The Irish would seem to have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, which will serve to delay further attempts to create a bloated, centralised European Super-state for a few months. But a delay is all it will be on current evidence. Consider that the French and Dutch have previously rejected the same document (with a different title).

European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, has already made the following statement:

I have just spoken to Prime Minister Cowen, and he was clear that this vote should not be
seen as a vote against the EU. Indeed, both sides in the campaign stressed the benefits of
Irish membership: I believe that Ireland remains committed to building a strong Europe and
playing a full and active part in the EU.

The Irish government and the governments of the other Member States will now need to
assess what this result means for the process. The Treaty was signed by all 27 Member
States, so there is a joint responsibility to address the situation. The European Council
meets next week – and that is the place where joint decisions should be taken on issues
that concern us all. The "no" vote in Ireland has not solved the problems which the Lisbon
Treaty is designed to solve. The ratification process is made up of 27 national processes,
18 Member States have already approved the Treaty, and the European Commission
believes that the remaining ratifications should continue to take their course [my emphasis].

At the European Council, we will want to confer with each other, to hear Prime Minister
Cowen's analysis, as well as his ideas on how to address the concerns expressed by those
who chose to vote no.

The EU referendum blog has frequently pointed out that those who want a centralised, European federal state will keep putting the same proposals forward again and again until they get the result they want. Does anyone know what problems the Lisbon Treaty is designed to solve? I've got no objection to Britain participating in the EU per se (see my old post), but what do we actually get from this extra layer of bureaucracy and politics?

One major problem is that the EU does not confine itself to supra-national policy but instead operates as an a unrepresentative replacement of national government. I recently talked about finding a national politician willing to propose a motion to reduce the allowances and salary expectations of Members of Parliament. Well, even as I was writing that, Peter Lilley MP of the Conservatives had gone one step further and moved that Parliamentary pay should be linked to the transfer of powers from Parliament to the European Union.

In virtually every occupation, it is recognised that pay should reflect responsibilities. If people receive more responsibilities, they get higher pay. If they move to a post with fewer responsibilities, they expect to receive lower pay. The same should be true of Parliament. If, as is contemplated under the Bill that deals with the European constitutional treaty, this House hands over more of its powers to European institutions, MPs' remuneration should reflect that diminution of their responsibilities. If, on the other hand, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has promised, Parliament regains some powers, such as those over social and employment policies that were conceded in the Amsterdam treaty, that should be reflected positively when MPs' pay is assessed.

This issue is important because Parliament is considering transferring a significant slice of its powers on energy, foreign policy, immigration and several other areas to European institutions under the Lisbon treaty. A substantial transfer of powers has already occurred under previous treaties, and this House has ceded powers on a lesser scale to devolved Parliaments and to the judiciary under the Human Rights Act 1998. The German Government estimate that more than 80 per cent. of German laws are now decided at a European level. Our own Trade Minister has admitted that

"around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector stems from legislation agreed by Ministers in Brussels."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2006; Vol. 683, c. WA184

Sounds like a very sensible policy to me.