The EU can steam ahead on Franco-German locomotive

Date: 14/07/05

A majority of member states (13) representing about half the EU's population have ratified the constitution with two, France and the Netherlands, having rejected it. The 'Yes' camp includes large and small, old and new member states: Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Spain, Austria, Germany, Latvia, Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg.

Belgium and Estonia are continuing with the ratification process. The others have suspended the ratification process sine die. Interestingly, seven out of the ten new states have ratified the treaty while only six out of the 'old' 15 have done so. This may be an indication of greater Euro-enthusiasm among the newcomers.

Opinion is divided between those who argue that the constitution might be revived, those who argue that it is really dead and those who argue that parts of it could be saved. Those suggesting that the constitution might still be saved argue that it is not fair that the treaty should be pronounced dead before every member state has had the right to express an opinion on it. But most of this camp also recognise that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to ask the French and Dutch to vote again on the same text as long as Jacques Chirac and Jan Peter Balkenende are in power.

Those who argue that the treaty is stone dead comprise a mixture of Eurosceptics who hope the trend towards closer integration has been stopped and those who believe that it was a poor treaty and that a better model would resonate more with the voters.

Finally there are those who argue that it would be possible to cherry-pick from the constitution and push through a number of changes at an intergovernmental conference without any public consultation. Many argue that Part III of the constitution, on policies, should be dropped.

So what will happen now? The June European Council called for a "period of reflection". Tony Blair has since convened a special summit in the autumn to discuss economic and social models and how the EU can reconnect to its citizens.

The Union has always been divided on three fundamental questions. What should it do together? How should it organise itself for these tasks? And who should be in the club?

Another divisive issue is what kind of social and economic model the Union should pursue. There will be no agreement on these issues during the UK presidency. But at least a long-overdue public debate has been launched about the future of Europe. This was supposed to have happened during the Convention but it remained an elite affair.

The Barroso Commission has had a subdued first nine months in office, bowing to the wishes of the big member states, rather than leading from the front. It chose the Lisbon Agenda of economic reforms as a flagship policy when it did not have the competence for economic and fiscal policy. It overestimated the support it had from member states on key issues such as the services directive.

But the Commission could now play a more prominent role in the debate on the future of Europe. It might hold meetings once a month in different member states and not just the capitals. These could be combined with public meetings to allow citizens direct contact with commissioners. Equally the European Council should revert to holding its meetings around Europe and not just in Brussels.

But the selling campaign has to start and end with national political leaders.

It is their Union. They have to take primary responsibility for explaining how their state benefits from the Union.

It is difficult to see any possibility of moving forward until there is a change of national leadership in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and probably the UK. Chirac has never been so unpopular in France and his credibility has been deeply damaged by the referendum. His likely successor in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy, has already upset several member states by proposing a permanent directoire of the larger member states plus Benelux. In Germany, Angela Merkel seems odds-on to succeed Gerhard Schröder in September but she has little direct European experience. She leads a party, the Christian Democrats, that extols the social market economy and it will be very difficult to secure a majority in the Bundestag for radical reform.

Much will depend on whether Merkel and Sarkozy can help revive their flagging economies. If so, there could also be a revival of the Franco-German locomotive that has been so beneficial for Europe in the past. If not, then this would affect the overall political climate and the prospects of reviving the constitution in any shape or form would be extremely remote.

• Fraser Cameron is director of studies at the European Policy Centre (EPC).

Commentary feature in which the author, who is director of studies at the European Policy Centre, suggests that much was to depend on France's and Germany's next leaders when it comes to reviving the process of European integration.

• Primary Source