The intention behind the treaty seems to be to eventually develop a common defence. Defence is defined as <blockquote.missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter</blockquote>(see Articles 42-46)

Whether "Irish neutrality is dying" in general is a matter entirely of internal Irish politics.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

Just like the "democratic deficit" is the national governments' fault.

Look, we documented the national governments' pathetic collusion or coverup here in gory detail, you don't have to remind me about Zapatero's government

Where is the outrage?

There are many parallels between the GAL dirty war and the Bush administration's war on terror. For European political purposes, it is the CIA rendition flights and secret prisons that are more relevant. This quotation from the Financial Times

"I am not disposed to putting a government which is a friend and ally in the pillory on the basis of suppositions and rumours," said José Bono, Spain's defence minister, after the allegations emerged.

is particularly painful to me, as it indicates that Spain's PSOE has not learnt anything from the GAL affair. If the Spanish experience is any guide, I suppose it is not surprising that the CIA's human rights violations on EU soil, and the apparent indifference, if not complicity, of our governments, do not elicit a stronger outcry from the people, the media, or our political representatives. Our only hope, as in Spain 15 years ago, is that the judiciary will do their job. Don't expect political leadership, and don't expect a popular movement for human rights. Dirty war is, indeed, perceived as necessary to preserve our way of life. Condi Rice will feel at home this week. How disgraceful.

1. Persuade everyone involved that Europe should restructure itself as a federal state so that it's members are the citizens, not the states.

2. ???

3. Profit

The treaty of Lisbon also enshrines the rights of petition and initiative for citizens. If you get 1M signatures behind a legislative initiative the Commission cannot fail to act on it. Point me to a member state that has that.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

I am far from being a specialist in the subject, but I don't like what seems to be the pervasive behavior from "Brussels" which seems to be to sidetrack the voters. I believe that some of that spirit probably "spilled" into the treaty. Avoiding referenda is just a emergence of that underlying trait.

Whether or not a member state decides to have a referendum on a particular Treaty or agreement is entirely a matter for the member state (and it's constitution) and nothing whatever to do with Brussels.

However the very fact that you think it is all part of a Brussels conspiracy is interesting - perhaps a manifestation of the tendency by national governments to blame everything on Brussels even if a decision is all their own doing?  The Brussels Bureaucracy of Eurosceptic mythology is about the size of Birmingham City Council....

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

Take or leave the president (but elect it, if he has any significant power)
Have a senate with limited power (equal representation per country, each country decides their own rules)
Have a congress (but do it single circle, proportional. 5% of the votes in the EU would get you 5% of the seats. Get a cut in value of x% if you want.). Give it power. This would hopefully reinforce political differences (as opposed to national differences).

Anyway...

The European Council is the equivalent of the US Senate or the German Bundesrat already.

The European Parliament is already elected by proportional representation within each member state and is as proportional as you can get with the range of population between Malta and Germany.

The European Commission is the equivalent of the Executive branch.

The odd feature of the EU is that the executive branch has legislative initiative on paper. National democracies tend to follow Montesquieu's system on paper where legislative initiative is vested on the parliament, but in practice because the government is only viable with a parliamentary majority backing it, the parliament is not independent from the government and legislative initiative in practice belongs to the government. This is true both in European parliamentary systems, and in presidential or semi-presidential systems such as in the US, France and Russia. So, in fact, it might be a good thing that the EU makes this explicit.

I like the codecision procedure and I prefer that the Parliament has a veto over the Commission's legislative proposals than having a president with a veto over the parliament's proposals.

Personally I think the EU needs to look not to the US or even Germany as a model because the EU is a far cry from being a federal state, but probably Switzerland and India are good case studies - Switzerland's consensus system and the way the federal council is appointed is similar to the "undemocratic" EU structures. India is a large federal state with lots of ethnic, linguistic and economic inhomogeneities like the EU. I would throw South Africa into the mix also as a case study, possibly as a counterexample, but it also has a large number of linguistic and ethnic groups it has to juggle with.

People are not alienated by the complexity but because the national political elites have an interest in acting as a boundary alienating the EU from the people.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes