those changes in full

The argument for having no referendum on the new "Reform Treaty" (now renamed the "Lisbon Treaty") is that it is much less far reaching than the original Constitution, on which the government unequivocally promised the British people a referendum. If so, it is odd that the following people (who ought, after all, to know the truth) have made the following comments about the two documents:

"The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel

"Thankfully they haven't changed the substance – 90 per cent of it is still there."
Bertie Ahern, Ireland's Taoiseach

"Substantially equivalent."
The verdict of the all-party Commons European Scrutiny Committee

"We have not let a single substantial point of the constitution treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
Jose Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain

"Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same."
Vaclav Klaus, Czech President

"It's essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution."
Margot Wallström, European Commissioner

"There's nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed."
Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister

"... all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left."
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Pirme Minister

"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister

"All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but they will be hidden and disguised in some way... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary."
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, chair of the body that drew up the original Constitution

"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would it be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to the fact?"
Jean-Claude Juncker, President of Luxembourg

Furthermore, the argument that Britain's "opt-outs" make this treaty less serious is also nonsense, since the same opt-outs were also in place for the 2005 Constitution. (In fact there was an extra one then, which guaranteed that there would be no change to Britain's "rebate" from the EU budget. Predictably, Blair caved in on that later the same year.) In any case, there is serious doubt over whether the European Court would uphold Britain's right to these opt-outs.

Worst of all, the notorious "passarelle clauses" in several policy areas would, in the words of Giovanni Grevi, Associate Director of Studies at the European Policy Centre, "allow changes to the Constitution without another ratification process". In other words, Brussels has built into this document a means to grab further power in future without having to gain the consent of the people – thus avoiding embarrassing rows like this one.

Both the Constitution and the "Reform Treaty" are 63,000 words long. Both contain 250 clauses, 240 of which are identical. So how exactly is the new document different?

1. The title page – it isn't called a Constitution. This allows European leaders to say they have "abandoned the Constitutional idea" in response to the 2005 votes. For example, the new document doesn't contain official definitions of the EU flag and anthem, although of course both will continue to be used just as before.

2. Rather than replacing previous treaties like Maastricht, it leaves them in place and builds on them.

3. The controversial new position of European Foreign Minister has been given a less controversial title, "High Representative of Europe". As Ireland's Bertie Ahern commented, "It's the original job, but they just put on this long title."

4. It leaves out elements of the original Constitution that have already been enacted despite having no legal basis, like the Charter of Fundamental Rights. After all, since it is happening anyway, why rub the voters' noses in something they wouldn't like?

5. Er...

6. That's it.

For a full examination of the two documents and how little they differ, see the website of Open Europe

"Brown has joined Europe's other leaders in a most alarming development, a collective flight from democracy because it scares them."
Journalist Simon Jenkins

back to top