The structural transformation of dioctahedral 2:1 layer silicates (illite, montmorillonite, glauconite, and celadonite) during a dehydoxylation-rehydroxylation process has been studied by X-ray diffraction. thermal analysis, and infrared spectroscopy. The layers of the samples differ in the distribution of the octahedral cations over the cis- and trans-sites as determined by the analysis of the positions and intensities of the 11l, 02l reflections, and that of the relative displacements of adjacent layers along the a axis (c cos ß/a), as well as by dehydroxylation-temperature values. One illite, glauconite, and celadonite consist of trans-vacant (tv) layers; Wyoming montmorillonite is composed of cis-vacant (cv) layers, whereas in the other illite sample tv and cv layers are interstratified. The results obtained show that the rehydroxylated Al-rich minerals (montmorillonite, illites) consist of tv layers whatever the distribution of octahedral cations over cis- and trans-sites in the original structure. The reason for this is that in the dehydroxylated state, both tv and cv layers are transformed into the same layer structure where the former trans-sites are vacant.

The dehydroxylation of glauconite and celadonite is accompanied by a migration of the octahedral cations from former cis-octahedra to empty trans-sites. The structural transformation of these minerals during rehydroxylation depends probably on their cation composition. The rehydroxylation of celadonite preserves the octahedral-cation distribution formed after dehydroxylation. Therefore, most 2:1 layers of celadonite that rehydroxylate (~75%) have cis-vacant octahedra and, only in a minor part of the layers, a reverse cation migration from former trans-sites to empty octahedra occurred. In contrast, for a glauconite sample with a high content in IVA1 and VIAl the rehydroxylation is accompanied by the reverse cation migration and most of the 2:1 layers are transformed into tv layers.

Winner: national parliaments or European Parliament? – Differences between Lisbon Treaty and Constitutional Treaty – Latent rivalry – Lisbon innovation – National parliaments now actors in the Union? – Early warning mechanism as solution of compromise – Dual system of the two protocols: yellow and orange cards – Review – Compliance – Interparliamentary co-operation – Complexity of COSAC's involvement – Link between proportionality and subsidiarity – Conception of representative democracy – Position of the Court of Justice

Following the dramatic No votes in the French and Dutch referendums on 29 May and 1 June 2005, a need was felt in the European constitutional law profession to react to the shock.

EuConst invited members of its Board and members of the European Constitutional Law Network to write a short comment about possible and possibly salutary effects of the events on the ways of European scholarship and teaching. Below are the reactions received. Authors are all members of ECLN and/or the Board of EuConst.

The contributions to this issue of EuConst by Jacques Ziller, Sacha Prechal and Herman van Gunsteren carry their comments on the events incorporated.