Hopefully, someone's narcissism has been put to bed in this thread, and we can now continue a worthwhile discussion.
Despite clearly being in favour of Brexit, I have to say that both sides have been less than stellar in their performances. However, one of the most interesting comments I've heard was an interview with Alex Salmond today on RTE 1 in which he claimed that Jo Cox's murder has done the "Remain" camp a world of good in terms of swinging the vote in their favour. It's quite a bold statement, but if there's one thing you can depend on with auld Alex, it's that he gets straight to the point. He was subsequently asked why, if he thought Scotland would initiate a second referendum on independence, he didn't support the "Leave" campaign. His reply was it needs to be done on Scotland's own timing and not a second before. Interesting illustration of the "if at first you don't succeed" principle, but even more interesting is the notion that a referendum can be won or lost at the last minute for circumstances which no one could have foreseen.
Speaking of a democratic deficit in the EU, I believe it's only The EU Commission which can initiate legislation, further to the development of EU laws. It, therefore, has a virtual 'monopoly' through the sheer difficulty of removing EU Commissioners.
Both The Maastricht Treaty and The Treaty of Lisbon were to address democratic legitimacy and transparency, but the latter clearly strengthens the powers of the European Parliament at the expense of national ones. I fail to see how that strengthens democracy throughout the member states. I don't see how forcing Ireland to vote twice on Lisbon is an example of democracy when the electorate clearly rejected it the first time.
Johnz made a very valid point of the need to be more active in elections, but in legislative terms the European Parliament has become much more of a central focus. In the UK, we have undergone a significant process of de-centralisation in which Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments, so why do we want to see further erosion of this, and London, in favour of another body based in another member state which claims to speak for all?
Look at a map of Europe in 1914 and ask yourself if you want to return to three/four empires ruling most of the continent, or do you even want just one doing it? When WWI ended what was the most obvious outcome: the destruction of empires and the emergence of smaller nation states. This resulted again in 1989-90. And what?...now we want an untried superstate to bring us all under one umbrella. There is no common 'Europe' - it was never even there in the group of 12.
For me personally, I prefer such powers to be held at the level of national governments, mostly because I don't think any country's best interests are represented by bodies which are significantly removed from the 'action'. Too much, too fast and too little consideration for the overall effects of further integration - both political and monetary.
