Leaders from 25 established European Union member states plus candidates Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria signed the proposed EU Constitution on Friday. The character of the "constitution" is like something that could only have been invented in France – and in fact it was. If the signing had been more than a symbolic act, then predicting a new era that would make the Cold War look like a picnic would not be out of order.

If passed into law, a European super-state would be created that leaves little room for state level political decisions and individual rights. Not only would state level decision-making power be lost, but true power would be transferred to appointed officials and a mind-boggling bureaucracy.

The current sense of anti-Americanism in Europe is not – as sometimes rumored – entirely the fault of George W. Bush. A small group of elite power brokers and left-wing press have played their anti-American song and it has been used as a ruse to prepare the public for acceptance of a new political system that has much in common with that of the old Soviet Union. To many in the pro-constitution camp, the fact that the proposed constitution is so much unlike the Constitution of the United States is supposed to be perceived as a plus.

The battle over the constitution has been described as "contentious" at times, but the debates within European leadership are nothing compared to the doubts of the European public. It is easy to see that passage of the constitution would mean the death of democracy in Europe and voters are beginning to show their dissatisfaction.

A Gallop poll in Sweden before the European parliamentary election found that 42 percent of the voting population believed that a new party was needed to oppose the wholesale transfer of political power from individual states to the European Union. Twenty-seven percent were undecided. It was difficult for pro-EU news organizations to blame George Bush for the unexpectedly heavy wins by "EU skeptics" in the election. Post-election analysis characterized reactions by EU incumbents as arrogant and pathetic.

Despite clear left-right divisions among leading politicians, there has been a massive fall-out against the planned EU super-state across the political spectrum. Although many right-wing party leaders are for the constitution, many business leaders are against it. Far-left political leaders along with some idealistically ambiguous parties are strongly against, while left-wing journalists and commentators continue to express their loathing of a system that respects a significant level of state sovereignty and individual rights.

Political leaders have floated the idea that there is something of a classic left-right struggle and it has always appeared as though promoters expected to mold public acceptance out of arrogance and ignorance. Sweden's rejection of the Euro and what has taken place since provide examples that the strategy has not been successful. Left Against and Right For – simply isn't the song being sung by real people out in the real world. It just doesn't make any sense.

Proponents of the constitution have more recently spoken much about the need for European cooperation in matters concerning the environment and security for example. But skeptics have easily pointed out that the constitution does not define policy and that concentrating power in Brussels is not the same as facilitating cooperation. The constitution defines a power structure and it is more difficult for people to cooperate on important matters when they no longer matter.

The saving grace at this point is that the signing of the constitution by Europe's political leaders is not binding. By April of this year, England became the fourth EU state to require a public referendum. Now that number has grown to ten and other states are under public pressure to follow. Under current rules, the proposed constitution cannot be accepted if even one state fails to ratify. The worrisome thing is that rules can be changed and all of Europe's current political leaders have literally signed on, expressing their intent that the constitution shall become law.

Roger F. Gay