Lawyers Against Lisbon (Press Release)

We, the undersigned, have decided to vote "No" on Friday and recommend that our fellow voters do so as well.

We each have slightly different reasons for our position but are agreed on what now follows.

Contrary to a common argument from our opponents, the Treaty is about much more than improving decision-making, but even if it was

The North Korean parliament is a marvel of efficient decision-making, as is a torch-wielding lynch mob. Neither is an attractive model for the EU

(The quotation is from "The Economist")

The Referendum Commission's work, while valuable, at best clarifies what is in this treaty. Given its complexity, there is an understandable tendency to conclude that, having reached some understanding of its contents and having failed to confirm one's worst fears, it is safe to vote for it. This is, sadly, no way to decide on the rules for our government. The treaty must also be seen in a larger context, especially that of its genesis.

None of the other groups opposed to the Treaty represent us adequately, and in the case of some, do not represent us at all. Nor, as is absolutely clear from polls and from last June's elections, do they represent the majority of "No" voters.

In deciding how to vote, the bad reasons on either side are irrelevant.

Some say that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland: we don't agree with this formulation of the problem at all. Our negotiators did a reasonable job.

C'est Magnifique! Mais C'est Ne Pas la Democratie

The EU's Constitution (for that is what the Treaties culminating in Lisbon amount to) has been developed, and continues to develop, without adequate democratic participation. Most regrettably, Lisbon was deliberately written to further preclude this. "The Economist", whose Europhile credentials are impeccable, had the integrity to note this as drafting proceeded. The titles of the relevant articles - Hee-hee Voters Fooled Again and Journalists for a Cover-up - must make any genuine democrat's blood run cold.

Public opinion in the EU states has not been able to arrive at an informed view on the merits of the Treaty because of the way in which it was written. Even to us, as lawyers accustomed to dealing with abstruse documents, the Treaty as signed is well-nigh unreadable. We recognise that some of this arose from the inherent difficulty of arriving at an agreement, but it is clear beyond dispute that the form in which the Treaty was signed was a function of the perceived necessity to disguise, or at least to "cosmetise", some aspects which would cause difficulty, especially for the people of the UK.

Voting "No" is Not Rejecting Everything

We acknowledge some good things in the Treaty, but cannot support further extension of Union competences while the ethos of democratic exclusion continues to hold sway. The Union leadership has now developed the habit of discarding democratic methods reflexively, if they do not produce the right answer.

Indeed, we fear that the Union may already have gone further than is inherently possible while remaining politically legitimate. The choice now is either to go fully federal or to revert to a community of more or less equal states. Lisbon is an unsatisfactory mish-mash from this perspective.

The Commission's sole power to initiate legislation, including repealing measures, is increasingly anachronistic in democratic terms now that so many of the laws governing us are made in this way.

We don't accept that non-ratification will lead to "the sky falling in". The ECB, for example, is not helping us as a reward or a bribe. (But if it is , it will stop on Monday whether we vote "Yes" or "No").

Whether "Yes" or "No", Ireland will still be near the top of the table of countries supportive of the EU. Even "No" voters are 2-to-1 in favour of membership.

Some "Yes" people want an EU government instead of an Irish one, arguing that native rule has failed. That is a dangerous fantasy and one which the EU itself will not indulge.

The apparent requirement on EU Commission staff from top to bottom to be not merely functionaries but enthusiasts and proselytisers for "the project" is worrying for an ostensibly democratic entity.

Brendan Nix S.C., Joe Noonan, Solicitor, Fergus O'Rourke B.L., John McGuiggan B.L.

[ends]

German Attitudes....Allegedly

In "The Irish Times" on Saturday, Derek Scally wrote movingly

Since Ireland’s No to Lisbon, the Irish in Germany have been made to feel like ingrates. Wherever you go, the same insinuation:"Three decades of EU cash and then you give us the finger."

...The fact is that, when explaining why the first Lisbon referendum fell, there are four million Irish people in the EU who believe the complicated version and 82 million Germans who don’t. We are on the wrong side of the argument, and not just with the Germans. Next week, nearly half a billion people across the EU will reach their own conclusions about the second vote. If Ireland votes No again, there is little we can do to stop them thinking that we took the money and ran.

This is where the Lisbon debate in Ireland misses the point entirely: if Ireland votes No a second time, it is up to our EU neighbours - not us - to decide how we will be treated in the future. We may not be thrown to the wolves, but politicians in Germany will certainly keep in mind their electorate’s dim view of Ireland when they consider any kind of alliances with their colleagues from Dublin.

... Like all Irish living around Europe... if our countrymen vote No, we are the ones who will first feel the chill.

Some of the on-line commenters to the article (which you can see below the article itself) have punctured his typically (for the Irish mainstream media on this topic) tendentious picture. I would add

• According to a Forsa poll commissioned by More Democracy, 82% of Germans believe that citizens in each of the EU member states should be able to vote directly on an EU constitution

• In yesterday's German elections, I note that at least two parties with Lisbon-sceptic tendencies gained in vote share

A Few Words On Turkey

My negative attitude to the Lisbon Treaty is connected with the issue of Turkey's possible accession, but not in the obvious way.

There are quite a few good reasons to be opposed to, or at least very sceptical of, the accession of Turkey to the EU. I am not going to discuss them, or even the very persuasive arguments from the other side, in this article. I explain why below.

Like Ireland's "bail-out" for its banks, or its cutting of public sector pay, Turkey's accession may just be "one of those things" that have to be accepted (albeit at a high political price) by those who have played no active part in creating the circumstances that have left no other reasonable options open.

For nearly 50 years now, the leaders of what is now the EU have held open the prospect of full membership to Turkey. As with all aspirant members, this has not been unconditional, and problems with those conditions remain (and constitute some of the good reasons for resisting entry). However, Turkey has taken great steps to approach fulfilment of them, and has done so in great measure explicitly for the purpose of moving closer "to Europe".

The electorates of the Union, and that includes those of Greece, Austria and Cyprus, to name but three at random, can not reasonably pretend that this was done behind their backs, or that they were unaware of it before they joined. It may simply be too late to "slam the door" on Turkey now, for reasons of practical geo-politics as well as "honour": we are responsible for the promises repeatedly made on our behalf, at least to some extent, especially when they are not made in secret.

But ...

Does this situation not illustrate the problem of the democratic legitimacy of the Union's governance arrangements ? It is at least arguable that we have been "bounced" into this by Euro-fanatics, to whom the addition of Turkey is an essential part of their sacred "Project"(about the meaning of which it is extremely difficult to get them to be explicit), and who substantially control the setting of EU agendas.

It is not that these fanatics are all bad people, nor that they are not entitled to their (in parts admirable) project, nor that they are always illegitimate in their influence upon the agendas: it is that through their constant control of the Commission and its bureaucracy (to be accentuated by Lisbon), which permits pretty close to a monopoly of initiative at EU level, they are not only immune to, but are insulated from, public opinion in a fashion that is dangerously anti-democratic. One of Declan Ganley's (relatively few) good points is his emphasis on the inability of ordinary voters to vote for or against those with the power to propose legislation.

(Euro-sceptics, no matter how mild, can not get nominated or approved for appointment, and employees who express dissent tend to get dismissed for "disloyalty".)

Am I Against Ireland ?

If being opposed to a change in the laws constituent of the EU means that I am an opponent of the EU, can I not oppose any change to our own Constitution in future without being labelled as anti-national ?

Useful Guide to Effect of Lisbon on EU Law

This PDF document, accessible through the Bonde link on my compendium of Lisbon Treaty Material, clearly and most readably shows, article by article - but only a few words for each - the changes to be wrought by the Treaty. Very usefully, it also identifies the elements of the EU Constitution document which have been dropped or changed.

What We Owe Other EU Member States

Occasionally, one hears stories of people being told by their continental European friends that it is felt that Ireland is "letting its friends in Europe down" by contemplating rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. The purveyors of these stories tend, in my experience, to regard themselves as modern, sophisticated people, with a cosmopolitan outlook.

One of the core values of the European Union is a democratic approach to political issues. Ireland's constitution specifies that its People are sovereign, and a democratic approach requires that a change to its system of government cannot be made without its express consent. Further, such consent requires that a proper democratic debate take place first.

Democratic debate requires a full exploration of the advantages and disadvantages of the change in arrangements being proposed. Participation in such debates is a right and a duty of all citizens; it is not limited to those who were enthusiasts of the existing arrangements.

As I have made clear before, I am grateful to my fellow EU citizens for their support in the journey we have made together, in which we Irish have needed help more than most. However, I do not recognise any duty arising from that to accept without critical examination a complicated and far-reaching set of proposals - not from my fellow EU taxpayers, but from their "leaders" - to change the way the laws that govern my life are made. Indeed, because these changes also affect every EU citizen, I owe it to them to very carefully consider how to cast my vote. It is improper to criticise me for doing so, and if I happen to reach a conclusion with which they disagree, it is childish and disrespectful to suggest that I have got it wrong. It is even worse to put it to me strongly that, whatever I think, I have a duty to do what they want.

I could, in fact, put the question back to my fellow EU citizens: why are you so passively accepting such momentous changes ? Have you discussed them as intensely as we have ? Do you not owe us any duties in that regard ?

I think of Hungary whenever my mind comes to such issues. Apparently, some Hungarians are puzzled at us. Well, I am concerned at Hungary's approach: that country, whose prime minister has admitted that he lied to the electorate during the last election in order to maximise his party's seats in parliament, was the first to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty was signed on a Friday, and the parliament- elected-on-a-lie ratified it the following Monday. That does not look like proper democratic procedure to me.

Perhaps I am insufficiently modern, sophisticated and lacking a cosmopolitan outlook.

Should We Be Grateful to the ECB ?

Campaigners for ratification of the Lisbon Treaty suggest that, as Finance Minister Brian Lenihan put it

When we vote in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty on 2 October next, I hope no one forgets that the European Central Bank stood behind this country during its time of greatest need.

I am grateful. Absolutely and unreservedly so. We are so fortunate that we have a central bank for the Euro-zone that not only can fulfil but is fulfilling one of the core competences of a central bank.

Mind you, what is usually left out of these discussions is a recognition that, if Ireland had not joined the Eurozone in the first place, many of our banking problems would either not have arisen, or would have been of a different, probably less serious, character. However, that is not a criticism of the ECB, or even of the EU generally, which did try to deflate some of our politicians' and bankers' overblown enthusiasm, and only got abuse in return.

That said, there is a limit to the amount of gratitude which it is appropriate to extend to a body that is simply doing its job. Furthermore, it escapes me why such gratitude should include voting for constitutional changes of no relevance to the ECB.

Lisbon Treaty Will Have No Effect on Exports, say Economists

A hand-picked sample of 66 economists, including an undisclosed number of its own staff, failed to endorse "independent" consultancy Indecon's thesis, echoing political party posters on hoardings across the land, that a positive result in next month's referendum would lead to a Land of Milk and Honey an increase in Ireland's export earnings.

For details, including other tendentious presentations of the survey results, and comments by me, read the article here which includes a link to the report. (PDF)

Update on Friday, September 18, 2009 at 06:50AM by Fergus O'Rourke

As a result of information in a private communication from Alan Gray, Managing Partner of Indecon, and partially confirmed elsewhere, I withdraw the sobriquet "hand-picked". However, I still have some unexpressed reservations about the methodology employed, on which I would be prepared to expand. Unfortunately, to do so properly would require me to break a confidence.

The Worst Reason (So Far) to Vote No

A letter-writer in Saturday's Irish Times is worried that the Lisbon Treaty

will not affect the continued application of the provisions of the Irish Constitution in relation to the right to life, education and the family

Yes, worried. Agitated he is, as in their different ways, are the newspaper's contributors Sarah Carey and Fintan O'Toole, that their fellow Irish citizens should keep any power to make law for themselves.

Neither democracy nor subsidiarity has value in their eyes and for the letter-writer even the "European project" comes second to other priorities:

One interpretation of this wording could mean that we in Ireland will never get full equality for same-sex couples or indeed legalised civil partnership. If this is the case, I shall be voting No in the second referendum, no question

There are many voters who think like that; I meet them nearly every day.

(Sigh)

It's a European Crisis, not an Irish One

As usual, the commentary, this time on the final report from the Irish government's commissioned research into the meaning of voters' rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in The Economist's on-line column, Certain Ideas of Europe, is incisive and intelligent. I urge you to read it, and indeed to read the research findings themselves.

Those findings are full of fascinating gems for students of Irish politics, and are also relevant to the wider European polity (inchoate though that be). I expect to be bringing some of them here to examine and admire.

Meanwhile, I give you this extract from Certain Ideas of Europe:

...56% of Irish voters thought that the treaty would bring about more efficient decision-making in the EU, and 61% thought it would strengthen Europe's role in the world. Those are, indeed, two of the proudest boasts of the pro-Lisbon camp. Alas, they are not objectively proved facts at all. "Efficient" decision making is a codephrase for more majority voting (which is certainly quicker, some of the time, than trying to secure unanimous support for new laws). But since when was it efficient to pass laws more quickly? Indeed, since when was it a good thing to pass laws more quickly? The North Korean parliament is a marvel of efficient decision-making, as is a torch-wielding lynch mob. Neither is an attractive model for the EU.

Finally (for now), a crucial statistic from the report which highlights the utter wrong-headedness of the majority of commentators, both domestic and foreign, who persist in characterising the vote result as "anti-EU"

...even among No voters, 63% think the EU is a good thing, well ahead of the EU average of 52%.

Take that one in: nearly two-thirds of the allegedly "Eurosceptic" majority support the Union. When the "yes" voters are added, the percentage is about 70. In the EU as a whole, the figure is 52%.

Are EU leaders really going to pretend that the country at 70% is having a epiphany peculiar to itself while the rest of the Union's population just wants to "get on with it"?

Lisbon and Hurling

Foreign Minister Micheal Martin says that the Georgian crisis has made EU governments more determined to push ahead with the Lisbon Treaty. Expect more stories along the same lines

Following a disaster of Caucasian proportions in this year's All -Ireland Hurling Final, Waterford politicians from the major parties have said that the result shows the need for Lisbon Treaty as, er, obviously the, er, abuse of its dominant position by Kilkenny required more rigorous enforcement of European competition law in the hurling market.

Asked to identify which part of the Treaty would help in this regard, a spokesman said that Europe had been good for Ireland, just as Ireland had been good for Europe, and, er, Ireland's competition legislation was largely modelled on the provisions of the Treaty of, er , Rome which of course was confirmed by the new Treaty. He couldn't immediately identify which article was relevant, but the people of Waterford could be assured that Europe was their friend.

Opinion-formers and the Lisbon Result

They still don't "get-it". Locked in symbiotic obsolescence with the media that have served it so well, the EU elite is nonplussed by the Internet.

The Irish Times has obtained a copy of what is apparently an internal Commission memorandum addressing the role of the media, as broadly understood, in the outcome of the vote.The story is here, while the full document is here.

Looking at the document on its own terms, and allowing for its understandably biassed point of view, it is a fair enough survey of the "old-media" marketplace. Especially valuable, not least given the demographic analysis provided earlier of the composition of the majority, is the reminder that the Irish media space is populated to a very significant extent now by "Irishised" (not my neologism, I hasten to say) UK publications.

However, when it comes to the on-line media, the report is very unsatisfactory, and in very revealing ways.

We learn that the Commission attempted to monitor internet discussion of the referendum. The results of the monitoring, as presented, are impossible to interpret. We are shown tables setting out the number of "articles" on various sites, classified in terms of attitude to the Treaty.

It would appear that no account was taken of the relative popularity of websites. Thus, negative comments on two sites with a readership of 1 count for twice as much as one positive article on a site with 1000 readers, or so it would seem.

As far as I can see, Usenet was ignored, even though there was lively and very balanced discussion of the issues there. Likewise, Twitter and Facebook, Bebo, MySpace.

There is a plain silly assertion that the boards.ie discussions were irredeemably skewed in an anti-Lisbon direction because one of its owners was involved with Libertas.

Some other points from the document:

1. The proliferation of the internet as a magnet for anti-establishment opinion formers is a phrase which reveals simultaneously a state of mind which fears the un-supervised expression of anti-establishment opinion (as contrasted with the expression permitted in, say, the appallingly prejudiced Irish Times) and which is pathetically timid about its own ability to exploit the "new" media.

2. Internet- A fragmented battle ground dominated by Euro-scepticism Yes, it is fragmented by comparison with the now over-concentrated "old" media market - has the Commission forgotten the core Euro values of diversity and lively competition ? - but that is a superficial impression, and when account is taken of differentials in readership, I very much doubt that the dominance is as claimed. (And the Euro-sceptic label is seriously misleading in the Irish context, as opponents of Lisbon like me are not anti-EU).

3. Mainstream indigenous Irish media has tended to be critical but overall pro-European Oh yes, you could say that ! "Mildly critical on the odd specific, extremely pro-European and blindly supportive of further integration/expansion" is how I would put it.

4. Apart from official websites, the internet has largely been a space left to anti-European feeling Sarah , someone should tell them how popular GUBU is (for a start).

Update on Saturday, September 6, 2008 at 04:11PM by Fergus O'Rourke

Those who find the above of interest would probably also benefit from the articles posted yesterday by Jon Worth in his Euroblog .

Why I Voted No - addendum

I promised the other day to explain why I was "almost" able to accept the QMV changes, the loss of a Commissioner for part of the time and that there was no threat to Irish neutrality. Unfortunately, I found the second part of the explanation for my vote so difficult to write that I forgot my promise. I remedy that now.

Neutrality:I am persuaded that the so-called "triple-lock" does protect Irish neutrality. However, as I voted really as a European on European issues, I am still a bit uneasy at the eagerness of other member states to emphasise the military aspect of the Union. Indeed, there continues to be confusion in the minds of many, especially in Mittel- and Eastern Europe, between NATO and the EU;

Loss of Commissioner: To be accurate, this battle was lost in the Nice referendum. Enough said.

Changes to QMV: By this, I mean to refer both to the extension of QMV (= loss of veto in many areas) and to the change of QMV weights. The logic of these is plausible, but not that difficult to counter. These are effectively irreversible changes to the balance of power in the EU. I am comfortable with their general direction, and in particular am happy to see Germany's weight increase, but not really with their drastic nature, especially in the light of the passerelle provision. (See below).

The passerelle would allow future constitutional changes to be made without the need for a new treaty provided the leaders of the member states unanimously so agreed at the time. This looks even creepier now that the referendum result has exposed the huge gap between the political elite and the People. I am not entirely reassured by the opinion of many Lisbon advocates that no Irish Taoiseach could agree without a referendum, and besides I care about the rights of voters in other members of the Union as well.

I would emphasise, though, that none of the above counted for more with me than the issues of democratic legitimacy to which I referred in Part 2.

The Factors That Influenced My Decision to Vote "No" Pt.2 of 2

I believe passionately in democracy, as in the Lincolnian formulation viz.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people

Although the EU is formally a democratic entity, and is indeed inclined to be rather arrogant about its democratic credentials, the ethos which governs the decisions of the leading elites is anti-democratic. Whereas democracy means that the People are sovereign, as Ireland's Constitution has it, the EU's ethos appears to be that, instead, those whom the representatives of the People select are entitled/obliged to delegate others to give governing power to people who never stand for election by ordinary voters.

The attitude of the EU leadership - and of most campaigners in Ireland for ratification - was so anti-democratic that one felt like voting against just to spite them. I am still horrified at the discovery, made during the campaign, that so many people think that it is quite all right not only for an electorate to accept a document that they do not understand ("Trust me, I am a politician") but even that legislators - entrusted by the voters to scrutinise proposed laws and to oversee the executive - consider it acceptable to pass into law measures that they do not understand ("Trust me, I am a Minister").

This is not how a truly democratic method of government functions.

I admit that this is not solely an EU issue. Nor is it only a problem with politicians. Most members of the professional classes, among whom I spend most of my time, are contemptuous of the democratic ethos.

The problem is not even confined to the professional classes, though: "ordinary" voters need to take their citizenship duties more seriously than they currently do.

As for the media, just don't get me started, as we say around here.

The reaction of EU leaders to the referendum result confirms me in my view. The soi-disant "Community of equals" wants to go ahead with the process of ratification. The only reasonable interpretation of this is that the aim is to bully the only member-state to consult the popular will. The Union leadership discards democratic methods reflexively, if they do not produce right answer.

Further development of the EU does not have my approval until this ethos changes.

To be fair, it is recognised by many at the highest level - and I was gratified to hear it expressed on Friday last by our Foreign Minister - that this is a real issue. That is what the Laeken Declaration was all about, and it led to an honest effort in the form of the Convention to address the problem. Unfortunately, it lost its way, not least because a person (Giscard d'Estaing) who virtually embodied the problem was selected to head the Convention. Moreover, he, predictably, propelled the process away from the real problem, producing a result with no real solutions for it.

This result was despite the worthy efforts of many participants.

Update on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 02:40PM by Fergus O'Rourke

Whoops ! I forgot to keep my promise to explain the "almosts" in Part 1. The explanation is here.

The Factors That Influenced My Decision to Vote "No" Pt.1 of 2

First, this is a selection of the things that had nothing to do with my decision:

1. Fear about corporate tax rates. Lisbon or no Lisbon, there is a threat to the rate;

2. Ingratitude. I am very grateful to, especially, the German people for the support they gave us over the last 35 years. If the German People had voted emphatically for Lisbon, it would have been much harder for me to vote against it;

3. Neutrality: almost entirely absent from my thoughts;

4. Losing our Commissioner for one-third of the time - I could almost live with that;

5. QMV changes - I could almost live with them too;

(I will explain the repeated uses of "almost" in part 2).

6. Bad deal for Ireland: I don't agree with this formulation of the problem at all. Our negotiators did a reasonable job;

7. Abortion: The EU has modified our divorce law without democratic mandate, so the fear (or hope) that this could happen in other "moral " areas is not wholly irrational (and does play its part in my general scepticism). However, the abortion position is special and it played no part in my deliberations.

8. Support for Sinn Fein, Libertas, Coir, the Socialist party was most definitely not a factor for me, or for the vast majority of "No" voters. Were a General Election held tomorrow, the above-mentioned parties would be lucky to obtain a quarter of the 56% which the "No" answer attracted.

9.The alleged "new" supremacy of EU law which would obtain post-ratification.

On the other hand, there are good things in the Treaty (Charter of Fundamental Rights, better provision for scrutiny by national parliaments), as well as some meaningless things presented as good (e.g. "citizens' initiative").

Why I Voted NO

Coming soon:The reasons that did, and - almost as important - the considerations that did not, result in my voting against ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Due to the pressure of obligations, my reasoned explanation is not yet ready for publication. However, as the ballot boxes start to be opened, this is my last opportunity to put that vote on record without fear of being accused of "post-hoc"revision to accord with the People's verdict.

Not a Catastrophe

The BBC's Europe editor, Mark Mardell, had an interesting article yesterday on the possible consequences of a negative referendum result. Some of the several dozen comments that it provoked were also interesting, and I may address some of the sensible ones here at a later stage.

It should go without saying, but unfortunately it does not: all those who vote a particular way cannot be tarred with the same brush. Thus, if I end up, as still appears more probable, voting against ratification of the Treaty, it does not follow that I subscribe to the notion that the independence of the USA has already been signed away in N.A.F.T.A.. Similarly, I am well aware that those who favour the opposite position include many who are otherwise sane and civilised devotees of Lincolnian democracy.

Is the EU a Democratic Entity ?

In Ireland, the People are sovereign. I would find it difficult to accept as democratic any entity wherein this was not the case. Despite its soi-disant committment to democratic values, however, the people who consider themselves (and are widely regarded by others) to speak for "the EU" impress me with their anti-democratic approach.

Typical is this response by "Waldo" to something I said on a Hungarian website:

Fergus, the European constitution was the EU's attempt to get the European citizens involved through an open and very understandable text.

Note the dichotomy between the EU and its citizens. In my view, the EU is its citizens; otherwise, it is not a democracy.

Waldo goes on:

I am for a more transparent, democratic and open working of the Union, however, this may not come in the way of the decent functioning of it's institutions.

I understand this to mean that he believes that the efficient functioning of the Union is more important than compliance with democratic criteria. This seems to be an accurate summary of the consensus view of the Euro-fanatics, and is one of the main reasons that I expect to be voting against the Lisbon Treaty. Although Ruairi Quinn would have us believe that this is not so, Waldo and his ilk clearly think that we are stupid, you see:

So to say it crudely: I am for a unreadable treaty so it may pass !

Another Good Reason to Vote Yes

Under the Lisbon Treaty, there would be a new obligation on the Commission to send legislative proposals to national parliaments. John Carroll of Semper Idem sets out the provisions here and I would echo most of his comments thereon.

It may seem odd, given what I said the other day, but I disagree with the comment left on the Irish Election page by someone calling themselves "Future Taoiseach". While the provision does carry a whiff of the same tokenism as the Citizens' Initiative, and the time limits are still unreasonable, I share Mr Carroll's optimism on the effect that the new procedure would have on increasing scrutiny of EU proposals by national legislators. Unlike the Citizens Initiative, the Commission is obliged to be pro-active in sending the information, and there are specific requirements for the Commission to address the issues raised by the national legislatures.

Again not a sufficient one, this is another good reason to vote for the Treaty.

One Good Reason to Vote "yes"

I think that I would now go so far as to agree that incorporation of the CFR into the EU legal order would be a good reason to vote for the Lisbon Treaty.Not a great one, perhaps, and not a sufficient one for me but still a good one.

If the Treaty is ratified, the institutions of the Union would be legally obliged to have regard to the provisions of the Charter in their dealings. Also, the CFR could be formally invoked in cases before the European Courts.

While I remain to be convinced that this will make much difference to the current practical position, there are definite benefits to this if only from a "tidying -up" perspective.