I don’t recall where I promoted the abolition of the ballot or proposed a dictatorship. And by the way, I tend to think the outcome of a vote is rather important. If the outcome isn’t important the whole exercise becomes mechanical and pointless don’t you think.

Of course, you understood perfectly well what I meant. But, for whatever the reason, you are gripped by the same pathology as many who oppose Lisbon. Once infected the victim finds it impossible not to twist the words of those who differ in opinion. All kinds of extrapolations are possible, and there can be no limit to how arguments can be misconstrued.

What is it about Lisbon? It seems to provoke such an extraordinary response in those who oppose it. I often get the feeling there is something visceral, bordering on the viscious, behind the comments. Where does this come from?

I do wish some people would understand that in a democracy the most important thing about a vote is not its outcome.

There has been suggestions that by not abdicating sovereignty to the EU that the Irish will remain under the greater control of a right wing, less progressive polity which is determined by the short term concerns of parish pump politics. That is, sectional interests with greater influence in a smaller geographical area controlling things in their favour, and we would lose out on the supranational checks and balances that sees things more in universal terms, and which increase social justice and provide greater equality for all the people of Europe. The things is, without trying to sound like a Euro skeptic Tory, or being accused of being one, how can we be sure that such a move would provide more progressive social and economic policies or protect us against sectional interests. What if that supranational body is just as likely to be influence by more powerful sectional interests? What if certain national interests within the EU dominate? Now in such circumstance Ireland would still probably benefit economically and indeed socially, but that would probably have more to do with the fact that we are coming from such a low base.

What the Lisbon situation has shown is not the problems with modern democracy, but how it highlights its very absence. Of course democracy at the local level is very limited at the moment. That is the nature of representative democracy. You stand in line every four years – depending on events - and choose what you think is the tastiest dish on the menu. How is that improved by abdicating power to an institution which reduces that democratic involvement even further?

We’d likely have seen the same government returned, or at least the main party thereof, and so, I’m not sure if much would be achieved.

What the survey has shown is what was known already, middle class and middle aged men not only have the greatest interest in national politics and are the greatest beneficiaries of how it works, they also run the show. People say that it’s terrible how the majority of people (the majority of workers, who live on less than 40k, women and the young) are disenfranchised from modern politics. That, I would say, is how the system is designed to work. Calling an election is not going to change that.

If they were that intelligent would they have put the same crowd back in power three times in a row?

I think I mentioned before that referenda are different to election cycles. One is to vote yes or no, but which will in no way influence what politicians will be in power, while the other is to try and determine who is in power. The intelligent point is that I thought it was better to make an informed decision rather than doing something because you are told to do it. If you can’t make an informed decision (leaving aside the fact that you should be informing yourself) then you should hold off on making it.
Despite all the information available about what the Lisbon Treaty was supposed to change in terms of structural reform, foreign policy and voting etc the full implications were still unclear. It clear that the middle class middle aged men thought that it would be beneficial to them, but the rest of the population could see how it would improve their lives any. And the reason why the politicians didn’t point this out was because it probably wouldn’t.

One issue around the surrender of sovereignty in Lisbon is that there was no agreement on the amount of sovereignty that was being given to Europe. That’s no surprise. Sovereignty is not easy to quantify and so each side of the campaign took very different views of whether a large or small amount of sovereignty was to be transferred. But the idea of surrendering sovereignty per se is not necessarily negative. It can be of course. But isn’t necessarily so. You can imagine for example, transferring sovereignty to another centre of power because it might be more effective - in tackling issues which the local power, standing alone, is not capable of dealing with effectively. Local sovereignty in certain areas is not much use if you aren’t powerful to take decisions that make a difference.

But I think Prof Maguire’s point about over-ridding the will of the people is valid. While I personally see a certain amount of merit in having EU treaties ratified by parliament, I think that once the question was put to the people, it would be completely wrong to simply ignore their voice and press ahead with ratification in the Oireachtas. But I don’t think that is going to happen. I think the government is highly likely to get a few small concessions from our Eu partners and then put the question again. Regarding the clash between the people and their representatives regarding Lisbon, someone made the point that because it was an issue of major national importance, the government should have resigned and called another election. I see a certain logic in that but I’m not sure if would help resolve the problem. We’d likely have seen the same government returned, or at least the main party thereof, and so, I’m not sure if much would be achieved.

I don’t agree with your point that the No illustrated that the electorate was intelligent enough to reject what the political leadership was pushing. If they were that intelligent would they have put the same crowd back in power three times in a row? There are problems with Lisbon and provisions in it that merit solid debate before deciding. But is there any reason to doubt the findings that show an electorate which has a terribly poor knowledge of the Eu as it stands and which had great difficulty getting to grips with the proposed changes? And its certainly true that the political elite are not exactly inspiring either when it comes to their command of Eu affairs. This, in my opinion, is not the whole story by any means, but it is an important part of it.

Sarah Palin has agreed to be their sponser. However, they had to agree that once the pagent was over, she gets to kill the pig.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babysingsing/2184236781/