Writing a constitution is difficult and exacting work, calling on skills capable of articulating fundamental values and legal processes in a simple and accessible way.
When such work is done between states and not within them it is all the more ambitious and demanding. Measured by such yardsticks, the latest draft articles of the constitutional treaty for the European Union, published yesterday in Brussels, have made substantial progress. While this still leaves major issues unresolved, anyone following the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe will find here a clear statement of principles and procedures to govern an enlarged EU, with a reasoned commentary explaining why changes have been made.
This draft will now be considered by the convention's 105 members, drawn from governments and national parliaments of existing and prospective EU member-states and the EU's own institutions. They will have one final chance to amend this draft before the executive praesidium directing the convention's business, chaired by Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, produces a final consensus document. Whether that can be agreed depends on three more weeks of intense discussion and negotiation. A deadline is set by the EU summit in Thessaloniki on June 20th, which will refer the draft to a conference between the governments to agree a treaty.
This process has been much more open and accessible than previous treaty negotiations, even if it has not engaged public attention and involvement as fully as was hoped. It must therefore be regarded as a qualified success so far. The new constitution will be much simpler and easier to understand. It spells out values, objectives, fundamental rights, citizenship and political principles. The EU's complex three-tier decision-making structure would be unified, as would its voting and legal competences. It will have a legal personality allowing adherence to international treaties. There will be a stronger and more coherent foreign, security and defence policy.
But a great deal remains to be agreed in coming days. There is outright disagreement on how the EU's institutions should be defined and relate to one another. Yesterday's document leaves proposals for a full-time appointed president of the EU still on the table, as is that for a single nominee for president of the European Commission. Representation on the Commission is also divisive, especially between the larger and smaller member-states.
The Minister with responsibility for European Affairs, Mr Dick Roche, has attacked the institutional proposals as an attempt by the large states to grab power and change the existing political balances. If they are successful much of the convention's good work would be undone, since the unique relationship between representation and decision-making would be undermined. Finding a way to resolve this problem is the major challenge facing the convention in its final stages.