The future of Europe. Stuck in the doldrums

One year after the French non and the Dutch nee, it is time to bury the EU constitution

IT ALWAYS takes time to recover from a shock. That certainly seems true of the European Union since French and Dutch voters decisively rejected the draft EU constitution in a pair of referendums a year ago. For most of the past year the mood across the continent has been deeply gloomy.

The gloom reflects a variety of worries. From Britain to Italy, political leaders of all stripes have been discredited or voted out of office. Most economies have been weak and unemployment has stayed high. Cities (and suburbs) have been convulsed by protests, riots or terrorism; fears of radical Islam have mounted. In foreign policy, Europe has been uncertain in its dealings with a resurgent Russia; and its attempts to stop Iran going nuclear seem to be coming to nothing.

Set against such concerns, the fate of the EU constitution seems trivial. Yet during the past year's "pause for reflection", plenty of ideas have been put forward by the continent's leaders. In mid-2004 a consensus painfully emerged among national governments in support of the constitution. This time no deal is in prospect ()see pages 23-26. The main obstacle is that many members insist that the constitution, which will soon have been ratified by 16 of the 25 EU members, can be resurrected. Their hope is that the French and Dutch will vote again; and that other countries that are hanging back, such as Britain, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic, can then be prodded into holding their own referendums.

Yet the idea of putting the constitution to French and Dutch voters again is preposterous. Unlike previous treaties, it cannot be amended to give the two countries an opt-out. There is no reason to believe that voters' objections have disappeared--if anything, the EU is less popular today than it was a year ago. Moreover, underlying those objections was a belief that the European project has been carried forward by an elite that has paid little heed to the views of ordinary people. It would be a travesty of democracy for the elite now to order the people to keep voting until they give the "right" answer.

Start thinking about tomorrow, not yesterday

A better course would be for Europe's leaders to forget the constitution and concentrate on their much bigger worries. Top of the list must be improving their sclerotic economies, best done through a serious programme of liberalisation and deregulation. Linked to this should be the preservation of the single European market and its competition rules, which are under attack from economic nationalists. In these areas the European Commission has become a helpful proponent of economic liberalism and even of tearing up red tape, but it needs much firmer support from national governments, especially in France, Germany and Italy.

The other priority for the union ought to be continuing with its expansion plans. The enlargement of the club to take in new countries to its south and east has been one of its greatest successes. Even now, it is only the lure of membership that keeps such places as Turkey and the western Balkans on the path towards being decent liberal democracies. The latest kid on the block is Montenegro ()see page 42--and the top priority of this new country is, predictably, to join the EU.

At this point, true believers raise the constitution again. Without it, they argue, the EU of 25 (soon to be 27) can no longer function effectively. In any case, a new treaty is required before Croatia joins, since its votes and parliamentary seats were not fixed under the 2000 Nice treaty. They conclude that, without the new constitution (or something like it), enlargement of the club, and indeed its functioning, will grind to a halt. Yet these arguments are tendentious. For all its faults, the EU has worked over the past year. Membership talks have begun with Croatia and Turkey; a start has been made on an energy policy; a budget deal, however unsatisfactory, was struck for 2007-13. Yes, a new treaty will be needed for Croatia and other applicants, but it could easily be a one-page text that simply rejigs votes and seats, not a full-blown constitution.

Besides, any large-scale treaty now has to be approved by referendum in several countries, so the union should face the possibility that it may never get one. That need not be a disaster. Since 1990 Europe has been almost continuously preoccupied by inter-governmental conferences and new treaties to tinker with its institutional architecture. Yet the EU's real failing is not a democratic or institutional deficit--it is what the Centre for European Reform, a London think-tank, has termed a "delivery deficit". After all, if a club cannot deliver benefits to its members, they may decide to scrap it altogether.

Editorial says that one year after the rejection of the proposed European Constititional Treaty in referendums in France and the Netherlands, it is time to bury the Constitution. Instead to concentrate on deliveringy results (benefits) to its citizens.