Limitations negotiated by the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith to curb the effects of the new European Union (EU) constitutional treaty were doubted by lawyers at a conference last week.

Lord Goldsmith told the conference - organised by lawyers' human rights group Justice - that explanatory footnotes in the treaty restricted its effect to restating existing rights.


He said: 'In answer to those who see the charter [of human rights incorporated into the treaty] as a bill of rights for the UK with swathes of new rights and obligations, I say it is nothing of the sort.'


But lawyers asked at a plenary session what the complexion of the EU would look like in 2010 - if the treaty were adopted - were sceptical.


Gerhard Grill, the principal legal officer at the European Ombudsman's office - which helps to uncover EU maladministration - said: 'Lord Goldsmith said he expected the provisions of the treaty to prevent the courts from going berserk. I'm not convinced by that.'


Of Lord Goldsmith's footnotes, he added: 'The treaty obliges the courts to have due regard to these. But courts have regard to all submissions, and this hasn't proved a stumbling block to them taking progressive action in the past. I can imagine that the European Court of Justice may [take such action].'


Paul Craig, an Oxford University law professor, said there was a kernel of truth that the treaty is purely declaratory of existing rights. But he added: 'The interesting thing by 2010 will be to see how much the competences (powers) of the EU have been expanded through those rights, or whether its competences have been curbed by them.'