Europe's path forward now lies with Britain's House of Lords

I have been reading the EU Reform Treaty Impact Assessment published by the House of Lords which may be browsed from this link. The report makes clear that Britain's senior legislative chamber is not about to lightly cast aside its centuries old responsibilities for the sound governance of our nation. (Unlike the House of Commons, one is inevitably unable to resist adding right here!). Yesterday on the Radio 4 Today programme, Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Conservative Party in the Lords, made clear that the House of Lords would take its responsibilities very seriously and the reverse impact of the so-called Salisbury considerations on manifesto commitments would be a factor on the referendum question. Constitutional experts and researchers are already preparing arguments on the critical question of whether or not their Lordships might perhaps be even bound by precedent to enforce the manifesto promise of a referendum by the three main political parties elected to the House of Commons at the last election. I will post what I may of these arguments on this blog when they become available. Critical to the vote of individual peers on a referendum amendment will surely be their own view, if no common agreed position is achievable, on whether or not the Lisbon Treaty is effectively the same beast as the Constitutional Treaty earlier rejected by the voters in both France and Holland. Obstruction by the EU itself makes arriving at that decision much harder as an official consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty is being withheld until after ratification. Read the excellent opinion in English of Finnish Lawyer Ralf Grahn on this situation from here. English Consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty do exist, I heard Europe Minister Jim Murphy refer to such in the Commons during the Treaty debates although I cannot find the Hansard reference. They are, however, not official and I believe their Lordships as a first step, before the second reading begins on 1st April, should demand an official EU approved consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty which can publicly be laid alongside the former Constitution Treaty so that the clear distortion they are not very, very, very, very, substantially the same document can be nailed once and for all. In the interim we at least have the side by side comparison of the two treaties by Open Europe, linked here. Are there other considerations which could guide these noble Lords and Ladies in arriving at a decision on the thorny issue of a British referendum. I believe there are several which I list in order of their importance as I consider them: 1. The possible illegality of the "non-negotiated" mandate of the June 2008 Council replacing if not effectively binding the legally required IGC. {I put this item at the head of my list as in my view it should be an equal concern across the entire EU and thus clearly understandable to other nation's electorates whom themselves feel a sense of betrayal over this Treaty but lack all of Britain's particular concerns}. (Briefly why I believe this is a major problem - the EU leaders met under the EU Treaties which require amending treaties be drawn up by an IGC. The mandate overruled this which is possible as has been proved by 27 separate Heads of Government forcing it through, BUT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE when meeting within the structures of the EU and most decidedly not within the spirit of the EU as it has PREVIOUSLY been sold to the EU electorates. The end result we are told is a mandate agreed within 48 hours and negotiated at a chance meeting of 27 leaders!) 2. The lies by Foreign Office Ministers to the European Scrutiny Committee both ahead of and following the imposition of the mandate. 3. The transfer of Prime Ministerial and Foreign Secretarial responsibilities during the period in question depriving the Lower House of holding those responsible to Parliamentary account and proper scrutiny. I blogged on this danger throughout June 2007, especially before the meeting where Merkel's mandate was issued by decree, read "Strictly limited scope for an IGC" 1st June, "Queen must dissolve Parliament immediately" 2nd June, and by the end of that month "Blair's secret EU side deal" 30th June, from which I quote the penultimate paragraph as worth full consideration by the House of Lords before deciding whether the British people deserve a say on this crucial treaty: But one of the 27 is no longer national leader (nor shamefully even a member of the parliamentary chamber he has so disgracefully sold out). Although I argued long and hard on this blog for Brown to represent Britain at the 21 - 23rd June European Council, so that the negotiator could answer to Parliament - the fact that he did not, could as the Portuguese seem about to realise - provide Britain with the way out. 4. The present public perception of both the members of the House of Commons and the European Parliament and their near contempt for the institutions of the EU. 5. The present world economic turmoil. My view is presently drifting towards a solution where more than one referendum question be posed, not on withdrawal as opted for by the Lib/Dems, but perhaps an option for Britain to reject Lisbon but authorise pursuit of a democratic model possibly along the lines of the multi-lingual Swiss Confederation model but with Common Law legislation only available to the EU's replacement in the sphere of the Single Market, all other competences being returned to the Sovereign States, only on such a basis can Britain really justify continuing involvement given the now blinding contradictions with our own forms of governance and society perhaps leading to open dissent.