A common complaint about the new EU constitution is that it's too long.

Admittedly, it could be shorter. Part III of the constitution, which is drawn directly from the current treaties and was never really examined properly by the convention, is most of what makes the constitution both long and (in places) impenetrable.

But some of the sweeping estimates I've seen about the document's length are quite outrageous. Eurosceptic MEP Jens-Peter Bonde thinks that it's 600 pages (warning: very large PDF file). Someone on a Tory party chat forum thinks it's 300 pages, which is closer to the mark. More accurate still is an editorial on the US Financial Sense website, citing 200-300 pages, "depending on the language and printing and the source".

So how long is it really? Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, reports "over 60,000 words in its English version", though that includes the technical declarations and protocols (which are a necessary part of any complex international treaty, and don't form part of the constitution itself). I haven't counted. But as for the page count, I have in front of me a copy of the treaty that was sent to every French household before their referendum. The text isn't small and the language, French, is infamously flowery; yet, including title page, contents page, preamble, main treaty, and every protocol and declaration, it comes to no more than 108 pages. There's even space, in this lightweight paperback brochure, to include a copy of my European Parliamentary report on the constitution, setting the whole thing in context.

By the way, flicking through that Financial Sense editorial, it turns out to contain quite a lot of interesting analysis of the constitution, the euro and the EU in general. It makes the typical American mistake of assuming that, here in Europe, we're trying to build a clone of the US - centralised, federal and powerful - which could not really be further from the truth. But despite this rather basic misunderstanding - which means the whole thing comes with a bit of a health warning - the piece does still make some interesting points. For instance, commenting on the screaming reactions of some tabloid presses to the no votes in France and the Netherlands, the author points out:

"Is the EU destined for collapse? The answer would have to be no.… For a good history lesson, read of the writing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Had one opponent, a true gentleman in all the meanings of the word, not left the room during the vote, it might have not been approved. The Articles of Confederation was a non starter even as the ink dried. Any reading of the local news of that era would have suggested that the U.S. was bound to collapse. Imagine the wisdom and results of shorting the U.S. in 1799.

"The popular press keeps being misled by a few ostriches which teach economics in modern academia. A recent Business Week article "Squeezed by the Euro" is a good example, 2 June issue, One of their delusions is called Optimal Currency Area(OCA) theory. Do not waste any time reading articles on the matter. In short, the theory says that only those people with perfect correlation of their economic activities should have the same currency. Applied strictly to the U.S., the nation would still have a minimum of 13 currencies. Good idea?

"Applied to Europe, the theory says that the Euro should not have been introduced until all and every possible improvements in the laws, regulations, labor relations, and cultural differences in Europe had been achieved. Canada and the U.S., under the application of their thinking, would still be waiting for one common currency for their nations. Good idea?"