[Exilibur]

very good read.

my initial zombie-vote would be yes, since I'm in favor of the union, but you post has made me reconsider a bit, PMB.

Common to all you arguments are a comparison to the basic form of a constitution.

You see a constitution as something made by an elected group, which the european constitution isn't.
You see a constitution as something readable, which the european constitution isn't.
You see a constitution as something revisable, which the european constitution isn't.
you see a constitution as a neutral document, which the european constitution isn't.

All those points mainly have to do with the form of the constitution, and not it's function.

but let me start out with arguing a bit about 'the idea of the constitution'.

A constitution is made by an elected group you say. As I understand your argument, this is because a political group will be biased. Prior to this i have only studied the danish and american constitutions, but based on my knowlegde of those two, i must argue that the people who were elected to write the constitutional draft were as biased as any european politician.
The constitution is based on the original european organization because of this, you say? well of course it is, and whether you like or dislike this organization this surely can't come as a surprise to you? What else might the constitution be based on, had it be written by others? No radical changes has made a constitution neccesary, so therefore the constitution must be based on what we already have.
Concerning the danish and american constitutions, the case was a bit different, but the people who wrote both pieces were just as politically engaged (and therefore just as biased) as the people who wrote the european counterpart.
What difference would an elected group have made?

Your next point is easier to understand. My first reaction was that 'if it works, why need it to be readable', but i guess that i'll never know if it will work, because I'm surely not gonna read it...

A constitution must be revisable, yes, but we shouldn't change it all the time either. I agree with you to a certain extend here, but when you argue that the constitution has to perfect, i think you have to make some points as to why it isn't perfect as it is, regarding it's contents, and not only it's form.

The last argument is my absolute favorite.

let me quote Marx: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." Neutral, you argue. Well tell me what's neutral...
There is no such thing as neutral. the inalienable rights of man is a political and ideological statement, just as property and the free market is. The abstract free individual is the basis of all liberalistic politic. The european constitution just takes a tiny step in the direction of the modern capitalistic evolution. the individual is the truth in western society. There is no need to argue this anymore, and thus we can just as well move on to the consequences of that truth, such as the free market.
Hence the quote.

But as i noted in the beginning, this is just the form of the constitution and has very little to do with the contents (except of the last argument). What influence do you think the constitution, flawed as it might be, will have on europe in the future?

I'm asking because I don't know. The medias in are only arguing in large perspectives, without much talk about the actual text and it's consequences. This makes it hard for me to say anything clever about it, but since I'm used to like the idea about europe, i generally tend like anything they come up with... I actually think i need to revise my opinion about the union quite a bit...