The problem is not that there are too many elections for Europe, but too few. And the people feel they are not controlling a process that is bigger than them.
When people vote No at the battlecry: when in doubt vote No, how else would You interprete it?
Now, it can be that the United States have given a help, under the table, to finance the advertisments against the treaty. After all they have all to gain from being the only superpower. But the advertisments found a fertile land to sprout.
When 95% of the irish parliament said to vote Yes, and the clear majority of people voted for No… something must mean.
Calderoli for one time (the only!) is right in noticing how from when Europe had to ratify its constitution have lost every time.
Now, here, they want to call again for a second referendum, and again, and again, until the Yes wins. Strange that the constitution permits it.
I am not against voting again, but I think it should be done right.
When there is a referendum, and the result expressed is more than 20% different from what the parliament has suggested, it is obvious that the parliament is no more reppresentative of the people. And so it should be considered automatically delegitimised. New elections should be called immediatly, to renew the parliament. And after this a new referendum should be called. Referendum at which the new parliament should give indications of vote. And again if the results are more than 20% different, we should vote again, and so on. Until the fracture between the people and its representatives has been healed.
This would mean that the power truly belongs to the people, and the parliamentaries truly represent the people.
With the new technologies we could have one new election every other day, and a new referendum in between. Within one week we would have a new parliament, and a result of the referendum, that agree with each other.
Recent Comments