Does it make sense?
To me, no. Here's why.
Today, we got another piece in the slowly-developing Labour platform for the next election, as the next piece of the picture was announced.
As I understand it, the position is that
1) Being in the EU is right for Britain, so as long as the status quo holds, we, the people, don't get a say in it.
2) Labour will NOT hold a referendum unless they have already agreed to a treaty change that cedes new powers to Brussels. Well, fair enough. Not my view, or that of quite a few Labour MPs, but it's a party position, so fair enough.
3) If they DO agree such a treaty change, they will hold a referendum, prior to ratification, but not on the change, but on in/out.
4) The current coalition Act on treaty change requires a referendum if treaty changes are made, ON THE NEW TREATY, not necessarily on in/out.
So, if Labour get into power, they will change the law in such a way as to make maintaining the current position, which they say they support, the one thing we, the people, cannot vote to have.
For argument's sake, the "unlikely" (I'll come back to that likelihood later) position of a treaty change occurs. We will get a referendum allowing us to pick between accepting the treaty change, or leaving the EU. The option to simply reject the treaty change, which would leave us and the EU as we are now won't be on offer, but that's precisely what Labour currently won't give us a say on.
So, right now, we can't opt to reject the current situation, but Labour's policy and proposed law prevents us from picking the situation we have now, that Labour won't let us change.
If the current situation is right, why is that the one option a referendum will not offer?
If it's not right, why aren't we getting a referendum on changing it?
After all, that's EXACTLY current Tory party policy, that is, seek to negotiate improvements, but then offer us in/out, based on a negotiated change, provided the changes are acceptable, but that "in" is recommended.
Now, "likelihood" of treaty change?
Labour are right, IMHO. Treaty change is unlikely. But note I said [b]treaty[b] change, not just non-treaty change. Why? Because, nake no mistake, changes are coming, The financial situation and Euro mess make that absolutely clear. But "treaty" change is unlikrly precisely because treaty change will trigger a series of natiobal referenda, which the EU know full-flaming well would be highly problematic in many countries, if the actual people get a say. So, they will come up with a legalistic way of implementing change without triggering a treaty .... or referenda. And, by the way, the paving powers laying the framework for that were in Lisbon.
So yes, treaty change is "unlikely" because they (being the EU powers and Brussels bureaucracy) have already stitched things up so that they won't need to ask for permissions they suspect, or know, they wouldn't get.