Why all the fuss?

Similarly, in its description of the EU8217;s institutions, the Treaty essentially summarises existing law. Some new provisions8212;such as the weighing of national votes in the councils of the Union8212;have been, and will continue to be, widely discussed. Provisions like those setting up a commission of 258212;and perhaps soon, 30 members8212;will probably be changed before long, because they are simply not viable. In any case, it is certain that the current text of the Treaty will not survive more than two centuries as has the United States8217; Constitution, or even two decades.

So why are so many intelligent politicians making such a fuss? Europe, one must realise, is as much about symbolic acts as it is about tangible realities. This is why it has the curious quality that sometimes you see it and sometimes you don8217;t. British Prime Minister Tony Blair had said for a long time that the Treaty was a mere tidying-up exercise and therefore not to be taken too seriously. Then the symbolic debate overwhelmed him and he changed tack entirely.

Indeed, to almost everyone8217;s surprise, he now promises a referendum on the Treaty and says that this will decide once and for all whether Britain is in or out of the Union. A similar debate is taking place in Sweden. Elsewhere, notably in Germany and France, such sweeping claims have been made for the so-called Constitution that the few who actually look at the draft must wonder why its 125, mostly dense if not opaque, pages of text should save Europe.

Charles Grant, the head of Britain8217;s Centre for European Reform, has speculated on what would happen 8216;8216;if Britain votes No8217;8217;. If it was just Britain, he argues, there would indeed be pressure for the country to vote again as Denmark did in 1992 and Ireland in 2001, or to remove the country from the Union to some sort of associate status. If several others, and not just 8216;8216;small countries8217;8217;, also vote No, there will be a tendency according to Grant, especially in France and Germany, 8216;8216;to move ahead with a core Europe8217;8217;.

But what, one must ask, would this 8216;8216;core Europe8217;8217; do? In particular, how would the governments of any 8216;8216;core Europe8217;8217; deal with the fact that, as the European elections in early June have shown, their own peoples are far from enthusiastic about the Union?

All this suggests conclusions that give pause for thought. It appears that in the absence of substantive policy projects, the European Union has turned inward, producing a document that claims to be far more than it actually is. Where people have a say, they will express considerable doubts, as they did in the recent European elections. Indeed, the older and more embedded democracy is in European countries, the more sceptical are their citizens towards the claims of the constitutional treaty. Thus, the gap between visions of Europe and the reality of the EU is growing.

What is to be done if one believes in the real Europe and its common purposes? The first requirement is to reduce the temperature of the debate about the Treaty. Unsustainable claims should not be made for it. The enlarged Europe can survive without it. The second requirement is to give more prominence to the real Europe. The single market is far from complete. There are major unresolved issues in the 8216;8216;near-abroad8217;8217; of the enlarged Union, in Eastern Europe, and in the Balkans. In short, the order of the day should be less abstract worry about Europe8217;s identity and more practical action to define it in deeds, not symbols.

Ralf Dahrendorf, author of numerous acclaimed books and a former European Commissioner from Germany, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former rector of the London School of Economics, and a former warden of St Antony8217;s College, Oxford