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.

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").

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.

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 !

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.

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.

Yer man in Rome* wants us to get enthused about the Charter of Fundamental Rights (hereinafter "CFR").

I am sorry, but I just can't see any rationality in this approach.

We older people - anyone over, say, 30 - should really get over the idea that producing a document and calling it a charter and/or having it refer to rights, fundamental, human or otherwise, automatically means that it is A Good Thing.

Would it be good for you to have the (fundamental human) right to insult people you despise ? No ? How about a (fundamental human) right not to be insulted ?

There seems to be nothing new in the CFR. I was wrong in an earlier post to say that the provision relating to it in the Lisbon Treaty would make no difference, but not that wrong. It would serve an important technical purpose, but in no sense could it be said to mark a Great Leap Forward.

Here are some relevant questions:

Does the CFR create any new rights for EU citizens ?

Is there anything in the CFR that is not already recognised in Irish law ?

Would the CFR allow us to appeal to the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") from Irish courts if we felt our fundamental human rights had been infringed ?

Could the an ECJ strike down a Directive or Framework (i.e laws made at EU level) because it contravened CFR ?

The answers may surprise some Treaty supporters.