With all the current hyperbole surrounding the new EU constitutional treaty and how terrible it's going to be for Britain, I thought it would be instructive to revisit the calm, measured report produced by the House of Lords when its EU scrutiny committee examined the draft back in July 2003. Although there were some changes made to the final version of the treaty in 2004, these minor alterations don't affect any of the conclusions drawn by their Lordships in their report - which eurosceptics would do well to note. Here are some choice quotes from the abstract of the report - the full text is available here:

The draft Constitutional Treaty for the European Union is a significant document, meriting serious scrutiny and wide public debate. With ten new countries set to join the EU next year, it is necessary to agree a new Treaty now, as it is generally agreed that the present institutional structure would not function satisfactorily in a Union of 25.

Whether or not the draft Treaty is a "constitution" is of less importance than what it says and how it will affect all our lives.

The draft Treaty reforms the institutions of the EU.

The draft Treaty enhances the role of national parliaments.

…much of what [the Treaty] provides for is not new.

Does it confirm the EU as a union of Member States, rather than a state in its own right? The report concludes that the answer to [this] first question is yes.

…it is precisely because the EU is not a state that the Treaty does not provide some of the direct mechanisms (such as the power to remove a government) that would exist in a state.

Compare these last points to the following claim at eurosceptic.com:

The superstate is here!

The Treaty Establishing A Constitution for Europe, a draft of which has just emerged from the constitutional convention in Brussels, would, if adopted by the Council of Ministers, be the coup de grace for the European nation states. If the Government were to submit to such a constitution, it would be acquiescing in the abolition of our parliamentary democracy and the creation of a European superstate.

How can anyone justify such outrageous hyperbole - flying in the face not only of the content of the treaty itself, but also contrasting so sharply with the measured tones of our own House of Lords?