Replies

your hypothasis also fails to take into account the new 'constitution' of the EU. its mainly an amalgamation of the previously separate treaties, but it does significantly extend the european parliments powers in holding the commission to account, it also removes european political power from some areas and makes bi-lateral agreements between interested states more of a likelyhood.

it also of course increases the areas subject to qualified majority voting, but all of these changes are subject to the approval of national parliments and in most cases in europe, a puplic referendum.

most importantly, all members of the EU are able to cecede from the EU should they wish to do so.

i remain interested to know how a club which your need to volunteer in order to join, can then help make the rules that run the club and choose its officers, and can then leave at any time, can be portrayed as an unelected dictatorship.

i remain interested to know how a club which your need to volunteer in order to join, can then help make the rules that run the club and choose its officers, and can then leave at any time, can be portrayed as an unelected dictatorship

I do find this question to be most interesting, the pro-Europeans should be the ones concerned about the supposed 'democratic deficit' whereas anti-Europeans should be unconcerned, yet in general the positions are reversed.

If one is pro-European, then one supports the notion that there is a legitimate locus of authority above the level of a nation-state. If one also believes in democracy then one should support the democratisation of that layer of government (as one should support the democratisation of any layer of government).

On the other hand, the principle opponents of the E.U. are those who believe that the fundamental form of government is the nation-state; in this case if that nation-state chooses to involve itself in an international body, then the legitimacy of the international body flows from the nation which has engaged in treaties to that end. To democratise an international body makes no sense if one believe that an international demos does not exist.

Thus, if one opposes the European Union on the basis that it draws power from the nation-state, one must still submit oneself to its decisions (as they have been legitimated by the national government), and one should not have a problem with its lack of elections.

Amusing. When will this "constitution" be put to a vote, by the people, in every country seeking to enter the EU?

Looking at the latest map;

http://europa.eu.int/futurum/ratification_en.htm

in only Portugal, Ireland, and Denmark will the people have a final say on the loss of their soverignty.

Of course seeing the results of past nos, perhaps calling even this a final say is overly optimistic.

Secession? Apparently you are not a student of history. Look for example at the American experiment where the right to secede was considered implicit within the Constitution...until someone actually tried to leave the Union*.

I'm also bemused how the people have a say over the most powerful part of the EU - the European Commission - which, unlike the Parliment, has the power to propose new laws.

*An argument can be made that the governments of the Confederate states, in denying the franchise to blacks, did not have the rightful power to secede, but outside of myself, I've never heard such an argument made.