No, it doesn't, and I'm getting kinda tired of the EU being depicted this way.
A treaty gets rejected, renegotiated, the public is informed of the changes, and then is voted on again. For example, per your own linked article:
> Denmark — The Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992, 2 June 1992, 50.7% against, turnout 83.1%
> Denmark — The Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1993, 18 May 1993, 56.7% in favour, turnout 86.5%
> In Denmark, two referendums were held before the treaty of Maastricht passed. The first one rejected the treaty. After the defeat of the treaty in the first refererendum, Denmark negotiated and received four opt-outs from portions of the treaty: Economic and Monetary Union, Union Citizenship, Justice and Home Affairs, and Common Defence. The second referendum approved the treaty amended with the opt-outs.
That is how politics is supposed to work: debate and negotiate until a consensus is reached, and even then keep updating the rules as things change.
This is not a "vote until you answer what we want you to answer." Sure, there is an agenda by the diplomats to integrate Europe into one transnational union. But they're open about that, and the public does get to vote on big decisions through these referenda. The process through which all of this happens is a lot more democratic than, say, a big corporations pushing political parties to push a law through (and yes, that also happens in the EU, but that's a problem in political systems everywhere).
A treaty gets rejected, renegotiated, the public is informed of the changes, and then is voted on again. For example, per your own linked article:
> Denmark — The Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992, 2 June 1992, 50.7% against, turnout 83.1%
> Denmark — The Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1993, 18 May 1993, 56.7% in favour, turnout 86.5%
> In Denmark, two referendums were held before the treaty of Maastricht passed. The first one rejected the treaty. After the defeat of the treaty in the first refererendum, Denmark negotiated and received four opt-outs from portions of the treaty: Economic and Monetary Union, Union Citizenship, Justice and Home Affairs, and Common Defence. The second referendum approved the treaty amended with the opt-outs.
That is how politics is supposed to work: debate and negotiate until a consensus is reached, and even then keep updating the rules as things change.
This is not a "vote until you answer what we want you to answer." Sure, there is an agenda by the diplomats to integrate Europe into one transnational union. But they're open about that, and the public does get to vote on big decisions through these referenda. The process through which all of this happens is a lot more democratic than, say, a big corporations pushing political parties to push a law through (and yes, that also happens in the EU, but that's a problem in political systems everywhere).