A European Constitution is achievable

Unwittingly, the Americans came to Europe's rescue last weekend when their armed forces captured Saddam Hussein. Media attention was diverted from the spectacular failure of the EU heads of government meeting in Brussels to agree on a new Constitution to more entertaining Arabian nights.

All the EU had to say was terse and simple: it was not possible for the Intergovernmental Conference to reach an overall agreement on a draft constitutional treaty at this stage and that the Irish Presidency which starts its turn on January 1, was requested to make an assessment, on the basis of consultations, of the prospect for progress and to report to the European Council in March.

Good luck to the Irish! They are going to need an abundance of it. Rescuing the Constitution may force them to forfeit a substantial part of what they were planning to do during their Presidency. But for Europe's sake it would be worth it.

The issue that led to the debacle simply put is this: a majority of member states seem to agree that under the new Constitution, decisions requiring to be approved by qualified majority need to be supported by at least half the member states representing 60% of the combined population of the EU.

Spain and newcomer Poland disagree. They want to maintain the voting system agreed in Nice three years ago whereby each country is given a weight (ranging from Malta's three to Germany's 29) so that in an eventual Union of 27 member states, 258 votes out of a possible 345 cast by a majority of member states would constitute the so-called "qualified majority".

For some decisions the Treaty of Nice requires 258 votes in favour cast by at least two-thirds of the member states. Furthermore, a member state may also request whether the member states making up such a 'qualified majority' represent at least 62 per cent of the EU's population. If this condition is not met, the decision is not adopted.

Also according to the Nice Treaty, Spain and Poland, each with a population that is half that of Germany's, get a voting weight of 27 each to Germany's 29. In short, Spain and Poland with a combined population equalling Germany's would have a combined vote of 54 compared to Germany's 29.

Spain and Poland thus had every good reason from a purely nationalistic standpoint to stubbornly refuse to compromise their very privileged position. From a European standpoint they appeared insensitive to the great historic step that was about to be taken.

When history is written, writers will undoubtedly recall how this potentially great historic step forward was transformed into a whitewash by two states which refused to compromise on what must surely be described as their unjust voting strengths.

Should the Irish find a solution to this impasse, EU leaders may still be in time to sign the new Constitutional Treaty before enlargement. Many are not prepared to bank too much on this happening. But remember that the EU has seen worse crises than this and it has been able to overcome them and move forward.

In the event that this obstacle is overcome, the final and probably more exciting phase begins in which the agreed Constitution will go for ratification in the 25 member states. This also promises to be a challenging event.

No recriminations, please

Who is to blame for the whole debacle? It is easy to blame Spain and Poland or, as the Spanish media have done, to blame France's intransigence. However, it is good to keep in mind that when it comes to filibustering, no member state has an unblemished record.

Recklessly short-termist in views and actions, many member states have often behaved in such a way as to encourage the creation of an environment encouraging individual member states to make daring moves in an effort to commit the others against their will to a particular course of action.

The United Kingdom has not been helping Europeans gel together over the past few months since the war in Iraq started. A couple of weeks ago France and Germany punched a big hole in the Growth and Stability Pact and left it listing badly. Their action a couple of weeks ago may have pricked many member states into standing their guard against the possibility of some Franco-German hegemony. In July Italy began its turn at the EU Presidency with a grand row with Germany that could have easily been avoided.

The larger EU member states have been the ones rocking the boat hardest. Ironically, a glimpse at what the international media had to report since the IGC kicked off in October gives the impression that it was the smaller states of the Union which were endangering the success of the conference.

What seems certain is that the situation must not be allowed to deteriorate much further. It is not so catastrophic that we do not have a European Constitution and that we have a political crisis. After all a Europe without a Constitution is better than a Europe with a bad one. Politics itself lives by crisis and Europe has leaped forward after every major crisis.

It is however much more important now to recognise that the European Constitution is an achievable goal and to work to make it happen. Only in that way will we encourage Europeans to regain confidence in themselves and to restore Europe's international image.

The good work that has been achieved so far by the Convention which by the way included representatives of the governments of the member states and candidate countries (which now appear unable to agree) must not be left to waste. So I reject completely any idea of slow paddling at this stage.

It is not in Europe's broader interests, just at the point where it has finally overcome the last division of the Continent to stagnate or to regress to the dark ages of competing nation-states.

Two-speed Europe

Talk of a two-speed Europe offends the spirit of this historic moment. It is an admission that European divisions are unbridgeable. It is an admission that all hope has been lost in the ability of Europeans, who have such a historic track record in achieving joint solutions behind them, being able to overcome a big crisis.

Just imagine the scene if on the day that Europe celebrates the end of the last major division of Europe, a fresh one is announced under the title of the "Pioneering Group".

There is no lasting solution in the prospects of a small cadre of 'enlightened' nation-states forcing the pace of integration and daring the others to follow them. What if not all the others join the pioneers? Who wants two or more political entities on the European Continent once more? Who gains from such a prospective situation?

Europe needs to move forward together or stay as it is united, to give the constitutional process some time to mellow. But it is important not to be resigned to the situation created on December 13.

Recriminations apart, in Brussels last weekend, the member states were close to clinching it. From here onwards, more moderation in words and actions and a greater willingness to compromise coupled with an unrelenting diplomatic effort to bridge the gap may bear the desired results.

But it requires statesmanship and foresight - and some daring as well. It requires people to free themselves from the entanglements of realpolitik to design a better future.

Dr Pace is lecturer in European Studies and International Relations at the University of Malta and chairman of the European Movement (Malta).