Czech Lisbon Treaty arguments by B. Cunningham of The Prague Post

Four main issues are set out in this good analysis in English, linked here. The proposed reduction of Commissioners is argued as if the agreement in the EU Council last week had not taken place - a legal necessity in my view. The main worry in my mind "Democracy" or more accurately "its destruction" is put forth as follows: DemocracyIssue: Voters in the Netherlands and France rejected the EU constitution (the precursor to the Lisbon Treaty) in referendum in 2005. The Lisbon Treaty requires unanimous support from all member states, which it lacks in Ireland, where it was rejected by voters, the only citizens to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. A second vote in Ireland, now slated for late 2009, is a rejection of the democratic process. Pro: The Irish “no” vote was based largely on misinformation and domestic political turmoil, including the resignation of Prime Minister Bertie Ahern amid corruption allegations. Public opinion polls show that most Irish do support the treaty. It will be impossible for the EU to operate effectively on the international stage without further streamlining its processes. The treaty is complex and hard to explain to voters. Democratically elected leaders are elected to make decisions on behalf of constituents. Con: The Lisbon Treaty is merely a redrafting of the rejected constitution, and its ratification process (largely via national parliaments) is designed to bypass voters. Europeans don’t want further consolidation. Each time voters are asked to decide, they oppose reforms that would further integrate member states. A call for a second vote in Ireland is proof that politicians are not listening to democratic voices in Europe. Elsewhere the Czech Prime Minister makes the case that the main hurdle in Parliament is likely to be the radar treaty with the USA, read here.