Many have considered it a symptom of French blindness that the EU Constitution was recently voted down in that country. Dutch voters also voted "no" on it, although they aren't the whipping boys of the American press like the French are.
But perhaps the French had it right. And the precedent can be found in America's own history.
The EU Constitution sought to bind many different nation-states together under one government -- but it didn't really have any teeth in it to make those nation-states conform to one set of policies. This was the mistake our founding fathers made with the Articles of Confederation. The Articles wanted to form a country in name only -- in reality, each state had the right to form sovereign policies that might or might not have benefited the whole.
The EU Constitution was much the same. It was an example of compromise at its worse, a document of too many words, too many pages, and not enough unity. Under that constitution, Europe would not have solved its problems, it would have only created new ones. The question of sovereignty was never answered by the document -- the EU decided to base it's government on the UN model rather than any form of reality.
Abraham Lincoln said that a 'house divided could not stand.' The Articles of Confederation were a blueprint for such a house -- and the EU Constitution was much the same. Perhaps the rejection of such a weak work of politics might have the same effect that the Articles did -- the crafting of a strong centralizing document to make each part of the whole work together for the benefit of all.