[Skybird]

Those elected at the time when being elected did not know and did not tell the voters that they would be in a situation later where to make such a heavy decision with such far-leading consequences. Parliamentary democracy the voter can only anticipate regarding future trends. when most european voters voted the last time, they simpyl could not know what would come of the Lisbon treaty, and what content it would be (the old one). Therefore in several european nations there always is the possibility to have the people decide a critical issue of seriour consequences, under circumstances usually regulated by laws or the comnstitution. Biut just look at the way the duscission was done in Britain, and how the government was squirming and eeling on the floor to avoid needing to call it by terms and names that would have made a referendum obligatory - terms that in fact just two years ago were valid and okay to be used to describe what it is. In Germany, the disucssion was ended pretty much in an authoritarian style: a "No!" was shouted at those wanting a referendum, and that was it. And since that met lobby intersts, po0liticians felt happy with it and declared it a closed issue. the Lisbon treaty affects Germany more serious than any chnage to the constitution since WWII. To leave that an issue to a small group of potentats, life-long politicians who think the voters have to serve their interests to keep them in power endlessly, and lobbyists, is a bit naive.

By content, the treaty is the same as the old constitution, there are only cosmetical changes as the result of the long rethinking and redesigning process that was promised when French and Dutch people said no (and I still rank mthe will of the people as higher as the will of the group of lobbyist at top of governments). Lats time this content was worth to be hold referendums aboiut it in some nations. but the fear for another sounding No now justifies that the same content miust not be made subject of a referedum in these places lioke last time? Just because it is no longer called a constitution but a treaty? That is arbitrarily switching on and off the rules of laws, coinstitiutuoon, and an opportunistic abuse of deomcracy: letting people only vote when they will create the result that is demanded, else either let them vote again and again until they do, or don't let them vote at all.

Also, parliamentary democracy is an ideal only these days, it has faded into history, today the parliaments for the most are a pit filled with lobbyist and party-strategists who in the main eye only one thing: their own power, their party's power and how to best deceive the public about it.

And finally, the way europe gets dsigned and taken over by the eurocrats simply is asomething that I regard as negative, destroying democarcy and freedom, and establishing a tyranny of lobbies and bureucraty who have not democratic legitimation at all, neither directly, nor indirectly. the whole EU thing has derailed roughly 15 to 18 years ago.

Both Valery Giscard d'Estaing an Helmut Schmidt must be counted to the founding fathers of the EU idea. The french last year said in an interview he sees the ideas the EU was founded on and was meant to develope after the end of the cold war as having failed. The nGerman says the risk that the EU will fail as a historic conception, is very high now, and failure cannot only be ruled out, but over the medium to lon future miust be expected. Both men descrobe the EU today as a distortion, and misdevelopement, the insane speed at which it has increased its size is descirbed by them as self-damaging, and wrong. Well, I hold Schmidt in very high respect, and as so often I certainly do not wish to argue with him here. I think today'S EU is on a track that is in violation of what it was meant for, and democratic princicples, and in ignoration to what degree democracy alraedy has been ursurped by lobbyists and their influehnce in media and public opinion forming. I think the EU as it is now needs to be destroyed, in order to overcome it and build it again in a more functionaol, comnstuctive way, serbong the peoplem of europe and their interest, as well as protecting their legacy of libertiues, freedoms, rights, a humansitic philosophic fundament, and democracy itself. the tumor the EU instiotutions and their jungle of powerpolitics and selfishness is today, imo is beyond reform and repair. The treaty of Lisbon just adds to the general deofmration, adding to the pervertion of freedoms, and the ursurping of power to a degree that national election have no meaning anymore. (80% of nthe laws in Germany that touch fields that are also being treated by EU institutions - are no longer be decided by the elected German parliament, but are waved thorugh for being demands and commands and laws coming from Burssel. The german voter that way gets betrayed, and the parliament violates its constitutional responsibility. In fact we are governed by office workers in Brussel, by chairmans of commissions, by secretaries and other kinds of bureaucrats. and if during the next election a very difefrent government gets elcted in Germany, and after ten yeras and twenty years - these very same bureaucraty will command european governemnt what to do and what laws to form and what laws to abandon, for they are completely beyond democratic legimitiation processes. And that'S why I call it the dictatorship of the bureaucrats.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE EU WAS MEANT TO BE.