Closer Union Or Superstate?
After years of wrangling, E.U. leaders agree on a new constitution. Euro-skeptics say it grabs too much power. Federalists say it's too watered down. A cool look at a hot topic
By J.F.O. MCALLISTER / LONDON

All of Europe was riveted by the drama of the high-level gathering — leading figures jockeying to advance their nations' causes while television beamed live broadcasts back home to audiences of millions. The advances and feints, subtle maneuvers and frontal attacks were obsessively chronicled in the newspapers. Too bad the European Union's Presidents and Prime Ministers weren't playing football at Euro 2004. Their gathering in Brussels to agree on a new constitution spurred much less interest than the athletes who were going for glory in Portugal.

That's the E.U.'s conundrum. Why does this complex, ambitious multinational enterprise, which is meant to embody and guide Europe's common destiny, leave so many people so cold that only 45% bothered to vote in the European Parliament elections earlier this month — with many of them voting for parties that want to dismantle the Union itself? After a historic enlargement designed to heal the wounds of the cold war, why was voter turnout lowest in the East and Central European countries that just joined? And finally, how can Brussels manage to win the affection — or even the attention — of the people it's supposed to serve?

This E.U. summit, unlike most, really did deliver a result worthy of Europe's attention. The leaders agreed to a constitutional treaty they hope will make the E.U. more efficient (now that it has 25 members instead of the original six) and more democratic (by giving the European Parliament — the only directly elected E.U. body — a stronger legislative voice). There will be a new E.U. President who will serve a renewable 21/2 year term, and an E.U. Foreign Minister, who will advocate commonly agreed E.U. foreign policies. And there will be a new system of "qualified majority voting" on issues like the environment, transportation and agriculture: if 55% of members, making up at least 15 states and representing 65% of the E.U. population, agree, the measure passes.

But those moves toward a closer and more powerful union had Euro-skeptics howling — not just in Britain, the ancestral home of the skeptics, but also in places like Denmark and Poland, where some are suspicious that an E.U. speaking with a single voice will drown theirs out. Does this constitution, as the Euro-skeptics claim, push the E.U. far down the path to a single superstate?

The straight answer is no. Though countries like France, Germany and Belgium want the E.U. to integrate more, other countries like Britain, Denmark, Sweden and Poland do not — they feel the heat of the Euro-skeptics behind them and want to preserve national sovereignty without turning their backs on the constitution. British Prime Minister Tony Blair managed to win on the "red line" issues crucial to the U.K.'s sense of self. Under the new constitution, E.U. member states will still retain a national veto in foreign policy, taxation and social affairs. (That means France and Germany, to cite a hypothetical example, couldn't demand a uniform rate of income tax over Britain's or Poland's wishes.) Once a general foreign policy initiative is decided unanimously, however, details of how to implement it are subject to qualified majority vote, so there may yet be room for mischief making. But with 25 states inside the tent, it will be harder than ever for any one or two countries to run the show.

In fact, this summit proved how far from unity the E.U. remains. Leaders couldn't agree on a new European Commission President to replace Romano Prodi, whose term ends in October. Blair and the heads of at least six other countries shot down the candidacy of their Belgian counterpart, Guy Verhofstadt, an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq and an ardent European federalist. They may still break this logjam in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, there is something in this constitution for both camps. The federalists got clearer rules and roles for the Brussels institutions, but there's also a new provision allowing national parliaments to send E.U. legislation back to Brussels for review.

Despite the ambiguous outcome, the politicians naturally enough declared victory. Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, who as holder of the E.U. presidency was tasked with forging the deal, proclaimed: "This is a great achievement for Europe and a great achievement for all Europeans." We'll find out soon enough how great an achievement Europeans think the 300-page document is, since as many as nine states could hold a referendum on it, including Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and Britain. If any one of them votes it down, it technically fails as a treaty. In other words, the "ever-closer union" to which the E.U.'s founders aspired is once again rubbing up against the public's mix of apathy, doubt and outright hostility — and the heat from that friction could make the new constitution go up in flames.

The European Parliament elections a few days before the summit provided the first fires. With turnout across the E.U. its lowest ever — and in the new member states averaging an appalling 26% — Euro-skeptics and nationalists won about 15% of seats overall. One of Sweden's new Euro-skeptic M.E.P.s, Nils Lundgren, calls his victory "a clear sign of dislike and frustration. People don't like these E.U. structures. They are too far away, not transparent and undermining democracy by moving too much of the decision making process from the national parliaments to the E.U."

Underneath the smiling photo ops and upbeat press conferences, it was clear to Europe's leaders that they have even more work cut out for them. In several countries planning referendums, according to recent polls, the constitution stands a good chance of defeat. "The referendum process will be difficult," says Peter Ludlow, director of EuroComment and former director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels. "One, two or three countries might reject. If a smaller country rejects, arrangements can be made. But the big problem will be Britain."

There, Blair faces an uphill battle. The Sun, Britain's largest tabloid, called him blair the betrayer for going along with the treaty. Three-quarters of Britons surveyed last week by the New Frontiers Foundation, an anticonstitution group, agreed that "Britain will be more prosperous and secure if we keep the pound, say no to the constitution, and insist on the E.U. giving back powers over trade, the economy and other things, to its member states." Blair came to office determined to put Britain "at the heart of Europe," but his loyalty to George W. Bush's Iraq policy has damaged his ability to push ahead on his European policies. Determined not to be labeled a sellout by British Euro-skeptics, he packaged his work in Brussels as a series of valiant sorties to preserve British sovereignty.

Pro-E.U. pundits in France, Belgium, Spain and Italy assailed Blair for watering down the pact. "The greatest paradox of the European Union," said Le Figaro, "is that its most skeptical member calls the shots." French President Jacques Chirac helped Blair's reputation back home by denouncing his intransigence. "The ambitions for the constitution are reduced — especially on tax and social security — by the clear position of one country É the United Kingdom," he complained. Blair's spokesman regretted Chirac's remarks and pointedly alluded to Britain's allies among the new eastern members — like Poland and the Czech Republic — who are now diluting France and Germany's historic domination of the E.U. "We are operating in a Europe of 25, not a Europe of six or two or one," he said. But British backers of the constitution lament that by portraying E.U. negotiations as fights against wily foreigners, Blair has allowed anti-E.U. opinion in Britain to grow and harden.

British Euro-skeptics think he's using red-meat rhetoric to conceal a major shift of power to Brussels. "The British government is clearly determined just to bulldoze through the facts and hope the media are too stupid to check the text," says Dominic Cummings, director of the New Frontiers Foundation, who counts at least 43 places where the constitution abrogates a current national veto over E.U. actions.

With national powers slowly accreting to remote institutions, he fears Britain and the rest of the E.U. will see democracy atrophy and economies settle into overregulated mediocrity.

Blair has the toughest sales job on the constitution, but he's not the only one. Even Chirac has resisted a referendum, though 74% of French people polled want one. Chirac apparently worries that a referendum could become a low-turnout vehicle for another protest vote. "The sad truth is, our politicians have done little to explain why various European reforms are productive and necessary," says Philippe Moreau-Defarges, senior fellow at the French Institute on Foreign Relations in Paris. "The average French voter has no idea what the proposed constitution is about." He thinks Chirac should embrace a referendum fight as a chance to connect voters more seriously to the E.U.

But Margot Wallström, the Swedish E.U. environment Commissioner, believes the growth of Euro-skepticism and apathy evident in the election results should prod a more systematic rethink of the E.U.'s future. "Politicians should show greater respect for the people and move forward more slowly in the European integration process," she told the Swedish newspaper Dagens Industri. "In the European Commission, we must accept that more power should be given back to the member states."

What happens if some countries don't ratify the constitution? Although technically they all must do so for it to take effect, those who reject may find the others devise a way to go on without them. Charles Grant, the pro-E.U. director of the Centre for European Reform in London, thinks France, Germany and several others will form a core group determined to integrate harder and faster. "The whole point for them is the institutions, not specific policies," he says. Assuming the E.U. continues as is, they will vote as a bloc inside it, begin to integrate in foreign affairs, justice and taxation, and start to isolate the refuseniks — who would deploy their remaining vetoes in a climate of growing acrimony. That would be a Europe not just of two speeds but a whole gearbox, including reverse.

Whether that would be such a bad thing depends, of course, on what you expect of the E.U. The truth is, the E.U. already operates at several speeds. Britain remains outside the euro zone but that hasn't hurt the British economy (indeed, maybe it's helped) or the euro. E.U. member states bitterly disagreed about the war in Iraq, but still managed to agree on their new constitution. Clearly, traveling at different speeds doesn't mean that the European project comes to a halt.

But if the E.U. wants to achieve some of its grander dreams — like having a strong say in global security policy, something France clearly favors, or a common vision on how European social values can be married to world-class economic competitiveness — then all the big countries have to march to the same drummer. And that kind of deeper union is something no constitution, no matter how finely crafted, can create. —June 28, 2004