In no particular order:

• Old Men ought to be Explorers (courtesy of Words, Words, Words): great map, a little too much time wondering why editorial commentary in the US media was slim or none. After that, pretty good analysis:

  Most immediately, there are three problems: one on the Left, one on the Right, and one diffusely shared by nearly everyone. The one on the Left is that the "Europe" envisaged by the draft is an "Europe des patrons", a "Europe of the bosses", a CEO's Europe mainly designed for greater corporate efficiency. These opponents want a more "social" Europe. The problem on the Right is an unease with the perceived gradual disappearance of a national cultural heritage, as well as a fear of unchecked immigration. These opponents want Europe as a co-operative club of distinct and independent nations.

• Europhobia is, as always, excellent and at once assesses the aftermath. I tried extracting, but I'd really advise you to read the whole post as well as this sequel. I hate to chime in by declaring that Blair is a mediocre mind, but I'm afraid I'd have to insist that he is.

• Phil Hunt (Cabalamat Journal) discusses the pitfalls of the ratification process and the institutional implications. He points out that, since the UK would probably never have approved the constitution, the "Non/Nee" votes in France and the Netherlands are a good thing for the UK. He also assesses indivual proposals, all of which could very likely be revised and presented in a for sensible way: a minimal constitutiuon, as constitutions are supposed to be.
• Frans Groenedijk is somewhat disappointed (he recognizes a "Nee" vote is nearly a foregone conclusion), but very sensibly undertakes a keen analysis of how the process oculd be made better. I think his is the most worthwhile of anything I've read on the subject

  A constitution needs to be political[ly] neutral and time resistant (not containing items which will lose meaning in a couple of years). It's also very important to state that I don't judge this constitution against the current situation. I already concluded that it will be an improvement over the current situation. But that is not what they ask me to vote for. Before I check the criteria, I'll give the most important good and bad points in this constitution...

  I was stunned by how much I agreed with Frans on all points. On second thought, perhaps not, because he simply looked over it and applied logic like an individual, rather than a legislative committee. Anyone with sense can see that the EU has no business enshrining everlasting economoic growth in its core document. What, in 2500 will the GDP of the EU be a trillion euros per capita? The energy released by such activity would turn the planet earth into a blackened piece of rock.