The only snag with that argument is that we end up advocating a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU, which no one outside the political fringes is calling for.

Meanwhile, returning to the real world, we’re going to vote against a referendum on a treaty which – in practical terms – will apparently have much the same effect as one which our manifesto of 2005 said “must be subject to a referendum of the British people”.

Certainly there’s nothing forcing us to be consistent with our manifesto commitment of only a couple of years ago. But on the other hand, aren’t we supposed to be in a new era of openness and honesty now, not in yet another one of sophistry and cynicism?

Chris Phillips

“If any Government propose to agree to a major shift in control or any transfer of significant powers from member states to European institutions, or to agree to any alteration in the existing balance between member states and those institutions, there should be a referendum of the British people.”

Menzies Campbell, 2003, explaining the criteria the Liberal Democrats apply when deciding whether a referendum is justified.

And when the legal changes which would have been introduced by the Constitutional Treaty were examined, they were deemed to meet those criteria; but now that virtually the same changes would be brought about by the Lisbon Treaty, albeit by an alternative mechanism, they are deemed not to meet those criteria.

I’m afraid it just doesn’t wash.

Arguing over whether the Lib Dems did or did not break a manifesto commitment is irrelevant on at least two grounds. The first, narrow, point is that the Constitutional Treaty does not exist any more. We can argue about whether supporting an in/out referendum or the Reform Treaty referendum is closest to honouring that until we’re blue in the face (several of you appear to be already) but the fact is that Treaty is not what is being debated.

Secondly, opposition parties are not bound by manifesto commitments. This fact ought to be obvious: the Lib Dems do not have the same manifesto as the one used in 1931 for instance. The Lib Dems have already ditched lots of manifesto commitments such as support for the 50p income tax rate for example. The Conservatives completely disowned theirs. So banging on about “you promised” is not only babyish but irrelevant.

The only pertinent issue is not whether the Lib Dems are honour bound to support a referendum but whether they should. You all seem obsessed with the former issue and utterly disinterested in the latter.

Give it up and get over yourselves.

And what will Lib Dems say when Nick Clegg tries to break it to them that he will not turn down any nuclear plants / heathrow extension which Labour approve during their term of office ??

You wait till he starts talking about the value of private health insurance…

If you have the stomach please go back all the way to my 6 above.

1. It never was a constitution asnd should not have been so designated.

2. The Lib Dems made a mistake in offering a referendum in our representative democracy. Why Oh why can political parties hardly ever say – “We’ve thought about it and we’ve changed our mind!”

If your argument is that the practical effects of ratifying the treaty are _not_ comparable with those of adopting the constitution, then that’s another matter.

But it seems to me that that isn’t the argument that’s being made. I’ve seen very little discussion on this thread about the _practical_ differences between the two.

And if that’s the argument, then the issue of an “in or out” referendum is irrelevant. Even if, for reasons I don’t understand, some people in the party want another “in or out” referendum 30 years on – even though no one else apart from those on the fringes is calling for one – then it’s an entirely separate issue.

Chris Phillips

No that’s not true. The Lisbon Treaty is not a constitution and therefore does not have a “practical effect” which is similar to a constitution. It just makes a few changes.

No. We did not propose an “in or out” vote in 2005, and there is absolutely no reason why we “have to have” one now.

The vote we promised in 2005 was on whether to adopt the proposed constitution, or to leave things are they were.

If the practical effect of the Lisbon Treaty is similar to that of the proposed constitution, as most commentators seem to think, then the equivalent referendum would be on whether we should ratify that treaty, or leave things as they are.

And you know as well as everyone else that there simply is not going to be an “in or out” referendum. It is not on offer. The choice we have to make is whether we support a referendum on whether to ratify the treaty. Our current policy is just a diversionary tactic.

Chris Phillips

84. I don’t think the French comparison is relevant because the document they rejected was then withdrawn.

Thanks for explaining that.

There’s a huge difference between a referendum in which a “No” vote would result in us leaving the EU, and a vote on whether to ratify a (new) constitution for the EU, which is what was in the manifesto.

Obviously we are proposing something very different from what we proposed in 2005. I think it’s clearly just a manoeuvre to avoid the issue of whether there should be a referendum on the Treaty.

Chris Phillips

The French had “a referendum on the constitution”.

Their “no” meant that the Constitutional Treaty couldn’t come into force, but it didn’t affect the treaties which were already in force – the present treaties, as amended up to and including the amendments agreed at Nice.

The EU has carried on under those treaties, and France has continued to be a member state of the EU, because their referendum was only on the new treaty, NOT on the existing treaties, and therefore not on EU membership.

If those drafting the 2005 Liberal Democrat manifesto had intended to pledge support for an “in or out” referendum, then no doubt they would have had sufficient command of English to say so.

The Reform Treaty is not a constitution so we have not broken any promise.

“A referendum on the Lisbon Treaty” would also be a referendum on whether to move from the present legal position, that laid down in the present treaties, to a new legal position, that laid down in the Constitutional Treaty.

Bar a few minor differences, which could easily be adjusted afterwards, the legal changes are the same.

Previously the Liberal Democrats said that those legal changes were big enough to merit a referendum, and promised support for a referendum in their 2005 election manifesto – which, NB, was the manifesto on which Nick Clegg was elected, like all the other Liberal Democrat MPs.

Now having been elected on that manifesto Nick Clegg, and most of the other Liberal Democrat MPs, claim that almost exactly the same legal changes do not merit a referendum.

It sounds as though we more or less agree with the best sort of EU, but I strongly disagree with you about the best way of achieving this. The current momentum in the EU is very much in the opposite direction – towards greater central decision making – and ratifying the treaty is going to establish this process rather than increase the possibility of changing it. If we want a different EU, the time to debate is while there is some leverage, and that means now.