On 12 June 2008, the stability of Europe was dealt a severe blow when the people of Ireland voted a resounding ‘no’ to the EU’s Lisbon treaty in a national referendum. The result sent shock waves through Europe, pushing former European Commission vice-president Neil Kinnock to call the ‘No’ vote a ‘triumph of ignorance’ on the one hand [Ref: BBC News], and Declan Ganley of anti-treaty lobby group Libertas a ‘triumph for Irish democracy’ on the other [Ref: BBC News]. News that a second referendum is likely to be called in Ireland [Ref: openDemocracy] has only deepened the row, leading one commentator to accuse Europe of demonstrating ‘elite disdain for the democratic process’ [Ref: Guardian] and allowing others to breathe a sigh of relief that Ireland has been given the opportunity to think again [Ref: wrong link]. The way in which the referendum results have been interpreted is revealing of the different sides in the Europe debate. Whilst some commentators boldly state that the European project is so essential to our shared future that the treaty must proceed with or without Ireland, others say that the ‘No’ vote and responses to it indicate just how undemocratic the Union is [Ref: Guardian]. Whether Europhile or Eurosceptic, the Irish ‘no’ vote raises profound questions about the future of Europe and indeed democratic politics.

What is the European Union and how democratic is it?
The European Union (EU) is an economic and political partnership between 27 European countries, including the UK. It mainly comprises the European Parliament, which is directly elected every five years, the Council of the European Union, representing the governments of member states, and the European Commission, which proposes new laws to the Parliament and Council, and manages the implementation of policy. The EU is democratic in that all laws and policies have to be agreed by a directly-elected European Parliament and, more importantly, the parliaments of the member states represented by the Council of the EU. Nonetheless, critics argue that the EU has become too bureaucratic and is distant from the electorates. Turnout for elections to the European Parliament is typically low, and many voters take little interest in it, while decisions made in Brussels are often detached from the concerns of national politics [Ref: Idea]. Unpopular policies are sometimes presented to domestic voters as impositions from Brussels, even though they have been agreed by national politicians. In this sense, discontent with the EU might be seen as an expression of a broader democratic deficit, and advocates argue that it is unfair to blame the EU for this.

The EU referendums controversy
An EU Constitution, designed to codify various treaties and agreements, was agreed in 2004, subject to ratification by the member states [Ref: BBC News]. In 2005, voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution in national referendums, forcing the European Commission to rethink. In 2007, they agreed on the Lisbon Treaty [Ref: Europa.eu], but critics argued that it was just the constitution by another name, and this too was rejected by Irish voters in 2008. Since all 27 member states have to ratify the treaty, the process cannot go ahead as planned unless Ireland agrees to a second referendum, as it did with the Nice Treaty in 2001 [Ref: European Commission], and wins the people’s support. But rather than casting a shadow on Europe’s claim to political legitimacy, a number of commentators have suggested the debacles tell us more about the folly of using referendums as a means of democratic decision-making [Ref: openDemocracy]. Others argue that when governments pass power onto a third party, the people have a right to express consent or not by direct democracy [Ref: openDemocracy]. In this vein some suggest that hostility to referendums reveals more about critics’ failure to persuade the electorate than a problem with the process.

Europhiles and Eurosceptics
There has been a long-standing divide in British politics between those who favour closer union with Europe (Europhiles) and those who want more independence (Eurosceptics). The former see European unity as a desirable ideal in itself, or simply the best way to deal with transnational issues like trade and terrorism. The latter fear that the EU is undermining national sovereignty by taking power away from national electorates. While Euroscepticism is often associated with the right wing, both positions are represented in the major parties, and similarly the ‘no’ campaigns involved people and organisations from both left and right.

Populism and elitism
Critics of the EU often characterise it as elitist, reflecting the interests of a narrow political class, and detached from the concerns of ordinary people across Europe. Supporters of the EU sometimes counter by suggesting opponents are guilty of populism, or pandering to the lowest common denominator in politics, especially national chauvinism. A more positive case can be made for each position, however. Rather than being elitist, some see the relative detachment of the EU as a natural reflection of its concern with complex, technocratic matters that don’t interest most people and are best left to experts. Opponents counter that it is essential for the public to be involved in politics if those in power are to be held to account, whether at a national or European level, and that without popular support the EU is illegitimate.