(1)
To start with, as often when reading your paper, one is filled with the sense that democratic deficits in institutions other than the EU somehow go under the radar -- especially as you get rather close to describe the problem as a general one hitting the political class.

Say, you mention war as the ultimate national interest -- but where are the multitudes of articles in The Telegraph and other British papers decrying the undemocratic nature and cosy behind-closed-doors meetings of NATO, coalitions of the willing, and indeed even national governments ignoring the public's rejection for joining America's latest wars?

There is undeniably a general problem here: that of the elitism of the majority of democratic political leaders across the world. In fact, I think this problem is closely linked to the origins of the current crisis: the worldwide push for deregulation at the benefit of financial capitalism (which, without regulation, degenerated into irresponsible gambling with other people's money). This push was anything but democratic: many countries from Latin America to Russia introduced 'reforms' with reference to demands from investors, the IMF, 'the necessities in a globalised world', or Washington. (You and your paper often quote the French or Irish referendums on EU matters, but say the referendum stopping the move towards privatised healthcare here in Hungary would be worth a similar treatment.)

In some countries, such undemocratic government was abetted by the election system (Britain's first-past-the-post ensured wide parliament majorities for Thatcher despite never gaining the support of more than 44% of voters) or the complete lack of it (Chile), but more important was pure vanity. You can be sold that you do the right thing by doing what the Important People suggest against stupid commoners' wishes if you are recognised by the Important People as one of them. (Say, it is common on the Left to view the Bilderberg forums as some grand conspiracy, whereas I think it does the trick in a much simpler way: political leaders will be flattered if an exclusive club rolls out the red carpet for them.)

(2)
But, you could say, even if there is a wider problem of the elitism of the political class, the EU is one particular nice vehicle for them?

Now on that front, I am troubled by your treatment of the EU as a monolithic block, by the persistent lack of differentiation between the different branches of the EU (which, again, is something quite frequent in your paper).

When you write about EU 'officials', you do not separate the bureaucracy managing the day-to-day business of the EU (the Commission) and the intergovernmental bodies, which truly control policy (the Council that is made up of ministers representing national governments; and the European Council, an originally not at all official, but by now clearly most powerful institution consisting of heads of states and governments). The less removed, directly democratic body of the EU, the European Parliament, goes completely amiss.

This is critical because you seem to treat behaviours displayed primarily by the intergovernmental bodies as somehow systemic, for the EU as a whole -- whereas the history of the dynamic of the power balance between the different EU institutions would be entirely topical.

It shouldn't be forgotten that in the past, many national governments were ready to consent to the intergovernmental body ceding powers to both the Commission (say on economic governance) and the Parliament -- but especially Britain's policy of sabotage under every government in the past three decades limited that.

It shouldn't be forgotten that the Lisbon Treaty mess was part of a struggle: out of the desire to compensate for the national selfishness cattle-trading at Nizza was born the EU Convent, whose drafting process was already subverted by Giscard d'Estaing to suit the governments (among them again and again the British ones), who then forced significant re-drafting in opposition to Commission and EP, and again only allowed these to rubber-stamp the Lisbon Treaty.

So, in conclusion, that the EU is not equipped to deal with certain problems is the result of certain forces preventing the EU from gaining these powers and responsibilities. That presently, there is pervasive detached elitism emanating from especially one of the EU institutions is again the result of especially anti-integration forces preventing a different evolution of the EU institutions.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}