The Foreign Affairs Select Committee says there are no material differences between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty.

The funny thing is that whether you believe the tory line that "the treaty is 95% identical to the Constitution" or the Labour line that "it's an ammending treaty" nether line is actually untrue as far as I can see. The reform treaty essentially takes the previous treaties, strips them down and replaces their words with those of the Constitution, with some of the chapter numbers changed. So as far as I can see it's a sort of encrypted, hard to follow version of the constitution.

 Constitution or treaty? Umm... Both!

Ultimately, whether it is a constitution or not is irrelevant. It is self-amending by majority vote, so even if it isn't a constitution now, it will be once it is ratified and a majority decide to change it - which many have already said they intend to do.

I find it all rather unnerving.  

I find the continuing spat over whether the agreement is still a Constitution or an amenting Treaty quite superfluous. The usual politicians' response, whether about the lack of a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty (since when did we want to emulate Major's leadership?) or the specifics powers and provisions containted within the document, hit wide of the mark.

Europe is as close as Britain comes to adopting the American culture war - I imagine most people are either instinctively supportive or wary of Europe, and their reactions to actual changes are informed by this.

Regardless of the Treaty's actual status, many people in this country believe that anything popularly perceived as an encroachment on parliamentary democracy or national sovereignty should be subject to a referendum. There is no arguing this attitude exists. Moreover, many people who felt this way and voted for the Labour Party in 2005 probably thought that a Labour Government would deliver a referendum on such a change, regardless of what the document was called or its finer details.

That the Labour Party isn't going to do this, and that some people feel betrayed on this, is terribly unfortunate. I think the technical nature of the debate and the Government's justification of its decision, both of which ignore wider issues of democracy and effectively exclude the public of participation in our European policy, are also unfortunate.

Saying this as a pro-European, I believe that, if Gordon Brown believed Labour could win a referendum on the new treaty, he would probably hold one. What this says about the Government's assumption of a wider, legal and moral justification for not doing so, I wouldn't like to say.

Whatever one's views on the European Union, I think most people can argee that "business as usual", where Britain's relationship with our European partners is treated as a political football for the self-interest of the major parties, with little direct involvement by the British people, is something that needs to change if we are to build the social Europe which would justify further integration.

I've been having fun with this - when Tories say "I think we should have a referendum on the Treaty" I ask three questions:

(1) If we have a referendum would you vote against the Treaty?

To which the answer is invariably "yes, I oppose the treaty"

(2) Would you still vote against it if it meant we had to leave the EU altogether? 

To which their eyes light up and they say "yes, we should leave the EU"

and

(3) Which clauses in the Treaty do you particularly object to?

Where they become very vague and either say "all of it" or admit that they haven't actually read it.

So for any Tories (or I Want A Referendum traitors out there), here is a summary of what was in the Constitution and the main points of the Treaty:

Overview

The Lisbon Treaty is a tidying up of existing EU structures. It does not, in itself, confer any additional powers to the EU. The UK has negotiated several important opt-outs. It is in the UK's national interest to have the treaty ratified IF we want to stay in the EU. I would argue it is massively in our national interest to remain members of the EU. We can opt out of the Treaty - or specific parts of it - without leaving the EU.

The proposed Constitution took the EU to another level, albeit a small step beyond where we are today, by attempting to create a permanent guiding structure for the organisation with some of the paraphenelia of a state. You can't opt out of a constitution, it's the rules of membership of a club.

Here are the main differences, simplified: 

(a) The Constitution talked about an official EU flag, an EU anthem and EU motto. All these have been dropped.

(b) The Constitution talked about EU laws instead of Regulations and Directives. This idea has been dropped. 

(c) The Constitution merged the two main EU Treaties (Treaty on European Union and Treaty Establishing a European Community) as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights, elevating them all to a fundamental legal status. The Treaty on the other hand amends them all but keeps them separate (and amendable).

(d) in particular the Treaty was amended following pressure from the UK to make sure that the Charter does not have a higher status than national laws. 

(e) The Constitution envisaged a "High Representative" to act as Foreign Minister for the EU. The Treaty changed this to make them responsible only for the external relations of the Union itself, not to act on behalf of Member States. The UK pushed for this change.

(f) Both the Constitution and the Treaty gave more power to the EU Parliament - making the EU more democratically accountable. However the Treaty goes further by giving NATIONAL parliaments a greater role in the implementation and preparation of EU decisions. The Dutch insisted on this one.

(g) The Consitution envisaged the EU having a much greater role in security and defence policies and in justice, police and freedom policies. The UK objected and in the Treaty got an opt out from the security and defence changes and retained a veto on justice and police policies.

In both the Constitution and the Treaty, the only areas the EU has real power over are: customs, economic policy for the Euro area (does not apply to the UK), competition rules for the internal market, common fisheries policy and international trade negotiations. Everything else is the responsibility of national governments with the EU playing a secondary or joint role.

What the anti-Treaty people won't tell you is the following:

(a) The Treaty gives more powers to the European Parliament and to National Parliaments and takes them away from unelected officials.

(b) The Treaty stops the important business of Europe to promote trade etc being hijacked by small countries and Eastern European new member countries. We don't want our proposals being blocked by Poland.

(c) The Treaty makes it harder for new members to join the EU and gives them a lot more hoops to jump through

(d) For the first time the Treaty enshrines our right to leave the EU and how that would happen.

(e) The proposed "President of the Council" gives someone the job of banging heads together to get stuff done at EU Council of Ministers level - it's not the "President of Europe" job that has been touted in the papers but more like Secretary General of the Commonwealth. 

Here are the lines I use against the Tories:

You can't trust the Tories on Europe - they are split on it down the middle.

The Tories talk tough on Europe but when in power they blindly and incompetently sign Britain up without a vote.

All the main changes to Britain's relationship with the EU have been pushed through by the Tories while Labour - although in favour of the EU in principle - has been much more cautious and has given people a say.

Edward Heath joined the Common Market (European Economic Community) in 1973 without a referendum.

Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act in 1986 without a referendum.

Thatcher and Major took us into the disastrous Exchange Rate Mechanism - intended to be the first step in the UK joining the Euro - in 1990. 

John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty ( a far more fundamental Treaty than Lisbon) in 1992 without a referendum. 

Incidentally the Tory policy on the Euro was "wait and see", ie: we'll join when we can get away with it.

By contrast, Labour offers people a voice:

In 1975 we had the only referendum we have ever had on the EU - thanks to Labour's Harold Wilson 

In 1997  Labour promised there would be no joining the Euro without the "triple lock" of meeting all the economic criteria, a vote in parliament and a referendum. The economic criteria have never been met and so we haven't even thought about taking it further. Our policy is clear - we won't join unless it's in Britain's interests and even then not without a referendum first.

Labour's 2005 election promise was also clear. We won't sign up to any fundamental changes in our relationship with the EU without a referendum. So we would have had one on the Constitution if the French hadn't rejected it first. The Treaty isn't a fundamental change in this country's relationship with the EU, it's an internal change in how the EU itself works.

Finally, this Government has actually been criticised for having too many referenda ! Since 1997 we have held 5 -  on a Scottish Parliament, on a Welsh Assembly, on a London Mayor, on the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland and on Regional Government for the North East. The last one voted "no" which despite a lot of support for the idea within Government killed off the devolution proposals across England.

So don't tell me we are anti-referendum.