The core fallacy here is comparing the EU treaties and documents with constitutions: it's like saying the body of UK law should be written on one side of A4 paper.

This is an interesting perspective for two reasons: First, comparing the treaty to 'the body of UK law' suggests that it is reasonable to expect people (or parliaments) to take an up-or-down vote on 'the body of UK law' - is there any democratic country in the world that does things that way?

Secondly, I disagree vehemently with the assertion that comparing the treaty to a constitution is a fallacy. A document that establishes division of power between states, a federal level, and the People is, by definition, a constitution (or a constitutional amendment). The fact that it's bundled with a bunch of other legislation does not make it any less so.

As an example, would the Danish constitution cease being a constitution if it was packaged along with some copyright law, a bit of environmental regulation, some agreements on infrastructure policy, etc.? I would say no, that wouldn't make it any less a constitution, it would only make it more of a mess.

Separate the wheat from the chaff is what I say: Let us have a Unionwide referendum on the parts that govern how the Union is structured and how the power is distributed (i.e. the constitutional parts) and leave all the other stuff (infrastructure, environmental policy, deregulation) for the parliament to sift through.

But of course, that would require admitting that the Union is, or will shortly become, a federation. And for some reason our politicians are scared by that perspective.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

When the real meaning and implication of something ends up hidden behind a thousand clauses, whose opinion do I take on board when I am trying to make some kind of judgement about what it means to my country? It's no different to most other political issues, I know - that different sides will all put their own selective spin on it.

I don't even know what I'm saying anymore other than I generally wish that people were able to access and understand the important issues that they vote on.

The new EU reform treaty text was deliberately made unreadable for citizens to avoid calls for referendum, one of the central figures in the treaty drafting process has said.

Speaking at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform in London on Thursday (12 July) former Italian prime minister Giuliano Amato said: "They [EU leaders] decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception".

EU Observer has unfortunately put it behind a subscription wall, costs 0.5 euros to get it, and you need a paypal account. The audio version of the speaking is still available freely at opendemocracy.

I think it is fair to criticise stuff for being unreadable when they are intentionally made so.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se