[joegrundman]

There is valid criticism of the treaty and the constitution and the way it is being challenged, without it meaning that the EU project itself is unwanted

The EU is an overwhelmingly good thing for every member state (and it is not a toy in russia's hands - it is a big player, but there are other big players, and you have to do business with them)

But the rejection of the treaty by France and the Netherlands, even if motivated by other domestic political factors (as is widely believed), should be grounds for rewriting the constitution.

For sure, the constitution of a project like the EU should be something believable and understandable and in someway inspiring, and not some piece of impenetrable legalistic-beaurocratic jargon that as the Irish minister says: no sane person would want to [read], and in general i agree it is time the EU became more directly democratic.

But how does one do that in an organisation that is still less than even a confederacy? If one is to accept the principle that the nation state members of the EU are the supreme entities, rather than the federal structure itself - then what is wrong with saying your elected governments have the right to handle the EU as they agree?

If on the other hand, the European populace was to directly vote for the EU government, then the EU government will be given a mandate and power base that is independent of the governments of the member nation states. By doing this you are creating a stronger european "center" and heading in the direction of a federal structure more like that of the USA.