Is democracy out of date?

I just genuinely want to know - does anyone (in Europe) care about democracy?
Recently, the European governments signed a massive document called the Lisbon Treaty, the details of which I won't discuss here.
Out of 500 million Europeans, only 5 million (Ireland residents) were given a chance to vote. (They voted against the treaty. This was just ignored and one year later they voted again, with the opposite answer, giving 1 Yes and 1 No so-far.)
Despite not having a voice, the other 495 million Europeans seem content to just accept 'fate'. There have been very few angry marches on the street, no calls for freedom, no calls for better, truer representation.
Ironically the document which has slipped in un-noticed is a document which many say will weaken democracy, and weaken the public's ability to object to anything in the gushing flow of new legislation which pours out of Brussels, stipulating what we may and may not do.
One of the crucial issues which has emerged is that different people living in Europe have fundamentally different conceptions of "democracy" and varying levels of interest also.
What do you think?
Was the "old democracy": people vote on important matters, and their will as expressed through a referendum is always respected?
And is this old democracy out of date?
Is the "new democracy": if you don't like something, you can write a letter to your 'leaders', and they might read it?
Is this the new way for busy, young Europeans with a hectic lifestyle, and a thirst for stability?
I don't have the answers - what do you think?

We've all got enough cake to eat, so democracy isn't so important any more.

Referendums have never been an integral part of any western country's democratic system apart from Switzerland. There are regular elections at the local, state, national and European level and that's how we express our opinions.

it will not 'weaken democracy', for heaven sake. If anything it reinforeces the rights and responsibilities of national governments and the unuion itself and makes it easier for the Union toa dapt. And as for democracy, I am sick to death with people asserting constantly that public referendums on complex treaties that run to hundreds of pages are in some way 'democratic'. Unless it were compulsory for every citizen to read the treaty before voting a referendum is a pointless excercise in political, media and business manipulation of an ignorant population. This is why most countries ratify treaties through a vote of their elected representatives within their democratic parliaments. While some of ourr elected representatives might not read the treaties, most do and all are aware of the pertinent issues. That is why we elect them.

When Ireland established its constitution and inserted a clause requiring referenda for amendments they cannot have flrseen that it would have been used by big money (much of it from the USA) to be poured in to campaigns to get no votes and paralyse the european union.

I'm inclined to agree with Bell The Cat.

I think the germans secretly like the EU because it increasingly helps to side-step their ossified society. Too much red tape to start a small business? Create a UK Ltd. Germans won't accept your Spanish estate planning? Take it to the EC.

This has precedent in the US, where federal law often steps in to mitagate internicine battles between individual states. Rob a store and flee across state lines? ... it's now a federal case. Where it steps up a notch above the EU are clearly situations like federalizing the Arkansas national guard to deliver a little girl to school because it's the right thing to do; that's the step the EU still needs to take. "States rights" remains a fundamental tenent, but there's an interstate body as the ultimate arbiteur.

Proposition 13 is what happens when everything goes to referenda.

The point is that despite major constitutional changes having been made in nearly 30 countries over the last three decades, they have rarely been put to the vote directly or indirectly (most elections deal with local issues like the economy). It is a plot by Europe's political elite to ignore the wishes of their own citizens and create a European super-state. This is totally undemocratic, and had it happened anywhere else it would have been condemned out of hand by the same politicians.

Remember the European Constitution was rejected by France and Holland in 2005. That should have been the end of it, but essentially the same proposals were worked up into the Lisbon Treaty - a less scary name so that referenda were less likely. And it worked. Although no-one is actually fooled apart from a few simpletons.

For comparison, imagine the outcry if politicians in the USA had decided to amend the constitution to cede sovereignty to an external body without consulting or even mentioning their intentions to the public.

why does it not surprise me that a plodder like Wheel is taken in by that line. Look, as if it wasn't obvious, we elect politicians on the basis of manifestos which lay out a legislative programme (only some of which we may actually agree with) but more importantly to make complex decisions on our behalf. The alternative to that is the Brave New World option where you forget about politicians and elective democracy and instead install a voting pad in every home so that it is compulsory for every member of the population to vote on every issue. Now if that really is what you want when you bleat on about democracy, wheel, then you are a fool.

The fact remains that the "European elites" you so condemn are the democratically elected governments of the member states themselves - The Lisbon treaty, like its predecessor constitution, was drafted by our elected representatives.

It's a big and complex issue, but I personally do not see the point of the EU. Why should richer countries like Germany(big parts of which are not all that rich btw..) pay to increase the living standards of poorer ones like Poland or Portugal? To create "markets" for German products goes the argument, right?? What, there were no VW's in Portugal or Poland before, or wouldn't be now without the EU?

Was talking with a biggish manager from a German company yesterday(very intelligent and insightful guy..), and asked him what most irritated him about what's currently going on in Germany re taxes, government, etc.. And he said, the goverment telling us what kinds of light-bulbs we can and cannot use is what grates him most.. Not just the light bulbs I think, but the principle that these powerful government bearacrats feel entitled to tell us what's for good for us, instead of leaving it to us to choose what kind of light-bulb we want to use. I told him I was surprised, and that what irks me most is the energy mentality here, with utterly inefficient wind having such a high priority, then all this Green BS about nuclear power, all of which leads to such high energy prices - probably the dumbest issue going on in Germany right now afaic.. He said yeah, that was #2 on his list, but suits in Brussels telling us what kinds of light bulbs to use is the worst - and most dangerous/tending to socialist - thing going on.... I don't quite care that much about light-bulbs, but maybe I should...

As for democracy itself, I don't feel the US is all that democratic.., and if anything it's less so here. I generally don't vote. There has never been an election for President for ex where my vote would have made the difference. To that people say "what if everybody thought that way??" - to which I respond, "I don't care a whole lot what other people do or think.." Most of them are fools anyway. One little step to making the world more democractic would be to ban exit polls. Or the media generally ha ha... Whatever the case, as I read somewhere once, democracy was invented in a little town called Athens 2500 years ago, in a town with probably under 25,000, only the minority of whom could really participate... How that is supposed to work for 300 million Americans and 500 million Europeans I don't know.. The weight of the individual's "vote" is obviously less and less as the group gets bigger, reaching a point I would argue where currently it's pretty meaningless...

Start as you mean to go on, what?

Oh, just what I needed - a potted definition of representative democracy. This particular definition is more like elitism with a crispy, crunchy democratic coating really, but never mind, I know you didn't major in politics.

NB If representatives ignore the wishes of their electorate on substantive issues then on those issues there is a democratic deficit - if they ignore enough it is no longer a democracy at all.

Oh thanks, another definition, of direct democracy this time. But what do I do with it? It's got nothing to do with my post. *puzzled*

*feels withered*

So that's all right then.

...No argument to support your position or deal with mine? Why am I not surprised?

Germans like it because the have been taught to be ashamed of national pride. Now they have an alternative and can be proud to be European.

As it does in Europe.

I don't think this is an example to hold up to the world. There has been no need to require an armed presence to enable children to go to school.

Even moreso in the EU. The states remain sovereign.

The point is that it prevents war in Europe. The countries become so economically and politically dependent on each other that war becomes impossible/unthinkable.

How many amendments to the US constitution went to a public vote????

Ceding decisions/power to EU institutions has been debated on many platforms ad nauseum throughout Europe. Some countries decide to opt out of certain EU laws (eg joining the Euro, working-hours directive, etc, etc.)

As with the US, elected representatives ultimately take decisions on behalf of the people who elected them. This is how the US constitutional amendment system works and how change works in European countries too.

good point MrNosey. Federal constitutional change in the USA has never come through public referendum but has been effected through combinations of the three representative elements of the democratic state (presidency, congress and the supreme court). Where referenda have been used in the USA it has always been only at the state level (and the record aint too great on them delivering anything progressive). If that principle were carried over to the EU then of course we wouldn't have referenda on EU constitutional issues.

As in any large and complex organization there is plenty you may criticise about the EU. Yet on the whole most Europeans probably believe that the results of the EU have been very positive.

The government is telling us what to do? Really? That never happened previously to the EU, right? Do people have any idea what amount of trade restrictions have been torn down by the EU over the years? All sorts of national regulation that had no benefit for the consumer (butter only in triangular shapes, anyone) and had the only purpose to keep out competition was scrapped by the EU.
Freedom of movement: your right to settle and work anywhere in the EU.

The complaint about the lack of democracy in the EU is usually raised from the very people who fought hardest to restrict any substantial transfer of powers to the EU parliament.
A lot of the comments you are reading on the websites of the "Times" and other English language publications are getting more and more bizarre. After the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty there were comments that the fights at the Somme were all in vain. All you need is some talk about black helicopters and you are approaching the bizarre rants of right wing militias in the US.
The UK is simply getting tiresome, having to be dragged along screaming and wailing all the time. Either accept that the EU was never intended to be a trade bloc only or simply leave.

absolutely, and be sure if the UK does leave the EU I will be applying for a German EU passport. Actually there does seem to be a difference between Scotland and England in the way the EU is viewed so maybe if Scotland and England split we cold see Scotland in the eurozone with a reinforced border against the destitute hordes of hungry erstwhile refugees in an "independent" England. ;-)