The European Union’s Trap of Constitutional Politics: From the Convention Towards the Failure of the Treaty of Lisbon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a national referendum held on 12 June 2008, 53.4 percent of Irish citizens voted “no” to the Treaty of Lisbon. As its provisions require ratification by all member states, the Irish vote marks a further setback for attempts at consti- tutional reform of the European Union (EU). The Lisbon reform treaty, officially entitled the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on Euro- pean Union and the Treaty establishing the Eu- ropean Community,1 was signed by the prime ministers and presidents of EU member states in December 2007. It was the result of a pro- cess set in motion by the European Council in a meeting held in Laeken, Belgium in December 2001. Intended to make the “ever closer union” more democratic, and to facilitate the adjust- ment of European institutions to the new po- litical situation brought on by the accession to the EU of Central and Eastern European states, the “Laeken Council” issued a declaration trig- gering efforts to constitutionalize the European Union. To this end, a reform process was ini- tiated involving a body called the Convention on the Future of Europe (Convention), made up of European and member state government representatives and parliamentarians.2 This re- form process resulted in the recommendation in 2003 of a draft Treaty Establishing a Constitu- tion for Europe (Constitutional Treaty),3 which was subsequently approved by the Intergovern- mental Conference and the European Council in Rome in October 2004. Despite several mem- ber states ratifying the Constitutional Treaty, it was rejected by popular referenda in France and the Netherlands in the spring of 2005. At that time, and in view of the obvious risks to ratifi- cation in some other member states, the process of constitutionalization ground to a halt.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.051 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".