This is interesting.

It is not really news that a focus on the source of job losses is a waste of attention, but I do not recall it being illustrated quite as well as in the labour market statistics quoted by David Leonhardt in this New York Times article. What the data over 14 years appear to show is that what happens in a slow-down is not that more jobs are lost but that less jobs are created.

Hat-tip:The Economist's "Free Exchange" online-column.

This website is now divided into three main sections along broad thematic lines: Law, Ideas, and Ireland.

The Ideas section will contain material proper to my pretensions - the word may be regarded as apt in view of the full title that I have given the section - to be a member of the scribbling classes and the intelligentsia - politics, economics, literature, to name a few. If interest is lively enough, the section may in due course be floated off to its own domain.

The third section will contain personal/family/Ireland/Cork miscellanea unsuitable for the other two. At present, I am undecided as to its long-term future - maybe a spot on a social network like Facebook would be more appropriate for at least some of it ?

I am hoping that the change will enable new readers to more quickly see whether there is anything that might interest them here, and if there is, that it will make it easier for them to get to it quickly.

With a tip of the hat to Newmark's Door for introducing me to the Overheard in The Office website, I offer you this humourous interlude from the latter site:

Customer Sales Representative, on speakerphone: And where would you like this order shipped ?

Secretary: 123 Main St.*, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

CSR : We don't ship out of the country.

Secretary: That's fine, but this address is in the country.

CSR : No, you said to ship it to New Mexico.

Secretary: Yes, New Mexico is a state in the US.

CSR : Sorry, but we can't ship out of the U.S.

Secretary: Do you have a supervisor I can talk to, please ?

[Long pause.]

CSR supervisor: This is Tim. Can I help you ?

Secretary: I hope so, Tim. Your employee doesn't seem to understand that New Mexico is a state in the United States, and so refuses to ship me your product.

Supervisor: Well, that's true. We can't ship out of the country. I'm sorry ma'am.

Secretary, raising her voice a little: Have you never even heard of the state of New Mexico ? It's one of the big, square ones. It's right between Texas and Arizona. It's one of the 50 United States.

Supervisor: I'm sorry, it's just our policy not to ship out of the U.S..

Secretary: Tim, let me get this straight. Your company is going to lose a $14,000 order because the people in your customer service department are too moronic to know or comprehend that the state of New Mexico is a part of the United States ?

Supervisor: Yes, ma'am. That's our policy.

Secretary, completely exasperated: Well, I guess there's nothing more to be said, is there ?

Supervisor: No, ma'am. Have a nice day.

© 2008 www.OverheardinTheOffice.com.Original caption: "9AM Mexico: Hey, We Warned You!"

My name is George Nathaniel Curzon,

I am a most superior person,

My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek,

I dine at Blenheim once a week

I have just finished re-reading Leonard Mosley's biography of Lord Curzon of Kedleston 1859-1925.Curzon was Britain's Foreign Secretary in the early 1920s, having previously been Viceroy of India c.1898-1905.The book was published in 1960, and I first read it about 10 years later. I found that I remembered almost nothing of it.

It is a very readable biography, but would probably be regarded as inadequate by modern practitioners of the genre. For one thing, it is rather short: less than 300 pages.Nonethless, a reasonably clear picture of what was a rather peculiar man emerges.

Some things that I found interesting were:

He lost his Indian position through lobbying by army sources, whose hostility to him had its origin in his insistence on harshly disciplining some soldiers involved in mistreatment of the native population. Perhaps this example continues to influence UK office-holders faced with outrages committed by the military

The accounts of Curzon's deviousness and back-stabbing in Cabinet intrigues would suggest that the Brits have little to learn from the rest of us in that area of activity. Quelle surprise !

Curzon's inability to delegate was amazing. Even as Foreign Secretary, he closely scrutinised every item of expenditure in his household accounts on a daily basis

He feuded with nearly every major politician of his generation

He believed that he should have been Prime Minister, and he very nearly was; the fact that he probably was border-line insane and an Earl were major handicaps, though

Curzon as Foreign Secretary resisted Greek attempts c.1922 to take advantage of Turkish weakness in the Levant, but was undermined by his own Prime Minister (Lloyd George) behind his back. It ended in disaster for the Greeks.

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.

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.

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.

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").

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.

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.