[Roy Tucker]

I didn’t say it wasn’t okay, just that I don’t think it necessarily reflects the will of the people of Britain.

Because the EU has stated that each country can determine how it will vote on it. In the US, the procedure for ratifying the Constitution was clearly stipulated.

I would also argue that the US constitution is a much more concise document to digest than the 279 page behemoth Portugal treaty. There was far less chance that our legislators were going to pull a fast one on the public in voting for it.

I would also posit that the population of the United States at the time was around 3 million people. The legislatures and legislators were part-timers who often had a much better bead on the will of the people than today’s professional politiicans.

[Owl558]

All excellent points Roy Tucker and I agree with you to a very large extent.

However, I’ve always thought that the opposition to the treaty focuses too much on the way it is being ratified rather than the terrible provisions in the treaty/ constitution itself. When the failed constitution vote came up in France a few years back, I attempted to download and read the actual text of the document (By the way, I have yet to meet ANY European who has actually read any of the treaties/constitutions that they have voted on - scary). It was 350 pages of complete gobblygook that nobody (except lawyers) cound understand.

I am so thankful that our US founding documents are readable and understandabble to regular people. If I want an in-depth discussion of what each article or amendment means, I have the very readable Federalist Papers to help me along.

Thanks for your response Roy Tucker!