[Skybird]

Problem I have with that is that voters - if they even do this! - only make assumptions on politican's decision if they see such decsion-making times coming. But there can things happening that cannot be forseen, and are beyond previpous estimation. For such situations a previous voting holds no real legitimation, imo. Maybe formally, by the rules of law, but not by content.

Also, there are sometimes such groundbraking, important new things to decide that their scale is simply beyond any previously assumption on how somebody would decide if he would be elected. I rate this treaty as such an opportunity, because i understand it to have made cosmetical changes in the most, but still changing the legitimization of policy-making in europe, and very drastically so, putting a bureaucratic hierarchy over the elected sovereign parliamnets and govenrment sin the nations. From 2000 to 2005, over 80% of the new laws implemented and measurements being taken by the German government - where just waved through in parliament - and never were initiated by the German government, but were demanded by Brussel instead. the parliament failed compeltely to fulfill it's constitutional duty of counterchecking such proposals, and the government failed to do so, too. this is a violation of the constitution, and since I assume that many other european constitutions share this characteristic with the German one, it takes place all ove reurope, too - nhot as an exception from the rule, but as a thing done by routine now. Voters did not elect parlimantaries and governments that they just wave thorugh bureaucratuc demands and plans and legal rules created in an institution that has no democratic legitimation to dictate sovereign states what they have to do. the voters in the single nations - are betrayed, and their votes is being made mockery of.

However, I agree with ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt that a politician is in the ultimate consequence not owing responsibility for his decisions to neither his party or the parliament, nor to the people who elected him - but his conscience only, and his conscience alone. This is even laid down black on white in the German constitution, where his conscience is ruled to rank over anything else ("Article 38 (Elections) - 1. The deputies to the German Bundestag are elected in universal, direct, free, equal and secret elections. They are representatives of the whole people, are not bound by orders and instructions and are subject only to their conscience. "). I go beyond Schmidt when suggesting that members of parliament should even be forbidden to be members of a party, and parties should be prohibited in parliament, and government. Since the article 38,1 rules that they shall not accept to be bound by orders and institutions, one must askl what parties have to do in parliament, if they are not allowed to act in their own agenda's or interest's name anyway.

What really angers me about the issue described in the BBC-article on Holland is the - since now wellknown - fact that originally the Netherlands where in favour of a referendum, and held it during the first decision on the EU treaty, constitution, or however one meaninglessly want to call it (becasue it's title will not change it's enormous influence). But now, since such a referendum showed that the demanded result will not be brought up by it - it opportunistically gets ruled out. That is arbitrarily switching on and off democracy. And that way, it is no democracy at all. Though shall only speak if thoug will speak like I do. Otherwise: shut up.