Behold, I show you the last European

So, Klaus just signed the Lisbon treaty, and the EU juggernaut rolls on. European press commentary is interesting. Why isn’t there more outrage about how undemocratic the process has been? Major nation states have just given away huge swaths of sovereignty to an institution with effectively no democratic accountability, and have done so against the will of their people. Only three nations were brave enough to vote on it, and two of those voted no until they were told that that’s the wrong answer and they have to vote again. Why is it that the new federalist right wing party gets lambasted for having somewhat unsavory characters, while the centralist parties that have far more loony characters get a free pass?

I was recently asked why I am oppose the Lisbon Treaty, and I have a set of rational reasons (detailed below), but ultimately I think that it is also a visceral distaste for what the EU represents. At the core of the EU project is an insipid void; it is the heartless, passionless end-game of bureaucratic, Weberian rationalization.

The EU represents an element of Europe, and European-ness that I deeply dislike. It’s the desire to swaddle life in rules and restrictions, the Precautionary Principle, as if by measuring and adhering to the right rules and procedures we eliminate any chance of error (and as if that that’s the most important thing). This is what produces such loose and baggy monsters like the Lisbon Treaty (384 pages "reader friendly" version vs. the Constitution's elegant 4 pages) and self-parodies like the ICC court. Without God they’ve turned to constitutional proceduralism as the source of meaning. How horrible. And, of course, this is combined with a haughty, tone of moral superiority that disdains the (for lack of a better word) American approach.

This is reflected in everything from Europe's self-righteous yet passive and gutless foreign policy – proclaiming the importance of human rights and UN rules but not even taking a serious stand against genocide in their own backyard – to enforced equality and mediocrity (cf: tax codes; education system). The risk-averse regulatory policy is a reflection of a spiritual malaise; Burning Man (for all its flaws) could never take place in Europe.

In Nietzsche's words:
“The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.
'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth...
One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...
One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.
'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink."

Of course, this is an exaggeration and generalization. And the "American Cowboy" approach has serious problems -- as its Bush-era connotations reflect -- but at least it is not life-denying. The US is far more dangerous on the world stage than senescent Europe, but those are the same qualities that make the US capable of greatness/inspiration.

As for my rational reasons:
A) EU is deeply undemocratic; no one votes for EU Parliamentary elections, and therefore concentrating power in EU hands is generally a bad unless there is a clear, strong benefit (e.g., maybe with trade policy).

The democracy problem goes beyond apathy: Even if people did vote, there are structural issues with the EU Parliament that dilute democratic accountability.
1) it's unclear what any European-wide coalition stands for (all amalgamations off diffuse parties) therefore you can't really express meaningful democratic voice;
2) the EU is so damned complicated it's unclear clear "who is to blame" if you want to change something;
3) Many important powers are still reserved to heads of state, creating a weirdly antidemocratic space (because voters election heads of state on national issues, and don't tend to scrutinize their EU dealings as much)

This anti-democracy is inherently bad (democracy being probably a good thing), but also has bad policymaking effects:
-Enables grubby backroom dealings and corrupt lobbying (no sunlight disinfectant); MEPs have gotten away with shocking corruption and obscene salaries/expenses. People out of sight given a big pot of money and not held accountable for any outcome are unlikely to behave properly
-Reduces accountability for bad policies; democracy doesn't punish bad policies very effectively (because its hard to see cause / effect on complex systems over time) but it's better than nothing

B) Even apart from the democracy issue, I think that the EU tends to pass regulation-oriented, statist laws. It's not that they are pursing left-wing goals; it is that they are pursing them typically through the most pedantic, bureaucratic approachs. Can't help but see the end result as an ossified super-state.

Part of this is its "pro-bureaucracy" institutional mentality. EU self-selects for more intervention-minded, pro-regulation and anti-liberty (personal and economic) people simply because that is its dominant culture and outsiders tend to either get sucked in or frustrated. I mean, every document is translated into 26 languages and there are two fucking parliaments. Only a bureaucrat can flourish in that kind of environment.

C) In general, I like the idea of Europe as having a great deal of diversity, and the EU reduces this over time. The federalist / laboratories of democracy argument is very strong when people have such strongly different cultural histories and yet can move around with relative ease.

There are also reasons to dislike Lisbon specifically
D) Lisbon is explicitly setup to enable a "slippery slope" toward EU statehood, by creating a head of state, allowing it to annex addt'l powers without requiring a new treaty, etc. See anti-democracy issues above.
E) Distaste for the way it has been forced through; only two referendums across 26 states -- none in the UK despite Labour's manifesto promise -- and a "stupid Irish, you voted the wrong way, try again" attitude. From the start, the EU has been an elite project imposed upon the people, and it shows.

Note (in response to a comment): As I was writing it, I realized that "insipid void" was Friedman-esq as a nonsensical description, but decided that both words convey part of what my meaning, so damn logic.