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.

According to the Liberal Democrat website Ming´s speech on Europe represents a break with some traditions.

First (and this isn´t so new) he clearly sees the interests of the UK as lying with Europe.

"Britain should distinguish its own foreign policy from that of the United States. It should rediscover its independence of thought. We should all value our relationship with the United States. But the relationship needs to be rebalanced, redesigned and renewed.

"Today, Britain’s foreign policy lacks credibility and influence. No 10 has found proximity to the White House flattering. But we have allowed ourselves to get too close. We have flown too close to The Sun."

This leads him to advocate a closer relationship with European partners on security issues:

"Europe should take a greater role in promoting its values through its Common Foreign and Security Policy, with the full and active participation of the UK."

But Ming applies some of the Freedom Bill principles to Europe too. In a break with the past he says that

"The EU would better reflect its peoples’ priorities if it stuck to legislating only when necessary.

We need a Powers Audit of the European Union. And that Audit should take place on the basis of a simple principle: only where issues are most effectively addressed by collective action, should the EU act.

It is good to see this move from Ming. We certainly need more from Europe in terms of dealing with a dangerous world, promoting free trade, and taking a common line (and promoting a global response on the environment). But frankly we don´t need a lot of what we have: not the CAP, and probably not a lot of the Structural Funds.

Liberal Democrats should lead the way in calling for a radical reappraisal of priorities in the "fundamental reappraisal¨of EU spending", promised for 2008. Borrowing a phrase, perhaps our approach should be one of "aggressive subsidiarity".

Rendezvous on Champs-Elysees
Leave Paris in the morning on T.E.E.
Trans-Europe Express

In Vienna we sit in a late-night cafe
Straight connection, T.E.E.
Trans-Europe Express

In the 1930s, long distance train travel was the only practical way to travel around Europe. Such travel was a liberating, dare one say liberal experience (if you could afford it): a trans-continental railway system entailing multi-national co-operation. Not only did this sytem cover Europe, but it stretched to the Middle East and even beyond to India.

The romantic in me is drawn to train travel in this way. Now that air travel is coming under increasing scrutiny because of its impact on climate change, the age of the train is increasingly with us again. For anyone who wants to travel Europe by train, the excellent The Man in Seat Sixty-One website gives you the information required to do so.