I will go into this a bit later, but first I would like to put to bed the difference between a treaty and a constitution - a treaty is the expression of sovereign power, a constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power, i.e. without sovereign power you cannot exercise an expression of that sovereignty by making a treaty.

Things now get a bit complicated because we have a situation with the European Project where sovereign states make a treaty between themselves to pass a proportion of their sovereignty to a supranational third party, that treaty then becomes the constitution of the third party. The founding treaty of the UN, the WTO, the Council of Europe etc. fall into the same category, as they all become the constitution of the third party.

Now it begins to get very complicated because in the case of the EU unlike the other international organisations the power does not remain at all times within in member state, whereas with the other organisations it does or to be honest is has so far. In the UN for instance the power to veto any proposal always stays within the member state.

The basic difference is in the foundations of the Project the framers of the Project constructed a supranational, not an intergovernmental, set of institutions, the EU is what is known as, path-dependent, in that all the institutions of today were there in embryo form in the original treaties constitution of the Project.

When one starts to talk about percentage change it should be remembered that only slight changes to clauses can make a great deal of difference to the meaning and the following actions that will result from the commitment made by our government when signing the treaties.

As illustration only: the Maastricht treaty states:

The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.

This is changed slightly in the Amsterdam treaty and again in the Nice treaty, by the time of the Constitution it has become a different animal from a very vague provision in Maastricht, this has firmed up substantially: “might in time” has become “will”.

The common foreign and security policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.

You have asked several time in the comments what are the major difference between the previous treaties and Lisbon/Constitution there are so many that it would be impossible to list them all here, but the real major change is the Constitution and Lisbon both fundamentally change the basic structure of the EU and its relationship to its member states.

Its laws and its Constitution are made superior to those of the member states. Please do not fall into the trap of arguing that EU law has always been superior to state law it has not, because it has never been in any of the other treaties.

The EU becomes an actor on the international stage in its own right and is invested with the power for the first time to both join international organisations such as the UN and to make international treaties in own right.

The Council of the EU becomes an institution of the EU and is obliged to act in the interests of the EU first.

Our own parliament is obliged to consider the interests of the EU.
Our nations foreign policy is weakened considerably in that we mat not take any action without first consulting our partners in the EU with the intention of ensuring that the EU`s interest is promoted.

The reason we should have a referendum on this treaty is because it radically changes our own Constitution, this is not a Eurosceptic myth, but a fact which is proven by the Irish having to hold referendum, because it is written into its constitution that changes can only be made after holding a referendum, also the French have just recently voted to change their constitution to allow for the introduction of the Lisbon treaty.

Sorry this was so long, but I was struck by your contention that EU sceptics were guilty of a logical fallacy, something I knew to be wrong and I wondered how you could have reached that conclusion, you did so by making the basic assumption with the original post, that the Constitution was 95% the same as the treaties, it is not, it is radically different and as the Lisbon treaty makes all the institutional changes that were in the Constitution it too is radically different. After ratification we will be in a totally different EU with a totally different balance of powers between the supranational and the national governments.

The publication last week in Brussels of the first official English text of the EU treaty confirms what everyone except Gordon Brown and the Foreign Office has been saying - that the new 277-page treaty is almost exactly the same as the old constitution. However, amid the dawning realisation that the attempt to ram through this treaty in 10 weeks is an immense new EU power grab, one crucial feature has attracted little notice - not least because to grasp it one must put together a series of articles scattered through the text.

In effect, the new treaty formally sets up the body known as the European Council as the government of Europe. It was the European Council which in June took an unprecedented step, not only deciding the treaty’s text in advance but issuing a “mandate” that scarcely a word can be changed by that intergovernmental conference which is to present it for final signature in October.

The first point to note is that this treaty for the first time formally includes the European Council among “the Union’s institutions” (Article 9). The European Council is not to be confused with the Council of Ministers (which has lately, very confusingly, renamed itself “the Council of the European Union”). It was originally set up in 1974 as a series of regular informal get-togethers between heads of government, as suggested by Jean Monnet, the mastermind behind the entire “European project”, although he called it “the provisional government of Europe”.

Since then these meetings of the European Council (still often misleadingly referred to as “summits”) have become arguably the most important engine of the EU’s political integration. But only now is the council being formally incorporated into the EU’s structure. This is not least significant since, as the new treaty makes clear, when the heads of government meet in council they are no longer to represent their own countries. Like the members of all other “Union institutions”, their first loyalty will now be to the EU. To “promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests” takes precedence over any national loyalty.

Turn back to Article 3 of the new treaty, which sets out the “objectives of the Union”, and we see that it has been extended since the draft constitution. It is now drawn so widely that there is virtually nothing which cannot be regarded as an EU objective, and the council’s prime function is to promote those objectives. As this and other parts of the treaty make clear, the Union will have power to shape and decide policy in almost every field, from defence and foreign affairs to how national economies should be run.

Furthermore, if the union wishes to take any powers not specifically authorised by the treaty, it will be able to do so under a new version of Article 308. Until now this applied only to measures needed to promote the “common market”, but its new wording amounts to a blank cheque. It will be allowed new powers over anything it wants, in accordance with those all-embracing “objectives of the union”. One of the biggest potential bombshells is hidden away in Article 262, which says that, by decision of the European Council, the EU “may establish new categories of own resources”. In other words, it will have the power to levy its own taxes.

What all this amounts to is that the European Union finally wishes to set itself up as the supreme government of Britain and 26 other countries, with unlimited powers over every aspect of our lives: a government we cannot dismiss and which is unaccountable. It is nothing less than a complete coup d’etat. And Gordon Brown wishes to see this imposed on us without allowing us a referendum, in direct breach of a promise on which he was elected, and now on the basis of the transparent lie that it has no bearing on our constitutional rights. It should be enough to blow the minds of everyone in Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/05/nbook105.xml

1. There is what YOU think.

2. There is what OTHER PEOPLE think.

YOU think the Lisbon treaty is the same as the constitution, and that by not backing a referendum on the treaty the Lib Dems are breaking their manifesto commitment

NICK CLEGG thinks that the Lisbon treaty is NOT the same as the constitution, for reasons I have already stated, furthermore that a referendum on the treaty is a distraction and waste of time, and that therefore the Lib Dems are NOT breaking their manifesto commitment. Nick Clegg thinks the only way to fulfil the commitment is to go for the full in-or-out question.

Now then. You may well think he is wrong. You may well say, “I believe something different” and attempt to argue your case (and seemingly fail thus far, judging by the number of authorities you’ve had to invoke in quick succession). But you CANNOT say, Nick Clegg does not agree with me, and therefore the whole thing is a lie and a travesty and a failure and froth-froth froth-oops-one-of-my-eyeballs-has-fallen-out.

“We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain’s interest – but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people”.
Liberal Democrat 2005 election manifesto.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

“Jeremy, am I supposed to be surprised that the Labour party, that has reneged on its commitment to a referendum, and doesn’t want to have a referendum of any sort … ”

As the Lib Dem commitment was the same as the Labour party commitment, “logically” (to use one of his favourite words) this is an admission that the Lib Dems are also reneging on their commitment - notwithstanding all his sophistry about the Lisbon Treaty being very different to the Constitutional Treaty, not being the treaty mentioned in the Lib Dem manifesto because it didn’t even exist at that time, etc etc.

Here’s what one of your ex leader’s said a few months back.

“If any Government propose to agree to a major shift in control or any transfer of significant powers from member states to European institutions, or to agree to any alteration in the existing balance between member states and those institutions, there should be a referendum of the British people. The draft treaty fulfils those criteria. As I have said on the four or five occasions when we have debated this matter in the past five or six months, there should be a referendum on the constitutional proposals that are likely to emerge from Brussels”.
Menzies Campbell