Abstract Negotiations in Amsterdam 1996 and Nice 2000 resulted in deadlocks impossible to break. The failure of these Intergovernmental Conferences gave rise to demands for a new and improved process of treaty reform. The answer offered by the European Council in Laeken was to create a Convention with a mandate to prepare the next reform of the treaties. The broad composition of this Convention raised hopes for a process not exclusively defined by bargaining on behalf of national interests, but rather a more open process where actors would be prepared to listen to each other's arguments. Today, we find two divergent images of deliberation in this body. The first sees the Convention as a deliberative success story; the second argues bargaining dominated the proceedings. However, this far the empirical evidence in support of either claim has been inconclusive. On the basis of interviews with 28 conventioneers, this article ventures a final verdict on the matter, arguing that deliberation was, indeed, a defining characteristic of the proceedings.