Crikey - if ever you needed proof that the Lisbon Treaty is still a hot topic, you need look no further than the storm of comments attracted by my Centre Right post on that very subject yesterday.
Some of the commenters questioned whether the changes set to be made to the Lisbon Treaty really would need to be re-ratified by Parliament, citing the Treaty's self-amending "passerelle" clause. Without going into too much legalese and constitutional hokum, these queries deserve an answer.
Mark Wallace has written a more detailed response over at the TPA site, and here is the crucial section:
First, it appears that this section of the Treaty is simply not subject to passerelle.
Second, even if it was, passerelle requires the unanimous agreement of every member state - and every state has the right to demand an InterGovernmental Conference and ratification instead. Britain would have a veto, and it would be in total conflict with David Cameron's new EU policy for a Cameron Government not to use it.
Third, even if this area was subject to passerelle, and even if the British Government failed to use the veto and demand an IGC, Spain has already demanded one. Furthermore, the European Parliament looks set to vote in Spain's support on Thursday, and the European Commission is in agreement too.
Beyond those technical, Brussels-derived arguments, there is also a compelling bit of evidence from an unlikely source here in Britain.
I spoke last night to Bruno Waterfield, the Brussels Correspondent for the Telegraph. He confirmed to me that he had checked the story with no less an authority than the Foreign Office, who had confirmed the need for Parliamentary approval of the new Treaty.
It's certainly controversial, and goodness knows the EU and its acolytes have slipped out of what would otherwise be described as "the rules" plenty times before, but it sill seems fairly likely that this is a runner.
