The Economist blog is at pains to tell us that, according to "the legal analysis of the British government's own lawyers", the new treaty "leaves the status of the European Council unchanged."
So, the treaty takes the European Council, an intergovernmental body which is not formally an institution of the European Union. It then formally incorporates it as a supranational institution, subject to the rules set out in the new treaty. By this means, the European Council is obliged to promote the Union's values, advance its objectives, and serve its interests, effectively becoming part of the supreme government of Europe.
And that leaves its status unchanged?
This is very much becoming the standard Europhile defence: the treaty doesn't mean what it says. It is merely words on paper: it don't mean nuffink.
The funny thing is that there is one thing that neither the Economist nor any other of the Euro-groupies can explain. If the treaty has no meaning, at least in respect of the European Council - and its status is indeed unchanged - why include any reference to it in the new treaty at all?
It the words don't change anything, why change the words?