Posted Sunday, June 15, 2003; 14.29BST
For many Europeans, national sovereignty isn't such a holy principle. Germans, aware of how egregiously their country abused its neighbors, generally don't see a problem in ceding more authority to Brussels. And for some in regions traditionally jealous of the power of their national governments — like Flanders in Belgium and Scotland in the U.K. — the E.U. is a better seat of power than the national capital. "There has never been a debate over the loss of sovereignty in Spain," says Charles Powell of Elcano Royal Institute. "The Spaniards can't get rid of it fast enough."

Since the E.U. already has a single market and, in most cases, no border controls, sovereignty isn't what it used to be. It just doesn't make sense for European governments to address business and financial regulation or environmental standards differently from their neighbors, since by definition these issues cross national borders. The truth is that the E.U. has exactly as much power as national governments are willing to give it. Since France sees itself as a prime driver of E.U. policy, it's pleased to have a powerful union — a suit of armor to wear as the French slug it out on the world stage. Or so it often seems to Britain.

In trade, for instance, Brussels negotiates on behalf of all member states at the World Trade Organization. But last week France and Germany got together to water down reform plans for the Common Agricultural Policy, the subsidy program that consumes 45% of the Union's j98.6 billion budget, of which France is the biggest beneficiary. The reforms would strengthen Europe's hand in the next round of WTO negotiations. E.U. Agricultural Commissioner Franz Fischler was furious at the deal. "It cannot be that two member states decide for the other 13 countries," he fumed. But it is so, and the episode is just another example of how member states intent on preserving entrenched advantages undermine the strength of the E.U. as a whole.

The new constitution goes only part of the way to stopping stitch-ups like this. It suggests a simplified formula for a majority vote — at least half the member states representing 60% of the population — but it won't kick in until 2009 at the earliest. Moreover, national vetoes remain in place against measures governing social security legislation, worker protection and especially taxation, a national prerogative in countries with relatively low corporate taxes like the U.K. and Ireland. Exceptions like that make the E.U.'s remit a patchwork that's hard to grasp and harder to love.

SHOULD THE E.U. BECOME A SUPERSTATE?
Some federalists would certainly like to see the E.U. evolve into a United States of Europe. According to Philippe Moreau Defarges, an analyst at the French Institute of International Relations, the E.U. is "a process and creation that has become bigger than the nations that are part of it, the skeleton for a federalist Europe." Others, already alarmed by the E.U.'s "democratic deficit," want to make sure no flesh is put on those federalist bones. "To have a democratic entity you need a democratic identity," says Ditte Staun, 26, a Danish political-science student who campaigns against the E.U. "The 15 member states don't have a common history, and we don't want our identity to be changed. This constitution is just the E.U. consolidating itself, trying to create an unstoppable process in one direction." She is convinced that most Danes agree with her, and will reject the new constitution in the referendum the Danish government has promised to hold. Staunch defenders of the nation-state see no appeal in putting power at an ever-greater distance, or in consciously giving people who speak other languages and have different interests the right to co-determine their lives. The fact is, however, that other people already do so, whether one acknowledges it or not. No European country can isolate itself from the influence of what its neighbors trade, how they treat the environment, or whether they are prone to wage war. So advocates of a federal Europe figure that placing real power in Brussels — with the ability to make common rules for all — will give Europeans certainty at home and influence abroad. But most people still fall somewhere in the middle: they aren't parochial enough to be isolationist, but don't trust Brussels enough to relinquish all control.

For that reason, the European Union will always be a mix of national and supranational powers, and the new constitution leaves largely open just how rich that mix will be. It doesn't close the door to the E.U. eventually levying its own taxes, for example, though that's not a policy that's likely to win popular support. But if Europeans had a better idea of what they were paying for — and why — people might not feel so remote from the grand project of an integrated Europe. Comparisons with the American Constitution are easily overdrawn, but the framers of the E.U.'s future would do well to remember how that document kicked off: "We, the people ..." If the politicians gathering in Thessaloniki this week wanted to get the attention of ordinary Europeans, that might have been a good place to start.

Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

	Eu'ro'pho'bia [Jun. 9, 2003 ] n A strong fear, found chiefly among the British, that giving more power to The European Union spells doom New Europe, Old Economy [Jun. 2, 2003 ] Poland is America's new best friend. But the country is also in deep distress The Plan That Fell To Earth [May 5, 2003] Giscard unfurls a new E.U. blueprint, and the smaller states see red A Week in Hell [Mar. 24, 2003] At the precipice of war, facing mutiny at home, Tony Blair stays cool Search all issues of TIME Magazine