Is the Croatian Solution legally possible?

In order to reassure Ireland on certain legal matters raised in the Lisbon Treaty referendum campaign, the plan was to attach the legally binding guarantees to the Croatian Accession treaty. The idea was that this would prevent the need to reopen the ratification process all over Europe.

However, doubts have been raised about the legal possibility of this route: MEP Andrew Duff has suggested that general revisions of the main treaties cannot be achieved through accession treaties. He cites the Danish opt outs being included in the Amsterdam Treaty as an example.

If this is true, then it's a big blow to the strategy of the Irish Government in obtaining the legal guarantees politically (though not necessarily legally) vital to getting a Yes vote in the second Lisbon Treaty campaign.

Meanwhile, the government has re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-affirmed (again), that it will not be complacent in the next referendum. Why are these statements still treated like news? It was issued during a EU debate in the Dáil, where it was shockingly revealed that more work needed to be done on the guarantees.

Yet more Constitutional challenges for the Lisbon Treaty?

A new legal challenge to the Lisbon Treaty is being launched in Germany. The challenge concerns the Maastricht Treaty, the court's ruling on how it would affect the EU/EEC, and how the EU later evolved, and this concerns the Lisbon Treaty because it does nothing to overturn these unconstitutional changes which were brought about through the Maastricht Treaty.

If the court accepts this challenge, then it could delay the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty for months. This challenge wasn't lodged with the original challenge (made by another person) as they want "to have their argumentation proofed separately by the court" (to quote the EUobserver).

With the court about to finish work on the original challenge (hearing dates are 10-11th February), it is natural to see this as a stalling tactic.

That the court is considering whether or not to look at this challenge suggests that they could dismiss it.

Does anyone know whether they can dismiss it only on the grounds that it's not a good challenge or are there procedural grounds, such as not raising the challenge within a certain time period?

In other news, Russia has decided not to deploy missles in Kaliningrad. Yet.