«French voters' opposition to the EU constitution rose to a record high yesterday, amid mounting concern in Brussels that an apparently inevitable French non will torpedo the treaty before it is launched. For a majority of French voters, the referendum presents a risk-free opportunity to punish the government for a string of deeply unpopular social and economic reforms.»
If I may rework a timeless joke: Why doesn't someone get George Bush to come out against the EU draft constitution? Then the whole civilized world would clamor to adopt it instantly and unanimously.
And it wouldn't be too hard to get him to oppose it anyway. After all, it's full of ideas like banning descrimination against gays and women and women-gays, and like forbidding the death penalty (or even deporting people to countries where they could face the death penalty or torture or anything).
So it's a point-for-point contradiction of the Texas GOP platform.
Even just pointing out that the EU constitution could never be passed in the US (where many states are tripping over eachother to constitutionally require descrimination against gays) is all the publicity that the thing should ever need!
This reminds me: Has anyone actually tried reading the thing? This proposed EU constitution, I mean. Everyone says it's as cryptic as some sort of ISO standard for slurry pumps. But I've been looking at the thing, and for the most part it's quite clear -- much clearer in fact than the US's constitution, which reads like the fine print on a Late-Baroque insurance policy.
This is an application of a general principle: Texts that are widely considered incomprehensible, are usualy totally clear. Corollary: texts that are universally revered, are usually tripe.
As to the tone of the EU constitution -- it is a bit saccharine. Not enough existential dread. That probably explains why it's unpopular in LaFrons.