the government, and a responsible government should make sure that the poorest in society are properly protected from these taxes by equivalent cuts in taxes that they pay.

Of course, Gordon Brown would respond that the poor are helped by tax credits. But the tax credit scheme itself is descending into farce, the latest fiasco being the revelation that the total overpayments made by the scheme since its inception has reached £9bn. At heart, tax credits are actually a good idea, but their implementation bears all of the hallmarks of New Labour's greatest mistakes: an intrinsically good idea has been badly implemented due to over-complication and a reliance on the ability to process lots of complicated and variable information. Overpayments happen when a person claims tax credits when their income is low, then does not cancel their claim when their income rises. For the poor, whose income is very volatile, even from month to month, it is almost impossible to put in an accurate claim for tax credits. They are left with a choice between claiming and hoping that they get to keep what they receive, or not claiming at all; some 2 million potential tax credit claimants opt for the latter.

It has been common for commentators to give Gordon Brown a relatively easy ride over the last 10 years. The economy hasn't collapsed under his stewardship and there has long been a sense that we wouldn't see the best of Gordon Brown until Tony Blair has made way for him at Number 10. But the evidence is mounting that Brown has done very little to help those most in need in society and that, for all of the money spent, we have not seen the improvement in public services that we might expect. It is time for the Liberal Democrats to become much more robust in attacking Gordon Brown's mistakes, and exposing the genuinely outrageous aspects of the tax system we have today. The Conservatives seem to be embracing almost every aspect of the Blair-Brown project; it's up to us to provide the alternative.