EU Constitution Talks Collapse

Leaders at a European Union summit in Brussels failed to agree Saturday on a proposed constitution intended to reduce disproportionate voting clout wielded by medium-sized countries, exposing fault lines of conflict widened by resentment of “Old Europe” dominance and the Iraq war.

The two-day summit that ended Saturday was a chronicle of a failure foretold. Even before the summit, the worsening political rifts of recent years -- on the constitution, the U.S.-led war, EU budget rules and other issues large and small -- had made an accord very unlikely.

Despite high-level wheeling and dealing, Spain and Poland on Saturday refused to accept new voting rules demanded by Germany, France and others as the 15-nation union prepares to incorporate 10 new member states -- Poland included. Under a treaty agreed to by all EU members three years ago, Spain and Poland were granted nearly the same number of votes in the EU governing body as Germany, which has about twice the population of each.

The outcome, at least in the short term, was more of an embarrassment than a calamity. The cumbersome decision-making structure and wildly disparate political and cultural makeup of the EU have hindered decisions even on minor issues, let alone a landmark step like a constitution. At the same time, Europe has achieved once-unthinkable breakthroughs, such as a common currency and less rigid internal borders, with remarkable smoothness.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who along with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi played a mediating role in Brussels, predicted that negotiations will resume and advance in the coming months.

“To look at this in apocalyptic terms is rather misguided,” Blair said. “I think, ultimately, it will be resolved.”

Nonetheless, the latest round of acrimony in Brussels gave new ammunition to Euro-skeptics in Britain and elsewhere who regard the EU as fundamentally divided, dysfunctional and distant from its citizens -- even before it swells to an entity overseeing a population of 450 million.

One major EU bloc is dominated by France and Germany, the founding members of the union. As the biggest and richest nations of the region, Paris and Berlin regard themselves as the rightful leaders of Europe’s advance toward its dream of a “United States of Europe.”

The Franco-German-led bloc clashes often with Spain, Italy and the Central and Eastern European newcomers, which -- along with their frequent ally Britain -- tend to resent France and Germany for throwing their weight around. The perception of Franco-German bullying was expressed Saturday by Poland’s foreign minister when he summed up the significance of the dispute for his country.

“We’re talking about compromise or domination,” Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz said.

A recent sore point: The French and German governments this year found themselves in violation of EU-mandated budget deficit targets but eluded sanctions assigned to other violators in the past.

And it is no coincidence that while Britain, Spain, Italy and the new nations are resolutely pro-U.S. and supported the war in Iraq, France and Germany opposed the war -- and as a result are mired in a nasty diplomatic feud with Washington.

Berlusconi of Italy, the country that currently holds the rotating EU presidency, told journalists Saturday that the blame for the failure to reach an agreement should be shared by all the leaders of the 15 current EU members and the 10 nations, mainly from the former Communist bloc, that will be incorporated next year.

“The positions were in complete conflict. If we want to assign responsibility, we must assign it to all the countries that were on one side or the other,” said Berlusconi, who had spent weeks wrangling for a compromise accord. “Unfortunately, there was total disagreement.”

The dispute boils down to a simple question of numbers complicated by labyrinthine politics and mind-numbing procedures. The new voting rules sought by Germany and France would require decisions to pass by a simple majority vote if the nations voting together represented more than 60% of the total EU population.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder accused other leaders of “defending their interests over and above the European interest.” He warned of the danger that some nations will forge ahead with integration while leaving others behind.

“If we don’t manage in the foreseeable future to reach a consensus, then there will emerge a Europe of two speeds,” Schroeder said. “That would be the logic of such a final failure.”

In fact, however, Europe moves at multiple speeds and in disparate directions depending on the politics of the moment.

French President Jacques Chirac made no friends among the newcomer countries last year when he upbraided them for a statement backing the war. Chirac has also exchanged bitter words with Blair, whose reluctant voters have prevented Britain from adopting the euro currency and otherwise embracing integration into the EU structure.

Worsening tensions and suspicions, former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing oversaw the writing of the constitution. The document’s lengthy preamble was described by a British diplomat quoted recently in the Economist magazine as “pompous and pretentious, but at first view not actively dangerous.”

Defending his stubborn resistance at the summit, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar alluded to past squabbles when he said that he didn’t understand why “when some defend some interests they are pro-Europe, and if others defend other interests, they are selfish.”