Abstract The article explores the ''dark side'' of deliberation with regard to the EU. In contrast to the dominant apologetics of deliberation, it argues that even though deliberation might have benevolent effects on decision making in the EU, the convention method cannot be viewed as a democratic alternative to the intergovernmental conferences. This is due to the pathologies of deliberation that can only be corrected by applying additional mechanisms. The article explores the pathologies of deliberation by referring to recent experience with the convention method applied within the Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights (1999/2000) and the Convention on the Future of the European Union (2002/2003). It discusses two types of deliberative pathologies including the false will-formation and the rational hijacking of deliberation which question the validity of democratic claims made by deliberation theory.