A Danish domino?
The prime minister is thinking about calling an early election in the autumn. But he has got one serious worry: that his opponents will wreck his plans by making hay backing a popular call for a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty.
No, not Gordon Brown. Or perhaps I mean, not just Gordon Brown.
Denmark's conservative leader, , has promised Angela Merkel that he will do his very best to avoid a referendum. They are both painfully aware that it could trigger a domino effect that might knock over Mr Brown by heating up the already pretty hot demands for such a vote in the UK.
After all, look at the impact the Danish No-vote on the Maastricht Treaty had on British domestic politics. It emboldened Conservative Eurosceptics and meant the treaty had a gruesome passage through Parliament that fatally undermined John Major's authority. So how difficult is it for the government in Denmark now?
The main opposition party, led by Neil Kinnock's daughter-in-law , is not calling for a referendum - not yet anyway. While she is opposed, others in her Social Democratic party argue it is too good an opportunity to miss. But the nationalist Danish People's Party, which votes with the government coalition, does want a referendum, and so do the socialists.
But the really critical point is the call for a referendum by , a charismatic and very popular politician who has just formed his own new centre party, New Alliance. This Muslim politician became hugely popular during the by calling on fellow members of the faith to support Danish democracy.
I am told the Danish prime minister wants to help Gordon Brown, but he wants to remain prime minister even more. He would also like to win an election, then hold a referendum on getting rid of the Danish Maastricht opt-outs, so they could join the euro. And we all know you can have too much of a good thing.
Thanks very much to my colleague Thomas Lauritzen from the Danish newspaper for advice on this piece.
Iβm Mark Mardell, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
This is precisely why we need a referendum, and not just on the treatistution, but on continued membership of the EU. Why are foreign leaders making decisions on what is best for us??? So now the Prime Minister of Denmark gets to choose if the people of Britain have a say in their own destiny?? There should be a referendum, and it should be simple..Should Britain leave the EU-yes or no?
I appreciate your intended audience is mainly constituted by Britons, but as a Danish national I would like to make a few comments to your piece.
When the then government, led by the Socialdemocrats, called a Euro-referendum in 2000 the current Prime Minister's effort in persuading voters to vote Yes was, to say the least, lukewarm going on cold. That is part of the story, and I don't disagree with you that it could come back to bite him in the backside now he is PM.
But the EU takes up very little space on the political agenda in Denmark, on a day-to-day basis. How else could a population where roughly half can be considered sceptics vote in a parliament where 80-85% of the elected MPs are pro-EU?
The Prime Minister has enough problems on his plate as it is. He has placed himself between a rock and a hard place due to the government's tax plan, which has angered its parliamentary basis, the Danish People's Party, due to it having tax cuts for the rich.
It is naive to think that a British vote on the EU referendum, or membership altogether, will prevent the British politicians in looking at their neighboring countries when deciding which policies to promote. Why should it? The UK is a part of Europe and hence naturally acts as a part of it. The alternative would be to completely isolate itself from the continent. Would that really be in the best interest of the British people?
That being said, a vote on the EU referendum is definitely a necessity in trying to establish the EU as democratic legitimate. It appears that both the Danish and British leaders are to afraid of a no to the referendum that they accept undermining the whole project. EU is necessary - the people should simply be allowed to see it.
And as a note to Mr. Mark Mardell: The Danish Prime Minister would probably be very unhappy to see you label him as conservative, since he is the head of the liberal party.
So Denmark's PM has promised the German Chancellor that "he will do his very best to avoid a referendum". It would appear that once again we have a small nation in Europe feeling obliged to do what their big, powerful neighbour wants. And why is the Danish PM doing this? Because "they are both painfully aware that it could trigger a domino effect" in that other nations may have referendums also.
This report, if true, makes my blood run cold because it belongs in Hitlerβs fascist 1930s rather than the democratic 21st century. And it makes me wonder just who in the hell these people think they are.
This is why we need to hold this Labour Government to the twice made (i.e. euro elections 2004 and general election 2005) manifesto promise to have a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty. Then we can finally have a say over this monstrous, illegitimate and undemocratic organization.
Mr Jorgensen, I do not suggest that the UK can or ever will ignore Europe. After all, it is not going to go away. I do however challenge that the EU is a necessary institution. You have acknowledged that it is anti-democratic, and is therefore contrary to the historical aims and cultures of most European countries. I also feel that treaties on the free movement of trade and labour can be arranged between the nations without the need for an over-arching political structure. The issue I have is that whatever is or is not best for the British people, should be decided by the British people, and not an unaccountable bEUrocrat.
It seems horrible to me, when I see how european leaders are manipulating with the european people. At the moment their own concern is how to pass the new european treaty (aka european constitution) without referendum, which means without people's approval. If there is such a huge row going on about it, this is clearly the sigh, that there has to be the referendum, because politicians apparently don't know what do people want.
If the new european treaty will be accepted without a referendum, this would be a one of the greatest step-backs in the history of the EU.
I agree that a referendum is important, since the European Treaty and any amendments to it concern the citizens. Any political system that means to be democratic cannot and should not try to bypass the citizens in order to approve a Treaty, only among the leaders - as a sort of secretive procedure.
The people have the right and duty to be informed and to choose in such a matter that involves future decisions and policies.
Ireland will have a referendum. We always have one. Its the law and its not up to the government to 'allow' one.
Are we the only true democracy in the EU???
I find it hilarious that Conservative politicians bellow for a referendum on this new treaty - yet come from the party that did not hold a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty! As the President of the EU commission said, if we are so proud of our Parliamentary Democracy - who do we not want to use it? I remain baffled.
We are much better off remaining in the EU. By pooling some soverignty, we are able to remain a viable state in the globalised world. The British - and Danish - people must come to realise this. A reformed and empowered EU, such as that created by the new Treaty, would be to the mutual benefit of all Europeans. It is a shame there are those in Copenhagen and London who would squander this in the name of crass populistic nationalism, or a supposed commitment to the betterment of the poor in the case of the socialists.
For some reason, most Danes have never really understood (or have chosen to overlook) that Naser Khader is not a practicing Muslim. He calls himself a "cultural Muslim" in his book "Γre og skam", Borgens Forlag, 2002. It can only make things more confusing for anyone trying to understand Danish politics that Mr. Khader founded an organization called "Democratic Muslims".
Calling Mr. Khader a "Muslim politician" simply does not make sense. What is worse, is that his being able to call "...on fellow members of the faith" during the caricature crisis, is a fallacy, spin if you will. He and his organization, Democratic Muslims, do not appear to have any influence among, nor represent practicing Muslims in Denmark.
In reply to Tim Oliver (number 9): You donβt need to be baffled about my position over the need for a referendum, because my first active involvement in politics was with the Referendum Party back in 1997, so incensed was I with the disgraceful way that John Major rammed the Maastricht Treaty through our Parliament.
And as for your pro-EU arguments, if what you say is true, then in the paraphrased words of Tony Blair when he announced the EU referendum in the Commons in 2004: Let those of you who believe in Britain in Europe, make your case⦠let the issue be put in a referendum, let the battle be joined and let the people have their say.
Or are you, like so many other Europhiles, terrified of letting the people have their say in case they have the temerity to say βNoββ¦?
Whether you are pro or anti-European, only a referendum can bury this never-ending debate about how far the UK should be committed to Europe and what we are signing up to. It's not enough to tell us it's just another treaty. Anyone who takes the time to read it, and understand it, can see that. The Government may try to hoodwink the people, but it does so at its own electoral peril.
This debate is fascinating for the Swiss. In Switzerland, there is real democracy: legislative authority rests with the people via the right of referenda.
The west is extremely proud of its so called "democracy", but zealots in the soviet union also had their fair share of pride in their own political perfection. Pride is easy.
The Swiss, ordinary Swiss citizens, have democratic power through referenda. They can initiate legislation by gathering 100,000 signatures, or they can veto government legislation by gathering signatures to hold a vote against the legislation.
The right to referenda transfers the power of veto and the power to initiate legislation from the executive to the poeple. That is real democracy. It isthe "demos", the people, voting to make the law.
The democracy England choose to export by force of arms to remote corners of the world is a different beast altogether. This system requires that people choose who, amongst the preselected elite, shall vote on behalf of the people.
The Soviet Union, like it or not, operated on the same principles. Pick a card, any card, they are all the same. The first day iwas in London, i saw a million people march against the war in Iraq. So what? So nothing at all.
That is english democracy.
I agree with Tim Oliver that we are much better off remaining in the EU.
We have far too much anti-EU propaganda put out by the UK press and television, and Mark Mardell's blogs seem to perpetuate this tedious trend.
I'm starting to like this idea of referendums, let's have some on:
- withdrawal from Iraq
- capital punishment
- increasing spending on the NHS
- deporting immigrants
- abolishing private schools (or at least removing charitable status and making school fess liable for VAT)
- lowering income tax
- getting rid of the monarchy
- increasing spending on education
That's already 8 this year. Can anyone else think of some good, incendiary issues that it would be fun to have a regular (say annual?) national debate about?
I fully expect the pro-referendum brigade to back me on this - or is their dedication to direct democracy really rather selective?
I think if there is one thing that most Europeans I have seen in the media or encountered personally in my life have in common, it's that when it comes to discussions of geopolitics, they are congenital liars. About the only question I have about it is whether or not they actually believe their own lies. It's clear why many pro EU leaders in some countries are so frightened of a public referendum, they know given that the cat is out of the bag and the true nature, purpose, and ultimate goal not to mention methods of the EU would be rejected by their populations. Why did they then originally agree to a plan where every EU member had to agree to a constitution and to new memberships? Did they think they could hide the truth forever or did they actually believe that the EU would be such an inescapably grand idea, no nation could possibly reject it?
Immitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but the proposed EU superstate which now seems all but inevitable in truth has very little in common with The United States of America. Of the many differences, one glaring one which stands out is that the American states were never conceived of as some being donars and others beneficiaries of the aggregate wealth. Each was expected to pull its own weight, just as they had as former colonies. Another was that having just defeated a remote centralized tyranny of authority, the English Crown, the Americans were not about to subject themselves to a new more localized powerful central authority and the result was a very careful balance of power between state and federal governments, and between legislative, executive, and judicial branches of each. It's a struggle which has been fought on the fringes down to this day. But the EU superstate has neither expectation, some nations such as Britain being donars and others like Spain being recipients. A central authority of seemingly anonymous ministers and unaccountable bureaucrats usurp as much power as they wish and the citizens of individual member states have little or no say in it. What's more, the United States started as a fairly homogenious population of relatively similar cultures which expanded to include newcomers incorporating them in its melting pot. As new arrivals from far away countries, immigrants were prepared to relinquish much of the cultural baggage they'd inherited from their ancestors to make new lives for themselves in a new country. There were also opportunities in the vast unexplored wildernesses for farming and other ways to make a new life. Towns and cities sprang up spreading westward to the Pacific Ocean. No such thing exists in Europe, it's a forced amalgam of undiluted culturally different peoples, some of whom have a long history of enmity for each other and all of them highly resistant to give up their individual culture to much degree for their own benefit. The live confined in a tighly packed sardine box of a continent unable to escape government or each other.
Not only would the EU union be widely opposed in more than one country by public plebecite, the inevitable breakdown as a consequence of trying to force it on individual populations is and will continue to be manifest. And what will become of Europe as a consequence of its insular governmental structure with its one world philosophy? The wider world is much larger than the EU superstate and frankly, the signs for the future strike me as ominous. As an either a stable economic or social entity, the EU looks to becoming increasingly less viable.
Peter LΓΈhmann: I suspect that the disparity between the public and parliamentary views on Europe is just as great in the UK. Apparently we like our political leaders to be sceptical about the EU but don't care what our local MPs think. They end up with better career prospects if they keep an open mind than if they wrap themselves in the flag.
David, the difference is that the government are proposing to hand a degree of power to the EU. I do not believe that they should have a right to do this without recourse to the electorate.And Tim, yes I believe in Parlimentary Democracy, which is why when a referendum is promised by the ruling party I expect them to deliver on that promise.
David at 11, while I realise you're being sarcastic I think you're really on to something there.
Withdrawl from Iraq, spending increases and tax cuts are the work of government and have no place in referendum. Where as deciding whether people should be punished by death, deciding whether the monarchy has a role in 21st century, or even whether the powers of an elected government should be ceded to those that we cannot elect - these are certainly worthy of referendum.
If a mechanism could be worked out where by on such issues as Capital punishment, monarchy, metricisation, the euro or even our membership of the EU the nation's 'temperature' could be taken (once per decade?) I think that would be great.
Chosen through primaries, divisive and far reaching ideas that transcend everyday party policy should be voted on one a year. This surely would engage people in the political process as long as the ideal being voted on wasn't trivial.
Luke Rogers amply illustrates the distorted perceptions of a serial Europhobic
"You (Mr Jorgensen) have acknowledged that it is anti-democratic, and is therefore contrary to the historical aims and cultures of most European countries."
Where exactly in his posting did Mads NΓΈrgaard JΓΈrgensen state this because I have read it several times and this was not what was stated at all, rather interpreted as such by your blinkered perspective?
The actual words used were: "a vote on the EU referendum is definitely a necessity in trying to establish the EU as democratic legitimate" which is entirely different in tone and meaning.
I happen to agree that a referendum will be required at some point in order that the ultimate goal of closer integration (Political Union) can acquire democratic legitimacy but that plebiscite should be a simultaneous pan-European affair undertaken only after a long and exhaustive public information campaign aimed at increasing the woefully inadequate levels of public knowledge about the functioning of the European political arena.
Ask yourself a simple question - why does the European Union (as it is presently constituted) lack democratic legitimacy? Who or what is standing in the way of a process aimed at securing that precise goal? Europeaninsing the political arena would necessarily involve loosening the vice like grip on power currently exerted by dominant member state administrations and ceding meaningful powers to democratically accountable institutions of governance.
For example, how about a second elected (Senate) chamber to complement the European Parliment (bi-cameral constitutional models are commonplace in European democracies) based perhaps on the Regional elements of the Union to replace the Council of Ministers, European Council, Committee of the Regions and Economic & Social Committee, thus at a stroke cutting unaccountable bureaucracy and injecting much needed democratic credentials? It ain't gonna happen and why - because the larger member state administrations (including the British government) would block its introduction because it would diminish their power within the institutional architecture of the Union!
You may bemoan an unaccountable and bureaucratic European machinery but precisely the same circumstances prevail in the democratically opaque, bureaucratic and centralised super state we know as the UK!
Unaccountable bureaucrats? - ever heard of Non-Departmental Public Bodies a.k.a. QUANGO's spending, at the last count, approx. 167 billion (count it) of UK taxes per annum - when did you last vote for a QUANGO appointee?
Perhaps Mr. Rodgers could do with a crash course in the democratic shortcomings palpably obvious in the UK before moving on to castigate a complex and evolving hybrid European tier of governance?
Referendums are all very well, especially in countries such as Switzerland (which holds them frequently both at national and cantonal levels) and Denmark (which holds them more rarely, but has a constitutional mechanism for unleashing them).
I lived in Denmark for 10 years, and know that its population, like that of Switzerland, has a strong sense of civic responsibility, to a far greater extent than in Britain. In England especially, over-centralisation and a grossly unfair voting system, together with a lack of local autonomy has rendered most of the population apathetic and politically ignorant, so that when they vote, they become more the creatures of simplistic and populist political manipulation, instead of trying to find out the truth about issues.
In Denmark, at the time of their referendum on the Maastricht treaty, some 500,000 copies of the treaty were purchased in Denmark, in a population of 5 million. Groups got together to study what was actually in the treaty, and they voted 'no', in spite of a massive campaign by most of the major political parties, the trade unions andthe employers in favour. Can anyone see anything like this happening in Britain?
So a referendum on the treaty in this country is likely to be a vote by people who won't have even looked at the treaty, let alone have read it through, willing to be confirmed in whatever prejudices they have by tendentious spin coming from most of the politicians.
Well,well,well. It seems that the polititions both here in the US as well as the EU has the same ideas or ideals in common, self prolification of their ideas and not the needs or wants of their constituents. I agree with the idea of a referendum and only wished that the good people here in the US could see equally well the need of the voters taking an active role in the running of their government and not leave it to the polititions.
To David (11): In a democracy only the people may constitute a state. Changes to those constitutional arrangements must be legitimated by the people. Government may then create regular (non-constitutional) law under the constitutional arrangements agreed by the people. In the UK we have had 9 referendums (five in the last decade) all of which have been on constitutional matters. For example regional assemblies in Wales, Scotland, Greater London etc. All of the legislative items you list (with the exception of replacing the monarchy) are not constitutional matters and should therefore be decided by Parliament. The EU treaty is clearly of constitutional significance because it changes the way the supreme law in this land is created in ~60 areas. The EU Constitution and the Reform Treaty are identical in constitutional significance only differing in trivial symbolic matters such as anthem and flag. Such symbolic issues are not the constitutional and you will find no reference to such things in the US Constitution for example.
We must have a referendum on this treaty if the law that would be created under its terms is ever to be accepted as legitimate in this land. No law created under the terms of the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice with which the British people or current or future parliament disagrees should be considered legitimate when those treaties were not put to the people.
David, the main difference between the EU treaty and most of the suggestions on your list is that the EU treaty is a constitutional rather than a political matter.
Having said that, I would be very happy to see the referendum as a normal and regular feature of British political life.
@ Mads NΓΈrgaard JΓΈrgensen
The terms liberal and conservative have different contemporary meanings in continental Europe and the Anglophone parts of the world.
In America Liberalism and Conservatism has lost all meaning, a "liberal" now just means a left-winger, while "conservative" means right-winger. I'm not sure to what extent this usage has spread to Britain, but I do know that the Liberal Democrats in the UK are Social Liberal (not proper liberal) like our two parties back home: DRV and NA.
But actually, the prime minister and his party Venstre are neither liberals nor conservatives - they're social democrats! Behold, the wonders of realpolitik in a Scandinavian country...
Typical ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ europhobic style. The idea that internal Danish politics is decided by what might possibly 'help' the leader of a small isolated state that perpetually pushes itself out to the periphery is absurd.
No mention of the concept of parliamentary democracy, no mention of the reforms that would reduce the democratic deficit in the EU, a perpetual and conspiratorial silence over the fact that whenever the suggestion is made that the EU's deficit could be annhilated at a stroke by electing the executive as a European Presidency, the people who scream it down are the europhobes, desperate to emasculate Europe so they can stop it from achieving its great potential, and keep our continent weak, petty and divided, thus fulfilling their own inferiority complexes.
Please note that the Prime Minister of Denmark is not a conservative, but the leader of "Venstre" Denmark's Liberal Party. When Danish sources quote him as "conservative", they are being polemical.
Representative democracy does not work because they are such brass-faced liars. I was actually in the room when one of them admitted, without any sense of shame, that at the previous election he had claimed to hold views on "Europe" which were in fact the very opposite of those he did hold.
We do not merely need a referendum. We need a reform of our so-called democracy in the UK including the legal recognition of our right to have referenda when we want and not merely when the Blair-Browns allow.
I find it hilarious that some Brits, who pride themelves on having "the Mother of all Parliaments" (tha title actually belongs to the Icelandic Allthing), consider that there is no democracy without a referendum. That means that Britiain is only very occasionaly a democracy....
And I wonder why they have such a low opinion of the MEP's they voted for. Can anyone explain to me why they seem to treasure their MPs and loathe their MEPs ?
It should be remembered that Denmark feels Nordic and not European. They followed the UK in EFTA and later in the EEC (now the EU) because they wanted to keep the market for their pork exports. If the UK v votes against the treaty and thereby signals its exit from the EU, you can be quite sure Denmark will do the same (unless they have stopped raising pigs)
Well I don't know about Denmark but here in the UK the taxpayer pays an awful lot of money to elect and employ a government to make national decisions on our behalf.
We don't need to decide anything by "referendum" and considering the amount of money which has gone into "IT" and all these "policies" we should be able to communicate more effectively making the most of these, by now. This is what the Houses of Parliament are for and they will be all the better empowered to make good decisions by way of democratic processes when the reforms are finally sorted.
This is the best way for all citizens to check and balance the so-called "executive" effect.
David (11) please note that the main reason for having a referendum on the subject of the EU treaty is that it concerns the ceding of sovereignty from the British Parliament (who are meant to represent and act on behalf of British citizens) to a foreign (in this case supranational) entity.
The other issues and policies you mentioned do not.
one little point to make; the prime minister of denmark belongs to the venstre party which is liberal, not conservative
Oh dear There you go again, getting the little Englanders all worked up again. No, you wont get a referendum because your democratically elect goverment has decided that the proposed treaty should be debate by your democratically elected representative in Parliament. End of story, or is it?
If the UK leaves the European Union, all British expatriates living in other EU countries will lose their rights to reside in those EU countries based on their EU membership. i.e. EU citizenship.
Consequently, all those expats will have to sell their properties in Spain and other countries and move back to the UK. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of British residents who would have to give up their lives and move back home. I don't think they want to do that. Let's Europe cherish and not to have a referendum on the treaty. It is better for everybody that way and let the politicians work out the issues amongst themselves.
David - thatβs an unnecessary cheap blow...
As already mentioned by Peter LΓΈhmann 80 - 85% of all MP's in Denmark are pro EU and yet EU referendums in Denmark always end up close to 50/50.
Conclusion:
Danish people don't take the EU into consideration when voting at the general elections.
Why is this?
A: people really don't care about the EU - why do we then have 80 - 90% participation at EU referendums?
B: people expects to have a separate say when it comes to the EU - as they have had in the past.
I would go with option B and that is why we should have a vote in Denmark - if the same argument can be made for the UK / other EU countries I think they should have a vote as well - but thatβs up the each country to decide for them self.
From an American perspective, the pseudo-nationalism of the EU is laughable.
Will the EU become an empire? And, just how desirable is that supposed to be?
Again from an American view, and with a justly jaded American view at that, Europeans who favor the Union are like rocky trebolites their minds are so archaic.
Progress, whether it is conventional social progress, economic progress, political progress, or even scientific progress; none of it is what it is cracked up to be. That has been the experience of the American empire.
And the every European should stop looking down their noses at Americans long enough to learn from our experience.
Let me give all the Eu-ites and anti-EU-ites the only measure of "progress" worth considering. I call it the five-year old test.
We were all once five years old. It is a precious age. Ever since any one of us was five years old, every year there has been another crop of five year olds.
Now here is the test:
Since YOU were five years old, with every succeeding years' crop of five year olds, has their standard of living and their life style improved?
America is a young and prosperous nation with tremendous natural resources and a vibrant population of entrepreneurs, laborers, scientists, artists and academics.
Let me assure you, for those who need such assurances, with all the power, economy and intellect inherent to the American situation in this world, the lives of the succeeding crops of five year olds in American has declined in the mean every year since its inception.
The value in today's wealth of the North American Continent when it was discovered in 1492, signficantly exceeds the sum total of the gross continental products of every year since its discovery plus its current value today.
There is and always has been more poverty, crime, pollution and fear in America than there ever has been before with every passing year since its inception.
Progress, exactly the sort of progress architects of the EU proffered isn't just a mixed bag.
It is a wholesale intellectual fraud.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
If these treaties go ahead without a referendum, then judges will be collaborating with a dictatorship.
Judges should threaten to resign if there is no referendum.
In answer to Mike Dixon (31). People like myself who would be happy for a referendum are not as you say "little Englanders".In fact we are the opposite. We talk and trade with the whole world. Its people like you who are afraid to stand on their own two feet and feel they have to be a member of some club (EU) that has handed many of our laws over to the EU.In the very end the people always have their say.Look back in history and see what happens in countries where their leaders have forced them into something that the vast majority ( as i believe is the case here)do not want.
Could it be that leaders within the EU are happy to avoid an election because they are reasonably sure this won't come back to haunt them. It says two things; firstly, that they expect the reform treaty itself to be a success and to improve the functiong and performance of the EU, and that secondly, in the shorter run, that national electorates will not punish the government on the issue in national elections, as historically they haven't. The politicians we have are the politicians we elected. Their views on Europe are nothing new and a shock to no one. They were elected with the full knowledge of the electorate that pro-EU agendas would be pursued. So either people don't care all that much, or they support the process. EU elections, at least in the UK, suggest the majority supports some form of closer intergration with the rest of Europe. I fail to see how the EU in "undemocratic". This is glib charge thrown about with very little supporting material. The European parliament is composed of entirely elected representatives from all political, social and geographic groups. The council of minister is made up of the minster (either elected themeselves or appointed by an elected official) of each state. The commision is made up of officials appointed by elected governments. I fail to see how this is undemocratic. Indeed, our own Mark Mardell has stated on this blog that the EU is probally slightly more transparent and the UK government.
Elected officials making deals is hardly anything new, in fact, it only seems to cause outrage because its the EU (infact, some how connected to the EU, given that Merkel and Rasmussen are nationaly elected figures, not EU figures).
On the issue of sovereignty, I see it as unaffected, given that all EU memebers can withdraw at anytime, they still maintain sovereignty in all areas. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to withdraw.
Organizing a referendum in a country without a tradition of direct democracy is a good method for politicians opposing the subject to get their way without making any dirty hands themselves.
In the meantime, prepare yourself and do the exercise at www.FreeEurope.info.
Vote Yes or No to Free Europe Constitution!
Have just checked out the Free Europe people. Seems absurd. How exactly is "Freedom of contract, to create, to work, trade and invest in all Europe for all Europeans" compatable with "Every government and national parliament has the right to self-determination of taxes, subsidies and laws". Hmmmm, freedom to trade and invest, and freedom for national governments to set subsidies! I'd like to see that work, with Country A's companies receiving huge subsidies competing in Country B against domestic producers who would not recieve those subsidies. This'll be real popular.
This is either incoherent nonsense dressed up as a political movement, or its a stealthy return to the bad old days (yes, things used to be worse) of massive state intervention in the market, inefficiency, monopolies and nationalisation.
Given it's mention of "agreements between governments" I'd love to know how businesses (and consumers) will like having one set of rules replaced with over 650 rules (if each EU state negociated bilateral agreements with each other). Sounds like a beaurocratic mess to me, though it might actually be an antidote to those who moan of EU red tape. Yes, it could be better, but again, having one set of rules, even if slightly complicated and convoluted, is still so massively, massively favourable (and yes, I write this an EU citizen who runs a business abroad) to over 650 seperate agreements.
"Sending tax-payerβs money from one part of Europe to another is a matter solely for the states or regions involved." I think it's better that the UK, for example, sends lots of small amounts of money to projects which it benefits from (investment in infrastructure etc...) than doing it alone, where it would either not happen, or where it did, it would be sending a lot more money to fewer projects, from which it would derive the same level of benefits ( i.e. a bridge in Slovakia only offers the UK so much additional commerce, so why pay for it alone). In addition, the UK would then be paying for improvements that would benefit the whole EU, who would not have to donate! Isn't that ironic! These Europhobes would mean Britian pays more for less, and would actually give relatively (to the benefits recieved) more money to the EU!
I think a referendum is not necessarily as this treaty is a complex issue. Who will ever read the treaty? Even Eurosceptics may find most of the issues in the Treaty useful. Who will tell? Therefore a vote in parliament makes more sense as they may have a better idea about what it is all about. Above all, we elected them.
In addition, about 20 members states have allready approved the Treaty. What about their saying?
Well, this seems to be a typical Euro-debate, Europeans bickering about referendums vs. parliamentarian decisions and with a few Americans who, with a mix of contempt and fear, observe what happens in Europe, terrified that the EU might actually become an even bigger and more powerful rival to the US than it already is.
As I see it, the main problem about the EU is the lack of a clearly defined process for constitutional changes. Each country has it's own procedures when it comes to this matter. Some have referendums, others not. And what makes the whole thing lose it's credibility is that if peopel vote against the constitution, as happened in 2005, other governments lose their nerve and cancel their refrendums aswell. This makes a mockery out of the democratic process; You are free to vote as you please, except if you vote the 'wrong' way!
I believe that a formal procedure should be agree upon by all EU-countries, so that referendums can't be postponed for years and that ALL countries decide on the subjectmatter at the same time, preferebly the same day, so that a result from one country can't have an impact on results in the other countries. It's a mess the way things are now.
To Oliver Lewis (39): Do you honestly believe what you have written here Oliver? According to you politicians can say one thing to get elected and then do the direct opposite when in office and the voters will never punish them for it. I have not voted Conservative since the 1992 election following John Majorβs signing of the Treaty of Maastricht. This latest step by Brown goes one step further in flagrantly violating a promise they were elected on. The 2005 Labour Party manifesto included the following two commitments:
1. βWe will put it (the EU Constitution) to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a βYesβ voteβ.
2. βIf the Government were to recommend joining (the euro), it would be put to a vote in Parliament and a referendum of the British peopleβ
If the government can violate promise #1 during this parliament then how much would a repeat of promise #2 be worth in their next manifesto?
Having a referendum for any democratic government is important. It establishes legitimacy and starts that government with a democratic start. For those nations that choose no, that should not stop the nations that said yes from forming a closer union. Furthermore, since the UK is actually made up of four nations in a federation, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland should all get their referendums. Of course, one might argue that this might conceivably cause the UK to break up, but if a European federation is bad, then a UK federation must be bad as well so the split up would be for the best for the Enlgish eurosceptics and for the Welsh, Scottish, and maybe Northern Irish europhiles (I'm not sure where Northern Ireland stands but most complaints about the EU i've heard coming from Britain have been English people). That way the English could chart their way to their destiny to being a second (or third) class power while the EU gets on with its superpower status.
David #15 - Many US states allow citizens to vote on tax and spending issues, as well as capital punishment. These tend to come up biannually, with the Congressional elections. So, yes, damn good idea of yours.
How come there was no referendum in the UK on the previous EC Treaty reforms? What is different this time?
What makes this particular Treaty reform special?
I've rarely heard any kind of substantial answer to this question from the pro-referendum camp. This leads me to assume that the real reason they advocate a referendum is that they are welcoming a negative outcome, knowing that there will never be a majority in the UK in favour of anything that has the two letters E and U in it.
That said, I know that this general anti-EU sentiment must not, under any circumstances, be construed as a reason against having a referendum. However, I find it arguable whether the subject-matter itself necessarily requires one.
I am very taken by the way the Swiss handle their democratic process. If the population disagree with a decision of their rulers and can garner enough votes, a referendum can be held to decide the issue. Sounds very reasonable to me.
In the UK this could be installed very simply, a reasonable hurdle to be overcome, say 250000 petitioners, that achieved, hold a referendum. What could be simpler. Brown wants more participation by the people in politics perhaps this could be a simple way of achieving this.
To Dimitri, you are assuming that the MP's are more intelligent than the general public.
To John (45): that's because he's right
To John, 45.
I think you may miss the point. If, as you say, the government has "violated" it promise to the people and people are still prepared to vote for said government, then what message does that send to the government. That people do not care. It is the responsibility of the people in a democracy to keep their government account, it is not just a right but a responsibility.
I do not see that the government has or will fail in its responsibility, given that the constitution is no longer an active political issue, but if you do take the view that that the reform treaty is identical to the reform treaty then make your feelings known and be sure to vote against the government. Again, the government is not stupid, they know what effect this will have on their polls, and if they are prepared to continue with it, then they presumably know this isn't hurting them.
Ultimately though the idea of a referendum is absurd, given that the new treaty will run to 277 pages, I sincerely doubt that almost any individuals in the UK will have the time or patience to read it. This is why we have MPs who specialize in law making, its their job, and who have teams of researchers to help them. Even then, they struggle to stay on top of on going developments, but they do a far better job than most individuals ever could. The people can gve their representatives broad mandates and demand they achieve them, but to essentialy become involved in the negociations of foreign policy is neither practical or productive. Indeed, the previous constitution was viewed in Europe as being quite an Anglo-Saxon set up, and yet many in the UK thought of it as being constructed with out Britain's views being considered.
Representation is the nature of parliamentary democracy and it has served the UK and others well for hundreds of years. What next, will we vote on health care reforms in minute details, perhaps bulding regulations or fisheries policy.
One thing I forgot to add: like many others I too am wondering at the great lengths politicians seem willing to go to avoid all referendums at all costs?
How dare people who do such things criticize their peoples in opposing the supergovernment 'Fourth Reich'?
@ Tim Oliver (9):
no, Europe is better off without the EU. There isn't a single benefit it brings along that we wouldn't have if the EU didn't exist.
The only reason so many politicians support the EU (quite disproportional numbers if you compare it to the population) is that the EU is effectively a massive gravy train for politicians and top bureaucrats.
They hardly pay taxes, get a double pension and ridiculously generous expense accounts and travel cost reimbursements (which is also possible for travel cost they didn't incur!). 'Mainstream' politicians aren't going to endanger all that now are they?
And furthermore, Tim. Where the h*ll is the democracic legitimacy for hollowing out national parliamentary democracy and sovereignty? There is no majority for 'ever closer union' anywhere.
The politicians behaviour to create their supergovernment seems quisling-esque at best. "It's just another treaty", they say. Well, indeed, the constitution was also just a treaty. And everything that isn't being surrendered in this reform treaty has been surrendered already?
When will people like Tim (9) and politicians realize that we, the peoples of the countries of Europe DO NOT WANT your supergovernment? Unlike you we are not obsessed with some necessity of Europe having to be a superpower. We like Europe without superpowers. We are democracic, we stand for liberty, and you lot stand for undemocratic arrogant elitism.
@ Chris (46): the majority of people do not want the EU to be a superpower (or supergovernment, or superanything).
Have you ever considered that?
We (Netherlands) also believe its better to have national self determination rather than a remote undemocratic institution where foreign politicians apply directives and regulations to your country. Regulations and directives that you don't want or need.
@ John Smith (26): what is it with you and your "EU must be a superpower" attitude?
We (the majority, ie those who do not support political integration) are not on a superpower trip and see no need to create a superpower. We also want the supergovernment to be de-supered.
The Danes would have had to have a referendum on the 2004 Constitutional Treaty, since the Danish Interior Ministry judged that the competences of the Danish Constitution were affected by it in several specific areas.
Imagine the surprise of Danish politicians - especially those in the Folketing's European Union Committee - when they found that in the 2007 Reform Treaty text each of these provisions taken over from the 2004 treaty had been tweaked: perhaps enough to avoid Denmark having to call a referendum?
There are those of us who are still waiting - hundreds of years on - for our referendum on the Acts of Union! We need to get rid of this illegitimate "United Kingdom" which is just a gravy train for bureaUKrats.
Yes, parliament governs us and makes the laws, but the electorate decide who governs them in a democracy. This treaty transfers the power of governance over to the EU in many areas, therefore it is a matter for the electorate not parliament to decide.
As for those who call the Europhobes in the UK "Little Englanders" this term is a. Racist and b. Offensive to all those from Northen Ireland, Scotland and Wales who are anti-EU.
David #15 Referenda on issues are a very good idea, however you appear to have mutually exclusive proposals: Tax cuts versus increased spending on health and education also abolition of private schools would cost the taxpayer ~Β£2 billion to provide state education for those previously educated in the private sector.
Whilst the principal of a referendum is sound, in practise it can only work with a substantially informed public.
I don't know about the Denmark electorate but, here in Britain, I have little faith in the ability of the population to be sufficiently aware of the issues (on either side) to vote in an informed manner. The vote would simply be a representation of long-held prejudices and irrational fears.
We pay government to govern. Part of that is we ask them to fully inform themselves of the kind of detail we cannot have time to absorb, to take advice from a range of experts in the field, and take a decision on our behalf. At the end of all this we hold them accountable for their decision and, if they get it wrong, we punish them at the next election.
Why not let them get on with it!
In response to Marcel.
"@ Tim Oliver (9):
no, Europe is better off without the EU. There isn't a single benefit it brings along that we wouldn't have if the EU didn't exist."
Honestly, you can't make these sorts of statements and expect to be taken seriously. The EU has done, as explained in earlier posts, an excellent job in lowering beaurocracy within the EU trade block and has made doing business and investment so much simpler. You can't seriously suggest that over 650 bilateral agreements would be better. This is a pretty large single benefit. Others might include standardized procedures on anti-terrorism, environmental issues, border procedures, vertical infrastructure investment, competition issues, maintaining peace, increased stature in foreign policy, climate change, consumer protection and any number of issues that are not nearly as effectively dealt with at a national or bilateral level.
"The only reason so many politicians support the EU (quite disproportional numbers if you compare it to the population) is that the EU is effectively a massive gravy train for politicians and top bureaucrats.
They hardly pay taxes, get a double pension and ridiculously generous expense accounts and travel cost reimbursements (which is also possible for travel cost they didn't incur!). 'Mainstream' politicians aren't going to endanger all that now are they?"
Please. Do some simple maths. Think about the number of polticians who sit in various chambers of government around Europe and think about the number of political position in brussels. If a politician is looking for a gravey train, then surely they would simply go into the private sector, where there are almost thousands of times more job available at substantially better rates of pay. I think this argument is essentialy an admition you do not understand why the EU is supported, and this is because you do not understand the EU, so accusing all our elected officials of some vague form of corruption, when they could actually do far better, is a simple solution.
"And furthermore, Tim. Where the h*ll is the democracic legitimacy for hollowing out national parliamentary democracy and sovereignty? There is no majority for 'ever closer union' anywhere.
The politicians behaviour to create their supergovernment seems quisling-esque at best. "It's just another treaty", they say. Well, indeed, the constitution was also just a treaty. And everything that isn't being surrendered in this reform treaty has been surrendered already?
When will people like Tim (9) and politicians realize that we, the peoples of the countries of Europe DO NOT WANT your supergovernment? Unlike you we are not obsessed with some necessity of Europe having to be a superpower. We like Europe without superpowers. We are democracic, we stand for liberty, and you lot stand for undemocratic arrogant elitism"
No country in the EU has ever "surrendered" any sovereignty to the EU, because they have the ultimate right to do what they miss in any area they choose. What they have done is realized exercising that power themselves would be hollow and ineffective, so it is better to allow the EU to exercise the power that sovergnty gives. Again, as they can take it back when they want, and the states gives the EU power not vice versa, I don't see they have surrendered power.
To say the people of Europe do not want the EU seems also ridiculous. Despite the precense of parties advocating withdrawl from the EU and the EC before it, in every country, no government has ever been elected on pledge to withdraw from the EU. Now, even if other issues sometimes get in the way, after decades across all countries of the EU I would have expected this silent majority of people who think like Marcel to have swept to power, or at least come close.
Again, I have made earlier posts that all three are wings of power in the EU are democraticaly elected or appointmented and backed it up by stating how they are elected or appointed. It is telling that Europhobes when confront with a debate simply fall back on set piece states about gravey trains, undemocratic institution, wasted money etc.. without being able to offer substantive matter., This is because they learnt their position through glib statements and assumptions and can there for only teach others in the same tone.
Peter Davidson (20) - Just because UK governance is pretty awful - and it is - it doesn't follow that we should cede sovereignity to a supra-national body. Let's clean up our own mess.
John s (29) wonders why we have such a low opinion of the MEP's we voted for, and why we seem to treasure our MPs and loathe our MEPs. Answer: we don't know or really care who our MEPs are (we don't really want any anyway) and we also loath most of our MPs. But at least they are our MPs and we can change them - and the goverments they formulate from time to time.
Dimitri (43) says the Treaty is 'complex' - so not for a pleb like me then, huh? As for the other countries that have 'voted' for it (most not in referenda), I and most of my compatriots don't give a monkey's: we care only what the British people have to say about it.
Anyway, desire for a referendum in the UK is now a cross-party issue (see the new 'I want a referendum' campaign).
To Oliver (51): I see the point you are attempting to make, but I reject it is obviously flawed. The most charitable thing one can say of your point is that it belongs to another (pre-democratic) age. No doubt there were people like you arguing against giving votes to women in early 20th century on the grounds that this was a violation of the way things had always been done in the past.
There have been five referendums in the UK in the last ten years, all of them on constitutional matters. The referendum is in fact the accepted norm in the UK for determining the legitimacy of constitutional changes. Those 5 have been:
(i) on a regional assembly for the North East of England in 2004
(ii) the political arrangements in Northern Ireland (1998),
(iii) the Great London Authority and an elected mayor for London (1998),
(iv) devolution for Wales (1997)
(v) devolution for Scotland (1997).
You suggest that those who are against the ratification of this treaty vote against the government at the next election, but a change of government can only lead to change in domestic law and will have no influence on already ratified treaties. This issue needs to be resolved in this parliament and all three main parties have already been elected on a pledge to hold a referendum.
Recent polls have shown that as many as 24% of Labour voters will not vote Labour at the next election if they break this election pledge. What contrary evidence can you produce to support your claim that no votes will be swung (mine will for sure). Is this not simply wishful thinking on your part? How can you claim this is not a βpolitically activeβ issue just one day after a cross-party campaign group has been founded to campaign for a referendum? Even if you were correct that no votes would change, on what point of principle do you base your call for politicians to lie to the people to get elected when they think they can get away with it?
Frankly I cannot believe that you believe your own arguments. If you want to argue against a referendum that is absolutely required to legitimate constitutional arrangements that will determine the supreme law in this land then you are going to have to do a lot better than this.
Reply John:
At no point have I argued that things need to be done in a certain way because they were done that way in the past. That is the Conservatives (infact they have dedicated their name to the principal) and they are (largely) arguing against the reform treaty, not for it.
Women were given the vote because there was no evidence they would do a better or worse job than men in selecting representatives. Essentialy, because they are equal to men. To suggest that a invidual with employment and other responsiblities will have time to read, study and analyise a 277 page document to the same degree as an elected official with a team of researchers is absurd.
Anyone put in the place of an MP, with all that entails, would probally do a far better job of making laws than someone who, through no fault of their own, has a life, job and family to raise or whatever.
Again, I quite like the fact that general demands can be made of elected officials and we can judge them in the success of achieving those demands. This allows professionalisation and specialization in government. Even within the realm of MPs many recognize still more focus is needed, and so commitees are formed within the parliament.
Ironically, you go on to argue a referendum is needed because that how other, alledgedly similar, issues have been dealt with in the past.
"No doubt there were people like you arguing against giving votes to women in early 20th century on the grounds that this was a violation of the way things had always been done in the past."
Quite simply you are wrong. Many treaties include provision for withdrawl. States can leave the EU at their choosing. If the reform treaty is accepted it will in no way prohibit a changed government from withdrawing from the Union.
I think in your excitement you may have misread my post. Firstly, I did not state that no votes would be swung, I said the government did not seem to think this would happen or is not bothered by it. Secondly, I quite cleary said that the constitution is not politically active. As I'm sure you're aware the constitution was rejected in the Neatherlands and France. The underlining reasons for its creation led to the drafting of the Reform Treaty which we are now debating.
I would not suggest that politicians lie to their people for any number of reasons, not least out of charitable advice to politicians, as in democracies lies often leading to being ejected from office.
Given the importance of the supreme law of any land it is vital that the people being governed by that law signal their assent to that law. Simultaneously, given the complexities and importance of treaties between nations, it is vital that they be drafted, scrutinized and considered and accepted by those we have ourselves acknowledged as the those within our own societies best suited to these tasks. Representative democracy is ideally suited to such a burden of judgement. The legitimacy of the EU comes and will come from the fact it can ultimately be disbanded, expanded, and changed to meet the democratic needs of the people it serves and who elect, directly and indirectly, those who lead the project forward.
The treay only strengthens these objectives, through for instance, giving national parliaments greater ability to express objections to proposals and by recognizing that the EU exercising powers is not an end in itself, but the means to an end, better and more effective governance, and as such, powers can go down as well as up.
Max Sceptic
You have missed the point made. The parlous state of British democracy has a direct influence on the attitude towards European integration displayed the British public!
When you are already living in a centralised, unnacountable, bureaucratic super state, e.g. the UK, more of the same on a European scale doesn't seem like the sharpest move.
However, if we (collectively) can put aside our nationalist blinkers (and after all that is what drives the vast majority of Euorophobic sentiment) we have an opportunity to improve matters by democratising the EU's institutional architecture.
Ceding powers with obvious pan-European resonance (Defence, Foreign Affairs, Macroeconomics) could be counterbalanced by devolving meaningful competency closer to the individual citizen in those policy areas of more immediate day to day concern (Healthcare, Education, Law and Order, Housing, intra-Regional transport, Culture and Tourism) to sub-national tiers of governance, ie. to democratically elected (sub-national) Regional Parliaments, as is already happening (oh so slowly in Catalunya, Andalucia, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere in Europe).
This would seem to me to be a very logical method of counterbalancing the perceived loss of sovereignty felt by ceding clearly defined (by a constitution?) and limited powers to a democratically accountable tier of European governance.
Of course that all sounds like heretical subversion to your average Union-Jack waving Europhobe but then again objective dispassionate logic and political subjectivity are rarely found together in the same place?
Peter Davidson, spliting European nation states into ever smaller states and/or contending 'regions' is just a modern form of Divide et Impera - hence the EU's and their supporters keen enthusiasm for the (thankfully aborted) English Regional assemblies.
In principle, I like the idea of small nations having independence and self-determination if they want it, but, having achieved independence, they are immediately expected to conform to the EU way of thinking (aka 'european values') and to surrender most of their shiny brand new sovereignty to the EU and accept its regulatory dictats.
What happens if you are a European nation that doesn't desire the idealised EU 'social model', or has popular support for 'unfashionable' laws like capital punishment?
As for "Ceding powers with obvious pan-European resonance (Defence, Foreign Affairs, Macroeconomics)" - this 'pan-European resonance' is a mirage. Do you really think that I want serious issues such as defense and foreign affairs to be dictated by a majority lead by the likes of, say, France, Germany, Greece and Malta, whilst the meagre offerings of housing and healthcare, etc. are cast to us like a bones to placate the restless masses...
You may consider me a blinkered nationalist and 'Europhobe', as you don't know me from Adam, I can assure you that I am neither (For all you know I may be one of the 300,000 Frenchmen and women who have made London their home because the British way of life and economic opportunities better suits their aspirations). And, as you will note from many other contributers, opposition to the over-arching ambitions and over-bearing nature of the EU is not limited to 'little englanders'.
(BTW, If the EU was free trading zone with no federalist aspirations I would support it. But then, that's what most UK citizens thought they were voting for in the referendum of 1975).
@ Oliver Lewis (62): as someone who works with small and medium sized businesses I am making an extremely informed statement when I say: EU regulations have massively INcreased bureaucracy in business. It has also added many extra costs to companies in business. And disproportionally these costs are being borne by smaller and medium sized businesses. Big business has its lobby which has influence in the Reich (EU) and the Reich produces big business friendly legislation which helps them to crush their smaller competitors.
Also, the EU has and had nothing to do with peace in Europe. That was NATO. And may I remind you, it was an appointed politician who started a war. Appointed politicians create dictatorships, elected ones do not. That is why I despise and oppose the undemocratic EU.
The mere fact that 'elections' take place doesn't make the EU parliament democratic. First: there isnt a European 'demos'. Second: the 'parliament' (aka overpaid talking shop) cannot impose a political agenda or form a 'government'.
The Council and Commission largely consist of appointed politicians who were appointed by mostly appointed politicians.
You are not suggesting that if 20 net recipient countries vote that 7 net contributors must contribute more, that that represents democracy?
Sovereignty remains with the people, and national parliaments do not have a mandate to surrender powers to the Reich. And why is it that power transfers in the EU seem to be a one way street (from national governments to the Reich)?
And finally: advocating surrender of national sovereignty and transfer of it to foreign politicians was considered treason in 1939-1945, why should that be different now? I say that politicians who support the EU are quislings. At least we pro-democracy, pro-liberty and anti-Reich people are not on some 'superpower' trip like you are.
I almost forgot to add. The mere fact that people like Oliver Lewis (62) desperately want to avoid referendums and people like me wish referendums in all 27 member states pretty much proves how popular sentiment is perceived, right?
Let all the Danish people have a direct input into the EU Reform Treaty by having a referendum. It is their country, not just their politician's. This a major political move being proposed. Furthermore, I would like to see all EU member countries have a referendum over this matter. What are the pro-EU politicians afraid of?
To Oliver (65) : The Reform treaty is only difficult to understand because it has been made so deliberately. But since there are no substantive differences from its original guise one can read the original EU Constitution to understand what is proposed. The French, Dutch, Spanish and Luxembourgers had no difficulty in understanding it so why do you think it too difficult for the British?
You suggest that the EUβs legitimacy comes from the fact that countries can leave. But that is upside-down logic when the legitimacy of the EU has never been established in the first place and all parties contrive to prevent the people having a say. The treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice were never assented to by the British people and polls from the time showed that all these treaties would have been defeated had they been put to referendum. Therefore no EU law introduced under the terms of those treaties can claim any legitimacy in this land and the same would be true of any future EU laws introduced under the provisions of the so-called βReformβ treaty should it be ratified against the clear wishes of the British people. You claim that the EU has a democratic legitimacy because we have a theoretical right to leave. Article 72 of the Constitution of the USSR said βEach Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSRβ. Do you believe that right (similarly never allowed to be put to the people) gave the USSR a democratic legitimacy?
Finally your claim that the Reform treaty would give national parliaments greater ability to express objections to EU legislative proposals is totally meaningless when the Commission is under no obligation at all to amend proposals based on those objections. The idea that an unelected body like the EU Commission has a monopoly on the right to initiate legislation superior to any other over 490 million people in 27 countries and can ignore any objections from the parliaments of those countries is obscene.