A central argument of the no campaigners appears to be that the Lisbon Treaty doesn't solve all ills and that we can always return to the "business as usual" status quo if the Treaty is rejected a second time.
Some, like Sinn Fein, hint that they would go back to the drawing board and draft up a better Treaty without explaining why the 26 other member states should want to accept their leadership and agree to their proposals.
Undoubtedly the Lisbon Treaty doesn't solve every problem on the planet and further Treaties may well be needed in the future to meet the challenges of an ever changing world. But the status quo "business as usual" approach really isn't an option for going forward either.
The "European Project" has been stagnant and failing for some time now - ever since the ill-advised expansion of the EU to 27 members without streamlining its decision making processes first.
The EU was hopelessly divided on the Iraq war, reverted to narrow nationalistic responses to the financial crises and is now struggling to come up with coherent policies to tackle the issues of peak oil, climate change, financial regulation and globalisation.
If the EU can't come up with agreed approaches to these problems, the bigger member states will revert to doing their own thing and some of the smaller states will become little more than satellites of the bigger European states or the USA.
The defining feature of the EU is that it gives smaller members states like Ireland a hugely disproportionate representation on the Commission, the European Council, and in the European Parliament, and if we allow the EU to stagnate and wither away Ireland will revert to being a very small island in a very big world.
The No campaigners are essentially the spiritual heirs to De Valera and the isolationist policies of the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's which may have been understandable in the context of world war, but which are inexcusable and unsustainable now.
Ireland has since achieved a very proud record of punching above its weight at the UN and the EU and we must not lose our self confidence in world affairs at this crucial point in global history.
We should be asking ourselves how we can make a greater contribution to world peace and prosperity through a revitalising influence in the EU and UN and not seek to halt their development into more coherent and cohesive bodies.
The Lisbon Treaty is a small step towards streamlining the decision making processes of an ever more complex EU in order to help it act more decisively in response to the crises of the current age. Requiring unanimity amongst all 27 members before major decisions can be taken is simply a recipe for paralysis.
The increased movement towards weighted majority voting on the Council, and the increased powers given in the Treaty to National and European Parliaments and directly to European Citizens by way of petition are a vital step in enabling greater pan-European democracy.
Although small majorities in France and Holland rejected the original Constitutional Treaty (for largely domestic political reasons) their numbers were swamped by much larger yes majorities in Spain and Luxembourg.
The peoples of Europe have now spoken on the Lisbon Treaty through their elected parliaments and governments as required by their own Constitutional arrangements - which are different from ours - and it is not for us to tell - for example the French - how to govern themselves within the EU.
Sarkozy was elected on the promise of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, and if that is good enough for the French electorate, it should be good enough for us to accept as a valid French decision too.
If we reject the Treaty again the European Project will simply stagnate further and ultimately wither and die to be replaced by a resurgent nationalism as exemplified by the British Conservative, UKIP, and British National Parties, by Le Pen in France, and yes, by Sinn Fein in Ireland.
It will be like going back to the competing nationalisms of 1930's pre-war Europe.
Is that what we really want?
A long letter, submitted to the Irish Times and Independent, without much expectation of it being published in whole or part. However at least I got it off my chest!