Like the cat that wouldn't die, Lisbon is the referendum that will not go away.

However, though Charlie McCreevy colourfully noted that only a lunatic could be expected to go through the horror of reading the treaty, we are still expected to vote on the thing. So what is Lisbon all about and what are the consequences of defeat or victory?

SO WHAT PRECISELY ARE WE RATIFYING

One of the problems with Lisbon is that it is an exercise in administrative tidying up that is necessary to ensure Europe runs efficiently.

It's not exciting, but if we say No to the treaty, then Europe, or rather the Eurocrat elite, are going to be really fed up if the following isn't facilitated by the plain people of Ireland:

- A new president of Europe (ie Bertie's job);

- A new European minister for foreign affairs;

- A reduction of the use of the veto in areas such as the Environment, Justice and Energy and its replacement by Qualified Majority Voting.

Significantly, however, if the Yes side are to be believed, this will not apply to issues such as taxation, where nations will retain the veto;

- The loss for all EU countries of a Commissioner for five out of every 15 years;

- Proposals to have greater cohesion and efficiency in defence whilst a Solidarity clause requires member states to act jointly if an EU state is attacked by terrorists;

- A new Charter of Fundamental Rights for workers.

SO NO PROBLEM THERE THEN?

Not according to the No side, who are claiming the referendum will:

- End our low corporation tax regime;

- Reduce Ireland's power in Europe because of the loss of the veto and our Commissioner;

- Create a godless, pro-abortion/euthanasia liberal society;

- Foster a new militarism and the pro-Iraq war agenda;

- Leave Ireland open to a wave of immigration and end our neutrality.

AND THE YES SIDE SAY IN RESPONSE

In fairness, it's hard to sell a referendum centred on the concept of greater administrative efficiency.

Outside of saying all the barrack room lawyers in the No camp are wrong, the essence of the Yes campaign has consisted of the plea to close your ears, not even try to read the treaty, and to just be guided by your betters.

The electorate has also been regularly told about how like castor oil and 'good for us' Europe has been, while the establishment also claims that, when it comes to the rights of farmers, workers et al, it's far better to be inside the tent . . . and you know the rest.

SO WHO IS RIGHT?

Unless you plan on reading the treaty, your best option here is to see how the protagonists line up.

If we were to go by the political parties, a Yes vote is certain.

Sadly, outside of FF, Labour and Fine Gael, who collectively secured 80 per cent of the vote in Election 2007, it all gets a bit more confused.

The Greens have no official position, while, in spite of the best efforts of whoever it is who is in charge of the PDs, no-one has noticed what their position is.

THE YES SIDE IS BOLSTERED BY THE OTHER BIG GUNS

When it comes to his referendum travails, Brian Cowen has been compared to a latter-day King Kong attempting to swat away a swarm of minor socio-political irritants

However, there are at least three King Kongs on the Yes side, since all of the Social Partners are marching forward arm in arm. The Yes side also has the support of a third pillar of the great and the good, consisting of a mix of Kofi Annan, Peter Sutherland, RTE (unofficially), the Irish Times, the Irish Banking Federation, the Construction Industry Federation, Ruairi Quinn, Pat Cox, Garret FitzGerald and the Catholic bishops.

SO WHO ARE THE QUIXOTIC ENEMIES OF PROGRESS

On the political wing of things, Sinn Fein and Republican SF are experiencing the most unexpected of rapprochements, while the rest of the alliance against progress consists of a quixotic menagerie of the Socialist Party (Joe Higgins) the Communist Party, the anti-war movement, the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, People Before Profit (Richard Boyd Barrett), the People's Movement incorporating Patricia McKenna, Finian McGrath and Tony Gregory, COIR, who coincidentally share the same address as Youth Defence, the Workers' Party, the Electrical Union, Aine Ni Chonaill, and if we've left any-one else out please accept our apologies.

THE BIG BAD WOLF

Ultimately, the biggest, baddest wolf in the whole affair is a 'rightwing' pressure group called Libertas, led by Declan Ganley, who have brought a new professionalism to the No camp.

Sadly, accusations that Libertas are a front for a company called Rivada who have connections with the US military and whose CEO -- coincidentally enough -- is a certain Mr Ganley, may have taken the sheen of their work.

THE NEW ROGUE ELEPHANT

Normally when it comes to an EU referendum, the IFA is as dependable as Steve Davis. However, under the ambitious Padraig Walshe, the IFA is playing a dangerous game of chicken, courtesy of its threat to vote No unless Micheal Martin scuppers Peter Mandleson's plan to reform the CAP. The association will make a final decision next week and it could be decisive.

SO WHAT ARE THE 'REAL' ISSUES?

All campaigns, and particularly referendums, are fought over official and unofficial issues. The problem for the Yes camp is that often the latter are far more critical than the actual constitutional points in question.

In this referendum, the issues which may yet sink the Yes camp can be summarised as follows:

Mandleson and the World Trade talks may sound like a complete red herring, but they are also a handy symbol for the growing disaffection of rural Ireland, which was ignored by the Celtic Tiger and fears it may reap the whirlwind of a recession.

Conventional analysis suggests the desire to punish the Government will be a critical factor in a No win, but could our economic troubles favour the Yes camp?

The impregnable warriors of the Celtic Tiger would have no problem in cocking a snoot at Europe, but harder times may yet spark a new humility.

The Yes side also have to contend with issues as diverse as the failure of the Government to make us happy, public distaste at appointing another layer of 'gaffers' to rule us and the ongoing power of nationalism.

However, while the No side can appeal to sentiment and suspicion in a manner that is beyond the dreary diplomatic pragmatists of Europe, they are also open to the accusation of being engaged in a children's crusade against America and modernity.

SO WHO IS GOING TO WIN?

The fact that they are seen to have the momentum may work against the quixotic enemies of progress, for, in spite of the bruised feelings of Fine Gael, their best route to victory consists of the political ambush.

However, though the No cat has been belled, unless the great and the good can scare up a turn-out of more than 38 per cent of the electorate, then the Yes side will be in real trouble.

Ultimately, as with divorce in 1995, a tight race could be defined by something as peripheral as the weather, where a rainy day could see the Yes side's nightmare of Mass-going, mantilla-wearing old dears providing us with a new EU fright night.

Dear me, now, but wouldn't that be dreadful.