It may do so to some degree, but not nearly as much as if the treaty's architects had done more to separate constitutional matters, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the competences of Union bodies and member states, from the stuff of everyday politics, like agricultural and fisheries policies or the technicalities of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters. A great opportunity to segregate what is permanent and durable (i.e., "constitutional") about the Union from what is impermanent and changeable (i.e., "political") was missed.