The anti-EU campaign group that goes by the name "Open Europe" has taken issue with what I wrote in my last blog on Frank Field’s lie about Britain losing its seat on the UN Security. On their blog, they claim that the proposed EU Reform Treaty "will all too quickly be followed by the EU taking Britain's seat at the UN Security Council", and they challenge me to reply on my blog.

Well, the answer can be found in their own blog. They justify Frank Field’s lie by claiming that in his piece he was merely "predicting that this will eventually happen, rather than saying that it will immediately happen". So, that’s all right then – indulge in wild speculation about imaginary future decisions and let people think that they are an inevitable consequence of the Reform Treaty! And don’t let on that such future decisions would, if ever mooted, require Britain’s agreement anyway.

This seems to be a common tactic among the anti-european campaigners. That, and a tendency to make people believe that a particular issue is somehow a radical new development when it isn’t. Take Frank Field again: "Sovereignty is to be transferred in the most fundamental way. Under the treaty the EU will assume a legal personality. As a consequence it will be the EU, and not member states, that will sign international agreements on foreign policy, defence, crime and judicial matters. The EU will begin to take on the appearance of a separate country in all but name." That will no doubt stir reader’s passions – unless they take the trouble to check the facts.

A quick check of Wikepedia will show that "Legal personality is given to any organization which is a subject of legal rights and duties". The EU obviously is. Indeed it is perfectly normal for international organisations, such as the World Health Organisation, to have legal personality. The legal personality of international organisations was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1949 ( ICJ 174). The European Community itself has always had it.

But anti-European campaigners won't tell you that. No, they insinuate that legal personality is unique to states, that if the EU has legal personality it becomes a state, in place of its member states. Field’s wording, that "the EU, and not member states" will be able to sign international agreements will, presumably intentionally, make people think that member states, including Britain, will lose their right to sign international agreements. Nor will they point out that for the EU to sign up to an international agreement in the field of foreign affairs, it would require the approval of the governments of all EU countries in the Council of Ministers.

Similarly, coming back to the Security Council, Open Europe makes much of various alternative wordings that were suggested for the presentation of a common EU position, when there is one, by the EU’s representative. Again, they don’t mention that, for there to be a common position in the first place, Britain would have to have agreed to it.