Paragraph 1; Who are these "others" that he speaks of? It's like an episode of Lost!
We elect our MEPs directly (who can sack the commission). We elect our governments who send prime ministers etc to the European Council (the strongest EU body which makes the main decisions) and the ministers who use the Council of Ministers to make decisions. The Council can also take power away from the Commission, assuming the Commission is the bad-guy. Even the commission is appointed by elected governments.
Paragraph 2: The treaty introduces a host of improvements to democracy including the citizens' initiative, examination of EU proposals by each national parliament and votes on them, more power for the (directly elected) European Parliament over the EU budget, public policy debates at the European Council (instead of behind closed doors) and the big one - the European Convention on Human Rights would apply to the EU too.
Paragraph 3; Pure unfounded scaremongering. He alludes to a federal Europe but never backs this up. The treaty can, of course be amended, just like we've amended all other previous treaties on the EEC/EC/EU. This treaty cannot confer any new powers on the EU and changes have to be agreed unanimously in accordance with constitutional requirements (i.e. a referendum in Ireland if required, as normal)
Paragraph 4: the party system and three-line whips is a matter for the UK and how they run their Parliament.
Joe, I disagree (as you problaby expected). One of the biggest changes included in this Treaty is to the way the EU is run. Up to now it has been a "bottom up" approach. It's a it as you describes. We elect the politicians and parties that form the national governments. These in turn select who is "sent" to the EU government. Members of the council and commissioners are in-direct representatives of the people of their native country.
This treaty suggest a "top-down" style of government. The members of the EU council and the members of the EU parliament will no longer represent their country in the EU government but will instead represent the EU government in their country. BIG difference. The commission and the EU parliament will become almost self-governing during their period in power. That combined with the fact that, on a rotating basis, countries will have no representation for prolonged periods makes the system extremely difficult to control. It will become a government ruling the people rather than for the people...
Mark my words, I have lived in several continental countries where the train of thought behind this style of government is already being applied in one way or the other. they are not nice places to live....
It wouldn't be interesting unless you did 
Honestly - we don't lose our representation at the decision making bodies - the Council and Parliament. The Commission simply enforces and proposes things and they are required to do so in a neutral and independent manner (explained further below)
The treaty is very clear to say who does what in plain english.
"Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their Governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens" - point #2 in Title II, Article 8A of Lisbon (Title II Article 10 of the consolidated treaty)
and point 1 was:
"The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy"
The EU is not a government, but rather governments working together under a series of treaties. Article 50 even sets out the procedure for a member state to withdraw from the Union.
The commission is accountable to the respective Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The treaty also spells out, word for word;
"The members of the European Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt
In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent...members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity"
Charlie McCreevy does not represent Ireland and Mandelson does not represent the UK - their job is to look after the internal market and trade respectively. If the Irish Government is not happy e.g. with the WTO agreement, it can act in the Council of Ministers using a veto etc. Ireland is will most certainly continue to be represented at the Council and the Parliament both before and after Lisbon while a commissioner is legally not supposed represent any country. Remember that the big EU states are also giving up the right to nominate a commissioner too for the sake of reform and efficiency.
I've lived in a continental country too and found it quite good. I've gotten to know some people from more eastern countries who also think the Western European model has served us well.
Can you be a bit more specific about this "top-down" style of government you speak of?
Commenting by HaloScan
