In an interview on the BBC Today programme, Foreign Secretary David Miliband claimed that the treaty text that will be under discussion at the Lisbon summit later this week “is completely different” to the EU Constitution. He argued in particular that the Government’s “red lines” make the content different. The Times reports that Miliband was insisting yesterday that the new version of the Constitution was a “square deal” for Britain because, contrary to claims by some Labour and Tory MPs, there is no threat to the Government’s “red lines”.

The Times also reports that the Government says it secured an agreement yesterday (15/10) at a meeting of EU foreign ministers that an obligation in the Constitution that national parliaments “shall” contribute to the good functioning of the EU would be reworded after claims that the phrase would put Parliament under extra legal obligation to Brussels.

Labour MP Gisela Stuart’s criticism of the Government’s refusal to hold a referendum on the Constitution is widely reported in today’s papers. Stuart, a former minister, yesterday attacked the Government's insistence that the new treaty was different from the rejected Constitution as "patently dishonest". She called on Gordon Brown to hold the referendum promised on the Constitution, arguing that it would restore the "dented authority" he suffered after deciding against a snap election.

A leader in the Times notes that “the Foreign Secretary argued that the Government’s “red lines” in the draft European Union treaty have “strong legal protection”. The Times believes, along with a growing body of MPs and lawyers, that no such protection can be strong enough to survive the challenges that will be brought in the EU courts.” It urges the Government not to sign up to the new provision which would “bully Britain into agreeing to let the European Court of Justice pronounce on all criminal justice matters, or face exclusion from all those areas of policy, including extradition”.

Open Europe’s briefing note on how the Government’s red lines are crumbling is mentioned in the Guardian. Neil O’Brien from Open Europe is quoted as saying that the Government is wrong to claim that its “red line” on justice and home affairs is secure because of its agreement to a five-year transition before the European Court of Justice's powers over existing police and judicial measures take effect. "After five years, if the UK does not agree to the full jurisdiction of the court, it will be thrown out of all justice and home affairs legislation," he said.
BBC Today (7.50 am) Times BBC - Mardell Telegraph Sun FT Guardian

Read Open Europe’s new briefing paper: "How the red lines are crumbling"

Comment:
The reality is that the red lines are weak and have got much weaker in the most recent draft – but the Government keeps insisting everything is just rosy.
European Scrutiny Committee Chairman Michael Connarty has called for three specific changes: (1) A form of words intended to stop the Charter from affecting the UK (2) Changes to strengthen the justice and home affairs opt-in by allowing the UK to opt back out again and (3) The reversal of the changes in the October draft which effectively render the opt-in inoperative. However, the Government doesn't seem to be trying to negotiate the changes which the Committee says are needed. It will be interesting to see whether Miliband confirms this at the European Scrutiny Committee this afternoon.

Ministers are parroting that the new text is “completely different” to the old Constitution. But literally not one person believes this. All they are doing is reinforcing the impression that they are being dishonest. We can’t help thinking that Blair would have had a rather more subtle strategy...

I Want a Referendum launches in the North West
The launch today (16/10/07) of IWR in the North West was reported on BBC Radio Merseyside. The campaign was launched this morning outside St Georges Hall in Liverpool and the Urbis in Manchester. Enthusiastic supporters were in attendance at both locations with a huge inflatable ballot box. Reports of the events will be on BBC Radio Manchester and in the Manchester Evening News.

Alan Halsall, Chairman of the NW campaign, was interviewed on Radio Merseyside this morning, discussing the launch and arguing that the Government should keep its promise to hold a vote because the latest version of the Constitution is the same as the rejected Constitution.
BBC Radio Merseyside (Listen Again – Tony Snell in the Morning, 50 minutes in)

Comment round-up:
Rachman: Opportunity to vote on Europe as a political project is long overdue
Lawson: Government morally obliged to call a referendum
In the FT, Gideon Rachman argues in favour of a referendum on the revised EU Constitution. He notes that although not containing any “single, symbolic measure that marks it out…if you’re are unconvinced by the case for ‘ever closer union’ there are definitely things that are worth rejecting in this treaty”, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the extension of majority voting. Rachman further argues that “Opponents of a referendum complain that people will not vote on the details of the document. Instead they will just express a general feeling about ‘Europe’. Fine – the opportunity is long overdue. The last time the British held a vote on Europe was in 1975, when it was still called the common market.” He also discards the idea of Europe plunging in to a crisis should the UK vote “no”.

Dominic Lawson argues in the Independent that given the similarities between the original version and the revised Constitution, Gordon Brown is “morally obliged” to call a referendum, as that was the Government’s position the last time around. Lawson also argues that “Worst of all, if [the Government] continues to set its face against a popular vote on the revised Treaty, then a party which claims to be fighting against what it declares to be destructive euro-scepticism will be doing more to advance the cause of such discontent than anything that UKIP or the Conservative Party could dream up.”

In an op-ed in the Telegraph, Ruth Lea of Global Vision argues that Britain would benefit from a new, looser relationship with Europe. She argues, “I know, from our Global Vision polling, that this sort of relationship is the option of choice of the British people. The majority like Europe, but wish to be free of the bureaucracy. The people are ahead of the politicians. It is time the politicians caught up.”

In the Times, Denis MacShane responds to Lord Wedderburn QC’s letter on the ECJ and strikes, arguing that no member state believes that the EU reference to employee rights is going to change their laws and practices. He also argues that it is wrong to believe “that a referendum can solve this problem. It cannot. If a British prime minister believes that any international treaty is inimical to British interests he should not sign it. If David Cameron truly believes that Britain would be damaged by the new EU treaty he should be urging the Prime Minister not to sign it. We know the Tories are against the treaty. But which bit of it? All of it?”

In the Guardian, Polly Toynbee discards the idea of putting the revised Constitution to a public vote, arguing that “Referendums can only work on matters of simple and profound principle. Since the treaty is about many technicalities, the government can only reply to the Euro-hysterics with dull technical explanations. This is not referendum material but the stuff of representative democracy. The very word Europe in any vote is toxic, thanks to Murdoch and company, who would ensure few ever knew what they were voting on.”
Independent-Lawson Guardian FT-Rachman Times-MacShane Times-leader