UK insists 'no delay'
Glad they are reading this corner: the Foreign Office have just rung to say Number 10 wanted to point out that British ratification will not be delayed, it's just that the court ruling will be out before the process is complete. Evidently even after the Queen signs it off the instruments of ratification have to be deposited in Rome. It's something I might read up on on a quiet day, but not today. Anyway despite my initial excitement a slap from a judge, mildly embarrassing, but no big deal.
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.
Your climb down seems a bit excessive - you wouldn't be falling for a bit of spin would you?
Either GB was right and the process will be delayed, or he was wrong and the process just happens to take until after the court hands down its' ruling.
I am not and international lawyer, but are you really saying that a law ratifying a treaty isn't enforceable until it is lodged in Rome?
I would accept that it isn't enforceable in an international court, but surely it would be enforceable in a UK court once it has Royal Assent regarless of whether it is lodged in Rome.
A slapping from a judge who could still become a big deal if he finds for the claimant.
Complain about this comment
It could be more than a slap if he rules for a referendum.
Is there any legal precedence for them to complete ratification while a challenge is in the courts?
What if they deposit the instuments in Rome when the court has ruled for a referendum and the referendum turns in a large No vote?
Complain about this comment
Unless - of course - the judgement goes against the government.
Don't let them spin you.
Complain about this comment
Not to worry Mark, you were extremely astute to note the inconsistancy to begin with and dedicated enough to blog about it without delay. You are still my go-to Euro-blogger.
Complain about this comment
Mr Wheeler had also said that the government Lawyers had told the court they were going to deposit the instruments before the judgement on thursday hence the need for the judge to write the letter in the first place.
clearly No10 bods have spun you a line Mark, realising that they had scored another own goal.
They make the Italian protests about Pannucci's positioning behind the goal look mild in comparison
Complain about this comment
Any word on the legal battles else where in Europe?
Germany, for instance?
Our high courts will remain a light in dark places, hopefully... ;)
Government spin to save face; same old crap, different day...
No to Habeus Juris
Yes to Habeus Corpus
Complain about this comment
The Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties (article 16) requires that the signed instrument of ratification must to be deposited with some authority responsible for keeping them. Since Lisbon is a modification of the Treaty of Rome, it is the Italian government that fulfills this function for the treaties on European Union.
The judge has asked that the government respect the ongoing judicial process started by Stuart Wheeler. If the judges ultimately decides for the government then this will be just be a short delay, but it will be a show stopper if the court decides for Mr. Wheeler.
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH538.txt
Complain about this comment
I read that Mr Wheeler can put in for an appeal.
Complain about this comment
After the flurry to get the Queen to sign on the dotted line, you'd have thought they'd have slapped a stamp on the thing and sent it off straight away. But alas another Politician moves the goalpost mid-game.
However, would the Judges' ruling be legally binding (thus forcing the Government to backtrack) or merely an embarrassing slap in the face?
Complain about this comment
There's an interesting blog post from Mark Devenport on royal assent, seems the letter from the Queen has to be stamped at the Royal Courts of Justice before it's a law, so if it gets lost in the post then even though it's gained royal assent it's not a law. Not sure how that would work for a European law though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markdevenport/2008/04/royal_assent.html
Complain about this comment
But it is a big deal, Mark!
The Govt were ignoring the case for judicial review being brought by Stuart Wheeler and were, in effect, holding the court in contempt by rushing forward with ratification before the case had been decided.
I rather suspect that if the judge feels one party to a case is holding the court in contempt (ie the Govt), the case is likely to be decided against them.
If so, what will Gordon do then? Will he appeal the decision? But even if the Govt win, Stuart Wheeler has said he will appeal.
I therefore consider the intervention of the judge is a big deal and that it increases the likelihood of the Govt losing the case next week.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7465665.stm
BBC helping out with NuLabour spin?
If the writer had bothered to read the Labour manifesto promise it was for a referendum on a "contitutional treaty" - well Lisbon is certainly a treaty, and it is certainly 'constitutional' enough for the Irish to require a referendum.
I don't care whether the cabinet think is it 'good for the UK' or 'good for Europe' - that isn't what the promise was about.
I guess it is another reason that Blair had to go -- as he actually made the promise committing labour to a referendum even he would not have had the nerve to break it. Whereas I can't quite remember exactly where Mr 'McCavity' Brown was at the time... So he can pretend (humpty dumpty like) that the words mean somethig entirely different to him, than they do to everyone else.
Complain about this comment
I keep on wondering 'WHY' do they want to rush this through? What is the exact hidden agenda behind this?
Are they rushing to 'selling' the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to Brussels? Or are they being mellowed and manipulated by Sarkozy and his Euro-army idea?
I can definitely smell a rat with this whole issue... Shouldn't we question the legitimacy of this parliamentary process?
Complain about this comment
the-real-truth @#12
Thank you for posting for the link.
Seeing the streamed is far more interesting than reading about it but how disingenuous can the Prime Minister be.
To be truthful, he should have just said, "Ooops, forgot about the court case in my rush to get the Lisbon Treaty ratified and remain chums with the Franco-Germans. But, having realised this oversight, we wrote to the Judge to let him know about our faux pas. He has quite rightly given us a slap for our near-miss contempt of court. Fortunately for us, it takes a couple of weeks to get things done around here so the treaty won't, be signed sealed and delivered until after the judgement. Phew!".
But, no - Gordon Brown just had to obviscate didn't he. Brown is so awful he makes Tony Blair look to be one of the best Prime Ministers we have ever had!
Complain about this comment
To quote from the Labour Manifesto of 2005 (which, possibly unsurprisingly, cannot be found on their own website);
"...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."
This definitley refers to a "Treaty" and states that there will be a referendum. Where is GB's interpretation?
Complain about this comment
"but no big deal."
Hmmm, unless of course Wheeler appeals, which he is reportedly "very likely" to do (speaking on the BBC News channel).
That will take the process well beyond the July date for depositing the instruments of ratification that the government is touting.
You more than most should know that "No big deal" is ever the mantra of the FCO, especially over matters European. A strategy it has, in supporting the Lisbon Treaty, now pushed so far that the FCO itself will shortly be teetering on the brink of pointlessness.
You've climbed down too quickly and too completely here. I wouldn't take those calls from Whitehall nearly so seriously.
Complain about this comment
Re #15
Yes. 404 forever seems to be the Labour website motto.
Surprisingly, the Grauniad have come to the rescue. If you Google "Labour Manifesto 2005" you'll find a PDF of it it. Check the properties of the PDF and you'll see it was created in April 2005 and so is probably legit.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7465665.stm
He said the government's solicitors had been "very relaxed in casually telling the court yesterday afternoon (Thursday) that they intended to ratify without bothering to wait for the court judgement".
Contempt of court. They are criminally liable either way, surely...
Or are MPs and Cabinet members exempt from the law now?
This is an absolute sham of a mockery of sham.
If this is ruled in favour of the Government, then all sense of law and order in this country is percievably lost.
These are scarey times indeed.
The Government has effectively made the positioning staement: 'We are above the law.'
Is there no avenue to dissolve parliament?
Or is this an ellected dictatorship?
Complain about this comment
As far as the legal point is concerned the Foreign Office is right. The media may talk about ratification by parliament or referendum, but in reality those are just preceding procedures. The real ratification occurs when the British (or other) ambassador in Rome pops into the Italian foreign minister for tea and biscuits and hands over a piece of paper called the ratification instrument.
As far as delaying is concerned, I hardly imagine the judge was under a misapprehension about international law. He must have had some grounds to send the letter.
Treaties aren't like acts of parliament. It's the handing over of the ratification in Rome that really matters. It's only when it come into force internationally that counts. Only then can the treaty be enforced before national courts.
Mr Wheeler will lose. Ratifying treaties is a royal prerogative which is immune from judicial review.
Complain about this comment
Michael_Walsh wrote: ''Mr Wheeler will lose. Ratifying treaties is a royal prerogative which is immune from judicial review.''
If that is indeed the case, I take back my earlier statement:
'If this is ruled in favour of the Government, then all sense of law and order in this country is perceivably lost.'
...for it will be business as usual:
But unfortunately it could possibly mean the death of British democracy; which would be a shame.
It would be a shame also if those echoes of discontent: 'Referendum, referendum, referendum.... referendum...' peter out, only to be replaced by the sharp rise to a crescendo:
'revolution... revolution, revolution, revolution...'
With who knows what outcome...
Now I am no advocate for revolution; but I fear the idea of any integration, or indeed my preferred intergovernmental co-operation, may be drowned out by all the impending bloodshed.
It could be truly dreadful.
Complain about this comment
In post 19 Micchael_Walsh wrote "Mr Wheeler will lose. Ratifying treaties is a royal prerogative which is immune from judicial review".
If there was ANY truth in that statement, the court would not be considering Mr Wheeler's application for judicial review.
Complain about this comment
To #19, as I understand it, the court case (Judicial Review) is actually about the decision not to hold a referendum rather than whether or not the treaty should be ratified. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Michael_Walsh @ 19 wrote: "Mr Wheeler will lose. Ratifying treaties is a royal prerogative which is immune from judicial review."
It's the *signing* of treaties that is done by government under royal prerogative powers.
Ratification - typically only conducted when domestic legislation has to be amended as a result - is done by Parliament.
Mr Wheeler's case is not aimed at challenging ratification or the will of Parliament directly, or leave to seek judicial review would not have been granted in the first place.
His case is aimed at holding the government to its referendum promise, on the grounds of 'legitimate expectation'. Basically, we were repeatedly promised a referendum by government figures, and we are therefore entitled to expect one.
If he loses, he has said he is "very likely" to appeal. Which means the block on our finally completing ratification will continue probably for months.
Complain about this comment
How amusing. According to the EU rules, Ireland's rejection should have sealed the fate of the treaty as being as dead as a doornail but the UK government can hardly wait to ratify this supposedly now meaningless document, so much so as to risk contempt of court to do it. What does it know the public doesn't? Is it already aware of some secret subterfuge to bring this corpse back to life?
Complain about this comment
As a "no" voter in last week's Irish referendum, I would welcome any additional obstacles that may may be placed in the way of the Lisbon Treaty and I am hopeful that the Czech constitutional court may force a referendum in that country.
However, I would be astonished if Mr Wheeler were to be successful in his case because all persons of normal intelligence understand perfectly well that election manifestos are works of fiction. If election promises were ever to be made legally enforceable, successful politicians would have to spend their terms of office in the courts fighting actions for breach of contract taken by disappointed voters.
Complain about this comment
Talk about doubletalk. It will not be delayed, it just has to wait for the court to rule. I know the English language has died in some parts of the UK but can such an irrational self contradictory statement by the government be allowed to just skate by? Has all logic been lost too?
Complain about this comment
@frenchlily 913)
I also wonder, what is the rush? Why are national politicians changing their national constitutions as if its the most normal thing in the world? A mere word from their political masters in Brussels can get them to change constitutions. Totally unacceptable. It truly is like the Soviet Union where the 'parliaments' (if you can call them that) of the constituent republics also approved whatever came from Moscow, without ever questioning it.
@therealtruth (12)
according to the European court of Justice ALL EU treaties are constitutional by default. The ECJ considers the EU to be a government (and it is, the EU is an embryonic supreme government of Europe).
Complain about this comment
-StuartC- @ 23 said:
"It's the *signing* of treaties that is done by government under royal prerogative powers."
In Blackburn v. Attorney-General, the judges talked about the "treaty making power" of the crown. It would seem to me that is includes negotiating, signing and ratifying treaties. Otherwise the prerogative power would be rather hollow.
Parliament can't "ratify" treaties. They can only incorporate them into domestic law with a view to ratification being carried out by the government. Which in this case would be done by the British ambassador in Rome.
(You can read Blackburn here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1971/7.html)
Complain about this comment
Even if Mr Wheeler won the case and a referendum had to take place, because Gordon Brown possibly made a promise that he needs to keep, the question still is - would the result of the referendum be binding concerning the ratification?
The referendum is not a necessary national step towards ratification in the UK, and the EU-treaties say that what's necessary for the national ratification process is what the constitution of the member states say. No politician can put himself above the law, the constitution by making promises.
Complain about this comment
29. At 12:30pm on 22 Jun 2008, www_law-europe_eu wrote: "No politician can put himself above the law, the constitution by making promises."
I guess it all comes down to whether Gordon Brown will respect a hypothetical ruling for referendum, or ignore the verdict and our high courts to send the treaty to Rome despite it.
If he did this; where would he stand in terms of the law of the land?
If he did this hypothetical and unprecedented act; would our law still stand to oppose? And where would we stand with the EU?
These questions could be all too important if the situation arises.
Government solicitors who apparently "very relaxed in casually telling the court... that they intended to ratify without bothering to wait for the court judgement". may push this further and either ignore the hypothetical referendum, or ignore its result...
We appear (all of a sudden) to live in very volatile times.
Complain about this comment
www_law-europe_eu
What do you mean Gordon Brown has to keep his political campaign promises? He's a politician isn't he? Now what kind of politician would he be if he didn't lie through his teeth? When did you ever hear of a politician who told the truth? We know why there is no referendum. Because all three parties know that the voters in the UK would vote no. That is what they are scared to death of...the will of the people. That's why they called the red lines opt outs when they were in fact merely five year delays. What do you think the UK is, a democracy? Fageddaboudit. They don't like it? Let 'em eat cake.
Complain about this comment
@ MarcusAureliusII
I did not say Gordon Brown had to keep his political campaign promises. I said in other words: promises, which contradict the constitution, are worthless, because he cannot put himself above the law.
If he had promised to abolish Monarchy, UK-citizens would have been about as naive to believe he can make that decision on his own. The parliament has voted on a possible referendum, and the parliament said no. That was the moment when his promises flew out of the window.
Complain about this comment
www_law-europe_eu
Ha, the joke of the day, law in Europe. Europe has nothing but laws. Countless laws. Arcane laws. The product of lots and lots of words, talk, hot air. Since when do those laws mean anything? Since when are European laws enforced except when it is politically convenient. It was the law that when French voters rejected the EU Constitution it was dead. But Lisbon was a way to circumvent the law. Now Ireland has rejected Lisbon and under the law it is dead. But immediately the EU again is working to circumvent the law. The law was sold as a bill of goods to get the EU started and then discarded as a pack of false promises to reassure all the populations in the signatory nations they would not have anything imposed on them they didn't all agree to. Well now that inconvenient provision is to be discarded. In fact wasn't that one of the provisions of Lisbon.
The Growth and Stability Pact in Maastrict was the law. Who violated it? France and Germany, the same nations who insisted on it. By law they should have paid billions of Euros in fines but they didn't pay one cent. All they did was pay off the EU court which ruled that it was obsolete and therefore they were given a free pass. It's the same with the ICC. Just corrupt politics as usual.
Complain about this comment
@ MarcusAureliusII
I'm not sure how you got from A to Z now. We were discussing a whole different topic here. But thanx for your opinion on a whole different issue anyway.
I'd like to go back to Wheeler, because that case actually is interesting. Any more opinions on that?
Complain about this comment
''...promises, which contradict the constitution, are worthless, because he cannot put himself above the law.''
That remains to be seen... the judiciary have cowed down to governmental prejudice before... but this time the government solicitors are technically in contempt of court; and parliament have tried to pass legislation which effectively blurs the line between Judiciary and state (ie voting on individual cases under anti-terror legislation... as aposed to blanket law)
Strange tactics; and a true test to the robustness of law in the UK.
If they do not make a stand now, those who rubber stamp EU law (for that is their largest role, other than removing safeguards to freedom) will have never to listen to the high court again.
Truly, we live in volatile times indeed.
Complain about this comment
www_law-europe_eu
I think you missed my point entirely. One way or another those in collusion running the EU including the leaders of the major parties in the UK will do whatever they want to do no matter what the law says. That's the point I was trying to make. One reason to have a library full of arcane laws that nobody can understand is that whatever you want to do, there is a law somwhere which justifies it. Then no matter what other law the opposition finds, a court will rule in favor of the government through its interpretation. Why is this so? Because the judges were appointed by and are the friends of the very same people in the government being judged. The bottom line is that in Europe, governments do not trust the popular will. Proof? Only one referendum out of 26 nations on an issue of fundamental importance to the way all of them are governed. This is not democracy, it's the same it's always been, elitist dictatorships and they are doomed to fail together or separately. They're on the road to hell as we speak.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote: ''This is not democracy, it's the same it's always been, elitist dictatorships and they are doomed to fail together or separately. They're on the road to hell as we speak.''
A poignant point indeed.
We are being told to learn lessons of our past by bringing back the very ideas that brought us the dark-ages...
Open your eyes to who gains.
Open your eyes to who loses.
Above all: choose love.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS