Indeed.

The electorate was presented with a complicated and difficult-to-understand initiative. Supporters assumed that it was such a good idea that the people would just follow along without paying close attention. Opponents filled in the gaps by framing it in misleading terms. The electorate reacted predictably. Are you paying attention, Mr. Carbon Tax?

But more on point, the general mood in Europe seems to be away from integration — we have seen rejection of the constitution and the Lisbon treaty, and we have heard grumbling about the Euro, intra-EU immigration, and trade. A little bit of worry may be appropriate.

Well, Wayne, that sort of sometimes is the point of having a representative democracy rather than a direct one.

But do you have like a direct line to Tory talking points?

It’s a classic problem and it goes to heart of representative government – exclusively entrust elected representatives to govern on your behalf (one side of the continuum) or govern by referenda (the opposite side of said continuum).

I have no doubt that a strong case can be made that something as fundamental as a constitution should be put before the citizens to have their say. At the same time, when you’re talking about the context of a federation like the EU or Canada, you are up against some pretty fundamental challenges in arriving at a consensus, and it gets no easier when the types of reforms/changes you want to make do not lack for complexity or detail and are marked by much negotiation, horse-trading and compromise.

While I do not believe citizens are incapable of taking account of all of this and making an informed decision, I do think that not all citizens necessarily care enough to do so (and if changes to a constitution are so important as to be put forward in a referendum, one would expect more than 53% of the population to participate – that was not the case in the Irish vote).

The progress of the European Coal and Steel Community into what is now the European Union was not always the product of popular approval. Politicians and bureaucrats have largely been the driving force behind it, and I’d say that on the whole it has been a successful enterprise.

I would hesitate to criticize the seemingly undemocratic nature of the Lisbon treaty process when it was elected governments that launched it, and 14 elected assemblies that have ratified the treaty thus far.

Only 1 in 300 people in the EU voted on the Lisbon treaty. The small margin of victory, only 100,000 votes, has decided the future of 450 million people. It’s an awesome spectacle to behold.

Rather than Charlottetown, the vote magnification is more reminiscent of the 1995 referendum, where a margin of only 20,000 Quebecers determined the fate of 30 million Canadians.

Both of these events happened because single members of a federation are allowed to speak to the fate of the entire federation.

It’s clearly unhealthy for the Canadian federation, which at times is nearly ungovernable with only 10 provinces, much less the EU, with 25, er 27 member states.

Coincidentally, the reforms of the Lisbon treaty were in part aimed at ending the tyranny of the minority, or the one.

“Democratic” is one of those tricky words that sound absolute but aren’t necessarily. Here’s an idea I’m more comfortable with: let each member state ratify the treaty by its own rules. Since even the most ardent Europhiles (and frankly, I’m a pretty big fan of the EU) do not claim that the EU is, today, a federation, then national sovereignty should, at a minimum, permit national decisions about ratification.
In Ireland, governments have *no choice* but to put any change to the country’s national constitution to a referendum. This makes sense given the country’s national history: it was a colony of England for a long time and it had too many decisions made for it at Westminster. This is the sort of memory that sinks into bones. It is glib for, say, Jeff Simpson not to give that a second’s thought.
Now. Other democratically-elected governments are free to put their rule changes to less onerous tests. Ireland’s never was. What is really, really galling, *especially* to those of us who kind of like the EU, is to see the Irish told before a referendum that they hold the treaty’s fate in their hands, and afterward that their vote (read: their silly, incorrect vote) cannot be allowed to change things.
I’m kind of speechless to read Simpson’s column this morning, in which he says the Irish voted the wrong way on Europe’s “new constitution.” European leaders made a great show of presenting a shorter, simpler Lisbon treaty that was supposed to be ratifiable in most countries by simple parliamentary vote because it *wasn’t* a constitution.
Voters do not like to be swindled, especially when it is done repeatedly and clumsily.

Yeah but yeah but. Didn’t France reject a major European treaty — some might even call it a constitution — in a referendum three years ago? That felt xenophobic in places too (Turkey was on a lot of campaign posters, even though it had nothing to do with the question at hand). But France didn’t get shunted off to some siding while the rest of Europe advanced without them. Sauce for the goose.

At the risk of being tediously literal-minded: Irish membership of the EU wasn’t on the ballot this week. Ireland cannot have rejected “Europe.” The Irish were asked to ratify a major change to the status quo. They declined. The tut-tutting that has ensued is a bit rich.

Now I just have to figure out how to write it in the style of Baudelaire.

The Baudelaire thing’s a bit of an inside joke, Sophie.

Ah. It’s not as easy to help you then. I studied the EU formally for a year 15 years ago and I’ve been going back for refreshers ever since, and it still confuses me. The two big antagonistic schools of thought are:

(1) The EU has kept Europe from total war for 60 years and made it an economic powerhouse, so any local vote against the Brussels consensus of the moment is proof of backward thinking;
(2) The EU is a monstrous invasion of deadening anti-democratic bureaucracy into the rich and distinctive national character of its member states.

Most English Canadian journalism on the topic reflects (2), coming as it does from British papers and journalists stationed in London. (There are British Europhiles, but most of them don’t work at newspapers.) I tend to be a Europhile, but can’t swallow all of argument (1). To me, the EU was one of the great ideas of the 20th century, but it’s legitimate just as far as it’s legitimate and not a step further. Jeff Simpson’s column this morning is a majestic example of argument (1). It’s like the Irish were told to pick heads or tails and, having picked tails, have been branded as heathen by their betters. The good news is, the Irish don’t normally let that sort of thing get them down.

Here’s Jeff’s column:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080613.cosimpson14/BNStory/specialComment/home

The EU was invented by the French (well, that’s how they remember it) whereas the British were late, nervous and not entirely welcome arrivals. In his book “Postwar,” Tony Judt points out that the three negotiators of the very early postwar European treaties — the French Schuman, the German Adenauer and the Italian Gasperi — had important things in common. They had all been born in regions of their countries that had, on occasion, been annexed by foreign armies (so they didn’t have rock-solid national loyalties); they spoke German when they met, partly because of the annexing-army thing; and they were all Catholics. That did not go unnoticed by the Brits, who at first saw this whole European unification business as a Catholic plot.