Well, being EU members, that is a problem... but I must ask you too: what did you read as lecturing in Juncker's quip? That a no to the Constitution is a way out of the EU was clear on the outset, what is new (and I agree this is playing with fire, but that's not lecturing) was declaring who is and isn't essential for the EU.

Neither of the people who are most likely to be the British Prime Minister in the next few years are as pro-European as John Major or Tony Blair were when they came to power.

This, unfortunately, is the British EU conudrum. Whatever the percentage of Europhile Britons, 60% or 6% (and depending on the question it can be either today), the political leadership seems set to change from neoliberal to Eurosceptic of some sort. Juncker's talk can mean two things IMO: either analysing public opinion as politically irrelevant on Europe and giving up on Britain to save the EU, or a warning towards British Europhile and this-is-too-risky-for-me politicians that Core Europe is not dead, they should do something about Cameron and Brown or there are problems. (I also suspect that Juncker is probably speaking out what collagues in bigger countries think but won't say in public.) At any rate risky business and surely deeply dishearthening for pro-federalis Britons like you, but it my be that events have a momentum of their own...

I think the crisis in the European Union is more fundamental than Jean-Claude Juncker seems to believe. It is not just a difficulty with Britain.

Probably not for the exact same reasons, but I agree. Juncker brought up Britain in one question as example, but for another question, he didn't want to narrow it down, and his explicit talk of Core Europe implies too that he thinks the problem is more than Britain -- however, the problems are even more fundamental than Denmark and Poland. It's the democratic deficit at both the EU and national levels, and the unsincere talk of politicians on the EU even in core countries like Germany.

Trying to smuggle the provisions of the constitution in piece by piece may work up to a point, but the British euro-sceptics want any changes to be subject to a referendum. I presume those opposed in France and the Netherlands would also not be happy for their countries to agree in stages what the people had rejected as a whole.

Hm, the above pragraph contains a few things to criticise. First, it wasn't Juncker who proposed re-naming the Constitution as treaty or accepting only parts, it was the German government. Second, those advocating the re-issuing of only part don't want it accepted "piece by piece", they want to drop other pieces (whihc the "Non" voters wanted too) -- this piece-by-piece sounds like an Eurosceptic spin to my ears. Similarly when you call a treaty "smuggling", I don't think a treaty between states can be characterised that. But with all that said, I'd prefer keeping only the institutional changes as a treaty and then a real bottom-up process for Constitution.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}