EU: With a fisheries policy and enlargement now behind the European Union the new year will bring further challenges, including that of a possible war on Iraq, writes Denis Staunton, European Correspondent
When European Union leaders agreed in Copenhagen this month to admit 10 new member-states, the decision was greeted throughout the continent as "historic". Here, at last was the grand, generous gesture that would reunite Europe and make amends for the shoddy, post-war deal that condemned Central and Eastern Europe to half a century of Communist tyranny. But if the Copenhagen summit ended on a rhetorical high note, the final agreement came after hours of familiar EU horse-trading over such less than uplifting issues as Portuguese milk quotas, Polish border security and Austrian rules on transit for heavy vehicles through the Alps.
It appeared that the new EU of 25 was destined to function in more or less the same way as the old one of 15 has done. Such an impression is probably false, not least because the Copenhagen summit made clear that the next enlargement is not going to be the EU's final expansion. Bulgaria and Romania were told that they will probably join in 2007 and if Turkey fulfils the political conditions for membership by the end of 2004, it can start negotiations immediately afterwards. Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania are also knocking on the EU's door, along with our new eastern neighbours in Belarus and the Ukraine.
In the week before Christmas, five days of negotiations over fisheries policy highlighted how difficult it is to make decisions in the EU already - even in a policy area where member-states do not hold a national veto. Concerned about over-fishing of some species of fish, such as cod, scientific experts called for a total ban on fishing the depleted species in 2003 and for a sharp reduction in the size of fishing fleets.
In the end, fishing quotas were cut by just 45 per cent, although some restrictions were imposed on the number of days each month that fishermen can go to sea. As weary ministers left Brussels late on Friday night, they knew that their deal would leave both fishermen and environmentalists unhappy and had probably failed to tackle the problem they had set out to solve.
It is partly in an effort to improve the way the EU makes decisions that the Convention on the Future of Europe is drawing up a constitutional treaty for the EU. The Convention, with representatives from the Commission, the member-state and candidate country governments, the European Parliament and national parliaments, will meet in Brussels until the summer of 2003.
Its chairman, Mr Valery Giscard d'Estaing, hopes to achieve broad approval from the Convention for a draft treaty. After that, national governments will negotiate in an Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) before EU leaders agree a final treaty at a summit, either at the end of 2003 or in early 2004.
The Convention has already drawn up reports on such issues as reforming EU institutions, enhancing the EU's foreign policy role, improving economic governance and increasing co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs. It has also discussed ways of involving national parliaments more closely in EU decision-making, an attempt to bridge the gap between the EU and its citizens.
Many of the Convention's representatives - especially those from the European Parliament - want to give the EU a much bigger role in foreign policy and defence and to abolish the national veto in almost all policy areas. But Mr Giscard knows that too ambitious a treaty will be rejected by EU leaders, who are generally more cautious about transferring power to Brussels.
Some big member-states, such as Britain, France and Spain, want to shift power from the Commission to the Council of Ministers, where national governments meet to determine EU policy.
Most smaller member-states, with the support of Germany, hope to enhance the Commission's role, fearing that giving more power to the Council of Ministers would diminish their influence.
The Government has taken a cautious approach, forming a loose alliance with countries such as Britain, Sweden and Denmark, which take a sceptical view of further integration.
The Government has been relaxed about the outcome of the Convention, proclaiming in the words of the Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, that "the Convention proposes, the IGC disposes".
Technically, Mr McDowell is correct but the political reality is that it will be difficult for national governments to unravel in an IGC positions that have been agreed in the Convention.
Other governments are taking the Convention's work very seriously and France and Germany have recently sent their foreign ministers to represent them there.
The re-emergence of the Franco-German relationship as the dominant axis in European politics was one of the most significant developments of 2002 and Paris and Berlin have signalled their determination to work towards a common approach at the Convention.
The effectiveness of their partnership was demonstrated in October when Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and President Jacques Chirac agreed a key deal on farm policy in advance of an EU summit.
It will receive a further boost in late January when Paris and Berlin will bring forward a major initiative on the future of Europe.
Some countries, including Ireland, want to leave a relatively lengthy gap between the end of the Convention - around June - and the start of an IGC. But it appears increasingly likely that the IGC will begin in autumn 2003 and that a treaty-making summit will take place before the end of Italy's EU Presidency in December.
Although the Convention will dominate EU politics in 2003, there will be other issues that could highlight divisions within the EU.
These include an attempt by the Commission to introduce a mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy that would make sweeping changes to the farm subsidy system.
The Commission's chances of success are slim, partly because of the determination of countries such as France and Ireland to resist change. But the EU's biggest net contributors, led by Germany, will press for some reform before the new member-states join in 2004.
All EU member-states are expected to ratify the accession treaties of the new member-states but there is a strong possibility that one or two of the candidate countries could reject EU membership. If those that decline to join are small states, the EU will swallow its pride and carry on cheerfully without them. But if Poland says no to the EU, the entire project of enlargement will have been dealt a powerful, moral blow. If the US goes to war again Iraq, the EU will struggle to agree a joint approach. Britain will certainly support Washington and France is likely to swing in behind the campaign sooner or later. But Germany has already signalled that it opposes any war against Baghdad and that its soldiers will not take part in it.
2003 will be a crucial year in determining Ireland's place within the EU and in shaping the Government's policy towards Europe. The Government's task has been made more difficult by the fact that it appears to have drawn a different lesson from its initial failure to ratify the Nice Treaty than our EU partners have.
For the Government, the lesson of the two referendums is that EU integration must proceed with greater caution, for fear of leaving Europe's citizens behind. Irish officials regard the success of the second referendum as a great political triumph that has given the Government enhanced authority within the EU.
For most of our partners, however, the rejection of the treaty in 2001 represented an embarrassing political failure on the part of the Government and the delayed ratification was no more than a necessary step towards putting things right.
Ireland is now perceived within the EU as having moved into the camp of relatively sceptical member-states that includes Britain, Sweden and Denmark.
The Government must calculate whether such a move - or the perception of it - are in Ireland's long-term interests.
In making its evaluation, the Government should move with haste; by this time next year, it is likely to be too late.