THE HOUSE of Commons will stage a fairly shabby piece of political theatre late this afternoon. By any measure, it should be a showpiece occasion.
The issues at the heart of the debate - or, at any rate, the underlying issues - are of huge political and constitutional significance. John Major's government, yet again, is on the defensive. A White Paper designed to settle the issues raised more questions than provided answers.
The Conservative troops, as ever, are divided. Indeed, the cabinet itself is divided. And the assorted "friends" of the Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, have not successfully laid to rest repeated rumours that he might eventually feel obliged to resign.
All in all then, you might think, a perfect opportunity for Labour and the other "opposition" parties to again put Major's authority and his fragile Commons majority - to the test. But readers need not switch on to the News at Ten in eager expectation of another knife edged vote. Major's government doesn't want it to happen. And Tony Blair and his "New Labour" party have ensured it won't.
Last week's White Paper of course confined itself to the agenda for the forthcoming European Inter Governmental Conference. It had much to say about areas of policy common to both wings of the Conservative Party. Many words were devoted to the need to preserve a common foreign and security policy as matters for inter governmental cooperation and decision. The same went for decision making in the fields of justice and home affairs.
But the government had little to say about the European Court, fishing or the Common Agricultural Policy. And it had absolutely nothing to say about the biggest issue of all the proposed single currency.
As Patrick Smyth observed in his European Diary last Friday, this is the "let sleeping dogs lie" policy much favoured by Mr Major. As a matter of necessity as much as style, the prime minister declines to cross any European hurdle he can avoid or postpone. The single currency isn't an issue at the IGC, therefore they didn't need to address it in the White Paper.
But that simply left people wondering why its publication was deemed necessary in the first place. The purpose was always dear. Indeed, any lingering doubt was dispelled by the chosen title - "A Partnership of Nations". This anthem of Euro scepticism was designed to soothe party divisions.
No, the government would note permit the erosion of the national veto or the extension of majority voting. Yes, the government wanted Britain at the heart of Europe. But no, that did not mean an inexorable drift of power towards supra national institutions". Unlike the Labour Party, this Conservative government would not facilitate "a monolithic, centralised, federal Europe".
Euro sceptics like Norman Lamont and Jonathan Aitken smiled as the foreign secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, made his way through each delicate movement. But the smiles were a touch patronising. Tory Eursceptics share Lamont's disdain for oft repeated assurances that Europe is coming round to the British government view of these things. And words of encouragement for Rifkind were tempered by barely concealed doubt about Europe's response to Major's freshly sceptical theme.
But for the most part the sceptics held fire. They knew like the opposition parties, that the real crunch will come when the cabinet is finally forced to decide whether to commit itself to a referendum on any future decision to join a single currency.
Rifkind is having a dickens of a job trying to reconcile the pros and antis among his cabinet colleagues. He got himself in a terrible scrape the other day, with an apparent suggestion that a referendum might be purely advisory in nature. Then there is the delicate question of whether ministers would be bound by a prior cabinet decision or free to campaign on either side of the argument. Rifkind and Portillo dismiss suggestions that the Chancellor might resign. Many Tory rightwingers wish he would.
The Labour Party, meanwhile, conspicuously fails to exploit the renewed and growing warfare across the Tory Party's European faultline. And why? The obvious conclusion is that Blair's front bench is as terrified of the subject as the government.
The mystery has been why it has taken Major so long to make the referendum commitment. But the even greater mystery is why Blair has failed to beat him to it.
People in Ireland, as in other European countries, might see the democratic imperative of consulting the electorate on a decision of such political and, yes, constitutional significance, as the scrapping of the currency. And people in Britain will surely see it underlined by the Westminster consensus to lie low and keep the issue quiet.
The Westminster argument against a referendum is that it is not in the tradition of this parliamentary democracy - that the House of Commons is where such matters should be decided.
Tony Benn has long railed against the pro European consensus between Britain's major parties. A general election in which Labour and the Conservatives pledge to keep Britain at the heart of Europe - while steadfastly refusing to spell out how that will be achieved in harmony with their European partners or the developing European agenda cannot settle the great issues of political and monetary union.
And any doubt about that is surely dispelled by the reluctance of both front benches tonight to meet head on the lesser issues dealt with in the White Paper.
For obvious reasons, the government has tabled a technical "take note" motion, putting its MPs on a simple "one line whip". Most of them probably headed for their constituencies last night, knowing they needn't turn up for the vote.
But there was no obligation on Labour to oblige the government. Blair had the option of marshalling his troops and seeking to inflict a defeat on the government, despite the technical nature of the government motion.
As on Northern Ireland, so on Europe - "two safe steps behind Mr Major" would seem to sum manse Mr Blair's position. Give the weakness of the government and the reluctance (some would say cowardice) of the Opposition, the case for verdict by the people can only grow.