The debate on the constitution is getting feisty. It’s clear that, at least among our readers, the constitutional treaty has fervent detractors.
Over to Mr Hamilton
The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary ocnsent of a whole people, is a PRODIGY, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety. I can reconcile it to no rules of prudence to let go the hold we now have, in so arduous an enterprise, upon seven out of the thirteen States, and after having passed over so considerable a part of the ground, to recommence the course. I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that POWERFUL INDIVIDUALS, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.
So let us put one question on the table. If not this constitution, then what?
Can the current structure accommodate 25 members? What about 28 in three years’ time? And 33 or more over the next decade? Would another convention produce better results? Why? Or should the EU be scrapped altogether? Would this not have negative consequences?