If I think the treaty would in the long run leading to the member states losing the power over war and peace, would that be relevant? You can rightly argue the current treaty doesn’t say so, but I might answer that I might not be allowed to vote later on, so I better stop it now, while I can.

Apart from factual errors about the actual text, which are trivial, can you think about a way that is neutral and based on facts to determine which effects the treaty would have had? Or which of them we are allowed to consider?

I realize that it may be impossible to get rid of all the wrong ideas people have about the issues they’re voting on (whether for or against the treaty), but I object to purposefully reinforcing those misconceptions.

The thing is, the referenda in the three countries (well, Ireland at least) that rejected the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty also included false information (about abortions, tax rates, etc.). At the point where people vote on false information, it is no longer a true vote on the actual issue at hand. Also, many people use EU referendums to voice displeasure at their own government as much as they do to vote on the actual treaty in question. Lastly, it’s possible to safely say that most of Eastern Europe and Southern Europe would have approved the treaty in referendums. And direct democracy is not always the most liberal course of action (see http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/minorities-and-integration/illiberal-direct-democracy/).

Just as it would be illegitimate to have the rest of the EU impose its will on Ireland and force Ireland to approve the treaty, it is, if not technically illegitimate, extremely maddening that Ireland can impose its will on the rest of the EU.