Did the pro-referendum camp have any legally devastating counters in the case of the draft constitution? If not, why should they need one now? If Labour didn’t promise a referendum on the draft constitution because of any legal arguments – and if the law mandated a referendum, what’s the point in promising one? – why should the differences between the treaties now be assessed in legal terms as opposed to “real” ones?

My point is that merely saying “it’s pretty much the same in real terms” won’t cut it in the argument stakes – anyone in favour of a referendum needs to demonstrate why the changes that have been made don’t alter the fundamental nature of the treaty. Because the response from the government will most likely be: “You had a referendum on EU entry back in the 70s, and the old constitution was completely replacing the treaties that referendum was confirming – this new treaty doesn’t replace them, merely amend them a bit, so there’s no need for a referendum”.

As I say, it’s not my argument – but it will be theirs. The pro-referendum camp need to work out a more legally devastating counter – and for that, the wording is important.

Ari – I’m pretty certain that being able to make the argument is enough. Currently the only reason anyone’s being listened to when they demand a referendum is because of Blair’s promise – if a referendum happened, they’d have a lot more than that to go on, and with the precedent set, it’d be a lot harder to deny the case. The British constitution could well end up fundamentally altered (parliamentary sovereignty being weakened via direct democracy) – arguably even more so than this new treaty is likely to do.

Richard – certainly it seems to have been the case that the EU hasn’t been much of an issue in UK politics in recent years – but how much that’s down to Blair’s referendum pledge and how much to a combination of the Tories’ increasing desire to avoid the issue altogether and the infighting within the more focussed anti-EU parties it’s impossible to say. I have a vague feeling that the EU wouldn’t have been a big issue in the last 5-6 years anyway – Iraq, terrorism, the NHS and education reform have all been far more pressing concerns for most people.

Antipholus – The fifth paragraph (the same one as that from which you take that quote) fairly clearly says that, yes, there are many similarities. If I’m thinking about the same Merkel memo as you, that was from a week and a half ago and all part of the public diplomacy, before the final agreement was made – hence me ignoring it.

Plus, in any case, her opinion doesn’t matter – the final text does. Compare the major changes the old constitution text was planning on making with the major changes of this new treaty, and yes there are indeed many similarities. But that doesn’t mean that they’re the same, nor that this is a constitution. Which was sort of the point of the post – just saying “this is a constitution” doesn’t make it the case in the same way that just saying “this isn’t a constitution” doesn’t make that the case.

That may all sound like semantics, but this is international law – semantics are somewhat important.

That statement is an oxymoron. Why have you not mentioned the widely reported memo in which Angela Merkel said quite clearly that it was pretty much the constitution in all but name? It is an absolute insult to the French and Dutch electorate and makes a mockery of any claim to being a democratic body.

Including the pledge in their manifesto took the subject of the EU off the agenda in the last election. Without that pledge, the tories would have been able to argue, as Labour had in 1974, that a vote for them was a vote for a referendum. No one can say what that difference that would have made.

Nosemonkey on the new EU treaty, the importance of terminology, and the case for a referendum; Our dear Eurosceptic friends have long been preparing themselves to make the argument “if it looks like a constitution, sounds like a constitution, the…

Can anyone answer the latter question? It seems logical to me that as long as a referendum isn’t held because the law says so, holding one wouldn’t create an obligation to hold any referendums in the future. It would surely be cited as a precedent, but in political debates, not in a court of law. (Then again, I don’t know much of anything about British law.)