One of the problems with any discussion on the constitution is that, on the one hand, constitutional questions are a by-word for boredom, whilst on the other, vital interests are at stake. As a result, the whole debate on the constitution has been characterised by deep, sticky fudge:
- The anti´s say a new centrist superstate will arise, accountable to none, putty in the hands of the non- or anti-democratic Commission;
- The pro´s say either that the constitution is a "tidying-up" exercise (ie. it just formalises already extant arrangements) or that it is an essential part of the reform the EU´s institutions need.
All of these mutually contradictory positions are true. That is the constitution´s strength and its weakness.
For this draft constitution is a classic bureaucratic masterstroke, to be savoured by connoisseurs - revolutionary changes, potentially inflammatory in their effect, ushered in under the calm, soporific guise of the civil servant.