New UK twist over Lisbon
A real bombshell thrown into the summit at the last minute, which may or may not be of significance. Gordon Brown has just told the news conference that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will not happen until after a court ruling. Funny, we all thought it had already happened.
This is in reaction to a letter from Lord Justice Richards, who is hearing a case brought by Stuart Wheeler saying that the Governemnt has acted illegally by not giving a referendum.
The judge writes: "The court is very surprised that the Government apparently proposes to ratify while the claimant's challenge to the decision not to hold a referendum on ratification is before the court. The court expects a judgment to be handed down next week. The defendants are invited to stay their hand voluntarily until judgment. If, in the absence of any satisfactory assurance to that effect, the claimant decides to seek injunctive relief, I direct that the application be placed before me personally."
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~19~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Isn't this subject to Parliamentary privilege? Even an injunction would seem to be challenging that.
Complain about this comment
I had forgotten about Mr Wheeler's request for a Judicial Review of the rejection of a referendum. Clearly Gordon Brown had too!
But there again he had a lot on his plate trying to keep it sweet between him and his pal Mr Sarkozy.
Complain about this comment
Hurrah!!!
Complain about this comment
Re 2: "I had forgotten about Mr Wheeler's request for a Judicial Review of the rejection of a referendum. Clearly Gordon Brown had too!"
Do you think Rupert Murdoch reminded him of that, during the dinner with George Bush? ;-)
Complain about this comment
Simply put, Lord Justice Philips has warned that if they do not voluntarily halt UK ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Wheeler will be invited to seek an injunction to stop ratification going ahead until the court makes it's judgement next week (as reported by BBC News).
If the Judgement is in favour of Mr Wheeler then one can imagine that this could lead to the government having to resign.
In that event, the resulting General Election would be a definitive moment in British Elections: Top of the agenda would have to be the EU and future direction of the UK relationship with the EU.
One can imagine that an early membership referendum would be on all major party manifestos.
Now that really would be something extraordinary!
Certainly these are extraordinary times we live in regardless of the court case!
Complain about this comment
If a bombshell is of no significance, then what is? But the actual significance is surely that it will be now very easy, as in this case, for the government to experience serious and ongoing embarrassment if it truly does not know where to turn politically (as I suspect it does not) in this very fluid situation, and there is surely worse to come.
Complain about this comment
I did wonder how the government could get away with ratification when the court had not yet ruled on the application by Mr Wheeler for a referendum in line with the manifesto commitment, but had assumed that in its usual arrogant style, parliament would rule that it could do whatever it liked. I don't hold out much hope that the court will rule against the government, the consequences would be huge for the government, and parliament, but it would be great if the court did rule that there are limits to what even parliament can do in obvious defiance of the will of the people.
A referendum was promised, a referendum there should be, and what would be even better is that it would put our politicans in their place at long last. They may be elected representatives, but they are the servants and not the masters of the people. They are not above the law.
If the case for the Lisbon Treaty is so strong, the government should have no fear of persuading the people at large to vote for it. Isn't that, at its most simple, what a politician is for?
Complain about this comment
Whilst I do wish Mr Wheeler well in his action, I'm not holding my breath as to a favourable ruling.
Complain about this comment
This could be fascinating.
The court case as I understand it is that the Government is required to hold a referendum to honour it's manifesto commitment.
If the claim is upheld then:
1. Political parties will have to think a lot harder about what commitments they put in their manifesto.
2. As the manifesto commitment was explicit regarding the implementation of the EU constitution, the the court would be saying that the Lisbon Treaty is, to all substantial purposes, the re-named Constitution.
What could this mean?
1. Gordon Brown and the Lisbon Treaty supporters who claimed that Lisbon was materially different from the Constitution would have to admit to either being wrong, or lying to the House and the country.
2. Even though British courts have no jurisdiction outside the UK, governments that had ratified Lisbon, but rejected the Constitution, could accused of passing a treaty that had already been substantially rejected in a national plebiscite.
This case could bring down the governments of Britain, France and the Netherlands.
Fascinating!
p.s. such are the seriousness of the ramifications of the court upholding the claimants' petition, it is almost inconceivable that the courty would do so.
Complain about this comment
What ever the outcome of this judgement, there is then the possibility of an appeal.
Full details are at:
http://www.stuartwheeler.co.uk
Complain about this comment
Speak for yourself - we didn't "think it had already happened"! The bill hasn't received Royal Assent yet and, no, we hadn't forgotten the Wheeler case either.
Journalists and politicians in childish enthusiasm alike storming ahead of Parliamentary and legal processes. No wonder the gap between general public and Establishment widens by the hour.
Complain about this comment
How very democratic - a millionaire betting company owner trying to use his wealth to reverse the decisions of an elected Parliament.
Do the eurosceptics who were shouting about the glory of direct democracy last week feel any contradiction in cheering this guy on? Any at all? Or is democracy once again being defined as 'whatever helps my side'?
Complain about this comment
Is it at all possible that GB has raised the ire of the Lord Justice Richards prompting him to write this letter?
Maybe he was going to rule against Mr Wheeler but the Governments clear intention to ratify before his judgement has set alarm bells ringing and he has changed his mind and is now going to uphold the challenge.
GB's decision now to state that they will wait for the judgement is in the hope that they haven't upset him too much and can get him back onside.
I live in hope that he upholds the challenge and we get a referendum, that the Czech courts rule the treaty unconstitutional and finaly that the Irish don't bow under Sarkozy's pressure and respect their peoples NO vote.
When will the politicians get it we the European People want European free trade but NOT European Political union
Complain about this comment
Please God, maybe it is possible leagaly to get a vote on this vile treaty.
Complain about this comment
#5 There is no way GB would resign if this judgement went against the government. It's not for the courts to decide on the competence of or confidence in the government of the day.
Furthermore, an unfavourable ruling, for either party would/could go to appeal and onto the Lords if necessary. This could put the ratification process in limbo for another year or more.
Complain about this comment
Never ass-u-me...
There's many a slip twixt cup and lip...
Complain about this comment
If any one objects to a millionaire financing the court case, then solution was in your hands -- go over to his website and make a donation, so he doesn't have to finance it.
I understand that donations are currently in abeyance until the result of the action is in and a decsion on an appeal is made.
I believe the case is actually more about governments not having a valid mandate if they break clear, freely given promises rather than the treaty and its content specifically - but I am a layman, not a legal bod.
Complain about this comment
#9 the judgement will be solely made on the merits of the case. It's ramifications are not the judge's concern. That is for a higher court or Parliament to decide a later date.
Complain about this comment
#11
The press reported that Royal Assent was hastily sought on Wednesday night.
It does seem that Government lawyers should have picked up on this isue a while back.
Brown has asked the Queen to sign a Treaty that her Courts may decide is unlawful...
Complain about this comment
An injunction does lie to prevent the Government from depositing the instruments of ratification, and interestingly there is Irish legal authority for this which would again come to the aid of the Eurosceptic cause. It is in the case of Crotty v An Taoiseach - which ultimately established that EC/EU treaties which have the effect of diminishing or subordinating the powers of the national legislature must be the subject of explicit constitutional sanction and therefore approved by the people in a referendum. On Christmas Eve in 1986, after a hearing in Mr Justice Barrington's sitting room, Mr Crotty obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining the Government from depositing the instruments of ratification for the Single European Act with the then Italian Presidency. This would no doubt be of great persuasive authority to the High Court in England, owing to the fact that the English and Irish legal systems are almost identical.
For the judgment, see http://turan.uc3m.es/uc3m/inst/MGP/NCR/ireland213.htm
Complain about this comment
#19
Nothing unusual there. TB had the Queen OK a war that has since been ruled illegal
Complain about this comment
Number 18
Technically yes, but back in the real world.....
Complain about this comment
Anthony Zacharzewski #12:
No, I don't see any problem with calling for democracy and wishing Mr Wheeler well in this case.
The whole point of this is that the government promised a referendum in its manifesto but refused to offer one once elected. If they get away with that, then what is the point of voting? If a party promised before an election, and in order soley to get elected, to buy everyone a new car if elected, would that be OK? What about scapping all taxes? Does the biggest lie win? A manifesto has to mean what it says or elections become a meaningless exercise in which the voter has no idea what is really on offer in the way of new policies. This case is fundamental to the way our democracy opperates, and is not about the arguments for or against the EU. It seems only to be the supporters of the EU that cannot see that.
Complain about this comment
Hmm. If Mr Wheeler gets his way, no political manifesto will contain anything of substance (except massive amounts of small print explaining why any unexpected event at all will invalidate it) again.
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2 #12:
No doubt he'll tell us this is a completely and utterly different treaty to the original constitution. Despite the fact that many European heads of state openly admit it's almost identical. It's the same treaty only this time hidden beneath a ton weight of jargon and legalease.
Complain about this comment
Re #24 - So what? Surely better than direct lies?
Complain about this comment
To MalcolmW2 (23):
No, the case of Mr. Wheeler is just a ludicrous publicity stunt to delay and obstruct the working of a democratically elected goverment.
In a representative democracy people get representatives that they deserve. If people elect representatives that they are not happy, they will not vote them in next elections. That's the way the system works.
The error that you and Mr. Wheeler are doing is not understanding the fundamentals of representative democracy. You also, it seems, don't understand contractual laws: an election promise is not a contract.
The only thing that I really can't understand how on earth you can in the same time complain about loosing sovereignty to EU when large part of your media is controlled by Rupert Murdoch which is used then to further his own neo-conservative beliefs and rail British politics in a direction he wants to which are not always or never on the real interest of Britain. Or does somebody really think that it's a good idea to send British young men and women to die in Iraq in an US imperial war? Wake up, the real threat to your democracy and well being is not EU but Newscorp and the likes of it.
Complain about this comment
In the UK, Political Parties lay out their manifestos when seeking election or re-election.
Manifestos by custom are party political promises and if an elected party were to renege then that is a breach of trust and in itself potentially illegal.
The Labour party promised the UK Electorate a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty for the EU and they have reneged on doing so.
It is the right of ANY citizen to challenge the executive arm of government where such a breach of trust has occurred. Opposition Parties do it across the floor of both house of parliament but any individual may seek a judicial review - to suggest that an individual should not be allowed to do so is to suggest that no individual should be allowed to impeach corrupt governments?
It is yet to be decide by the Judge whether this breach of trust is subject to parliamentary privilege (and I am no lawyer but I suspect that Parliament has the right to change policy on the hoof!) but it has always been a mealy mouthed distinction between the treaty rejected by the Dutch and the French and the Lisbon Treaty now rejected by the Irish that allowed the UK Government to reject the referendum path.
As a British Citizen, I applaud Stuart Wheeler for challenging the Labour Government for reneging on their manifesto promise but I suspect he is on to a hiding to nothing.
Nevertheless, he is exercising his democratic right (in a free society) to challenge the government by seeking judicial review.
And that is why, if he were to win the judgement, I believe that the current government would have little choice other than to resign in the event that they have been judged to acted with impropriety. Democracy would be upheld by holding a general election!
I also frequently try to remind pro-EU commentators (who love the idea that governments have the power to decide things among themselves ‘in the interests of the people') that the UK Government has executive power by having a majority of parliamentary seats but it was elected on only (approximately) 25% of the votes cast which in the low-turn out poll that returned them to power, represents approximately 10% of the electorate. Hardly a ringing endorsement to sign away British Constitutional Legislative Powers to the EU?
If pro-EU Lobbyists suggest that the minority of Irish "No" voters is too small to be able to stop the EU bandwagon WERE the other 26 nations to wish to go on ahead and ratify and legitimise the Lisbon Treaty, then, arguably, it would be right to suggest that a UK Government, elected on the strength of representing a mere 10% of the UK electorate, cannot and should not be allowed to ratify a treaty that commits the UK citizens to a EU empowered enact laws that have not been passed through the UK Legislature. This is a constitutional power, if ever there was one, and a power which belies the reasons that the UK government gave for breaking its manifesto promise to the electorate!
The pro-EU lobbyists cannot have it both ways. They cannot belittle the Irish "No" voters and then try to suggest that somehow the UK Government is entirely correct and behaving honourably, with it's minority popular vote, to have reneged on it's promises and to have pursued the ratification of a treaty that I believe does more harm to the UK than good without asking the electorate for a mandate to do so!
Complain about this comment
From today's BBC article: "Labour promised a referendum on the EU Constitution"
From the Labour 2005 Manifesto: "The Treaty sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."
"Treaty", not "Constitution", note.
It's bad enough that Labour are lying, repeatedly and shamelessly, about what they promised in order to try and excuse their breaking that promise. What is worse is to see the BBC helping them with that lie. They lied - they should be called and shamed on that lie, not colluded with.
Complain about this comment
Number 27
Nice try bring up the Murdoch / Iraq red herring again. I don't think anyone is going to bite.
2 points.
1. You are right that we can chuck this bunch of fools out and replace them with another bunch of fools. It is precisely why we don't want the Lisbon - we will lose this ability to all intents and purposes.
2. The courts are an integral part of the functioning of a democracy. Amongst other things, they protect the individual against the misuse of power by the Executive and Legislature. Whether this case is an example of it is for the court to decide.
Complain about this comment
"2. As the manifesto commitment was explicit regarding the implementation of the EU constitution, the the court would be saying that the Lisbon Treaty is, to all substantial purposes, the re-named Constitution." - Wopitt
Er, have you actually read said manifesto you are glibly misrepresenting? Actually, what the manifesto commitment explicitly referred to was "the new Constitutional Treaty", thereafter repeatedly referred to as "The Treaty". And since the Lisbon Treaty is, as numerous more honest European politicians have attested, the old Constitution with a new name, the paragraphs moved around a bit and turned into a Treaty, it's rather hard to see how it could reasonably not be described as a new constitutional treaty!
Complain about this comment
RachaelBlackburn
post 31
I am with you on this one.
It is the Government who is claiming that the Lisbon Treaty is not the Constitional Treaty not me!
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my post.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila #27:
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it appears to be you who does not understand democracy. We elect a government based upon the declared policies they propose. If one of those was a referendum, then we are entitled to expect to be given one. The case before the courts is not for or against ratification of the EU treaty (or the wider question of membership at all), it is about being able to trust the government to honour a clear manifesto promise. An election should not be a lucky dip in a democracy.
If you are happy in your own country for the government to be given a blank cheque to do whatever it likes, then that is clearly a matter for you, but honesty and honour, and the right of Britons to determine their own future, still mean something in mine. That is the nub of the case now, quite rightly, before the High Court. I sincerely hope that the judges agree with me (and the majority of my fellow countrymen and women) that freedom and sovereignty belong to the people, not the government, and it is for them, and them alone, to agree to this treaty or not.
I'm sorry if this sits uncomfortably with you or any others who wish to see this treaty suceed, but it is a serious principle. Your views (or mine) on Iraq, media ownership or the existence of UFO's have nothing whatever to do with this.
Complain about this comment
Re #33 MalcolmW2
Spot on.
Notwithstanding our lack of a written constitution (alas), our unwritten one makes it clear that the courts do have a role to play here.
Let's hope they agree with you.
Complain about this comment
Thank goodness for democracy.
I just hope that the courts say no... and that the country should have a referndum. Let's throw another spanner in the works for the terrible Lisbon Treaty.
PS For those of you who said that it is sad to see that the BBC are helping the government... the BBC are run by the Government...
The government own the BBC, and we run the government (supposedly)
Yes to free trade, no to Political union.
Complain about this comment
Anyone interested in the grounds of Stuart Wheeler's case for judicial review should look at his web site.
It should also be noted that leave to bring a case for judicial review is only granted where the courts consider that there is a case to answer.
The action centres around Stuart Wheeler's contention that the treaty and the constitution are essentially the same documents and whether there is a "legitimate expectation" that a referendum should be held before ratification as promised in the Labour Party's election manifesto.
Complain about this comment
The government hadn't forgotten about the case, it merely tried to sneak one by creating a fait accomplis before anyone could prevent ratification. And it almost got away with it. But the Tories would be no better. They are every bit as much for the UK ceding sovereignty to the EU superstate as Labour and the Lib Dems no matter what they say. The only ones who don't have a voice are the UK voters. We don't know what they would have because the government no matter who is in power doesn't want to hear from them or have it be known what they actually think. That is their worst nightmare. After all, the UK is not a democracy.
Complain about this comment
What part of "NO!" does Brown not understand?
In a democratic referendum the people of Ireland gave their decision - which is more than can be said for the UK people, denied a referendum by a self-serving elitist lying government which promised a referendum in their election manifesto, and which now says the people dont know best what they do or do not want - except of course when Brown wants re-elected at a general election when he will call upon the people to use their best judgement to re-elect a man who cannot be trusted to keep his promises.
Complain about this comment
I think its a case of ," Run with the Hare and Hunt with the Hounds ".
After the Irish had voted no , Mr Brown wanted to ingratiate himself as one of the good boys of Europe ; by ratifying the treaty , in the full knowledge that it might in any case have to be abandoned .
It seems that even our own government is " Tarred with the same brush " of dishonesty , as the EU .
Is there No one we can Trust anymore ?
One wonders that the British Labour Party puts loyalty to the EU before loyalty to themselves . What Chance of re-election has the Labour Party at the next general election under Mr Brown , its current , but unelected prime minister ?
Complain about this comment
They should get the main architects of the "Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe" ie EU constitution mark I to testify. Giscard, Dehaene and d'Amato are all on record saying that Lisbon (EU constitution mark II) is essentially the same thing as its predecessor.
@ huaimec (39)
it is no surprise politicians increasingly put loyalty to the EU and its undemocratic processes ahead of their loyalty to their own electorates. The system was deliberately set up to encourage just that. Any government minister who disagrees will always find themselves cornered in Brussels. Remember that Monnet desperately wanted to deny peoples any influence as he feared they might vote the wrong way and elect the wrong persons. Much better to have the elitists appoint eachother, in his view.
Complain about this comment
Anthony Zacharzewski wrote:
''How very democratic...
Do the eurosceptics... feel any contradiction in cheering this guy on? ... Or is democracy once again being defined as 'whatever helps my side'?''
I cannot speak for the Eurosceptics; but as a Lisbon-EU-treaty-sceptic, I can say that the Pro-Lisbon lobby uses democracy in a, as you say: 'whatever helps my side' logic; and then flout the democratic process, whenever they feel necessary, to further their Supranationalist agenda...
Democracy is the due process we follow: opinion is merely a personal preference.
Whatever your opinions, due process must be followed, not ignored.
Complain about this comment
What has Mr Wheelers millions got to do with the merits of his case?
If he wants to spend his money on a lost cause, why shouldn't he?
And anyone know how much money did the EU spend promoting the yes cause and how much for the no?
Complain about this comment
A Labour government resign???!!
The word shame is not in the Labour dictionary ;)
Complain about this comment
Oh my, let's all declare Labour as the source of all our woes. First of all, what power does the court really have to declare a manifesto pledge or a parliamentary action illegal? I was always under the impression that Parliament rules supreme over the courts in this country. Even if the courts rule in favour of this tycoon, what is stopping the Labour administration from going on to ratify the treaty anyway?
Secondly, the people of Europe have voted in favour of this treaty. It is time to acknowledge the people of Europe as one body politic, rather than as separate countries and nationalities. It is not acceptable to treat European countries as separate entities in one respect but not in another; where there is cooperation in one area it must follow that cooperation should be pursued in any related area. It's called neo-functionalism, and since the advent of the SM, it has regained some of its reputation as a theory explaining European Integration.
It is self-defeating to address the nations of Europe in the singular when address the broader nature of the European Union. In order to assure a stronger and more effective EU, it is necessary to develop a more cohesive institutional foundation, where there is a point of contact for external actors wishing to contact the EU, where national actors are forced to sacrifice their narrowly defined self-interests in favour of the common good and in turn, the good of their electorate.
Twenty-seven actors will never agree completely on every issue under their mandate, and for this reason alone it defies logic that this union has any shot at survival without a more positive attitude towards European integration. Disorganisation breeds bureaucracy, disorganisation promotes a democratic deficit. If this country continues down the anti-Europe path, it will end up in the same position it found itself in 1973: well behind in the race, with any opportunity to shape an emerging Union in their own favour lost forever. We could have shaped the SM, we could have led the EU if only we were to have seen past our own position in the world and considered the bigger picture.
Like it or not, the EU is an emerging power, it is a new form of political structure and it will continue to shape the world we live in. Whether or not we want to be a side player or a prominent actor in that process will hinge on our acknowledgement of the EU as a power for good in a world defined increasingly by economic and political uncertainty.
Complain about this comment
#44. YouRopeMeIn wrote:
"Secondly, the people of Europe have voted in favour of this treaty. "
What? When? I must have missed that!
Unless you believe, like the various EUrocrats, that the only peoples' votes worth counting are those in the sepaarte EU countries' parliaments
When the EU Constitutional Treaty was put the PEOPLE in France, the Netherlands and Ireland, they voted it out with a resounding 'Non, Nee, No!"
IF the Treaty was put to the vote, in a pan-EU referendum and IF the EU would gift the same anount of money to the 'No' campaign as it would spend fighting for a 'Yes' vote and IF the national parliaments and political parties allowed their members to campaign outside of party lines, THEN I (and many other Eurosceptics) would accept the democratic decision by the People
Until that happens don't you DARE suggest that 'the People' have voted for this Treaty
Complain about this comment
Re: 12
A little shortsighted perhaps. Is it not
1) refreshing that a citizen has the means to put an objection to government policy (or against all resonable expectation and its own manifesto, a non-policy) into tangible and potentially effective form? Whereas the rest of us are powerless to do anything but blog and grumble?
2) depressing, admittedly, that one needs stacks of cash to be able to put one's democratic objections into the public arena in any real practical sense?
Your post talks of 'sides': surely the government is on no-one's side here, except perhaps its own, in its now familiar role of dog-in-the-manger
There can now be no realistic excuse (since the Ireland vote) for withholding a referendum in the UK
Complain about this comment
We should sack the lot of them. England should pull out of Europe, as the only thing it has ever done is kept wana bee`s and has bins in well paid jobs with free meals and expensive bottles of wine. England should team up with America, Canada, and Australia. We would have enough room to grow our own food, and our own fuels. Then go tell the Arabs we don`t want their oil, they can drink it. Being sure also to turn off all water suplies and stopping all our technoligies leaving our lands for their`s. That would be a good start to a knew and better life.
Complain about this comment
How about making "free trade" and "political union" two halves of the same coin? I.e. any country joining the Union doesn't get (qualify for) one without the other.
If this would, by European law, be made a hard and fast condition of membership, the "package" would become quite clearly defined and would finally separate the sheep from the goats!
EFTA is then pronounced "finally dead" and the EU can go ahead in the spirit of "you want all the financial advantages? OK, then join the political Union!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS