Charlemagne. Back from the dead

What part of "no" do European integrationists not understand? Every part, apparently

IN ONE ancient fable, a frog falls into a pail of milk. Unable to scramble out, the creature thrashes around, seemingly drowning. Eventually, however, his frantic struggles churn the milk into butter--and he hops away. Some European Union leaders seem to see themselves as this frog. They suffered a huge defeat over the EU constitution, but they think that, if at first they did not succeed, they should just try, try again.

That, at any rate, may explain attempts to resurrect a constitution that only six months ago seemed to have been killed by French and Dutch voters. Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that "this constitution has so many positive elements that we must not abandon it." Both her spokesman and the leader of her party in the European Parliament say that reviving the constitution will be Germany's top priority when it takes the EU's rotating presidency in the first half of 2007. If it fails, says Portugal's president, Jose Socrates, Portugal will take up the task in the second half.

Perhaps integrationists will get their wish even sooner. Wolfgang Schussel, Austria's chancellor, is in charge of the EU just now, and he insists that the constitution is not dead. In theory, the EU is in the midst of a year-long "pause for reflection", which its leaders decreed after the French and Dutch referendums. But why wait? The Austrians are talking of working out by the middle of 2006 how to take the constitution forward. Yet this drift towards reviving a dead text has as much plausibility as the Danube suddenly turning blue. All 25 EU members must ratify the constitution before it can come into force--and that seems an impossibly remote prospect.

It might have been possible to wiggle out of the unanimity requirement, or to insist on a second referendum, if the refusenik were a single small country, or an awkward cuss, such as Britain. But France and the Netherlands, both founder members, cannot be either sidelined or wished away. Their present leaders could not possibly risk the voters' wrath by trying to pass in parliament a charter that had been rejected by the people. No serious politician in either country has been foolhardy enough to call for a new referendum.

Besides, the French and Dutch are not isolated. Britain would be likely to reject the constitution if it were put to the vote. So might Sweden or Denmark, and perhaps one or more of the central Europeans. Thus, quite apart from the little question of respecting the will of the people when they have spoken, demands to resurrect the constitution run up against the practical problem that half a dozen countries cannot now ratify it.

Why are people falling over themselves to promote something that cannot succeed? Perhaps the politicians think they can change voters' minds. They did so after 1992, when Denmark rejected the Maastricht treaty, and again after 2001, when Ireland rejected the Nice one. The politicians may even be right this time, too: the voters may change their minds--one day. But at present support for the EU is falling, suggesting that the constitution may be even less popular than it was.

Perhaps some of the politicians calling for a revival of the constitution are simply trying to burnish their European credentials. Ms Merkel might be calculating that a bit of windy Euro-talk is an easy way to establish herself as the true and only heir to the Europhile Helmut Kohl. Or perhaps, to be more generous, European leaders genuinely believe that the EU is unworkable without the institutional reforms in the constitution, such as the new voting rules, a separate foreign minister and the abolition of the musical-chairs presidency. In this, too, they may be right. But even if they are, the politicians are going a funny way about getting matters changed, since sticking with the whole constitution and nothing but the constitution will make it even harder to rescue any of its useful bits. It would surely be easier to try to carve up the corpse for the organs, rather than to try to jolt the whole thing lumberingly back to life.

The fact is that this is one of those moments when the EU's integrationist impulse is overriding both democracy and natural caution. The budget crisis is over and there is no other displacement activity (except perhaps energy security). The pretence of a pause for reflection has been largely abandoned. The text of the constitution also encourages ratification to continue despite the French and Dutch rejections. Fourteen countries have now ratified it, setting up the possibility, envisaged in a declaration annexed to the treaty, of a showdown with the few that have not.

The perpetual-motion machine

Indeed, Europe's integrationist drive is so strong that it keeps popping out. Guy Verhofstadt, prime minister of Belgium, has written a book, "The United States of Europe", that argues for closer co-operation (including political co-operation) among the 12 euro-zone countries. Such demands for integration are so strong that something is likely to come of them, though whether it is co-operation within the euro zone, sovereignty-sharing arrangements under the existing treaties, or cherry-picked bits of the constitution is hard to say.

But to go back to the constitution as if nothing had happened--or to argue that what happened was so long ago that nobody should worry about it--seems a dangerous strategy. It risks precipitating a huge split between the countries that want the constitution and those that do not, as well as alienating long-suffering voters everywhere.

Before they go down this road, Europe's leaders might ponder another fable, this one by Aesop. The frogs are living happily in a pond, until they decide they need a proper king (and constitution). They ask Jove for one. First he sends a log, but they get bored by such a passive ruler. Then he sends an eel, but it proves too easygoing. So the frogs demand another ruler, and an infuriated Jove sends them a heron--who eats them all.

Commentary feature. Authors says that the EU's instinctive integrationist tendency is overriding both democracy and natural caution.