One point that's worth picking up on, cause it's often repeated, is the supposed similarities between the EU constitution and the constitution of [insert authoritarian state here], because it's often pretty misleading, not least because a lot of those constitutions mentioned can be very progressive and not at all similar to reality. For example, in the Constitution of North Korea, the following articles appear:
Article 64. The State shall effectively guarantee genuine democratic rights and liberties as well as the material and cultural well-being of all its citizens. In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea the rights and freedom of citizens shall be amplified with the consolidation and development of the socialist system.
Article 65. Citizens enjoy equal rights in all spheres of State and public activity.
Article 66. All citizens who have reached the age of 17 have the right to elect and to be elected, irrespective of sex, race, occupation, length of residence, property status, education, party affiliation, political views or religion. Citizens serving in the armed forces also have the right to elect and to be elected. A person who has been disenfranchised by a Court decision and a person legally certified insane do not have the right to elect or to be elected.
Article 67. Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee conditions for the free activity of democratic political parties and social organizations.
Whilst you can see the ways in which the state legitimises its rule constitutionally (social harmony etc etc), it's still important to note that constitutions are not always the best guide to how a nation behaves. More to the point, of course, the EU constitution is not at all like the constitution of most countries, especially not the Soviet union as in fact the EU document outlines precisely a neoliberal guideline for European economics.