Ireland organized a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in June, and the Irish people voted “no”.

I support(ed) the Lisbon Treaty. So the Irish vote disappointed me. At the time, European commentators rebuked the Irish and even entertained Europe-sans-Ireland hypotheticals. Maybe I didn’t look hard enough, but I didn’t read a single column supporting the Irish vote.

In addition to discussing the post-referendum impasse and ways to get out of it—with or without the Lisbon Treaty—we should encourage broad public discussion of the referendum process itself:
• Why hold a referendum at all? Unless there’s a compelling reason, why depart from the customary route for approving a treaty (which is probably a parliamentary vote but almost certainly is not a referendum)?
• Level up, or level down? Shouldn’t all EU member states be called on to approve constitutional or organizational treaties is the same way: either by referendum or by parliamentary vote?
• If there’s a referendum, a “no” vote is possible and legitimate. I’d like to hear EU spokespeople acknowledge this more often. When they excoriate the consequences of a “no” vote, I’m concerned that EU officials reinforce views that they are, fundamentally, anti-democratic technocrats (because they view the issues presented as technical, not as political).
• If all EU members held a referendum, why not hold the vote everywhere on the same day?
• If a national constitution arguably requires a referendum, why not amend the national constitution to carve out an exception for EU treaties?
• Can a referendum seriously be put forth as a more democratic means of approval? Does a popular vote of 50% plus one really express a majority? If there is a compelling case for a referendum, wouldn’t the result be still more compelling if supported by a supermajority vote (of at least 60% or 2/3 of voters)?
• Does it make sense to ask the Irish vote again? Why would they vote differently? A poll of 1006 Irish adults done between 21 and 23 July revealed that 71% would vote “no” if asked to vote a second time. That’s a compelling majority.