lisbon vote

[ollie323]

Here's a link to a reader friendly version of the treaty, or rather, The Treaty Of The European Union.
Here's something else that may be of interest:http://eurealist.co.uk/archives/676
And another link, with some interesting reading that i don't see much of in Irish papers:http://11sixtynine.blogsome.com/2009/06/20/lisbon-treatyguarantees-useless-vote-no-in-october-2009/

Does anyone not notice that it's mostly people in power of some sort that are pushing a yes vote. What have they to gain from this, i wonder? Hmmmm......profits maybe? Meanwhile we are treated like mushrooms.
Ireland has been losing it's identity for a long time but i fear this will only serve to speed up that process. God help us!

I'm voting no AGAIN and will continue to do so.

 

[Latrade]

Here's a link to a reader friendly version of the treaty, or rather, The Treaty Of The European Union.
Here's something else that may be of interest:http://eurealist.co.uk/archives/676
And another link, with some interesting reading that i don't see much of in Irish papers:http://11sixtynine.blogsome.com/2009/06/20/lisbon-treatyguarantees-useless-vote-no-in-october-2009/

Ha, great use of non-partisan exceptionally researched links there. One using 54 year-old quotes from one, greatly ignored, individual to justify their fears of a New World Order, one who clearly doesn't understand what the guarantees actually mean (and obviously has no concept or understanding of International Law) and the plain text version of the treaty is brought to you courtesy of the European Neo-Con movement (interestingly founded with great support by the Ulster Unionists...).

Be careful who you get into bed with while trying to bring down the government.

 

[z107]

I was king of undecided, despite voting No the last time.
After yesterday, I've now made up my mind and am definitely going to vote No.

Reason: It's our only slim chance of stopping NAMA.

There'll be another treaty. Especially when the eurocrats realise why people voted No.

 

[Ceist Beag]

I was king of undecided, despite voting No the last time.
After yesterday, I've now made up my mind and am definitely going to vote No.

Reason: It's our only slim chance of stopping NAMA.

There'll be another treaty. Especially when the eurocrats realise why people voted No.

I suppose everyone is entitled to their reasons for voting yes or no but I find this a strange reasoning I must admit! I would have thought people would have got the idea now that a vote on Lisbon is an important vote on the future shape of the EU and should not be messed with just to get some other point across - especially such a watered down point as the above! If you want to vote no, surely you should be doing so on the basis of the future direction you wish the EU to take - not for any other reason. If more people take your line of thinking then there is absolutely no chance that eurocrats (or anyone else for the reason) would understand why a couple of million people voted yes or no!

 

[Latrade]

I suppose everyone is entitled to their reasons for voting yes or no but I find this a strange reasoning I must admit! I would have thought people would have got the idea now that a vote on Lisbon is an important vote on the future shape of the EU and should not be messed with just to get some other point across - especially such a watered down point as the above! If you want to vote no, surely you should be doing so on the basis of the future direction you wish the EU to take - not for any other reason. If more people take your line of thinking then there is absolutely no chance that eurocrats (or anyone else for the reason) would understand why a couple of million people voted yes or no!

Well said. There has yet to be any real reason for voting no other than a vote against the government.

 

[Shawady]

Well said. There has yet to be any real reason for voting no other than a vote against the government.

The most recent polls suggest Lisbon will be passed even though this is the most unpopular government since polling began.
My opinion is that it will be easily passed as this time around there are too many poeple fearful what the consequences would be if we voted No.

 

[DerKaiser]

We said No, our Government should have told the EU No, and the EU should have followed their own rules and scrapped the treaty.

Well what if we vote yes this time?

How would you interpret that?

We've voted no before and then voted yes e.g. Nice & Divorce

What does that say about us?

I fully respect the reason you voted no, personlly though I believe not every no vote the last time was as principled as yours

 

[Ancutza]

Well what if we vote yes this time?

How would you interpret that?

We've voted no before and then voted yes e.g. Nice & Divorce

What does that say about us?

Why exactly are we voting again??? When does 'No' not mean 'No'? What the whole thing says is that our elected officials and the EU commission have very scant, if any, regard to the democratically expressed will of the irish electorate. Frankly the whole debacle is a disgrace of the most fetid type.

We are also too young of a nation state to so readily sign over our sovereignty to a federal europe. Much of what Lisbon is about is about the Germans achieving 'democratically' what they failed twice to do in the last century militarily. Whilst they're at it they'll bring along their new found best mates the French and we'll all, slowly but surely, find ourselves in another national socialist mess. I always was one for a good conspiracy theory.

Once again, as I've already stated, the EU has worked just fine since the last irish 'No' vote and will continue to do so after the next one.

Still voting 'No'.

 

[Ancutza]

The other reason to vote 'No' to Lisbon is the danger of Cowen and his monkeys, buoyed up by a 'Yes' vote, sticking around long enough to ram NAMA down our necks. Much as I agree with those who say the two issues should be treated separately they are, unfortunately, hopelessly intertwined.

50 billion for 70 billion of toxic, sweaty, horrible debt? What a bargain! If it were 10 billion it would still be too dear for me, my kid and her children to bear.

 

[ollie323]

Didn't the French and Dutch vote no to lisbon too? Did Charlie Mc Creevy not say that the vast majority of people would vote no if they knew, in clear english, what the treaty was about?
Here's another link to some treaty information:http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87518
And some more, about the Poles not ratifying it either:http://voteno2lisbon.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/fall-in-poll-support-for-lisbon-treaty-in-poland/

 

[so-crates]

Especially when the eurocrats realise why people voted No.

Please enlighten me, exactly how does that work? Have they added a "Tell us why you voted the way you voted" question to the ballot paper that will invalidate your paper if it isn't filled with a reason? Is it some sort of Vulcan mind meld with the few hundred thousand no-voters in Ireland? Or a sucking of thoughts from the general populace of Europe?

I maintained at the vote on the first treaty and I do so again. If you really and truly believe that Ireland should not ratify the Lisbon Treaty and should block the rest of the EU doing so then by all means and with an unsullied conscience vote a clear and decisive NO. If you don't know what you want to do or (as is clearly the case in this thread) want to vote no for any other reason (especially that of punishing the government) then spoil your vote. Make it as clear as possible that you are not comfortable to vote yes but don't necessarily want to reverse Ireland out of the EU to some extent. Spoilt votes do get counted. A large number of spoils would ring more sensible alarm bells since they would indicate the true sentiment as opposed to the obvious conclusion that gets drawn otherwise, that all naysayers are in thrall to the UKIP/Sinn Fein/Cóir/Éirigí/Socialist Party/Libertas/etc weird alliance of interests.

 

[Latrade]

We are also too young of a nation state to so readily sign over our sovereignty to a federal europe. Much of what Lisbon is about is about the Germans achieving 'democratically' what they failed twice to do in the last century militarily. Whilst they're at it they'll bring along their new found best mates the French and we'll all, slowly but surely, find ourselves in another national socialist mess. I always was one for a good conspiracy theory.

Just a small question: if, as everyone says, this is effectively handing over power to Germany, how come Germany hasn't ratified it yet? You'd have thought they'd have been the first in line considering it's so good for them. Or could it be this whole handing over power to the Germans and French is merely xenophobic claptrap?

 

[Latrade]

Here's another link to some treaty information:http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87518

Charlie was right, because we end up with statements like this from the reliable indymedia:

The Lisbon Treaty:
1. is an incomprehensible constitution, therefore by most voters it can only be signed in blind faith
(note: most of the advocates of the treaty admit that they have NOT read the text.)
2. as a constitution entails the loss of national sovereignty
3. is a constitution designed to cheat us and avoid referendums
4. is implemented via a profoundly undemocratic process
5. is a profoundly undemocratic constitution laying down the foundation of an undemocratic federal state, with the unelected Commission on the top of the decision-making hierarchy
6. for smaller EU countries like Ireland, means a radical loss of the voters' influence on the nationally elected EU-bodies
7. means the loss of permanent representation in the Commission
8. has an alternative: the EUDemocrats.

Points 1-3:
It isn’t a Constitution. If student socialists or hyperactive neo-cons do not understand the legislative difference between a Treaty and a Constitution, then there really is no point continuing. And it’s misleading to say the text is “virtually the same”. The text that remains is virtually the same, but it’s the text that was removed and changed that makes this an entirely different thing.

Compare these made up statements (not part of the Treaty btw):

“Member states will implement a system of preventing anyone who uses indymedia as a source of informed decision from their electoral register.”

“Member states may implement a system of preventing anyone who uses indymedia as a source of informed decision from their electoral register.”

Now, strictly speaking they’re virtually identical, just one word separates them, yet they have two completely different outcomes and emphasises. If you just count the words and compare them, the remaining text is very similar. If you actually look at what was taken out and what has been added, you can see the difference.

It’s also very clear that there is no loss of national sovereignty. In fact, if you took the time to read through the text and ample explanations (not from these kinds of sources) you’d see that national sovereignty not only remains as it is, but that also they’ve added stuff to mean that individual nations and their citizens have a greater say in the democratic process of the Parliament and Commission.

It can not cheat us out of referendums. I’d have thought the quite clear statement referencing local court precedent, case law, etc remains. Each and every change to the treaty will have to go through another referendum here.

Point 4:
What’s so undemocratic about holding a referendum on which each citizen over voting age has a chance to influence? Isn’t that democracy? If not, what is?

Point 5 and 6:
The bulk of the text is all about making the current system of governance and decision making more efficient and more democratic. As Europe has expanded, the old system just cannot cope. It’s like trying to play chess to the rules of hurling. The current system is entirely inefficient and undemocratic.

However, in order to achieve this new efficiency and efficacy there are some compromises. Yes, the change to the voting structure appears to mean Ireland loses immediate on how much its vote counts for. But you cannot argue that a system that means all states have a proportionally distributed vote isn’t fair. However, while we lose on this, it doesn’t mean that the larger states can steamroller in everything that’s good for them. The majority vote system means that if 5 countries disagree, it is shelved. While we lose something on how “valuable” our vote is, Ireland still has a lot of friends in Europe (we are held in very high regard among the ascension states for example), plus we have a lot of shared concerns and values (though you might not like it) with the UK. It won’t be difficult for common interests to send things back to the drawing board if so concerned.

Again, another “score” for democracy is that we, the people, me, you and everyone else can actually petition Europe to introduce or change new legislation. We can’t even do that here! If we get enough signatories, citizens can change legislation. Once again, if that doesn’t come under the banner of “it’s more democratic you myopic bunch of lefties” what does?

And, just as a further example of democracy, new legislation gets to sit with member states for longer before feedback. This might not sound like a big deal, but it is. This additional time means even more opportunity for public consultation and feedback.

For all those who believe this hyperbolic tripe. Give me one example of a piece of European Legislation you personally have petitioned, consulted, made representations on? This right that is supposed to be going, when have you ever exercised it? But more importantly, now tell just exactly how is it that by making this system more accountable to the public it makes it undemocratic?

Point 7:

*sigh* I’m getting tired of these factions telling me I should read the Treaty when it is clear they haven’t. The Nice Treaty (the one we voted Yes to) reduces the number of commissioners. That has to happen next year unless…wait for it…unless Lisbon is ratified. If Lisbon is ratified, there is no reduction in the number of commissioners. Ok being honest: we won’t lose a commissioner for now. It will be reviewed in 5 years, but again, these commissioners don’t exactly help the process and there are far too many on to nice and junket doing far too little. The new process means there will be a set number, but their make-up will be rotated, so we will have a commissioner, then we won’t, then after a bit we will.

I don’t understand the hang up over a commissioner anyway. They’re nothing more than a glorified social partnership member of a state agency’s board of directors (on better expenses than most directors except at a certain agency that deals with training and work placement of the unemployed). The main thing is that like the social partners, they are forbidden to actually make specific representations for who they represent. All their decisions have to be in the interest of Europe, not Ireland.

Point 8:
You mean the lefties are saying that an extreme neo-con think tank is an alternative? Do they really want to open that can of worms? Do we want European policy dictated by British Tories, UUP members, Austrian conservatives and the more racist elements of Denmark, setting European policy?

 

[michaelm]

There has yet to be any real reason for voting no other than a vote against the government.

Indeed, do you even read your own posts before you submit them?

Valid reasons to vote No include . . Democratic principle (we said No already) . . the Treaty is deliberately unintelligible (as claimed by it's author) . . Ireland's voting strength is diluted while that of bigger states is hugely increased just as we surrender many more policy areas to QMV . . the Treaty creates, for the first time, an EU State of which we all will become citizens . . the attached Charter of Rights supersedes our rights as set out in the Irish Constitution and this Charter will be interpreted by the European Court of Justice . . we will be unable to reverse any unexpected or unwelcome interpretation by the ECJ via referendum, as we can currently do with Irish Supreme Court decisions . . we have ceded enough sovereignty to the EU already . . there are many more reasons to vote this Treaty down and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Well what if we vote yes this time? How would you interpret that?

I expect we will. I would interpret it as a victory for fear over democracy. We will have sleep walked the peoples of Europe into a Federal Europe with foundations of sand.

We've voted no before and then voted yes e.g. Nice & Divorce. What does that say about us?

There were nine years between the two Divorce referenda. So maybe attitudes change over time. The Government spent heavily with taxpayers money promoting a Yes, which later led to the McKenna judgment. It was carried by only 9,000 votes, one per ballot box, which shows the importance of voting. Of course the government had to mess it up with a fudge that is 'no fault' divorce, which is a nonsense. IMHO divorce has done more harm than good.

With Nice there were changes made and there was a general election between the two votes so that the government could claim a mandate to rerun it. I suppose our Yes to Nice 2 might say we're malleable.

I fully respect the reason you voted no, personally though I believe not every no vote the last time was as principled as yours

No doubt, and the same would be true for Yes voters. But it is irrelevant. If Lisbon 1 was carried there would have been no research into the whys of it. No to Lisbon got a greater share of the popular vote than Obama did, imagine if the McCain camp wanted a rerun based on market research.

 

[Latrade]

Indeed, do you even read your own posts before you submit them?

I don't get you. I echoed a sentiment that having the sole justification for voting No as a statement against the current government isn't valid.

Valid reasons to vote No include . . Democratic principle (we said No already) . . the Treaty is deliberately unintelligible (as claimed by it's author) . . Ireland's voting strength is diluted while that of bigger states is hugely increased just as we surrender many more policy areas to QMV . . the Treaty creates, for the first time, an EU State of which we all will become citizens . . the attached Charter of Rights supersedes our rights as set out in the Irish Constitution and this Charter will be interpreted by the European Court of Justice . . we will be unable to reverse any unexpected or unwelcome interpretation by the ECJ via referendum, as we can currently do with Irish Supreme Court decisions . . we have ceded enough sovereignty to the EU already . . there are many more reasons to vote this Treaty down and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

And these would be valid if they actually had any substance.

Anyway:

1. Voting strength I refer to in another post (but seeing as I don't read my own posts, I can't be sure). But there's no point denying it we do lose that power. It could be argued we had too much power for our size, though I doubt we'd see it like that. But I already say that there are "safety valves" in place that prevent larger states pushing through their agenda.

2. The constitution created a "virtual" EU State. The Treaty doesn't. In fact the thing definitely removed is any reference to any form of overall state. The issue of a figurehead such as president/foreign affairs makes sense, it doesn't mean we'll be pledging allegance to President Blair or whoever. The current rotation of presidency is a massive cost for very little. It creates petty Naploeonic complexes as the new president has 6 months to show his country he's important and to leave some legacy on Europe. This stops that. Plus it means we have a representative figurehead for diplomatic relations rather than one week the Czech president, the next the French.

The UN has a president and yet it hasn't created a new world order.

3. You do realise that Ireland has already signed up and adopted the Charter of Human Rights don't you? Therefore our courts have to follow European precedent in this. However outside of that it is remains as is. Yes for european derived legislation, the European court determination carries precendent (see the disgust this week over the accumulation of annual leave while on sick leave), but our courts keep their powers. In effect for European legislation we have adopted, we surrendered those powers a long time ago.

To continue to misrepresent the actual text in a format that generates an irrational fear of a European Super State is disingenuous, not reading the actual thing and seeing through the hyperbole.

 

[michaelm]

It’s also very clear that there is no loss of national sovereignty.

Look, if there was no loss of sovereignty there would be no referendum. That is the whole point. There IS a loss of sovereignty otherwise our weasel Government wouldn't be holding a referendum. I assume you don't quite understand this point rather than you being deliberately misleading.

The bulk of the text is all about making the current system of governance and decision making more efficient and more democratic. As Europe has expanded, the old system just cannot cope. It’s like trying to play chess to the rules of hurling. The current system is entirely inefficient and undemocratic.

Are you Micheal Martin? It's just a house-keeping/tidy-up exercise. You say more democratic, the Dept. of Foreign Affairs 'information' leaflet says 'streamline voting' . . but what we're doing is to dilute our voting weight to be based on population (like a federal type model). Under Nice Germany's voting weight compared to Ireland is 4 to 1, under Lisbon it will be 20 to 1. As for 'can't cope . . inefficient', it's coped quite will for more than five years, since May 2004 when 10 countries joined the EU and studies show that it has become more efficient.

Again, another “score” for democracy is that we, the people, me, you and everyone else can actually petition Europe to introduce or change new legislation.

This is a stupid idea thought up by John Gormless. It's a cranks Charter. Indeed it's first use will be by a Swedish leftwing party who plan to have their online petition complete for next month when/if Lisbon is ratified. They want to petition the EU to force Abortion into Ireland (Article).

The Nice Treaty (the one we voted Yes to) reduces the number of commissioners. That has to happen next year unless…wait for it…unless Lisbon is ratified. If Lisbon is ratified, there is no reduction in the number of commissioners.

Nice says 'less Commissioners than countries, as agreed by States'. Before Nice 2 our Commissioner, Davey Byrne & the Yes camp, said there would be 27 countries and 26 Commissioners, that we would only be without a Commissioner for 5 our of 130 years; there was even the suggestion that the country who's national held the Foreign Representative post would be the one to forgo a Commissioner. Lisbon envisages a Commission of 2/3 the number of countries and that we loose the right to 'propose' our Commissioner and rather can merely 'suggest' one; EU lawyers do not change wording for no reason. So what we've got is a politically expedient arrangement where Lisbon is unchanged the Commission President will ultimately decide who our Commissioner is to be, and in 2014 when the new Commission's term is up, the EU will probably be 30 countries and they will point to Lisbon when cutting the Commission to 20 and who knows on what rotating basis . . some bigger countries could even have permanent members just like with the UN security council.

 

[Caveat]

But there's no point denying it we do lose that power. It could be argued we had too much power for our size, though I doubt we'd see it like that.

This is it. Nobody, especially in this country likes to see anything taken away from them regardless of the justification. Same with the automatic medical card for over 70s.

 

[Latrade]

Look, if there was no loss of sovereignty there would be no referendum. That is the whole point. There IS a loss of sovereignty otherwise our weasel Government wouldn't be holding a referendum. I assume you don't quite understand this point rather than you being deliberately misleading.

Actually, it isn’t. That’s not misleading in anyway, it’s just a small understanding of the Supreme Court decision of 1987. To recap, this only relates to co-operation (not loss of sovereignty) on foreign policy. And that’s it. The decision is that the Constitution places a trust in the government on foreign policy and therefore changes to this must be put to the people.

.Are you Micheal Martin? It's just a house-keeping/tidy-up exercise. You say more democratic, the Dept. of Foreign Affairs 'information'

leaflet says 'streamline voting' . . but what we're doing is to dilute our voting weight to be based on population (like a federal type model). Under Nice Germany's voting weight compared to Ireland is 4 to 1, under Lisbon it will be 20 to 1. As for 'can't cope . . inefficient', it's coped quite will for more than five years, since May 2004 when 10 countries joined the EU and studies show that it has become more efficient.

Nope, just someone who works closely in and with Europe and knows first hand it is anything but efficient or effective. Again, think social partnership on a more egregious and more agenda driven basis.

Look, this is where we have to consider the woeful term “big picture”. There’s no point pretending we don’t lose in the proportion of votes. But it’s disingenuous to focus on that. The system is balanced and it simply does not give power to the larger states. To ladle a post with cliché, what is lost on the swings is gained on the roundabouts.

And it really isn’t coping at all. Not one bit. The distribution of votes and power means things are very slow and impossible. The set up of the parliament, council, commission etc mean it’s even slower. The fact that it’s become the dumping ground for politicians who are out of favour in their member state doesn’t help. While its not necessarily broke, its very old rail stock and it needs an upgrade.

This is a stupid idea thought up by John Gormless. It's a cranks Charter. Indeed it's first use will be by a Swedish leftwing party who plan to have their online petition complete for next month when/if Lisbon is ratified. They want to petition the EU to force Abortion into Ireland (Article).

Your link doesn’t work. However, I’m aware of the petition. First, it’s a centre-right wing party, not left. Second, if they get 1 million signatures, then it must be considered, not implemented and not adopted, considered. Then the new fairer voting system would mean that it could be blocked easily (if so wanted). However, at 4000 signatures to date, it’s a while to go just yet.

But then isn’t this democracy? You get the good with the bad, but the point is under Lisbon we can do this. At the moment its all in the hands of unelected officials and social partners to propose and debate and clear legislation. We can keep that system if you want.

Nice says 'less Commissioners than countries, as agreed by States'. Before Nice 2 our Commissioner, Davey Byrne & the Yes camp, said there would be 27 countries and 26 Commissioners, that we would only be without a Commissioner for 5 our of 130 years; there was even the suggestion that the country who's national held the Foreign Representative post would be the one to forgo a Commissioner. Lisbon envisages a Commission of 2/3 the number of countries and that we loose the right to 'propose' our Commissioner and rather can merely 'suggest' one; EU lawyers do not change wording for no reason. So what we've got is a politically expedient arrangement where Lisbon is unchanged the Commission President will ultimately decide who our Commissioner is to be, and in 2014 when the new Commission's term is up, the EU will probably be 30 countries and they will point to Lisbon when cutting the Commission to 20 and who knows on what rotating basis . . some bigger countries could even have permanent members just like with the UN security council.

The commissioner is a red herring. First look at who the commissioners are, not exactly the bright sparks of any member state. It’s become the limbo of political careers. Why on earth should we continue to let countries dump the ineffective and controversial politicians into this cauldron? Second, the commissioners cannot represent their countries, they have to act based on what’s best for Europe. No comments or views at all based on how something might affect Ireland. So whether we appoint one, don’t have one, get one selected, the outcome is the same.

The rotating basis is described, but not set. It will likely be every two years. In similar bodies there is also a maximum term of service, usually two. The proposal is that the commission will reflect the general set up of Europe, so there will be representation by small, medium and large states. So yes there will always be a representative for one or a proportion of larger states, but it won’t be the same commissioner or same state.

 

[michaelm]

Hey Latrade. I like your last post. You seem now to accept that 'more democratic' really means less voting strength for Ireland and that the petition is in fact fluff. Also you've moved from the notion that Lisbon guarantees us a Commissioner to your real view that the one-for-all position will be dropped in a couple of years. I also agree with you when you say . .

"The set up of the parliament, council, commission etc mean it’s even slower. The fact that it’s become the dumping ground for politicians who are out of favour in their member state doesn’t help. While its not necessarily broke, its very old rail stock and it needs an upgrade."

. . that very old rail stock makes up the EU gravy train. Rather than just upgrade the stock, a No to Lisbon presents the opportunity to to force a rethink on the direction of the whole project. Career politicians and EU civil servants want the current federal direction, advanced by Lisbon. I have no doubt that the peoples of Europe, if consulted, would have a preference for an EU which is about ease of travel and trade, more EEC like than the envisaged EU world power. EU and Irish leaders are not being honest about the direction and destination of their EU project.

 

[Latrade]

Hey Latrade. I like your last post. You seem now to accept that 'more democratic' really means less voting strength for Ireland and that the petition is in fact fluff.

Michael, I’ve always said we get less voting. Nobody is saying anything different. So please don’t misrepresent what I’ve said as a change of view for cheap point scoring. I don’t want to get into hyperbolic statements or sentiments, but it will boil down to whether a population of 4 million who has had considerable assistance from Europe decides to give the two fingers to everyone else. Do we have a moral right to the current levels of voting? That’s something we have to weigh up.

But any change, is going to have pros and cons. We have to decide whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa. In this case to repeat: we lose our current voting level, but the overall system is more democratic, efficient and effective as a result. The new system has enough mechanisms and securities to prevent smaller states being overpowered in decisions by larger states.

You’re also confusing me on your stance or understanding of democracy. Suffrage meant less voting powers for Aristocracy. Female suffrage meant less voting power for men. Are you saying this loss of voting power among an elite few is a bad thing? I’m not putting words or views into your mouth, I’m genuinely confused by your stance. One minute it’s undemocratic and the next “more democratic” is bad.

Sometimes a loss of voting power is more democratic.

And yes, that particular example of a petition (you nicely sidestep the incorrect assumptions you made when you brought it up) is fluff. The petition process isn’t. As we’re all very aware sometimes democracy throws up some dummy stuff, it’s the nature of the beast, but it’s the best beast we’ve got. In a system that is criticised for being undemocratic and a transfer of power to unelected officials, how does a greater degree of public inclusion locally within member states and at a European level make it less democratic?

Also you've move from the notion that Lisbon guarantees us a Commissioner to your real view that the one-for-all position will be dropped in a couple of years. I also agree with you when you say.

Again, an unfair statement for point scoring. I’m more than happy to discuss and debate content of the Treaty, but not in this manner. I didn’t move, I stated what the current situation is, first, Nice means a reduction, Lisbon it will remain, but there might not be one in the future. A technicality, yes, but technically speaking we keep the commissioner. However, do you really want to keep an ineffective drain of finances?

So yet again, I never said one-for-all will remain forever, in fact I thought I made it clear I am no fan at all of the commissioners and am completely in favour of the proposals to cut them.

"The set up of the parliament, council, commission etc mean it’s even slower. The fact that it’s become the dumping ground for politicians who are out of favour in their member state doesn’t help. While its not necessarily broke, its very old rail stock and it needs an upgrade."

. . that very old rail stock makes up the EU gravy train. Rather than just upgrade the stock, a No to Lisbon presents the opportunity to to force a rethink on the direction of the whole project. Career politicians and EU civil servants want the current federal direction, advanced by Lisbon. I have no doubt that the peoples of Europe, if consulted, would have a preference for an EU which is about ease of travel and trade, more EEC like than the envisaged EU world power. EU and Irish leaders are not being honest about the direction and destination of their EU project.

To take your points backwards: if the EU was pure travel and trade we as a nation would be stuck in the 80s. In addition to not see the benefits for us as individuals of a European voice as opposed to individual ones competing for World investment is beyond me.

I’ll be careful here because I don’t want to give anyone the impression that we have a large European Gun (which doesn’t affect our neutrality) pointing at our heads…but… two things to consider. One: Europe needs to change, it has to due its size. Two: Europe needs to change quickly because of the current economic issues.

What we do know is that there will be no humble back to the drawing board and a new proposal to accommodate more power to 4 million people. What will follow is a programme for a new way of running Europe that will be pushed through by the larger states. Ireland will be left in the sidelines, along with the other smaller states. In addition, Croatia might be a bit annoyed as they don’t get to come into Europe.

But we’re pals with America right? Let’s not fool ourselves too much, Ireland has its benefits and the relatively small number of foreign companies abandoning the state is testament to this. But among this is Ireland’s gateway to Europe and the European market. Nicely situated, same currency, English speaking, and a bit of craic as well. Enough at the moment to mean moving a to a cheaper, but non-English speaking, non-Euro country is prohibitive.

However, if we lose our position in Europe, we lose this selling point.

Now among the other things Lisbon achieves is overcoming the ridiculous stumbling block that pitches member state against member state when looking at investment. Remember the Intel issue a few years ago? Because the old system has just been added to and tweaked as the common market grew, it’s created this problem.

Another benefit is that Germany can no longer throw a strop or a spanner into the works because Ireland is good at tempting in foreign investment.

Again, aren’t a few votes lost worth this?