A clapped-out EU summit sees states trying to pursue their own agendas, writes Lara Marlowe
Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg and president of the EU Council, looked like an undertaker when he greeted heads of state and government arriving at the EU summit.
To paraphrase the great Syrian poet Nizar Kabbani, everyone wondered, "How long will it be till they announce the death of Europe?"
A French diplomat who was deeply involved in the drafting of the constitution gazed mournfully out the window at the television cameramen congregating in the courtyard for their "stand-uppers'". National flags provided the only scrap of brightness. "There's not the same enthusiasm," the diplomat lamented. "There's no momentum. People are absorbing the aftershock of the two No votes."
Nor were the surroundings conducive to optimism. Brussels' European quarter, a forest of glass, steel and granite, seems to epitomise the cold, impersonal image so many people have of the EU. The cordon of armoured vehicles and riot police made it feel like a fortress under siege. The sunshine promised by meteorologists never materialised.
President Jacques Chirac of France began his first speech of the summit: "It is with a certain gravity that I speak tonight . . ." A European diplomat said gravitas and phrases like "We must send a strong signal to our people . . ." were de rigueur in all speeches.
But despite the hand-wringing over the battered state of Europe, national interests kept rearing their heads. Jacques Chirac came to Brussels "with a pocket calculator", the socialist Laurent Fabius said. The Netherlands, the No-1-per-capita contributor to the EU, wanted a reduction of €1.5 billion instead of the €500 million on offer. Sweden was furious at the hatchet job on the research budget. Italy threatened a veto over structural funds for the Mezzogiorno. Tony Blair wouldn't budge unless the Common Agricultural Policy came under discussion.
"At no time did anyone criticise France or Holland in any way" (for their rejection of the treaty), a French spokesman boasted. It was almost true.
"The leaders seemed to be telling Chirac and [ the Dutch prime minister Jan-Peter] Balkenende, 'We feel your pain.'" a diplomat said. "It wasn't an exercise in blame." The Taoiseach was one of the most empathetic: "I have a lot of experience, good and bad, with referendums."
Swedish and Polish leaders said they were waiting for a clear explanation from the two countries who rejected the treaty as to what they intended to do.
The French and Dutch answer, a British source complained, amounted to an irrational: "1. The treaty must be ratified. 2. The treaty cannot be changed. 3. We will not revote."
There was an Alice in Wonderland quality to the press conference held by the presidents of the European Council, Commission and Parliament. "The problem was not the text [ of the treaty] but the context," all three said, repeating the now standard cliché of the referendum debacle.
After saying that nothing could be done until mid-2007 - six months after ratification was supposed to have been completed - Mr Juncker added: "The ratification process continues apace . . . I really believe that neither the French nor the Dutch rejected the constitution."
Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt was more honest when he told a closed-door session that the "pause" was "like putting the dead in the freezer in the hope that, in the future, we can resuscitate them . . . If we put [ the constitution] in the freezer, it will kill it."
Britain was winning; Britain was about to take over the European Union, the London tabloids crowed. The much-awaited bloodbath between Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac did not take place, so everyone asked which of the two leaders was more isolated.
Twenty-four countries demanded Blair give in on the rebate. But in a broader sense, Europe seemed to hold its breath for Chirac's departure, two years from now.
Asked whether he suggested the ratification process might be resolved in mid-2007 because Chirac would be gone then, Mr Juncker replied coyly: "I hadn't even thought of that."
The commission floated an unsuccessful suggestion that the 2007-2013 budget be put up for an early mid-term review in 2008 once Chirac is out of office.
The word "Turkey" was not pronounced once. Mr Chirac claimed amid widespread speculation that France will try to delay negotiations due to begin on October 3rd.
One of the most forlorn characters I saw was a pretty Romanian journalist who, with tears in her eyes, asked Mr Juncker: "What influence will the 'period of reflection' have on Romanian and Bulgarian accession?"
Both countries are due to join the EU in 2007, but France is already suggesting that could be delayed. "The accession treaties have been signed," Mr Juncker replied sternly. "That means Romania will have to meet all the requirements."