Non, I regret... something

So the French, architects of the EU, have said Non to the Constitution of Europe. The problem here isn't the stupidity and arrogance of the ministers who wrote it, nor is it the skewed awareness of the No voters in France (and, on Wednesday, in the Netherlands.) It's just that word 'Constitution'.
The document France said no to yesterday isn't a 'Constitution'. A constitution is a statement of grand principles; it's short, written in plain language, covering basic human needs and desires shared by a large majority.
How long is the American constitution - two pages? Three? It's something fundamental about stuff that matters and stands for all time; it's that simplicity that makes it worthwhile. (Let the lawyers argue over its finer interpretation; the substance can be agreed on.)
But the European proposal is 200 pages of administrative procedures, with a few bits of human rights stuff thrown in for good measure. (There's something in there about 'the right to a job search in the event of unemployment', for chrissakes.) It is not a constitution; it's a three-ring binder for simplifying EU structure and function, something it sorely needs. And it should have been called that.
Europe - now at 25 member states - desperately needs a simplified, majority-voted set of rules of engagement. But it doesn't need a 'Constitution'. Those 25 countries are different, and proud to be so, without any particular need to behave the same way or believe in the same things. A common market doesn't need a common president or common point of view. Perhaps now the EU can start concentrating on what it started out to be: an economic area allowing the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people in a single borderless market of peaceful member states.
That's a noble goal, and we were so close to it. And now we're years behind again. All because Chirac wanted to call a three-ring binder a 'Constitution'. Give me strength.