As for the veto, “The veto might “slow down the political decision making process” but in the EU in it’s current state, with 27 member states it is of a vital importance. 27 countries with 27 cultures & 27 values.”

Vetoes are inherently undemocratic, and it was the progressive reduction of vetoes that allowed for amongst other things reform of the CAP to be introduced, for the single market to be created.

It might astound her but there are many more than 27 cultures or 27 sets of values in the EU. Yet in Ireland say, we ignore the values of the Labour party or SF because they are in the minority when it comes to forming a government. Yet to take her view to its logical conclusion, we should allow SF or Labour to veto what we do because they have a separate set of values. In the EU at present it is just the 27 values of the governments of member states that are represented at the council of ministers, under Lisbon with more powers to the Parliament even Joe Higgins gets more of a say.

1) It shows it from a Dutch perspective. It might not come to a different conclusion than the one already voiced by myself and other “No” campaigners but it is a different perspective nonetheless.
2) One of the issue with the removal of a veto is that it is a nonsensical way to expedite policy making. If it is too difficult to get 27 member states to agree on a single issue maybe there is a reason for that. Removal of a veto might make the EU more efficient and expedient to operate but it doesn’t make it more democratic. It’s again a point of form over function.
3) Lisbon might be “about making the EU do, what it already does” but what is that’s not a good thing? The EU has developed from an economic cooperative entity into a more and more political & legislative entity something that is not a welcome development at all. The EU member states are just too diverse (in so many areas) that it simply cannot and should not be centrally governed. Ergo; if the Lisbon Treaty makes this central government more efficient in it’s operation it would not be a good or welcome development. The raft of legislation, directives and policy decision emenating from Brussels over the last few years clearly shows that it’s top down governing without consideration for the citizens who populate it’s member states.
4) When making a decision to vote in the upcoming 2nd referendum it is important to realise that our vote will affect the whole of the EU so what happened in France & the Netherlands is very much relevant. Do not forget that prior to the first referendum the EU stated that the treaty would not be put in place if it was not ratified by all member states. Following on that decision not only is Ireland being strong-armed into a 2nd referendum, it has also become clear that, even if not ratified by all member states, the Lisbon treaty will still be put in place.
5) Your last point is just plain ridiculous and spiteful: just because she did not achieve sufficient votes to make it into the EU parliament she is not allowed to voice her opinion?! Is that the kind of “democracy” you support? I didn’t even run for a seat so should I also be silent? Last time I checked we (as in all EU citizens) still had a constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Evert.

The main problem with vetos isn’t that we can’t adopt new legislation but that we can’t amend the stuff we already have. This makes for a glacial speed of reforming EU laws, many of which were passed years ago. It also creates a (sometimes accurate) impression that EU’s institutional framework is much less responsive to normal democratic pressures than it should be.

Moreover the EU treaties just set up a system to deal with the challenges of an ever more interconnected world. It will make some good decisions and some bad ones, but without it either we simply wouldn’t be able to make any decisions or somebody else would make them for us. What does it matter that the European Parliament voted this way or that way? Lisbon is just about making the EU do, what it already does, better. It’s really not that complicated.

Whatever went on in the Netherlands or France is hardly relevant for making an informed and rational decision in Ireland. Voters in Spain and Luxembourg voted yes, why doesn’t their opinions count? We were never even offered an opportunity to vote on the European Constitution, why should we just blindly follow what other people think?

In any case, how come she gets to be the mouth piece of democracy when she couldn’t even get enough votes to get elected as an MEP in a national list system! If the Dutch care about Lisbon, they clearly don’t care that much!

You should ask her that yourself. It had nothing to do with the post so I didn’t ask her about it.

Evert.

The argument that “No to Lisbon” campaigners are anti-EU is entirely fabricated by the yes-campaigners.

Evert.

It simply exposes her as someone who is entirely anti-EU. She should just own up to that and not express the rubbish of being ‘pro-EU but wanting to improve how it works’

I’d be happy for more non-Irish Europeans to get involved, but I don’t think it’s a vote-winner for either side (Sarkozy, anyone?).

By the way, I’m surprised there’s no mention of her claim that she is owed money by Libertas? Is she still pursuing them over that? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0612/1224248690587.html

You might want to read that again.
Eline actually uses the example of “services directive” as an indication how national interests seem to supersede pan-European interests. This shows that while the EU might work as an economic & trade entity it is not (yet) ready to become an economic entity. It has nothing to do with her argument that the EU is or is not democratic.

If you fail to read the post properly it will off course fail to make sense…

Evert.

As to everything else….I’ll refer her to Jason O’Mahony’s updated Spoofers Guide. So far its pretty much the only decent literature produced by either side in the debate