# Should The European Union get any bigger? How big should it be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-european-union-get-any-bigger-how-big-should-it-be/491323 "2009-03-30T16:14:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-european-union-get-any-bigger-how-big-should-it-be/491323/21 "2009-03-31T10:48:06Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Well it would be rather silly to have a **European** Union with Mongolia and South Africa and Chile members. No sillier than a United States of **America** with the member state of Hawaii, which is in the middle of the Pacific and in no way connected to either North or South America. ---
**Author:** ![footballisplayedwithyourfeet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9f8e36/32.png) [@footballisplayedwithyourfeet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/footballisplayedwithyourfeet)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-european-union-get-any-bigger-how-big-should-it-be/491323/22 "2009-03-31T11:03:05Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Yes God forbid that fundamental national changes should hinge on anything so fickle as the common voting man. We need more experts to tell us what is best! > > But the problem with the Constitution was/is exactly that it was ridiculous obtuse and over bloated. It is absurd to think that we should have a constitution that only a vanishing minority knows the first thing about, let alone understand and which is practically unreadable. A constitution should be short and to the point. And if it could be a bit poetic that would be great too. The American constitution seems to be a good starting point. 4.400 words. Good enough that it can be assumed than 90%+ of the population can understand it. The current EU proposal deserves nothing but scorn. The problem with this point is that the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (official name) is not a constitution. It is a treaty that they, and I will gladly give you that, gave the unholy name of Constitution. This treaty does not give the people of the EU any rights nor does it provide a document that can be used to test legislation. It is just the latest treaty between the EU members, with all the complexity and technicality of treaties. Also, one of its main purposes was to have an overview of how to do the many things that were agreed upon in earlier treaties (and to them in a bureaucratically more sufficient way), it was - if you will - an attempt to clean up the ragid edges that exist in the EU due to the fact that the workibng of the EU is established in a collection of treaties dating back to the early fifties. Many things in the Treaty establishing etc. are already part of the EU’s compentencies and are just reformulated for bureaucratic purposes. The actual changes in what the EU can do and not are rather limited. Given the (intended) characteristics of this document, I think it should not have been put to a referendum. You want the people to have a say? That’s why all European countries have representative government! We elect people to make decisions in our name, for a reason and I don’t see (except maybe the terrible name they gave it) why this issue should be put before the people. Especially in a country like the Netherlands which never has referendums, this was a big mistake. For countries like Switserland (I know, not EU) with their institutional set up it might be different, but if you never have referendums (also earlier treaties) this treaty certainly wasn’t a reason to start. Also, if you have to do it, do it with a question like: Would you like the Process of European Integration to continue beyond what it is at present? And not pretend it is about the actual constitutional treaty document. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-european-union-get-any-bigger-how-big-should-it-be/491323/23 "2009-03-31T17:44:19Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > No it is not a mess. You wish it were so. > You are making that up. Or can you support that with some evidence? > Nah. You are just fantasizing. > It is not very relevant except for the insecurities of some Americans who feel threatened by the Euro and the EU gaining weight in the world and therefore displacing America somewhat. > If you have anything to say which is not purely made up BS please say so. > Europe has been making worse decisions lately? Like what exactly? Worse than Iraq? Guantanamo? The economy? I cannot think of anything where Europe has done worse than America in the last 8 years. Of course, that is not saying much. > > Most Europeans would not want to be like America at all. We like our socialistic health care and other such oppressive things. > > No, I am talking to you specifically and addressing the nonsense you make up. See, this is why I laugh so much. Who are your trying to persuade? Me or yourself? I don’t believe America is some monolothic bloc. I don’t think Europe is either, and I find your assertions of universality quite unconvincing. particualrly when I see and talk to people who think otherwise. The EU is a mess. It has good points and bad, and its primary purpose is fundamentally flawed. In any case, I favor smaller, more local jurisdictions generally, not huge ones. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-european-union-get-any-bigger-how-big-should-it-be/491323/24 "2009-03-31T19:11:09Z")
> [@footballisplayedwithyourfeet](#): > > The problem with this point is that the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (official name) is not a constitution. It’s been a long time since I read it, but that is not my recollection. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-european-union-get-any-bigger-how-big-should-it-be/491323/25 "2009-03-31T20:50:22Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > The EU is a mess. It has good points and bad, and its primary purpose is fundamentally flawed. In any case, I favor smaller, more local jurisdictions generally, not huge ones. Vague and empty assertions without any merit. I can do better. Watch: The USA is a mess. It has good points and bad and its primary purpose is fundamentally flawed. In any case, I favor smaller, more local jurisdictions generally, not huge ones. It works just as well. Just as convincing. You can say the same thing about China, Russia, Greece, Wallmart, McDonalds, Microsoft, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-european-union-get-any-bigger-how-big-should-it-be/491323.md?page=1)