What will become of the EU Constitution? - By Hannelore Crolly

Germany's EU presidency will expire at the end of June. The next EU summit will begin on June 21 in Brussels. What does Chancellor Angela Merkel have to show for herself?

Europe is rubbing its eyes in wonder: such harmony has not been seen in a long time. EU Council President Angela Merkel has had such a domesticating influence that even the most truculent Euroskeptics, like Poland's ruling Kaczynski brothers, have toned their rhetoric down in time for the next meeting in Brussels. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also pleading unusually peacefully for finding an agreement in the quarrels over the EU Constitution.

Yet the new friendliness is deceiving. The deep-seated problems in the European Union have not been resolved, especially if the heads of government are only making a show of their good mood for the benefit of an EU population tired of their wrangling. The crisis remains acute and the strife smolders on.

The biggest difficulties still lie ahead of the EU, whether over finances or Turkey's accession, agricultural issues or a global military presence, energy crises or the fear of terrorist attacks. The EU can not ready itself for such challenges without agreements over the directions to take and where the limits are. This club of 27 members is a long ways from formulating such positions, though.

To be sure, Merkel has been astonishingly successful at limiting the damage. It was hardly to be expected that she would be able to change the mood as rapidly as she did, after the proposed EU Constitution was turned down in the French and Dutch referenda. The chances are big that at the June meeting, Merkel will propose, and be able to negotiate, a timeline for repairing the damage done to the unloved Constitution.

The EU would instead receive new rules to guide interactions between the 27 member states. The hated word "Constitution" would be dropped, as would the hymn, the flag, and the jungle of regulations that serve as reference points to existing EU agreements. The size of the EU Commission, as well as the power of the EU Parliament, would be determined anew, and the convoluted proposed Constitution, crafted with considerable delusions of grandeur, would finally lose its supranational ambitions. Instead of a Constitution, there would be a simple Contract, compatible with existing Brussels EU institutions.

Yet it is in the nature of the beast that the more quickly a solution needs to be reached, the smaller the common denominator will turn out to be. Given the enormous time pressure, it will not be possible to achieve more ambitious goals. In mid-2009, a new EU Parliament will be elected and a new EU Commission will be determined; by then it must be clear what contours these institutions will have.

This puts Merkel, heading the negotiations, under enormous pressure. It could also lead to unfortunate concessions on individual points, or in the worst case, to a complete watering-down of the text of the Contract. Even if the chancellor is successful at getting the EU member states to agree on key points, the danger remains that individual countries may want to hold the contract hostage to ensure that specific national interests are defended. The contentious murmuring among those heads of state about a Constitution they themselves signed gives reason to doubt the dependability of statements made at summits, or even of signatures on EU agreements.

Among the unreliable participants, and despite all the charm offensives, one can count Poland, Great Britain, and the Czech Republic, along with France whose election outcome remains uncertain. Blair, who will soon resign as prime minister, is likely to be primarily motivated by a desire to crown his exit with a gesture of mediation. Whether, in the heat of the upcoming electoral campaign, his potential successor Gordon Brown will hold to the promises made, is at least doubtful. The Czech Republic might also panic and put on the brakes, because it will hold the EU presidency during the first half of 2009. France will create little trouble if it elects Nicolas Sarkozy president, as he has argued already for "taking scissors to the Constitution;" but Ségolène Royal has raised some dust by promising to hold a referendum again. There is the distinct possibility that a second vote would also be negative. Poland, finally, raises worries because it has attacked a key element of the new basic Contract: it wants to untie the carefully-wrapped diplomatic package and insists on unanimous voting. If Poland were to prove successful, the EU would be paralyzed for good.

Still, Poland might even be doing the EU a benefit. It is, in any case, an illusion that every interest among nearly 30 member states can be reconciled. To pretend that one day they will all want the same thing is hypocritical. If the second attempt at a Constitution fails, then those states wanting more should be allowed to move ahead at that point. There has been discussion in the EU for a long time whether it might be advisable to create a "core Europe" made up of a few states particularly keen on integration. That avant-garde would then finally be in demand.

- Hannelore Crolly is Brussels correspondent of Die Welt, which published this article on April 27.