I agree that part of British public opinion seems beyond the reach of any reasoned discourse on the need for European integration or the modalities to join forces in the world.

(Naturally, Britain is not alone. Populist and nationalist right as well as unreformed left have a history of, part successful, attempts to derail European integration.)

I wonder if the latest ‘blackmail’ operation by Poland’s president Lech Kaczynski finally forces the majority of European leaders to abandon the disastrous unanimity rule, opening up vistas for the two (or more) tiers you envision.

For a not insignificant minority (I estimate a minimum of 10%) amongst the UK electorate viscerally opposed to any form of closer integration with their European mainland compatriots, your notion of power spurned will fall on deaf ears. For them the concept of shared sovereignty means an unwarranted diminution of the capacity to control their own affairs and no amount of reasoned argument is going to persuade them otherwise.

Another huge section of British society (maybe another 50%) is now convinced that the bargain is not what they thought it was. The perceived sacrifice of open borders (to their fellow EU citizens) and the so called blizzard of regulation/laws emanating from Brussels have proved an unbearable distraction from the harsh reality of a rapidly globalising commercial environment. Pressure to adapt to dynamic external economic forces and consequent social/political change are routinely conflated; we (the British) signed up to a Common Market but nothing more, we’ll have no truck with this nonsense about political union.

The foundations of the European Union, as a political manifestation of the overwhelming logic supporting the concept of closer integration, were fundamentally flawed from the outset because they were based on the false premise that individual member states could remain entirely distinct and autonomous entities. The reality, in an intrinsically interconnected and independent world, is that the concept of sovereignty exercised in isolation is now nothing more than a convenient fiction.

Perhaps a two (or three or even four) speed European project lies ahead in the not too distant future but predicting how these matters will pan out is fraught with difficulties.

I will continue, wherever and whenever appropriate, to strongly argue in favour of more flexible geo-political template for the future evolution of European integration, based essentially on two-tiers;

A clearly defined (by a constitution?) directly democratically accountable federal centre operating, openly and transparently, in strictly limited policy fields appropriate to the pan-European and global arena.

An array of robust but responsive semi-autonomous entities boasting, wherever possible, strong financial, cultural and political credentials, managing the vast majority of day to day governance on behalf of their respective citizens – examples such as Catalunya, Scotland, Lombardia, Bayern, Slaskie, Breizh, Scania, Wallonie, all spring to mind immediately.

I take note of what you say about the timescale, although it looks a bit odd that people would resist being handed keys to (some) power on a regular basis.

The UK has, of course, its own brand of EU discourse and media, not necessarily of the most reflective kind, although there are individual notable exceptions, such as think-tanks, NGOs, individuals and House of Lords reports, to name a few.

Naturally, people tend to identify with small groups in their vicinity: self, family, friends, relatives, football club, home town etc.

One of the problems with the European Union is that it a) lacks real power in the questions where it would really matter, and b) is perceived to meddle in all sorts of things. This is both a real problem and one of perception.

I have always been convinced that timescale is a vital element in this (very) complex equation.

The vast majority of people (at least in the UK anyway) tend to recoil in horror when I explain my viewpoint on this very serious issue but when I add the overriding caveat of a (very) long timescale into the debate, their initial sentiment of outright rejection is, in a significant percentage of cases, mollified and some even want to understand a bit more.

When I start to explain in more detail about why I believe the traditional (larger) nation state within an integrating Europe has seen its best days and it is time to consider a new approach some people are eventually fascinated by the potential solutions this radically different approach offers to many seemingly intractable issues although I don’t even begin to think they wholly accept my rationale.

Perhaps their sudden change of heart is based on purely selfish motivations (it doesn’t really affect me because I won’t see it in my lifetime so why should I be bothered by this entirely theoretical concept) but I would like to think that there is more to it than that.

Societies will of course still tend to organise themselves in groups – it is simply the case that those groups will tend to be smaller, more immediate communities. We can see this trend in pressure for increased autonomy; witness recent events in Euskadi, Catalunya and Scotland.

We seem to agree on the seriousness of the spreading resentment and and disillusionment among both ordinary voters and EU-centred intellectuals.

I have therefore thought that the EU leaders, realising the deepening chasm, would understand that the European Union has to be based on the citizens, via EU level parliamentary democracy.

This would entail a package of (initial) Lisbon Treaty reform (at least the substance among the willing) and a pledge to institute democratic reform.

I have thought that a pan-European referendum would be called for if and when the EU takes the qualitative jump to a democratic and federal Constitution; requiring a double majority of citizens and states it would start among the willing, leaving the relations of the outer circle to be defined (with the option of later accession).

While your basic analysis looks the same, you seem to favour important, but perhaps more limited questions and a longer evolutionary process, if I understand correctly.

Your suggestion is certainly worth thinking about, because every avenue to break the deadlock has to be explored.

Agreed, referenda as instruments of direct democracy should never entirely replace the more nuanced and therefore satisfactory function of its representative equivalent but now we (Europeans) seem to be fast approaching a crisis point and desperate times require desperate measures.

What better way to kick start a process of renewal for the concept of European integration whilst simultaneously injecting a much needed dose of democratic legitimacy, than via this electoral vehicle, starting with some simple closed answer questions about the direction (and pace of movement) the project might take in the future?

The Holy Alliance is a comparison aimed at illustrating the anachronistic character of current EU governance.

Referenda, including pan-European ones, are not cure-alls, but I think that we have much common ground with regard to both the necessity of the EU (in some form) and its basic democratic structure.

I perceive the EU (as it is currently constituted) as an essentially intergovernmental structure, dominated by the influence of individual member state administrations. Of course within the complex equation the larger players exert, even taking into account their respective population sizes, a much larger slice of the EU’s power pie (so to speak), both intra-EU and externally on the global scale. Many academic analysts claim that this vehicle for delivering increased geo-political influence on the world stage was the driving rationale behind French involvement in the entire European project from the outset.

Maybe today’s political elites see themselves as the inheritors of the divine legacy you refer to but my perspective has always been driven by basic pragmatic considerations. What is the best (most efficient way) of organising our society for the benefit of all (or at the least the maximum number possible because there will always be winners and losers).

Therefore I have long since arrived at a conclusion in which individual nation states are long past their sell-by date as the best means of delivering widespread wellbeing for human societies.

In fact I would argue that the concept supporting the ‘European project’ anticipates the inexorable nature of this long term trend. For example, looked at in simple numerical terms the addition of each new member state to the EU edifice increases the self-evident nature of this axiom for anyone who dares to look closely without the ‘aid’ of an indivdual National lens.

In much the same way as Habermas welcomes the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, I believe the time is now fast approaching when Europeans are beginning to question the entire premise of the EU’s establishment, the basic raison d’etre for its continued existence. I know this might sound perverse but I welcome this crisis of confidence because only out of such adversity will a renewed spirit of democratic legitimacy emerge, derived (I hope) from support through the ballot box for radical (and I do mean very radical) reform of the EU’s institutional architecture.

There are already whispers about using the 2009 European Parliament elections as a vehicle for holding an EU wide plebiscite to put a number of propsals to the entire European electorate for their approval/rejection. I actually think this time frame is too tight, mainly because there will not be enough negotiating space for the usual suspects to reach consensus on what might be placed before the people for their deliberation but at least viewpoints are now begining to coalesce behind the notion of EU-wide polls; that’s progress for me.

One minor practical note here; any EU vote must occur simultaneously, none of this crap about the UK or any other member state traditionally voting on a particular day of the week!

When the practice of EU wide voting becomes established I do no think it will be long before we witness a sea change in public attitudes moving towards thinking on a European scale. This mindset change must be nurtured because presently the vast majority of EU citizens only see Europe through the lens of individual national (media orientated?) viewpoints.

Thank you for your clearly written thoughts, a valuable contribution.

The Holy Alliance symbolises the (divinely legitimated) rulers of Europe, who saw themselves as the benign paternalistic autocrats bringing happiness to their peoples, and in practice a cartel of sovereigns intent on (jointly, if needee) crushing any attempts at liberal democratic reform.

Do you see the European Council and the Council in a radically different light?