Today and tomorrow the Convention on the Future of Europe meets in plenary session in Brussels to prepare the end game of its negotiations on a constitutional treaty for the European Union. It must report next month - and has a fair chance of doing so on a consensus basis.
That is in itself a remarkable achievement. It could probably only have been achieved using the open methods adopted in its work, involving 105 national parliamentarians, MEPs and representatives of the European Commission.
Their objective has been to agree a simpler and more publicly accessible constitutional text spelling out the values, procedures and powers of the EU as it prepares to enlarge by taking in 10 more member-states next year. The EU's structures must be changed to allow that happen, and the opportunity has been taken to simplify and streamline them and conduct an overall review.
As a result a number of major changes have already been agreed. A single simple text, part one of the draft treaty, effectively spells out its basic constitutional features. The forbiddingly complex three-tiered pillar institutional structure, with different decision-making procedures in each, will go. The EU will have a legal personality, allowing it to adhere to international treaties and conventions. Basic rights will be incorporated. There will be a stronger and more coherent common foreign and security policy, with significant new defence facilities. An EU foreign minister will direct it.
While the closing stages of the convention and the subsequent inter-governmental treaty negotiations will refine aspects of these agreements, they seem set to survive as substantive achievements. They represent substantial progress in creating a more efficient and accessible EU to help govern 450 million people based on shared sovereignty and the rule of law.
The major disagreements to preoccupy the Convention in its closing stages concern the presidency of the European Council, representation on the European Commission and how far qualified majority voting should be extended. The large states favour appointing a president for five years, abolishing the current rotating system. The smaller ones, Ireland included, resist that and most of them demand a seat on the Commission. A trade-off is possible here; but it must protect the independence and integrity of the Commission and ensure existing balances are maintained. It would be highly desirable to provide for elections and a real choice for the Commission president. This would help bring more politics into the EU system and therefore more public identification with it.