Not so long ago the conventional view was that referenda were the one big cop out of mature politics. MPs were elected to govern, and referenda were a negation of how grown up politics should be conducted.

Certainly that is how it used to be. The Empire was dismantled and the powers of the House of Lords were stripped back for a second time. These were huge changes by any standards and yet there was no direct appeal to the people.

Such an approach to constitutional questions is not one now open to this Government. The last six years have witnessed the blossoming of referenda. Voters in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London have all opted for greater independence.

And on joining the Euro, not withstanding 2600 pages of argument, will go to a referendum for the final decision. So may not a referendum on the future of Europe fit in with what is fast becoming a trend, where voters are given the decisive say over the big constitutional questions?

Not to submit such a change for the approval of the British people would go against the temper of today’s politics. The biggest change between the old and new politics is an almost disappearance of deference from public life. Not that long ago voters saw their role in politics as limited in the extreme with perhaps a vote once every five years being the summit of what they thought was proper behaviour. A small minority, in addition, would be active party members.

How the mighty have fallen, although politicians are not the only group to feel directly the full force of public agitation. The advice of doctors is increasingly questioned as growing number of patients believe they have the right and the knowledge to do so. The writ of the police is more aggressively countered. Teachers have to win respect in order to carry out their work.

This assertiveness is seen in politics along a number of fronts. Distain is shown to political activity generally by sharply falling participation rates at election time. Respect for the law passed by politicians continues to abate. Audiences slow handclap messages they don’t wish to hear. Phone-in participants simply express whatever comes into their head, no matter how aggressive its delivery.

Politicians are stumbling, trying to feel their way in this new political terrain. Traditional maps and compasses are for obvious reasons of limited value. In a non-deferential age the very nature of politics changes. Deciding who governs, and roughly on what terms, no longer strikes a growing body of voters as adequate.

The big issues should be decided directly by the voters themselves. This is a bottom up campaign. While this cry is stoutly resisted by the old political guard, non-deferential politics isn’t something revolutionary. Rather, it has a truly reactionary side to it in that it is an attempt to make the ideal of the Greek city state viable in a mass democracy.

What evokes most anger from the new voters are statements from the political class that voters could not possibly understand the issues. And this anger is intensified when they witness on their television screens the political abilities of not a few who have managed to create a life for themselves beyond the ballot box. Broadcasting parliament did more to scupper deferential politics, and give birth to a demand for a more direct form of democracy, than any other single act.

In the new age the role of the politician begins to change. Voting in parliament deciding day to day issues still has importance. But on the mega questions, like the future of our country within Europe, voters feel quite content to take this decision themselves. The role of politicians then becomes one of explaining the issues while leaving the decision on principle to the voters.

The European Convention still has some way to go. But voters see the Cabinet already singing from two different hymn sheets. Peter Hain, for example, is pushed out on the plank gesticulating to the effect that the Convention is only concerned with a bit of tidying up and a rearranging of the old furniture.

Quickly the Prime Minister has drawn back. Out comes the Prime Ministerial red pen to draw a thick red line around foreign affairs, defence, taxation and welfare. These four key areas, the Prime Minister assures us, will not be surrendered in the informal negotiations leading up to the inter-governmental conference.

As part of the new politics I introduced this week a Referendum Bill, which will allow the voters of this country to decide just how well the Prime Minister has defended his own red line. Knowing that a referendum will follow the inter-governmental conference will strengthen ministerial bargaining hands at a crucial stage of the negotiation. But if the Government decides to surrender these four areas of the country’s independence to a new European state then it is proper that the issue goes back to the people.

It may well be that they wish to see their future in Europe in the terms that the drafters of the constitution envisage. A successful referendum along those lines would ensure that parliament ratified that view. But it may be that in this non-deferential age voters may have an idea of independence, not only about their own country, but in their own role in deciding that future, which would have shocked politicians of only a decade ago.

Frank Field MP