Or maybe "voting" isn't the correct word. After all, a key difference between our Constitution and theirs is that ours moved the United States toward democracy. Of course, it took a while for our republic to get everyone involved, but the framers clearly intended to involve "we the people" in the government. That's why they started with that phrase.
The European system, on the other hand, seems to be set up to be not just undemocratic, but almost anti-democratic. They've already got a president who's not chosen by voters, but instead by a vote of their leaders. When those leaders can't agree on a nominee, they just table the discussion "for another day," as Ireland's Europe Minister put it.
Even more surprising, only eight of the 25 European Union members plan to hold referendums on the new constitution. More will undoubtedly follow, but in some nations, the leaders will surrender some of the people's sovereignty to a federal government in Brussels without the people's permission. This could never happen in the United States.
Democratic Britain, of course, is one of the eight planning a vote. Blair has promised a referendum sometime between now and the end of 2006. Later seems more likely, since polls show if the ballot were held today, the constitution would be voted down.
So, no matter what happens, a United States of Europe is anything but just around the corner. And that's all right.
After all, we've had our Constitution for more than 200 years and we're still "perfecting" it. In recent years, courts found a right to privacy and decided to allow a seemingly unconstitutional campaign finance reform bill. Still, our constitution has held up because it was pretty good to start with.
Maybe Europe's headed in the opposite direction. Because this constitution is so bad, maybe 200 years from now they'll have whittled it down to a pretty good one. Too bad today's upper-class white men won't be around to celebrate.