Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Well, that's the dilemma. In reality a 'yes' vote would have meant a move - not a diminution - of political power from state governments towards Brussels. It wouldn't have been much of a move, but it would have emphasised the narrative that being European is more important than being - say - Irish.

I think what's being missed is that neither Brussels nor state politicians are seen as representative. The crisis of democracy is Euro-wide - and with good reason, because policy isn't being set by voters or by electorates, but by special interest groups, sub-cliques, elites and paid lobbyists.

Ordinary voters have been deliberately excluded from this process, and most government, in the EU and in nation states, is more interested in talking than listening. Even when someone like Wallstrom puts together one of her famous surveys, she won't be asking the questions that people are really asking themselves - which is why the hell anyone should bother voting when the same old crap gets rolled out cycle after cycle, and no alternative is available.

So the Irish vote is as much about the state of democracy in general as it is about the EU. If the EU wants a treaty that populations will support, it needs to find a way to present itself as a democratic and populist alternative.

Which is not, perhaps, a likely prospect.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jun 25th, 2008 at 06:44:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you telling Walström that?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 26th, 2008 at 02:44:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series