You can now auto-compare Articles 151-200 of the EU Constitution with the treaties amended by the Treaty of Lisbon.

As you can see, the EU Constitution’s Articles 151-200 are now found, almost verbatim, in rTEU 75 and TFEU 28-37, 63-66, 101-142 and 238.

It has taken me longer to prepare the data file for 151-200 due to the length and complexity of changes in many of the articles. Unfortunately the 151-200 data file is 216kb, so please be patient when loading it.

For an in-depth analysis of the content of the Treaty of Lisbon, I recommend the Grahnlaw blog by Ralf Grahn, a lawyer in Helsinki, Finland.

For reference:
rTEU = revised ‘Treaty on European Union’
TFEU = ‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’

David Miliband said something extraordinary this morning, on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme debate with William Hague. In arguing against Hague’s point the Conservatives didn’t have an obligation to hold a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, because they didn’t promise one, Miliband said, “I say it is the content of a treaty that matters“.

Did Mr David ‘It’s Not The Constitution’ Miliband really say that???

After the debate, Jim Naughtie asked the BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson to comment. He predicted tonight’s House of Commons vote for a referendum amendment to the EU Amendment Bill probably won’t succeed, saying, “eurosceptics in the audience will have to hope the Irish will do their job for them“.

I’m astonished that such a senior political commentator as Nick Robinson can think the outcome of the Irish Referendum will make the slightest bit of difference after the 499-112 vote (33 abstentions) in the European Parliament on 20th Feb AGAINST respecting the outcome of the Irish Referendum (despite the legal requirement for unanimity to ratify).
[UPDATE: two commenters have pointed out that this vote doesn’t mean much, and certainly isn’t the blow against democracy impression given by the linked article; voting against adding a ‘respect it’ amendment, is not the same as voting for a ‘don’t respect it’ amendment - a point I accept fully]

I am delighted to see the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office has published consolidated, albeit ‘illustrative’, versions of the treaties amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, and the ‘See For Yourself’ information is a step in the right direction, imho.

Also my thanks to ‘Hiberna Girl’ for pointing out a difference between I-3 and rTEU 3 that wasn’t reflected properly by the highlighting. This is now corrected. If anyone else spots an error in the highlighting or tracked changes, I will correct the site immediately, upon being alerted to it.

The comparison for Part III 115-150 is now live. Only another 296 Articles of Part III to go…time for a nice cup of tea!

As the comparison shows, Articles 115-150 of the EU Constitution are now Articles 7-14, 18-19, 21-27, 45-62 and 347-348 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (”TFEU”), albeit tweaked here and there.

On a personal note; I’ve questioned why I’m bothering to build this comparison website, which is using up long hours, evenings and weekends. It seems the UK government isn’t bothered, nor are MPs generally or the mass media. Are the UK public bothered? If my site stats are anything to go by, no they’re not.

Mass media coverage, on the rare occasion there is any, tends to follow a ‘he said, she said’ “neutrality” (except it isn’t genuine neutrality at all). For example, the BBC reported yesterday;

“The government argues that the new EU treaty is significantly different from the constitution - discarded after it was rejected by French and Dutch voters - and does not require a referendum.

The Tories, however, say they are “substantially” the same and that a public vote should go ahead.”

What happened to investigative reporting and challenging assertions, whether the government’s or the opposition’s? Imagine, if you will, that members of the UK government and the Tories all went mad. Would it be balanced and impartial for the BBC to do nothing but report;

“The government argues that giant sea turtles are gathering on the surface of Mars to invade Earth.

The Tories, however, say the giant sea turtles are mostly harmless and the public need not worry.” ?

As I’m progressing with the auto-comparison, I’m starting to think the “it’s different / they’re the same” argument in British political life is missing the point anyway, when it comes to determining whether the referendum promise needs to be upheld. The issue revolves around what, in the EU Constitution, provoked the Labour Party to promise a referendum on it, in their 2005 election manifesto (as all three main parties did) and whether or not this remains in the Treaty of Lisbon.

This point was put by Conservative MP Peter Lilley to the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in the House of Commons 2nd Reading of the EU Amendment Bill on 21st January 2008;

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Will the Foreign Secretary now cut to the chase and spell out the specific transfers of power in the original constitution that, in the Government’s opinion, justified a referendum, but which are not in this treaty—thus, in the Government’s view, nullifying their promise to hold a referendum? Will he spell out those specific powers?

David Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman will get details of specific powers and of how this is a different treaty in structure, in content and in consequence.

If anyone is aware of David Miliband ever giving those promised ‘details’, I would be extremely grateful if you told me where they’re located.

Elsewhere in the same debate, David Miliband argued the EU Constitution was “legally unprecedented” because “it abolished all previous European treaties and refounded the European Union“, whereas the Treaty of Lisbon “like the four previous treaties, amends the original founding document of the European Union.”

Whatever the legal merits of this view, it’s limited to the idea the Treaty of Lisbon “is a different treaty in structure“, which I doubt anyone denies. That still leaves open whether it’s “a different treaty…in content and in consequence“, and even then, as pointed out above, this line of thinking misses the point which Peter Lilley’s question put so well. The Treaty of Lisbon may contain an infinite number of additions not in the EU Constitution, but as long as it contains those elements from the EU Constitution which provoked the promise of a referendum, then the promise cannot be broken, imho (even if it is deemed perfectly legal) - at least, it cannot be broken without the consequence that I would never again believe what a political party tells me in their election manifesto.

The comparison for Part II is now live. 

As you can see, the EU Constitution’s Part II (”The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union“) is almost identical to the newly proclaimed “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” (12 Dec 2007) which is given the ’same legal value’ as the Treaties (ie. as the revised Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) by Article 6 of the revised Treaty on European Union.

The only changed Articles are I-78, I-81, I-96, I-101, I-105, I-111, and I-112, that have been tweaked to refer to the new Treaties instead of the Constitution.

It’s worth noting there is a Protocol in the Treaty of Lisbon which limits the Charter’s application to Poland and the UK, called, “PROTOCOL ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO POLAND AND TO THE UNITED KINGDOM”.

The UK government’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office holds the opinion that “There are substantial differences between the two Treaties, in form and in content”; the two treaties being the ‘EU Constitution’ and the Treaty of Lisbon. This opinion forms the basis of their view that ‘The Government does not, therefore, find it necessary to put the Treaty [of Lisbon] to a referendum’..

There definitely is a substantial difference in form; the Constitution being a single document, and the Treaty of Lisbon being an ‘amending treaty’, making changes to existing treaties.

However, is there a ’substantial difference’ in content between the two treaties? The UK government continues to say there is, despite the existence of PDF-format comparisons showing otherwise, and despite what other MPs, and EU leaders have said.

This website compares the two treaties, Article by Article, and word for word. By highlighting the similarities, the site makes it easy to see, often at a glance, whether they are substantially different or not in content. So far only the Preamble and Part I are complete. Parts II, III, IV and the Final Act will follow, just as soon as I can prepare the data files.

I hope you find this website useful as an information resource, regardless of your political position. I believe the truth should form the basis for debate. I believe in accuracy and honesty. I believe a government has a fundamental obligation to be truthful with the people it governs, especially on matters of constitutional importance, and to keep election manifesto promises.