Mark Steyn has a few words of wisdom today:

After that, the rest doesn’t matter: you can’t do
trickle-down nation-building. The British, who’ve written more
constitutions for more real nations than anybody in history and
therefore can’t plead the same ignorance as President Juncker, should
be especially ashamed of going along with this farrago of a travesty of
a charade.

Ah, say the Eurofetishists, but you
naysayers are gloating undeservedly: the French didn’t suddenly see the
light and decide British Eurosceptics had been right all along; they
rejected the EU constitution because they thought it was an Anglo-Saxon
racket to impose capitalism on their pampered protectionist utopia.

But
so what? Britain’s naysayers don’t have to reject the constitution for
the same reason as France’s commies, fascists, racists, eco-nutters,
anachronistic unionists, featherbedded farmers, middle-aged "students",
Trot professors and welfare queens, bless ’em all. If they want to go
down the Eurinal of history clinging to their unaffordable welfare
state, their 30-hour work weeks, 10-month work years and seven-year
work decades, that’s up to them. If Britain doesn’t, that should be up
to Britain.
….
Incidentally, that "lunatic fringe" in France now accounts for about 60
per cent of the electorate. That’s another lesson for the decayed
Euro-elite. One of the most unattractive features of European politics
is the way it insists certain subjects are out of bounds, and beyond
politics. That’s the most obvious flaw in Giscard’s flaccid treaty:
it’s not a constitution, it’s a perfectly fine party platform for a
rather stodgy semi-obsolescent social democratic party. Its
constitutional "rights" – the right to housing assistance, the right to
preventive action on the environment – are not constitutional at all,
but the sort of things parties ought to be arguing about at election
time.

I don’t (despite what you might think) agree with everything Steyn says but that last sentence does strike a chord. Indeed, looking at some of the speeches from the pro- side, that’s actually the point. Attempting to set in stone the European exception, the social democratic state. Yet that is exactly what we are supposed to be deciding at each and every election.