« Jeremy Hunt seeks charitable revolution to power Britain's creative industries | Main | Greg Barker sets out proposals for educating children about climate change »


Knowing that the EU elite are now showing their true colours over the whole EU "project" could it be inconceivable that someone got off the Eurostar at Waterloo and offerd the judge an envelope full of large denomination Euro notes??

All hopes now lie with the German High Court and the Czech President.

Regardless of one's views on the Constitution/Treaty, Wheeler's attempt was to frustrate the will of Parliament, so I am glad it failed. Stuart Wheeler's money would have been better spent on funding Conservative candidates in marginal seats who share his views on Europe.

I agree with Justin - given that Parliament had already voted on this issue, it is hard to see how the courts could have overturned it.

Regardless of one's views on the Constitution/Treaty, Wheeler's attempt was to assist the will of the People of Britain, so I am sad it failed. Stuart Wheeler's money would have been better spent if Brown/Bliar had an ounce of moral integrity between them.

Do we have a written verdict giving the basis of their verdict?

Their Lords may be indulging in a bit of buck passing thinking that this will go to appeal whatever they decide.

For those who beleive that the sovereignty of the people is supreme this decision by the courts is a bad one.

I was always uneasy with this. I didn't like that we were using the Courts to subvert Parliament.

According to the BBC Lord Justice Richards said

"Whilst the issues raised are interesting and important, that is outweighed by the desirability of certainty and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in this matter," he said."

I do hope they had a better reason than this. Aren't they there to uphold the law rather than just make sure nothing gets in the government's way?

The best man ever to get into parliament was one Guido Fawlkes!!!

How can you subvert the will of parliament when they do not reflect the overwhelming view of the people.

This is very disappointing news and I do hope that Stuart Wheeler appeals against this ruling.
It would have the effect, if nothing else, on delaying the ratification of the Treaty in the UK.

Deborah - the courts have upheld the law - that parliament voted on this legislation!

Jim Murphy has now confirmed that the Government is going to proceed to ratify the Treaty. Sadly, I think this appeal was always likely to fail despite the fact that there was a legitimate expectation of a referendum on the issue stemming from the Government's assurances that there would be one on the Constitution. The courts are always wary of subverting the will of Parliament, particularly where it concerns the ratification of a Treaty through the passing of an Act of Parliament. Furthermore, and definitely more troubling, they appear to have bought the Government's claim that the two documents (the Treaty and the Constitution) were substantively different, despite the belief of Valery Giscard d'Estaing and others who were closely associated with the drafting of the Treaty. That is simply not the case and, as seems typical of today's judiciary, they appear to have taken the easy way out.

I can't believe that I agree with Justin Hinchcliffe.

Though I hate this treaty and all that it stands for, and though I was happy to see Stuart Wheeler try his luck, in the end we cannot have the courts telling parliament what to do. It would set a precedent that all of us would come to regret.

Ou future is in the hands of the Czechs. All we can do (should do) is offer a post election referendum.

If only Stuart Wheeler had understood the divisions between the government, parliament and political parties then he might not have wasted tons of cash on trying to judicially review a private organisation.

There might or might not have been other reasons for rejecting Wheeler's arguments, eg constitional ones like the supremacy of Parliament, but claiming that the Treaty is significantly different from the Consitution not only flies in the face of all rational analysis, statements by those involved including the Europe Committee in the Commons, but is a DOWNRIGHT LIE

When our judges are prepared to make decisions like this they clear the way for the only alternative solutions - riots on the streets until we get our way, and our freedom.

the courts have upheld the law - that parliament voted on this legislation!" -onenationtory - The law under consideration was the right to a referendum under legitimate expectation, parliament has not voted on that.

Every time Stuart Wheeler appears on TV, I am sure he knocks another digit off our next majority.

Utterly cranky, and best left to the Basil Fawlty's in UKIP.

What on EARTH is going on with this, our so called 'Listening' UK government?

In the face of the evident increasing clamour for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, totally lacking in ethics and integrity, - the EU's Dirty tricks lying propaganda machine helped by manipulator - G.Brown & Co, - is behaving as treacherously as Mugabe's.

It is an outrage that any application which would have given the British people their right to the promised referendum, is being ruthlessly denied to them.

Didn't the German courts uphold Hitler and the Third Reich?

Surely a perverse decision by the "judges". The Lisbon Treaty is the Costitution under another name. We have a Bill of Rights which cannot be overturned, stating that we are to be governed by our own parliament not by any foreigner. The people are sovereign, parliament represents the people not the EU, a criminal conspiracy. Ah well, better pensions for politicians and judges now. Sold out, OUR COUNTRY.

Got 10 minutes and 36 seconds to spare?? This is quite enlightening.....


Deborah - Parliament explicitly voted on the issue of a referendum and decided not to hold one. I think it's a greta shame that we weren;t given one but the courts cannot be allowed to strike down parliamentary decisions.

Agreed 100%. Also, nobody seems to acknowledge that the promise to hold a referendum was made by the Labour party, not the government. This is not a technicality - Wheeler's means of redress were totally inappropriate.

Everyone here who thinks that it is wonderful that Parliament has kept it's way over the judiciary should take heed of how we are gradually but inexorably moving in the direction of a US Supreme Court structure and sort of massive political power that they wield.

Senior judges are already starting to flex their politicial elbows and the ongoing changes to the court system are only going to accelerate the trend.

All those above who say Wheeler was trying to overturn parliament's decision are wrong. The case was to make the prime minister keep his promise and hold a referendum. Nothing more. If he then decided to ignore the referendum that would be part of his record . If the people voted NO and then her ignored them they would be very angry and Labour's standing in the polls would vanish out of sight. - nothing to do with parliament at all!

And - btw - note that Wheeler says today "he would like to see the Tory leader David Cameron, if he gains power, demand "substantial changes" to the way the EU runs, with British withdrawal as the "ultimate resort" in any negotiations..

It's about time Cameron did something to redeem his promise that if the treaty were ratified "WE WOULD NOT LET IT REST THERE" -

I can't see him coughing up any more money for the party if Cameron doesn't respond.

Christina, How could Wheeler have achieved victory without the court overturning Parliament's decision? I'd be interested in your considered response.

I agree that the Court may have taken the easy way out, but not in the same way as Chris Blore. What appears to have happened is that the Court has found a way of dismissing the action without having to rule on whether manifesto pledges are justiciable (ie are commitments in manifestos legally binding?).

I'd have liked there to have been a referendum but I'm not sure that getting one by making manifesto pledges justiciable would have been a fair trade-off. Do we really want political power to be devolved to the Courts so that Parliament is further denuded of powers?

Some might say that legally binding manifestos would force parties to be distinctive and to follow through with their promises. However, I suspect that in reality it would lead to the manifestos of the parties which had a realistic chance of power becoming policy free zones.

What's interesting is the decision turned on a technicality, and that Wheeler's main argument was not challenged.

The judges did not say that even if the Treaty was one and the same as the Constitution, the Courts would have no right to overturn a decision of Parliament.

The implication of the decision is that the Courts do have the right to abort the ratification, despite the fact that both Houses passed the Bill, as long as the Treaty could be demonstrated to be the same as the Constitution, and not substantially different.

If Wheeler were to appeal on that point, which he is presumably allowed to do, the way is now open for a senior court to find that the lower court was mistaken in its decision, and to go on to abort the ratification.

The decision tends to confirm Wheeler's principle argument, that an electoral promise should be subsequently held as binding on a legislator.

Without seeing the exact wording of the decision, it is not possible to be sure, but on the surface, there does seem to be the possibility for an appeal.


The judgement is very clear in knocking down the aim and substance of Wheeler.

And I titter to myself as I imagine what all the great libertarian/anti-judicial posts here would say if the judgement had gone the other way...

Can't have it both ways, boys and girls.

"Frustrate the will of Parliament" even leaving aside the fact that Parliamant is now made up of party placemen (or perhaps I should say "placepeople") who almost always follow their leaders, there is another important point to be made.

I do not always agree with the philosopher John Locke (no thinker should be followed blindly), but he was fond of making the central point (for example in "Two Treatises of Government") that the power of Parliament is delegated power - it is delegated from the people.

The power of Parliament is not the property of M.P.s to be sold to some foreign power - for it belongs to the people.

Locke's general point was that delegated powers can not be further delegated - and that would (perhaps unwisely) not be accepted today, for to do so would forbid such things as "Statutory Instruments" (the orders of officials having the force of law - things denounced by Chief Justice Hewart in his 1929 book "The New Despotism"), but surely there must be some limits on how Parliament can use its delegated powers.

For example, "no Paliament can bind its successors" and yet the "Treaty of Lisbon" contains an amending clause allowing the powers of the E.U. to be expanded without any reference to a future Parliament.

All in all for Members of Parliament to be elected saying they would not give away powers without a vote of the people, and then to vote to do exactly that is not acceptable. Especially as (because of the amending clause and because of the growth of the docrtine in the courts that certain Acts of Parliament, oddly enough just Acts connected to the E.U., are "Constitutional Acts" that later Acts of Parliament do not overturn) a furture Parliament would not be allowed to reverse their selling out of the British people.

So there we have it - the legal system is there to smooth out any difficulties for the government.
Now we know why Bliar etc.... got away with their lies and grubby scams.


Read it and weep.

You can ventilate all the nonsense you want about "foreign powers" - but they are clear in saying that Wheeler was trying to use the law to do politics - PRECISELY what you always claim the EU/ECJ is trying to do.

A period of silence on your behalf...etc

Well done for trying Stuart!

Any chance he could appeal it?

Paul - people have the opportunity to vote for people other than sitting MPs if they don;t like what they did on their behalf.

A great patriot and bloke.


The issue is whether the British people should have to accept being blatantly lied to by a political party seeking power. Well done Stewart Wheeler.

Stupid man. How long before we here cameron at PMQs being told that even the high court says the treaty is materially different to the constitution?

A shameful legal decision and Stuart will and must appeal.

The facts are inescapable. The Treaty IS the Constitution.

A Referendum WAS promised.

Parliament IS corrupt.

What has this once great Nation come to ? We must now tinker about on the margins of history hoping that the Czechs (or God help us the Germans !!) will save us from our own weakness and folly.

I should like to thank Stuart for his efforts and intend contributing to his funds for the appeal.

It is imperative that we save this country from the european federal state.

OneNationTory @1417. If Brown was forced to honour his promise he would go back to parliament recommend "after consideration" a referendum and put the whips on. THAT much is not infringing parliament's prerogatives.

Parliament would of course be free to chuck it out. But as it is, Brown has broken a promise, and Labour MPs but not parliament.

If Cameron now doesn't rise to Wheeler's challenge to HIM to hold a referendum what do readers think he will himself do? Because if Cameron meet that challenge HE will have broken HIS promise every bit as much as Brown has done.

Whoops - Last para above should read -
"If Cameron now doesn't rise to Wheeler's challenge to HIM to hold a referendum what do readers think he will himself do? Because if Cameron DOES NOT meet that challenge HE will have broken HIS promise every bit as much as Brown has done.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker