BRITISH RATIFICATION:EUROSCEPTIC MILLIONAIRE Stuart Wheeler claims he has "high hopes" of winning an appeal against the High Court's rejection of his bid to force a British referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Mackay yesterday rejected the spread-betting tycoon's claims of a "legitimate expectation" of a public vote arising from the Labour government's commitment to hold a referendum on the original EU constitution.
Refusing him permission to appeal to the court of appeal, the judges said they had found nothing in the claimant's case "to cast doubt on the lawfulness of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty".
However, Mr Wheeler promptly announced that he would ask the appeal court to consider his case, declaring: "I have high hopes of winning. We shall apply to the court of appeal for permission to appeal and we will see what they say."
Europe minister Jim Murphy welcomed the decision, saying he was pleased the two judges had "come down very clearly on the government's side".
Even before the ruling there was no expectation in political circles that the British courts could be used successfully to overturn government policy approved by parliament.
In their written judgment, dismissing Mr Wheeler's judicial review application, the two judges said his claim to a right to a referendum vote lacked "substantive merit" and should be dismissed.
They added: "Even if we had taken a different view of the substance 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."
Refusing Mr Wheeler permission to appeal, Lord Justice Richards said: "Whilst the issues raised are . . . 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 Murphy claimed the ruling had "confirmed the government's position that the Lisbon Treaty differs in both form and substance from the defunct constitution."