1 and 2 are the precise definition of how UK elections happen. Why is that anti-democratic: it's just politics.
Just because it exists in a EU country, doesn't make it a good argument. Elections should not be called at the convenience of the existing powers. And (as a side) I would not know if I would call a system based on uninominal seating a representative democracy. I would prefer to call it a non-dictatorship.
The problem with referenda on EU Treaties is that you need unanimous votes in every single country. That's not democracy by any stretch of the word.
Yes it is, you are going through the fallacy of considering Europe a single voting block, it is not. Last time I checked there was no EU-nation, so you don't have a EU democracy as the fundamental piece, you still have nation-based democracies. Each nation is still (mostly) sovereign. The process was, in an accepted agreement, a consensual-based one in respecting of that sovereignty.
The rules of the game were clear. The fact that an enlargement was done to unmanageable proportions on top of a consensual schema is an argument for the incompetence of those of enlarged without first shaping the necessary management framework, it is not an argument against the existing model. It is in Ireland's right to deny the framework change.
That being said, I am far from being a fan of "nationalist isolationism", that is not my point. I am a fan of going by the rules, which is, the civilized way for nations to interact, IMO. Bullying Ireland in going from a previously accepted framework into a new one is not a civilized, proper way to advance.
And in order to get a Europe-wide referendum (which would be a great idea), you'd still need to get unanimous agreement in each country to do such a referendum and agree to be bound by such a vote, which again would need to follow in each case national rules.
Again, that is the current existing, accepted, framework. You need consensus as per previous agreements between existing nations. Silly way of proceeding? Most probably I would agree. But you cannot simply wreck existing compromises just because it is convinient Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
'Democratic' here really means 'One pound, one vote' - just like in other Anglo countries.
The EU is anti-democratic because it means 'one euro, one vote', which is completely different.
But I don't think it's a conincidence that as income gaps have widened, political consensus has drited towards the right.
Detailing the fiasco that was UK politics in the 70s and the double-chinned and wailing lurching thing that it vomited up in the form of the Tory rule of the 80s would take more space than there is here.
Today the street level political consensus is one of utter cynicism. None of the parties are trusted - with reason - so people hold their noses and vote for the one they think is likely to do the least damage to their personal interests and against the one they happen not to like much.
It's an almost entirely negative political culture if you'd like to see some vision and democracy, but a very positive form of pseudo-democracy if you want to minimise popular interference on policy.
Was it an accident that someone with such exotic religious tendencies (in a UK context) became PM?
I don't think anyone - apart from Blair, his financial supporters, and some of his minions - can answer that.
