This is what is ridiculous about the referenda. It’s like the government saying: ‘We want you to vote on something, but we’re not going to tell you what is.’ And we all go ahead and vote.
A fractional proportion of the population who happen to be versed in the organisation of EU governance may have an understanding of what’s being proposed, and might vote accordingly. Equally some logically-minded people may have taken the few minutes necessary to assess the function of the Treaty outlined in the informative, but dull Wikipedia entry. Everyone else is voting based not on the question itself, but the relative successes of the commentary spread by the media, politicians, what they think of the previous two groups, the EU as a whole, and any number of increasingly unrelated political issues.
A referendum in this instance is a particularly bad form of deciding the relative merits of the document, since most of the population lacks even the most basic understanding of what the Treaty of Lisbon entails, and meaningful consent (or rejection) is void.
It looks relatively likely at this point that ratification by the Czechs and Poles will occur before the next UK election. What David Cameron’s doublespeak of “not let[ting] matters rest there” actually means, should this occur, is currently opaque. On the one hand he needs to placate the strongly Eurosceptic element of his party, the media, and electorate (esp. English), and maintain his promise of a referendum. However he is also (presumably) aware of the serious negative implications that the returned ‘no’ vote would mean for the UK’s position in the EU, or potentially even outside of it, and the increased likelihood of Scottish independence which might follow.
What you need to understand is that for all its claims (and accusations leveled against it) of being for "integration"and pan-Europanism, at its core, the EU is an international entity created by an agreement or agreements between member states. Member states with often radically divergent interests. As a result treaties are compromise agreements and the resulting institutions are entities with nearly unbelievably complex rules of procedure, powers that vary with almost every situation, and decision making authority that is different for every area. What the Lisbon treaty does is inessence alters this, in some areas it changes the powers, in others it increases their scope, in some places more procedures are created, some streamlined etc.
It is incredibly complex and there is no way that Paddy or Sean or anyother streotypical average Irishman who voted, no matter what his vote, understood the treaty whether in 2008 or 2009. Hell I have had 3 plus of of EU law, taught by some of the leading experts in the field and I don’t understand it fully.