The Factors That Influenced My Decision to Vote "No" Pt.2 of 2

I believe passionately in democracy, as in the Lincolnian formulation viz.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people

Although the EU is formally a democratic entity, and is indeed inclined to be rather arrogant about its democratic credentials, the ethos which governs the decisions of the leading elites is anti-democratic. Whereas democracy means that the People are sovereign, as Ireland's Constitution has it, the EU's ethos appears to be that, instead, those whom the representatives of the People select are entitled/obliged to delegate others to give governing power to people who never stand for election by ordinary voters.

The attitude of the EU leadership - and of most campaigners in Ireland for ratification - was so anti-democratic that one felt like voting against just to spite them. I am still horrified at the discovery, made during the campaign, that so many people think that it is quite all right not only for an electorate to accept a document that they do not understand ("Trust me, I am a politician") but even that legislators - entrusted by the voters to scrutinise proposed laws and to oversee the executive - consider it acceptable to pass into law measures that they do not understand ("Trust me, I am a Minister").

This is not how a truly democratic method of government functions.

I admit that this is not solely an EU issue. Nor is it only a problem with politicians. Most members of the professional classes, among whom I spend most of my time, are contemptuous of the democratic ethos.

The problem is not even confined to the professional classes, though: "ordinary" voters need to take their citizenship duties more seriously than they currently do.

As for the media, just don't get me started, as we say around here.

The reaction of EU leaders to the referendum result confirms me in my view. The soi-disant "Community of equals" wants to go ahead with the process of ratification. The only reasonable interpretation of this is that the aim is to bully the only member-state to consult the popular will. The Union leadership discards democratic methods reflexively, if they do not produce right answer.

Further development of the EU does not have my approval until this ethos changes.

To be fair, it is recognised by many at the highest level - and I was gratified to hear it expressed on Friday last by our Foreign Minister - that this is a real issue. That is what the Laeken Declaration was all about, and it led to an honest effort in the form of the Convention to address the problem. Unfortunately, it lost its way, not least because a person (Giscard d'Estaing) who virtually embodied the problem was selected to head the Convention. Moreover, he, predictably, propelled the process away from the real problem, producing a result with no real solutions for it.

This result was despite the worthy efforts of many participants.

Update on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 02:40PM by Fergus O'Rourke

Whoops ! I forgot to keep my promise to explain the "almosts" in Part 1. The explanation is here.