[Nono]

G. Adams: "I ... believe that we need a real constitution established to lay out the powers of this government, which should be limited to environmental, energy, trade and cross border crime policys. (...) I would also like to see an attatched military organisation along the lines of Nato, under the control of the EU in peace-time activities such as flood relief and aid distribution, but under national agreement from the members when it comes to agressive deployment."

I don't think you'd ever get "national agreement" (unanimous? majority?), especially with 25+ very different countries. And there's a question: How can Europe ever be taken seriously when it refuses to deal with a major conflagration in its own back yard, as it did, shamefully, during the Bosnia thing. It finally required action by the US (which had also been sitting on its hands for years) to wake the EU up.
No, the EU also needs a (one) foreign policy, if only to wield convincing military power. That's the big hurdle.

"And perhaps most importantly, I would like a watchdog group, perhaps from each nation, to keep an eye on the activities of the bureaucrats in Brussels to hopefully keep them from wasting money and corruption. Even if this doesn't go on (i wish), it would at least be a reassurance to the Little Englanders and other sceptics."

I think the "Brussels bureaucracy" thing is overblown (though one can always find absurd media-sexy examples, in any country).
And could a multinational watchdog group act coherently any better than the Commission?
Anyway, nothing on earth will ever stop the British tabloids from fomenting hysteria.