If this is happening (and it is), it’s not because of the EU administration or institutions, but because of France own elected governement. The men(and women) in our governement are convinced that the treaty is good for our country’s interests and have refused to propose to other european countries the changes that were supported by the treaty oponents (either from right or left wing).

And don’t forget either that around half the “don’ts” who won against the treaty were actually asking for more in-depth transfer to the EU…

But you don’t have to look only at extreme opinions. In fact doing so is a common tactic of the EU’s supporters. If you ask whether the EU should have less power you would get a majority in some member states.

The EU is not a democratic institution. Either you accept it or not. Your last post ties itself up in knots in trying to get around this simple fact. And your assertion that the majority of people in the UK do not wish to quit the EU, whether this is right or wrong (and I will address this elsewhere), is irrelevant to the point. You either have an organisation that is democratic or not. And you don’t with the EU.

Any notion of EU accountability via electing for national Governments is not the same as democratic accountability of the EU. We have seen three referenda rejecting EU treaties from the Irish, French and Dutch that otherwise “support” the EU.

In 2005, the three major parties colluded in keeping the EU out of the General Election campaign yet they were all asking for power in a system where they have little control over: Some 75% of our laws are passed in Brussels, not Westminster. Yet you would see the results of that election as some kind of verdict on which party is “right” on the EU.

Last month, seven out of ten voters in the UK wanted a poll on the latest EU treaty (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/18/neu118.xml) so I would challenge your view that the majority of people in the country do not want to withdraw from the EU on the basis that this underpins EU-scepticism in this country. Once there is a fair debate in this country over the merits of staying in versus withdrawing from the EU (which all three parties are NOT in favour of because it is a retirement club for their elders), you will see similar polling for outright withdrawal.

“So much for democracy”

The subject of the original post and numerous articles in The Economist all indicate one thing: a majority of people in the UK do not want withdrawal from the EU. Any attempt at very clear “do we begin withdrawal” referendum, and a result which would be implemented, would have sympathy from me. But, it won’t happen because the euro-sceptics know they would lose. Instead, their reaction is to throw spanners in the works until something breaks - this is explicit in the UKIP manifesto. Calls for referenda allowing people to vent frustration, with mainly non-EU subjects, falls into this category. Counter to your statement, this is not democracy.

Similarly, your statements about the Irish, Dutch and French ignore an important point. The people voting in the referenda knew that there would be no lasting damage from a negative vote and so felt quite safe making their protests - although if any two voters were protesting exactly the same thing I’ll be surprised. Asking them to vote again until they get it right, as you put it, is what they expected when they voted.

Similarly, I suspect that you would get different results depending on the borders you choose. Britain went into the EU but things have changed - what would happen if Scotland now voted independently? Gerrymandering, European style?

No Europeans I know, myself included, have any desire to force any country to do things they do not want and if the UK wishes to leave the club then good luck. However, if majority wish to stay, the minority should respect that. Opposition is an important part of the process, destructiveness isn’t. That is democracy.

Some people will treat any potential referendum on the EU - even if it is one on the treaty alone, as a surrogate on one for remaining within the EU, if only to send a signal. You can’t stop people viewing such a process in their own way nor what it may trigger down the road. Personally, I would see it as an encouraging step forward towards ultimate withdrawal from the EU.

Yet…

The “no” votes from France and the Netherlands over the EU Constitution directly lead on to the perverse decision to re-engineer it into EU-gobbledegook-speak, so that it could be rammed through as the latest treaty. So much for democracy.

You accuse me of using strange logic yet you read the EU-sceptic Telegraph (I don’t: I am a subscriber to The Economist - a decidely pro-EU publication). What is the point you are trying to make?

And on the subject of Might over Right, didn’t you know the word is mightier than the sword you refer to? And we have that in spades with yet another dreadful EU treaty.

The EU as a weenie? Far from it.

“Why must we be forced to accept an undemocratic and unanswerable totalitarian administration as the ONLY way forward?”

If this is the question you would be responding to in a referendum, you are underlining my point. Every participant is answering a different question. The question few will answer is the one on the referendum sheet. You can count Yesses and Nos but the result is meaningless if everybody treats the question differently.

“I suppose you reject the idea of a free press to expose the rascality of the EU as well, don’t you?”

You have interesting logic. Actually, the only daily press I read every day is the British Telegraph online because it’s nicely laid out. However, I don’t let that stop me thinking for myself, doing my own research and forming my own opinions.

“Right, not Might, will persevere.”

More strange logic given that Might tends to be a national sword to wield. After all, Brussels doesn’t force the UK to lock people up for 28 days without oversight - or to try and extend the limit even further. In the Might stakes, Brussels is a bit of a weenie really, but you may not get that opinion in the Telegraph.

Anti-Americanism can only have a small influence on winning elections. Likewise nobody gets elected in Britain by being Eurosceptic, argues Alex Harrowell in A Fistful of Euros and goes back in history, when Tony Blair characterized as a poodle, b…

Voted twice already?

The last time Britons voted on the EU was 1975. No one under the age of 50 in my country has had a chance to vote on this monstrosity yet some 80% of British laws are made by Brussels, not Westminster.

Rascality and tyranny are too polite. I could think of worse. What on earth do you call a system that says to Ireland after it votes against a motion to try again until you get yes? Or when France and the Netherlands vote against the constitution, 95% of it comes back, deliberately with more obscure language to ward off scrutiny by the masses?

I take pleasure in the long game: Just as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Apartheid South Africa foolishly stamped on the freedom of the people to choose their path, so the same fate will fall upon EU Europe. Right, not Might, will persevere.