So, Stuart Wheeler has lost his battle in the High Court to prevent the ratification of the <s>constitutional</s> Lisbon treaty without a referendum.

Jonathan Sumption QC, appearing for the government, had argued that the case was "politics dressed up as law," while an important part of the government’s case was that the Lisbon treaty is different from the previously-proposed European Constitution on which Tony Blair had promised a popular vote.

View full article here

As I've said on the Hiatus comments, the UK's and anyone else's ratification can be challenged, due to the Irish No, as the treaty no longer exists. It had to be passed unanimously, or it died, so it is now dead, there is nothing left to pass or discuss.

That is something for the Courts to rule on, as as of now the EU via our Government is trying to bring into law, something that no longer exists, thanks to the Treaties own conditions. If they Government are allowed to get away with doing that, then they can retrospectively change this and any other law/rule as they see fit, without bothering to go through any due process......They can just make up the Laws/rules as they go along, which is precisely what they are trying to do here.

Not even Mugabe has gone that far...yet.

Yes, what a surprise. Essentially, their Lordships agreed with the Govt's line that the two treaties were substantially different so at this point the case had already failed. It's a shame Lord Justice Richards was more exercised about the Govt's arrogant assumption that they were free to ratify the Lisbon Treaty before the court ruled on this case rather than the deliberate and cynical semantic prestidigitation used to justify the denial of our legitimate expectation of a referendum on the treaty.

-- Iain

I did suggest in my post that this is a reflection of the nature of a judicial review. It is a very imperfect instrument for challenging the government and the odds are stacked against you. The problem, really, is that we do not have a constitutional court, and the judicial review process is a very poor substitute.

It is manifestly arrant nonsense to claim that the Treaty is dead just because it isn't ratified. There are dozens of such Treaties, including UN ones and arms-control treaties that we have signed but which take years to ratify because states decide not to at any point. That does not mean they suddenly disappear.

You all seem to forget that this was an international treaty between states, not some EU green paper - or indeed a referendum question for the EU as a whole.

The treaty requires unaminous ratification by all 27 member states before it can come into force. The Irish people have instructed their government not to ratify it.

It's not that ratification is now awaiting from Ireland but has merely been temporarily delayed, as your examples might imply. In this case ratification has actually been rejected. The requirement for unanimity cannot therefore now be met. So the treaty cannot come into force.

Under those circumstances, dead seems to be an accurate summary of its status.

But if it isn't dead yet in your view, what do you think would actually be required to kill it?

Can it be killed at all?

It seems that the judges never even bothered looking into whether the Lisbon Treaty differs in any way from the EU Constitution,and so have not even got past "Go" on this.They have effectively washed their hands of making any decision on the similarity(or not) of the Treaties,it appears it is not their intention or ability to question any decision made by the Government as they deem Parliamentary scrutiny sufficient(LORD help us).

You are right that it would be pointless to persue this further as any future judge is likely to conclude the same,which judge would want to get involved with a political row with the Government.Shame.

So judges must step aside and allow the government tol do what it likes, no matter how illegal.
Funnily enough the last time the Judiciary upheld the Right of the Executive to do what the Hell it liked, the People ripped down the Rule of Law and set in its place our current Monarchy and Constitutional structure.
The Judiciary lie and call it Law, who do they think they are fooling?

Tks John.

However i see no point in askeing these beleivers how it can be killed, as it's already dead......This is exactly what they want to happen, they want a discusion, because then it is accepted that the thing is alive.

Sandy.

The Judges haven't been asked yet if the Governments actions are illegal based on the Irish vote, they now can be asked, as the Treaty as written cannot become Law, as a central tennant has failed, thus voiding the thing. If the Judiciary uphold the Governments actions, then all present and future law becomes worthless, if it can be changed at anytime, without due process.

Most people who read this blog would agree with the statement that the government handing over governmental power to anyone else and especially anyone not British should be illegal. The government in the absence of legal boundaries can do what it likes so our solution is political. In my perfect little world I believe we should have the ability to strike down any government legislation after the appropriate petition triggers a referendum. But the people of this country have no interest in constitutional matters and hence we now live in a polity called "Europe". Even if we did have such a mechanism, the electorate is bone idle. The funny thing is, one day some of our political class will turn against the EU and then if necessary they will need our help to save us from armed aggression maybe from the Euro Gendarmarie. I'm afraid I would be very unwilling for my sons to fight and die to regain our nation and freedom when I have been against what is happening and others don't give a sh*t. When the sons of the entire political class and the sons of all the apaths are dead might I consider letting mine go to war.

The Legal boundaries are in place on the government, unfortunately the Judiciary lack the back-bone to apply them.
If anyone does feel like standing up for the Judiciary I have some fairly serious questions for them.

We have no constitutional court and no constitution that any government cannot amend at its whim. We have no constitutional safeguards.

Please explain to a confused, simple man why "politics dressed up as law" justifies depriving the British People their promised referendum yet similar scruples do not apparently apply when the judiciary wishes to keep up our terrorist population by stopping the deportation of Bin Laden's number two?

Once again The Establishment displays utter contempt for the ordinary people of the UK.

One would have thought that there would be some separation of Judiciary & Executive in this case but I'm permanently afflicted with wishful thinking. So here's a little more: Some petard hoisting mayhap...Mr. Wheelers next move might well be to the ECJ...(don't all jump on me at once!)...as Richard says: You never know.

Sigh ... because the referendum is a political commitment, and therefore outside the writ of law. The deportation issue, on the other hand, is a matter of interpreting the law - which, in this wonderful system of ours, is what judges do.

Thus, please do turn down the rhetoric. Judicial review is a mechanism for challenging the processes by which government and government bodies make decisions, and their legality. Unelected judges in this country do not hold our elected representatives to account for the quality of their decisions.