They came from such
countries or states, as – the Ukraine, the Dutch, the Danes, Greece, - of
course Switzerland (but that one was initiated by the citizens), California,
(likewise) , etc. The article even referred to an apparent quote by Margaret
Thatcher – who “dismissed referendums as - ”a device of dictators and
demagogues”. (Just who was that talking?)
It refers to
“legalistic jiggery-pokery” by EU politicians to overcome potential triggering of referendums. It does add
the comment that – “all (this) smells horribly undemocratic to some”. And it
goes on to say “national governments can shoulder some of the blame for not
being clear with voters about what their arrangements with the EU imply”.
However, the article
does conclude with a mollifying statement: – “founding father Jean Monnet, wrote that he “thought it wrong to consult the peoples
of Europe about the structure of a community of which they had no practical experience” - That may have
worked when Eurocrats restricted themselves to tinkering with agricultural
subsidies and fisheries policy. Not any more: the age of referendums is
here to stay”.
At least the writers
admit that direct democracy is becoming more often used by citizens than
before. And, I would add that it is about time. The “elites” have not done a
great job in aligning the various states and peoples into a well-functioning
system. Maybe the citizens can emplace more commons sense into what is going on
via a few more referendums.
Particularly if it
is the citizens themselves who initiate – in proper manners - such referendums.
One must either admit to being in favour of – democracy (the will of the
majority of citizens) or to that
of autocratic elites. To which is the Economist mag. supportive? To
which are you?
