Charlemagne: Dreaming of Bolivian moments

What the renewed debate over the European Union constitution really means

IT IS said that, when Brazil once wanted a new constitution, a posse of American lawyers descended, bearing advice. "What do we need Americans for?" went the cry. "They've only had one constitution. We need Bolivians. They've had hundreds."

The European Union may be about to have a Bolivian moment. Over the next few weeks, everyone and his dog will be offering advice about the EU constitution. Next week, the European Commission will present its proposals; Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany and thus leader of the traditional guardian of EU integration, will deliver hers. Two weeks later, EU foreign ministers will debate the matter. All this will culminate in a summit in mid-June, which will mark the end of the "pause for reflection" begun last year, after French and Dutch voters so rudely interrupted the drive to a constitution.

This flurry of activity is extraordinary for many reasons, but perhaps most of all because those involved know nothing will come of it. No constitution will be passed into law any time soon. There will not even be an agreed plan. The "period of reflection" will be extended into 2007, and maybe into 2008.

It would be nice to think that this is because the EU is a normal democracy in which leaders have taken note of the French and Dutch votes. But the EU is not that. Fourteen countries have ratified the constitution (five of them since the French and Dutch noes) and two more are about to, even though it may never come into force. As the buzz of debate makes clear, respect for the people's vote does not explain why there will be no EU constitution for some time to come.

The problem is that governments cannot agree on how the constitution should be resurrected. France--or at least its president--wants to salvage what it can by cherry-picking bits that can be passed into law without another referendum. Other countries, including Italy, want to revive half the treaty and junk the rest. Still others insist on the whole constitution and nothing but the constitution, and propose that the French and Dutch voters should try again. In other words, there is no consensus. As the foreign minister of Austria, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, concludes, "this issue cannot be settled satisfactorily and conclusively for all 25 member states at the present time."

It is tempting to conclude that the constitutional debate is therefore much ado about nothing. But that would be wrong. The real lesson of the re-emergence of debate is that the drive to create an EU constitution is as strong as ever. It has not been daunted by defeat at the polls. It remains unfazed by a lack of agreement among governments. And it has shrugged off all doubts about how necessary a constitution really is.

Those doubts are considerable. Some institutional reform would be a good idea. The EU's foreign-policy arrangements, for example, are a shambles, and the Buggins's-turn principle of the EU's rotating presidency is idiotic: every six months a new country takes over the EU agenda. But foreign-policy making could be streamlined without a constitution. The presidency has started to develop some features of greater permanence, which could be nudged along. The EU showed last December that it is capable of setting budgets over the next seven years without a constitution (admittedly, the budget was a dog's dinner, but that is another matter). Anyway, the efficiency of the system is not decisive. Like most big governmental structures, the EU is not designed to be efficient; it is meant to be constrained by checks and balances.

Equally, the constitution cannot solve the EU's growing problems over enlargement. Support for bringing new countries into the club is ebbing both at the popular and the governmental level--despite a mass of evidence that existing members have benefited as much as new ones from previous expansions. (This week, a study from the European Commission concluded that there has been no significant loss of jobs to the east, and that increased trade has raised incomes everywhere.)

In some ways, indeed, the constitutional debate has become a way of avoiding a debate over enlargement. As originally planned, it would have been agreed before the new members from central Europe had established real influence inside the club. This suggests that a better way to deal with enlargement fatigue might be to keep advertising the benefits of expansion (national governments must do this, as well as the commission), and guard the credibility of the process more carefully. The commission is about to pronounce on whether it thinks Romania and Bulgaria have met all the criteria for accession next year. If Bulgaria (say) has not, it would be best if the commission said so.

Avoiding the C word

If all this is true, why do governments insist on still discussing the constitution? The answer may be that they believe a continuing debate over the subject is the best hope for reversing a growing public disenchantment with the entire European project. Yet there is not much evidence to support any such belief. In popular votes, the constitution has failed twice, in France and the Netherlands; and it has passed twice, in Spain and Luxembourg. Few electorates seem to be demanding a new constitution now. Traditionally, however, the EU has always tried to win support through grand integrationist projects ("the union must dream," said Jacques Delors); the constitution just happens to be today's embodiment of such a dream.

This impetus will not fade. For those who do not share it, or who want the EU to grow organically rather than by design (a group that includes not only the British government but much European public opinion), the latest debates may be something to endure, rather than to take part in. It might be better to wait until 2008, when the EU is supposed to undertake a root-and-branch review of how and where it spends its money, and only then try to hammer out new institutional arrangements--quite possibly without using the C-word at all.

Commentary feature discusses 'What the renewed debate over the EU Constitutional Treaty really means'.

• Primary Source