z diskuze (Irů) na Facebooku (tučně vyznačené je důkazem Peheho tvrzení):
Other than the streamlining of institutional procedures on account of the increased number of member-states, the other principal components of Lisbon are a President of the European Council, a foreign policy representative, and the abolition of a guaranteed commissioner for each member-state. Ireland has now been told it can keep its commissioner and the two new posts can be brought in without a treaty, so the significance of Lisbon really does rest in how it "updates" the EU for the post-enlargement world.
I have no problem with those who, from an objective and balanced standpoint, weighed up the pros and cons of Lisbon and then voted against it. But numerous investigations since the referendum have shown that very few did that. The consequences of the vote do not just adversely affect Ireland, but the whole of the EU. For that reason it is vital that the Irish people are offered a 'yes' campaign that does not take their vote for granted.
-----------------------------------
I think Ireland is a fundementally pro European country,
exit polling suggested that people voted against Lisbon because a) they thought it would affect Irish neutrality (it doesn't), b) they thought it would affect their corporate-friendly tax rates (it doesn't) and c) because it would stop Ireland having a permanent commissioner (which it does)
So, sentiment and bluster about democracy aside, logically if these points are made clear and explicit through amendments etc then the Irish should approve it. However, I think British Eurosceptics should back the f*&k away from it. UKIP and the Tories always rant on about European 'foreigners' influencing British politics and here they are doing exactly the same thing with Ireland!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7777713.stm