The autumn season in European Union politics has opened dramatically with the Swedish electorate's rejection of the euro. This setback for deeper integration cannot but frame the negotiations beginning next month on a new constitutional treaty for the EU, building on the text agreed in June by the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The European Commission's proposals for these negotiations show its ambitions for substantial change to that text have not been dimmed by the Swedish vote, nor by the prospect that they will be rejected by a number of the governments who control the process.
The Commission president, Mr Romano Prodi, said they wish to preserve most of the Convention's compromises, but to concentrate on making some improvements "so that Europe can work effectively and democratically". With this objective they want to see more majority voting in specified areas (including taxation), greater economic governing powers for the eurozone states, an amended structure for representation on the Commission and an easier procedure for amending the EU's founding charter in future.
It is certainly a short list of changes, but definitely not an insignificant one. Most of the proposals were pressed unsuccessfully by the Commission's representatives in the Convention. And while the Commission is only one player in inter-governmental conferences, and not a determining one, if the other players bring similarly ambitious lists onto the agenda there is the likelihood that the Convention's compromises would be unravelled. That would lead to a more difficult negotiating exercise than is currently envisaged. The Irish presidency from January to June next would have to steer it, adding enormously to its burden of work.
The Commission remains unreconciled to the limited agreement on extending majority voting reached by the Convention. Along with several large member-states, it still wants to see the national veto go on taxation and budgetary affairs, despite repeated pledges by the Irish and British governments to preserve it. Nonetheless its basic argument - that a national right of veto will spell paralysis for the enlarged union - is certainly plausible. In the same way the case made for amending revision of the most technical parts of the treaty makes good sense, as does its proposal that each state be represented on the Commission, with a clustering of responsibilities.
The Commission is determined to preserve its distinctive role in the EU's structures, which deserves support. But it must also take account of political realities in the climate of these negotiations.