I wonder about something… One of the arguments for the constitution, (and for the whole Nice treaty before it), is the changed voting rules are necessary because the increase in members would make the EU dysfunctional, and unable to make decisions. I was always kind of sceptical of that, but it was almost me alone against the conventional wisdom.
Well, now we don’t have to speculate, and it seems to me the EU functions perfectly smoothly. The council adapted, there was no gridlock. I haven’t heard the punditocracy claim otherwise either, and yet people still argue as streneusly that it’s vitally important to reform the rules. They’re just don’t acknowledge that they’re now arguing against the status quo, rather than a a threat in the uncertain future. It’s a bit odd.
Where’s the problem?
The one area where I have read people argue against the status quo is forein affairs. I don’t think the constitution will in practice change much, no government will defer to others on natinal interssts. I think we’ll see increasing cohesion, but because attitudes and habits are changing. But if I’m wrong it could only mean because the constitution takes away much more nat’l sovereignty than I think. I don’t think the pro.constitution pundits really should want to argue that.
(I’ll deal with the principal arguments some other time.)