Susan George concludes her article "From "constitution" to "reform" or from bad to worse" with the following words:

"{{The new Treaty retains most of the rejected Constitution. It is uniquely neo-liberal in letter and in spirit. It has been put on the table with unseemly haste and no public debate has been, nor will be allowed on a text of supreme complexity. Amendments and revisions require unanimity, tantamount to making them impossible. The Commission will continue to hold practically all legislative and executive power. The EU will be legally tied to the United States defence Establishment [and thus to its Commander in Chief, the US President.] Citizens of Europe: This is your last chance."}}

I agree with Susan George's analysis except for the last sentence. The "constitution" of 2004 and its reformed version are not that important.

Only when a democratically elected constituent assembly has adopted a document resembling the 1984 Treaty Establishing the European Union will we have a constitution of lasting importance.

The world political situation is alarming though, with the threat of new wars, especially if the USA and/or Israel strikes against Iran. It is time for a new edition of European Nuclear Disarmament (END).

Let our constitutional debate be inspired by the vision of a non-nuclear Europe from Sweden to Iran.