To attack the above argument too, technocratic regulation can mean the elimination of local regulation ("deregulation") and the prescription of 'market solutions', too. And claim that it's in the name of public good, too. Thi happened at national level, too. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The difference was not really in the actual processes, but about who would have had legitimacy after the vote. With the "non", as we've seen, the federalist institutions are been mocked and blamed, and all we get is the Council, increasingly assertive national governments, and open sneering by euroskeptics at Eurofederalists, calling their dream voted dead.
With the "yes", you'd have had renewed energy for pan-European action, and that usually takes the form of continent-wide regulation, or continent-wide empowering things with deep political meaning (think Schengen or the euro). The federalist institutions would have been reinforced, and they are structured to do regulation, not deregulation (deregulation is what they get to do when they have no legitimacy, because breaking things is easier than building them). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
all we get is the Council, increasingly assertive national governments, and open sneering by euroskeptics at Eurofederalists, calling their dream voted dead.
With the Lisbon Treaty, we now got even an European Council as independent fourth pillar.
(You do realise I am the devil's advocate here.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
