European Disunion

(3 of 3)

There is a rich irony in the fact that the French government seems to be as opposed to Brussels' dictates as the Swedes, at least when it comes to economics. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin scorned the European Commission's warnings about his country's disdain for the E.U.'s 3% cap on budget deficits. Earlier this month Raffarin said his duty was to France and not to the E.U.'s "mathematics." At least the French and Germans have each other. Most of the French government flew to Berlin for a joint cabinet meeting on Thursday, and they had a warm reception. The same cannot be said for the main outcome of their meeting: a "growth initiative" to funnel investment into big European infrastructure projects, like linking France's high-speed train system with Germany's; spending more money on the E.U.'s Galileo global positioning system; and investing in cleaner automobiles. "I don't think governments are very good at picking winners," says Dirk Schumacher, German economist at Goldman Sachs in Frankfurt. "We do need infrastructure, but they shouldn't use this as an opportunity to steer the business cycle. In the past it hasn't worked, and I don't see why it should now."

Further complications will arise next week, as representatives from all 25 member states begin formal discussions on the new constitution. It took 16 months of negotiating and the patriarchal hand of former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing to arrive at the current draft's delicate power balance between the member states and the Brussels institutions. Many smaller countries are deeply unhappy about the draft's limit on the number of full-fledged Commissioners, which would leave some countries without a vote in the main executive body of the E.U. The French and Germans would like to see social and labor matters given greater prominence, while the British remain suspicious. London will take particular care to assure that the mutual defense clause in the constitution doesn't compete with NATO obligations. "One messy horse-trading session" is the prediction of one British official.

It will help no one if it gets too messy. The point of the exercise, after all, isn't just to streamline the treaties and clarify the roles of various E.U. institutions. It is also meant to breathe a spirit of shared purpose into the project of European integration. Voters will only feel further alienated from the E.U. if the intergovernmental talks drift too far off into the arcane and remote.

As the Swedes showed last week, many Europeans aren't disposed to take the recommendations of their governments as gospel. They've got to be sure that a European constitution gives them room for their own aspirations. "Up until now all these referenda had no real cost against you for saying no," says John Palmer, political director of the European Policy Centre in Brussels. "This round over the constitution will be different: it's put up or shut up." The advocates of integration better make sure they have a big tent.