In theory, as the Irish people (so far the ONLY nation in 27-member E.U. to have a vote) rejected the Treaty, it SHOULD be dead. But, Oh no!

That's NOT the way things work in the E.U. - look at it's history. Let's face it folks, the European Union is the Soviet Union by a new name, and even Mikhael Gorbachev thinks so. And Vladimir Bukovsky - he lived it too.

I wouldn't be worried about it except for the fact that American europhiles (liberal Democrats) will be exceedingly jealous if they can't enforce their Benevolence on us.

If you go to the websites of the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal--at least--the story receives "front page" treatment.

I certainly think it deserves front page treatment. Your explanation may well be correct. However, I know of quite some number of big city newspapers where this story would never get prominent treatment (although local high school basketball coverage would).

The EU continues its eastward expansion, which I believe mostly good, partly by holding out the economic carrots of membership but partly, at least, by touting its “shared Western values.”

I'm in agreement with James that the eastward expansion of the union has been a huge net positive, so it's worth noting that the Lisbon rejection (which I also have mixed feelings about) may endanger future enlargement rounds:

"I think that globally, an Irish 'no' would mean that the European Union would no longer be in a position to pursue further its policy of enlargement.... For institutional reasons in the first place, because the Treaty of Nice... is designed for up to 28 [member states]. After that, we'll be in 'no man's land.'"

Of the current candidates, only Croatia would be guaranteed entry under existing rules.

That would be very unfortunate, both for the countries in the Balkans that are standing in line behind Croatia, and for former Soviet states like Ukraine whose membership is much further away.

It’s received precious little notice here in the States

The reason that it is not on the front pages of today's papers is that the final count wasn't announced early enough for this morning's editions.

If you go to the websites of the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal--at least--the story receives "front page" treatment.

With generous EU grants Ireland has been transformed from one of Europe’s poorest countries to one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

Ireland's economic growth had a lot more to do with lowering of their taxes and creating a much more business friendly environment for foreign businesses that moved there.

Since when did massive government bureaucracies ever create prosperity?

Rejection of the treaty was probably due to some combination of a reassertion of Ireland’s pride in its own distinctive institutions and the failure of proponents of the treaty to produce a convincing plain language explanation of the benefits of approving the treaty.

The reason that Ireland was the only country to vote the treaty down was that Ireland was the only country to hold a popular vote on the matter. The probability that a direct popular vote in all 27 EU countries would have resulted in the treaty being approved is, was, and always has been zero. Indeed, the only way the measure proceeded as far as it did was that the other EU countries’ governments avoided a popular vote.

You don't think that there might be a few voters who don't want to turn their lives over to unelected bureaucrats? A similar measure in the US that turned over power to unelected and self perpetuating bureaucrats would fail. Not because of 'pride in distinctive institutions' or 'failure to explain the benefits' but because of common sense.