Hermes wrote:

Ibis wrote:

Hmm. Your reading of the Treaty is completely different from mine -
where do you see Lisbon as introducing a top-down rather than bottom-up
structure? I would say it was very much the other way round.

I think we both agree that currently the situation is a bottom-up entity?

If we cede any degree of sovereignty, then surely this process begins to be reversed?

That puzzles me equally. There's very little sovereignty being ceded in this Treaty. Separate thread, maybe?

In the spirit of Machine Nation pedagogy, Ibis, would you talk through what a citizen (rather than a national government) would do to influence EU legislation or policy, and lob out a couple of examples of how this has worked?

That was quick

My argument is founded on the principle that the cornerstones of sovereignty are both self-sufficiency and self-determination. Fair enough, I accept that both these cornerstones have been somewhat dissolved over the years. But that is not the fault of the Lisbon Treaty.

I'll base my arguments as if neither of these entities were damaged, just to keep on track with regard to the subject at hand.

Self determination: The EU treaty directly dilutes this possibility. We must elect a parliament who are not only answerable to us, but also answerable to the EP. Who they are more answerable to is neither here not there.

Self-sufficiency: Being told what can and cannot be produced to serve the greater (European) good is a direct step that directly negates self-sufficiency, as reflecting the greater (Irish) good. John Nash's replacement of the old mathematical model of ... (can't think of the guy's name) used to provide deterministic game models for the stock exchange etc. The new model might dictate that all players collectively gain if all cooperate, however, regarding self-sufficiency, we'd never have been in a position to lose, if we practiced it. To rely on another is to lose self-sufficiency.