@ Rob the...

1) You only see a "contradiction" because you did not carefully read what I wrote, or because I was not clear enough.   I certainly did NOT say that "these are democracies".  On the contrary, I said that they are no longer genuine democracies.  That is almost the opposite of what you claim to read.   My basic contention is that: (a) one cannot make a genuine EU-wide democracy or democratic polity with nondemocrats, and (b) many of the constituent countries of the EU are no longer genuine democracies.  The latter implies, of course, that their publics at large do no longer adhere to democratic values, as evidenced by 'normal' legislation that blatantly undermines freedom of (political) speech and by sporadic attempts to selectively ban political parties.  These publics by and large, however, do adhere to "left-liberal values" (as John Laughland calls them in another article here), which explains the specific content of much of the proposed EU Constitution/Treaty.      

2) While I do see a proper role for referenda in political systems, I think that one should not make them the be-all and end-all of "democracy".  If you were to organise an EU-wide referendum and ask the simple question "Should the EU be abolished?", I have little doubt that a sizable majority of Europeans would say "NO".  In that sense you cannot say that the EU is being "imposed" by elites. Also, in the current state of affairs, the French, the Dutch, the Irish....they are all still at liberty to leave the EU, if they so wish. But, it is very unlikely that they would elect many politicians who would argue for that.

3)  The fundamental issue is NOT really whether there should be an EU or not, but rather what should be the nature of the EU, and what is essential about "democracy".  In a way that is the real crux of political fights in any polity or country in the world.

4)  I think that there is some truth in your explanation for the seeming contradiction between referenda-results in Europe and the continuation of electing pro-EU politicians in much of Europe.  But I do disagree with some of your specifics.  While it is true that Europe is much less "relevant" for the US today than it was during the Cold War, I do think that Europe still matters much both to the US and to the larger world. Also, what you call the "failure of multi-lateral institutions" is nothing new; Soviet obstructionism during the cold war was as much debilitating for the UN as the Russian one is today; nor is the ineffectiveness of the UN any different today from before.  The UN is political show and theatre; it does not - and cannot by definition - represent genuine 'rule of law', because that would presuppose or require common adherence to common democratic values, and is thus impossible in the current state of many cultures in the world. 

I beg to differ with most of the EU-bashing comments here. 

The EU certainly has a basis in "culture" and in "history". It definitely reflects distinct behavior patters, 'values', and aspirations that are broadly shared by many Europeans of today. And, while I strongly believe in the importance of a common language to shore up nationhood, there are other examples in the world of large and 'serious' countries with multiple (official) languages, including Canada and India. 

It is also untrue that the EU is being "imposed". While imposition may well be the dominant feeling that opponents of the EU have, Europe's politicians are doing what they are doing because they are allowed to do so by their (national) electorates.  Surely, the growing merger of sovereingty with other states is an important matter that is of 'constitutional' significance.  If European electorates are not punishing their politicians for their 'behavior' and choices at the EU-level, "imposition by elites" is not an accurate description of what is going on.

The undemocratic features of the EU, as currently constructed and operated, is a reflection of the gradual loss of democracy that is occuring in many of the nation states that form the EU.  This applies particularly to its 'older' members, and less so to the newer East-European members who better remember soviet times.  Since many of the existing EU members no longer respect their own constitutions (dating from earlier more democratic times) - and the disrespect for freedom of political speech is symptomatic of that - it can not be surprising that Europe's contemporary politicians appear incapable of constructing a genuine-democratic EU constitutional order.

So, the problem of the EU is not that it is a "Marxist institution", but rather that many of its member states are no longer genuinely democratic states.  And that is largely a reflection of cultural forces that have been at work for a long time, particularly the gradual transformation of the former 'democratic left' into something more radical and intolerant of ideological diversity.  That, of course, is largely the result of extreme moral-relativism that currently permeates western education systems, and it implies that other Western non-EU countries are just as much at risk as the EU countries are. 

If European countries today are incapable of forming a democratic constitutional order at the EU level, it follows that genuine 'rule of law' at a wider global level is even more of a 'mirage'. 

1)  It has no basis in langugage, culture, or history (except in the ambitions of dictators, but nevermind that).  Marxist don't care about that fuzzy stuff.

 2)  It is imposed by a self-appointed elite, who know better than the proletariat.

 3)   Its foundations are economic, not democratic.   It was founded and supported by subsidies and bribes, not votes.   As an institution based on an economic view of history, the EU will survive everything except an economic downturn, and will continue so long as there is bread, and maybe a bit of circus, irrespective of voters or politicians.

4)   It brooks no alternatives explanations of history. Human rights, say bye-bye.

5)  It is, ultimately, antithecal to all other institutions, especially non-economic ones. 
 

Every time this thing gets voted on the people reject it. And every time European elites explain why the people's views are flawed and they know what's best. They are dictators in waiting, and the truly pathetic thing is that they are going to establish their fascist super-state without even recourse to military strength. Will Europeans ever rise up and take their own destinies in their hands, or has the social welfare state so destroyed their independent will that they will simply allow this to happen with nary a peep?

The last three EU countries that did have the chance, so far, to vote by referendum for the Constitution/Treaty, voted no. Still, the european elite will do everything to conduct business as usual.

What part of the word NO do they not understand ?

They may have different reasons for wanting this. But please, if they have any common decency, let them stop using the word "democracy."

Constitutions are supposed to be (a) made from the bottom up via representatives at a constitutional convention. Why do European leaders so fear referenda when they are the best way for people to express their opinions?; and (b) easy to understand, witness the U.S. Constitution, the world's most successful fundamental law--still a simple document with 27 amendments. 

These words from the American Declaration of Independence are still inspired and inspiring:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And from the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Please show me where I can find similar sentiments expressed in the Treaty of Lisbon. 

New Yorker

Better late than never, I suppose.
I just hope the Lisbon treaty stays down.

An excellent moment to observe what a swindle all the democratic pretensions of EU builders really have been. It doesn't happen that often when Europhile frustration at not getting their toy overpowers those pretensions, and ugly disregard -- not only for the people they govern, but their very own rules -- is out in full view.

I think I understand what has just happened. The Irish didn't vote 'No', don't you know? . No, or do I mean Yes? Eh, anyway, apparently  the Irish 'No' vote was the Celtic equivalent of the Bulgarian head nod, or do I mean the opposite of the Bulgarian head nod? Anyway, if you don't understand what I'm talking about ( and why should you?) here's a link that might help you work it out for yourselves.

http://www.overseasdigest.com/odsamples/balkans.html

P.S : They are currently working on a plan to incorporate the Balkans into the EU.

The same about 99% of MPs. 

Henry Ford and our European leaders.

Who said what, to whom, and when?

"We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a (Irish) tinker's dam is the history we make today".

or

" Failure (to ratify the treaty) is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time (voting) more intelligently".

or

" Any result - so long as it's Yes".