At the beginning of this decade, European leaders launched an initiative to adopt a Constitution that would be the culmination of the project to integrate Europe. Valery Giscard d'Estaing headed this project and, in a long drawn-out process that attempted to be participatory and democratic, produced a text that was solemnly signed by all heads of state and government of the countries of the European Union (EU), including the candidate members at that time, Bulgaria and Romania, in October 2004.
The Constitutional Treaty aimed to simplify the community's regulations and mechanisms, bring the EU closer to its citizens and provide them with strong leadership that was visible at an international level. But it also had certain federalist airs and established European symbols (the euro, anthem and flag), as well as a Charter of Fundamental Rights, issues that aroused severe mistrust on the part of countries or sectors of the population that were more distrustful of Brussels and even more jealous of their national sovereignty.
In spite of the active support of all governments, the constitutional text ran aground during the national ratification process. Nationalist misgivings multiplied and when France and the Netherlands voted «no» in their respective referendums, the march of the great reform was sidelined. The ambition to construct a powerful Europe on the world stage came up against the increasingly diverse and complex reality of present-day Europe.
Now we are about to witness the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, welcomed as a weakened and decaffeinated replacement for the rejected Constitution. Moreover, the appointment of two politicians of little international renown, to head the permanent presidency of the European Council and the equivalent of a European Minister for Foreign Affairs, has disheartened many.
However, this pessimistic appraisal does not do justice to the step the European Union is going to take on the first of December. A new EU has emerged from the Treaty, with its own legal personality, with a more rational legal structure, with a more precise demarcation of powers and with institutions that are set up and function better. And, of course, the Treaty underpins the two big economic achievements of the construction of Europe: a large Single Market without obstructions that might disrupt free competition, and a single currency that has consolidated its role both within and outside its area of circulation.
The Lisbon Treaty may be frustrating insofar as it isn't enough to project a Europe with true political weight in the world. It's not the end station that was the aim of the Constitution but a treaty that will be added to the history of reforms of the last few decades. However, perhaps it didn't make much sense to pull out all the stops in order to achieve an ambition that is still not sufficiently shared by all concerned, and attempting to take such an important step is probably not very realistic when such an act would raise so many hesitant voices. It was also difficult, in the recent informal meeting between the heads of state and government, to appoint top officials whose strong political personality would have been very tricky to fit into the community machinery. Machinery that is, in essence, inter-governmental but with a supranational component that makes it unique in history. This is not the great reform planned by Giscard d'Estaing but we are moving in the right direction. Another step. No more, no less.
