<p>I’ve long predicted that the European constitution would never fly. The document itself is just simply a wrong effort. A constitution should not attempt to directly govern the people. It should set up a sensible and flexible framework, through which the people can govern themselves.</p>
<p>And the US constitution does this beautifully, which is why it is still humming along nicely (with minor adjustments) 215 years later. Here’s a perfect example of the contrast: printed out in modern page and font sizes, the US constitution is about 8 pages long. The European constitution is over 800 pages long. QED - Never gonna work.</p>
<p>For all the difficulties in reaching concensus with 13 fairly young separate colonies with their own interests, it was much easier to get the US Constitution drafted. In Europe, however, you have as many countries with thousands of years of history, tradition, and prejudices to deal with. It will never work, because they are trying to address too many issues that have festered for too long.</p>
<p>EU constitution downloaded from BBC from official website: 235 pages.
US constitution: much shorter!!!–8 pages.</p>
<p>Just spent the afternoon being tutored by my son about this issue. He says the Europeans should inspect the Articles of Confederation and work from there–that their constitution should be simplified down to 15 pages.</p>
<p>We could always tell the Europeans to remember the origin -not the originality- of our own Constitution and Bill of Rights. </p>
<p>Imitation is the purest form of flattery. </p>
<p>PS While it is amusing to criticize the Europeans, does anyone believe we could write a new US Constitution in 2005, especially if all states had to approve it?</p>
<p>The main reason we could never write a new constitution today is that far too many people are happy with the current one.</p>
<p>And we probably couldn’t have done it in 1789 either if all states had to ratify the new constitution. The country was by no means unanimous on the question. But that’s part of the beauty and flexibility of the US approach. The founding fathers wrote a document that required only 9 of the 13 states to ratify it for it to take effect. If they had set the bar too high for themselves, they would probably have gotten stuck - as the Europeans have.</p>
<p>great essay by David Brooks - insight I found most interesting was this: </p>
<p>“Most of the policy ideas advocated by American liberals have already been enacted in Europe: generous welfare measures, ample labor protections, highly progressive tax rates, single-payer health care systems, zoning restrictions to limit big retailers, and cradle-to-grave middle-class subsidies supporting everything from child care to pension security. And yet far from thriving, continental Europe has endured a lost decade of relative decline.” Europe’s productivity rate is about that of Arkansas (46th our out 50 States) - electing Hillary might just put us all on Europe’s/Arkansas’s level!!</p>
<p>Xiggi, left to conservatives, lungfish would have never crawled out of the ocean…breathing air was a Socialist plot. Oh…wait, I forgot…evolution is a no-no and Science is part of the Left Wing conspiracy. Never mind.</p>
<p>TheDad, do not be so quick to equate liberalism with progress and forward thinking. Political leanings and affiliations have nothing to do with the evolution of science. </p>
<p>FWIW, do not think that I dislike all liberal parties. Liberal Party is the name of dozens of political parties around the world. While it usually designates a party that is ideologically liberal or left wing, there are some Liberal Parties which are actually more conservative in nature than their opponents, or who adhere to right wing or libertarian views.</p>
<p>For instance, and according to my dad, in Belgium, the Liberal Parties chiefly appeal to businesspeople, property owners, shopkeepers, and the self-employed. In American terms the Liberals’ positions would be considered to reflect an economically conservative ideology. American liberals would be considered “socialists” in Belgium and Europe. The Socialist party has easily been the least progressive party throughout its history, except for the past years when it started to move to the center and abandon its obsolete marxist trappings. </p>
<p>Sigh. Post 13 and this important discussion has been reduced to a slanging match? Pity.</p>
<p>An 800 page framework put forth as a ‘constitution’ (bad idea) might have been doomed to failure. Xenophobia certainly helped bury it.
Nonetheless, political and economic realities have’t stopped for a breather. The lightning rise of China makes the other Tiger stories look like little fairy tales.</p>
<p>What is the downside if the EU does not get this right? What if they lose this opportunity to merge their markets and their power?</p>
<p>Without a powerful EU, how will America address a Chinese superpower–a superpower which only left it’s Cultural Revolution killing fields behind in 1976?</p>
<p>I might be worried about this if the EU was setting itself up as a friend and partner of the US instead of a rival. But right now, China feels like a better friend than say France or Germany.</p>
<p>One might say, “With friends like France, who needs enemies?”</p>
<p>I have a hard time getting past the corrupt relationships between France and Sadaam Huissein that prevented the UN sanctions from ever working. </p>
<p>If our “allies” had participated in applying pressure to Huissein, instead of feeding his machine through the UN Oil For Food Program, we would have had a better chance of avoiding war. Probably not, but at least there might have been a chance.</p>
<p>Folks folks folks. China a better friend than France? 35 to 50 million killed in China from 1966 to 1976. Not that the Chinese can discuss that in print or otherwise in 2005.</p>
<p>We might be at a pause in the Franco American mutual admiration game, but seriously. Who presumes to know the Chinese agenda? </p>
<p>As far as corrupt backroom foreign policy, would there be any innocent parties? A powerful, rivalrous Western EU might be the best tonic for the US–for the day America sits across the table from China and India. That day is fast approaching.</p>
<p>China is an impressive rattlesnake. It’s fun to look at and to have around, and at least we know it’s a snake and to treat it accordingly. You know where you stand with a rattlesnake.</p>
<p>France is a semi-tame skunk that pretends to be a friend but actually loathes the US. And at unpredictable moments and for irrational reasons, often just for the sake of being contrary and sometimes even against its own best interests, it will suddenly forget its manners and spray its stink all over the place and then turn and bite you on the ankle to boot.</p>
<p>Now the snake may theoretically be the more dangerous, but which would actually prefer to deal with?</p>