Betting tycoon loses UK Lisbon referendum battle

Eurosceptic millionaire Stuart Wheeler lost his High Court battle today over the British government’s refusal to hold a referendum on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty.

Two judges rejected his claim that he had a “legitimate expectation” that there would be a public vote.

The spreadbetting tycoon’s lawyers argued that the expectation arose after British government ministers promised a referendum on the failed EU constitution which the treaty replaces.

They said the evidence showed that the Constitutional Treaty – rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005 – and the Reform Treaty (the Lisbon Treaty) were one and the same, except in name.

Today, Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Mackay dismissed his application for judicial review at the High Court in London.

Mr Wheeler, 73, says he believes the Lisbon Treaty is “dead” anyway as a result of its rejection in the referendum in Ireland, but ministers in London have refused to halt the ratification process.

The court refused Mr Wheeler permission to appeal, which his lawyers sought on the grounds of the "serious legal, constitutional and public interest issues arising in the case".

Lord Justice Richards said: “We are satisfied that an appeal has no prospect of success. 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.

“There is no other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard.”

Mr Wheeler still has the right to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge today’s ruling.

The judges said in a joint ruling they were satisfied that Mr Wheeler's claim "lacks substantive merit and should be dismissed".

They said: “We have found nothing in the claimant’s case to cast doubt on the lawfulness of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.”

They added: “Even if we had taken a different view of the substances of the case, in the exercise of the court’s discretion we would have declined to grant any relief, having regard in particular to the fact that Parliament has addressed the question whether there should be a referendum and, in passing the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, has decided against one.”

The judges said that, a few days before the court expected to hand down today’s ruling, they were informed by the UK Treasury solicitor that, following Royal Assent to the 2008 Act, the British government was now proceeding to ratify the treaty.

The judges said they became concerned that “the government might be intending to pre-judge or pre-empt the decision of the court by ratifying the treaty while the lawfulness of doing so without a referendum was still in issue before the court.

“The Prime Minister, however, acted promptly to remove our concern by making clear that ratification would not take place before the judgment was handed down.”