Democracy, Populism and the Ruling Elite

The murmurs against the concept of allowing the electorate to make a choice are gathering into a crescendo. Adding his voice to the mix is the FT’s Quentin Peel. For those with access the link is here.

If all the voters of the EU were to hold a joint referendum on the treaty, the majority would probably be as clear as it was in the parliament on Wednesday. But when it comes to approving the document, the voters of Europe do not have the option of a single referendum. They must ratify state by state, and the chances are that at least one may refuse to do so.

Its terrible isn’t it. All of our fellow Europeans are to be denied their right to a dogs breakfast of a constitution by the callous and irresponsible British voters.

It is also important. It will help make the EU more workable, even if 25 member states speaking 20 languages makes it horribly complicated.

Sorry Quentin that’s exactly what we do not want. A more workable EU means an organisation whose ability to meddle in our lives is increased. We want an ineffective unworkable EU, if the alternative of no EU is not available. After campaigning hard to allow the former communist countries into the union, why should Britain throw away its advantages thus gained by ratifying this document?

Tony Blair is not the only one dragging his feet. So is the Dutch government, to name but one, wary of stirring up an anti-immigrant vote against it. They seem to think the less is known about the treaty, the more likely they are to win. That is absurd.

Actually Quentin dear, it’s a traditional EU strategy and is being used by all of the nations having referendums. The only difference between these two examples and the others is that these electorates need explaining why they should. Explaining what the treaty contains, would mean explaining exactly how impotent national governments are. Most European leaders prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.