David Cameron has just made a speech in which he signified a massive U-turn on his ‘cast iron’ referendum scheme for the Lisbon Treaty, by abandoning the referendum itself (a breathtaking demonstration of hypocrisy in action), and instead rashly promising a ‘referendum lock’ on further treaties (i.e. passing a law which would demand a referendum on any new treaties passed). I’ve noticed that giveusareferendum.com has gone for a Burton.

The stupid poster is still up though, and a lovely video ion the right hand side!

This policy is completely without substance for a number of reasons,  the Tory right would be completely justified in being outraged. The measures Cameron is proposing will be completely tokenistic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it is highly unlikely that there will be another such treaty during any Cameron government (though, touch wood he, will hopefully never lead one). The Conservatives say Europe is inefficient, but the minute someone passes a treaty to simplify it, they give it a kicking. They don’t really want it to succeed at all. EU leaders have in any event learned their lesson.

Secondly, as a journalist rightly pointed out in the press conference, the act could easily be repealed by another. I would be quite happy to make this Labour policy. Treaties are normally negotiated by Governments. I believe that sometimes there can be a case for referenda, but this is for elected governments to decide. For that reason I and many other in Labour would be happy to campaign on a manifesto pledge to overturn the act. I don’t believe that doing so would be an obstacle. How could Europhobes justify standing against the will of the people through our traditional institutions (i.e. parliament) in such a circumstance? This attitude is most likely also very common amongst Liberal Democrats.

Thirdly, David Cameron appears never to take any legal advice on, er, laws. His puffed up ‘British Bill of Rights’ would not in any way remove any law already passed because it represents an incorporation of the ECHR (to which we are signatories) into UK law, and this is the basis on which the case law is made. The law would remain, it would just be more expensive both for claimants (many of whom have suffered intolerable abuses) and the taxpayer (all of whom will face intolerable abuse as a result).

Similarly, passing a treaty in the normal way would completely override Cameron’s non-existant lock, where he ever to win an election (no mean feat) and actually get it through (which may be even more difficult depending on how things go). has he not heard of the thoroughly necessary doctrine of  implied repeal? Remember that Thoburn v Sunderland City Council will not apply; a ratification of further treaties would surely be constitutional, and therefore not subservient to Cameron’s lock, even if the statue in question specifically specifies it (no Parliament can bind its successor).

What a truly horrendous cock up.