EU constitution, why so big?

The newly written EU constitution, all 852 A-4 pages of it, weighs over 4.25 kilograms.
The US constitution written over 200 years ago and still the framework for all us laws was written on four pages of parchment.
Sp why does the EU constitution need to be so long? Are the EU legislastors idiots or are they tryng to hide something in all those pages?

Originally posted by mwm1331
The newly written EU constitution, all 852 A-4 pages of it, weighs over 4.25 kilograms.

I wouldn't want to get hit by it

The US constitution written over 200 years ago and still the framework for all us laws was written on four pages of parchment.

Exactly the EU constitution is more detailed, it goes into detail in each individual area.

Sp why does the EU constitution need to be so long? Are the EU legislastors idiots or are they tryng to hide something in all those pages?

Some of us seem to think so, I mean what normal citizen will read the entire thing, then again what politician would read all of it


edit:

Some information on the constitution, then again its the BBC so....

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 21-2-2005 by UK Wizard]

Oh bl**dy hell, here we go again.

The EU 'constitution' is so large because it encapsulates umteen treaties made in the almost 50yr history of the European community.
It's all about some very complex law and legal situations/realities and, sadly, since when was that ever done - or even capable of being done - in a few words?

What the EU is currently agreeing is not a 'constitution' in anything like the same 'mould' as the USA's constitution because it deals with 25 (soon to be 27) sovereign nation states and not a brand-new single state.

The term 'constitution' is, to a limited extent, handy as it gives people an easy familiar term fairly close to the mark to use, but, strictly speaking it isn't an actual 'constitution'; at all.

......and since when was the US constitution the whole story anyway?
How many million words and kilos of weight do all the amendments, regulations, Supreme Court decisions clarifying (or limiting) it's scope run into, hmmmm?

Are they all "idiots or are they trying to hide something in all those pages?" too, huh?

Or is the basic propostition here to simplistic to be really worth making these daft comparisons in the first place, hmmm?

Sminkey, its because of the simplicity of the constitution of the USA that all the other words are there. By keeping the constitution small the Founding Fathers insured it could stay current and relevant. My question is if the consttution is that large and that detailed how can it stay flexible enough to stay relevant?
Also at the time of its writing the US was much closer to the current EU (a group of soveriegn states) than the current US. So the comparison does apply.
However I was under the impresson that the EU constitution was supposed to serve the same purpose as the US constitution ie serve as the basis for determinng the validity of current and future laws. If ths is not the case what purpose does it serve?

Originally posted by mwm1331
My question is if the consttution is that large and that detailed how can it stay flexible enough to stay relevant?

- Because it is not a constitution like the US one anyway; it was not designed to be and never can be or will be.

Also at the time of its writing the US was much closer to the current EU (a group of soveriegn states) than the current US. So the comparison does apply.

- Er, no it doesn't.
The then loose group of brand new American states has only the most superficial and passing resemblence to the sovereign nation states of Europe of today.

However I was under the impresson that the EU constitution was supposed to serve the same purpose as the US constitution ie serve as the basis for determinng the validity of current and future laws. If ths is not the case what purpose does it serve?

- Like I said the word 'constitution; ' is used as a kind of handy and familiar shorthand but it is not actually a constitution at all.

I'm sorry to say but these efforts to make things approximate the USA really isn't much help to anyone.

Think of it more as a distillation, rationalisation and modernisation of nearly 50yrs worth of EEC/EU law, some of which was originally formulated for when there were 7 or 9 or 12 members etc etc.
The recent expansion of the EU to 25 (soon to be 27) is the reason for it.

So basically the EU constitution is really just a big super-treaty, constitution just sounds nicer

Originally posted by UK Wizard
So basically the EU constitution is really just a big super-treaty, constitution just sounds nicer

- That is the more accurate idea Wizard but yes I agree, 'constitution' is the more appealing term so, there we are, 'constitution' is the word most people have been saying.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Sminkey, its because of the simplicity of the constitution of the USA that all the other words are there. By keeping the constitution small the Founding Fathers insured it could stay current and relevant.

EU countries already have basic laws like freedom of speech, democracy and all that. It already exists, we do not need "founding fathers" now to tell us how to create all that. We already have it.
EU constitution regulates relations between sovereign countries of EU regarding trade, economy, travel, security, it is a legal document written in 21st century, hence its complexity.

Uhh no paperclip you dont, at least not freedom of speech.
You have tolerance instead.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Uhh no paperclip you dont, at least not freedom of speech.
You have tolerance instead.

- This IMO is mere semantics mwm1331.

I'll take the pan-European 'European convention of Human rights' (and all of our national 'rights' legislation) over anyone else's 'model' any day of the week, thank you very much.

Its really not sminkey, unless the most vile, offensive, and reprehensible speech is protected no speech is protected.
If you dont have the right to call a (insert minority here) a (insert slur here) what stops them from taking away your right to call the president a moron?

Originally posted by mwm1331
Its really not sminkey, unless the most vile, offensive, and reprehensible speech is protected no speech is protected.
If you dont have the right to call a (insert minority here) a (insert slur here) what stops them from taking away your right to call the president a moron?

- But we do have that 'right'.
(In any case we have yet to enact any of the 'hate crime' legislation you are talking about. But even so....)

Anyone can say what they like, but they may face consequences depending upon the content, impact and outcome of what they have said.
Just as with libel and defamation now in the USA.

There is no completely 'free' system in the sense that one can never be called to face the consequences of what one has freely said, so, like I said I think this is in all practical senses a circular debate over mere semantics.

How long is it going to take some Americans before they realise that America is one country and Europe is many countries?

Originally posted by cargo
How long is it going to take some Americans before they realise that America is one country and Europe is many countries?

With many cultures and languages too. USA Has ONE official language and TWO distinct "mainstream" cultures. The Red States and Blue States. Of course that is an overgeneralization but you get the idea. Comparing a NATION to a TRADE UNION is pointless. Apples and Oranges atm. It could mutate into something more, but to say that is inevitable is foolish.