MEPs will consider the fine print of the Amsterdam summit agreement at a special parliamentary session in Brussels on June 25th and 26th. Support is mounting in Parliament for a block on any further enlargement of the EU until wholesale institutional reforms are undertaken to enable a much larger union to operate efficiently.
Decisions on such questions as the number of commissioners are left over for another day, and the member states are deadlocked over how far to develop a foreign policy with a defence dimension. MEPs meeting in Strasbourg in the week before the Summit voted 298 to 76 with 86 abstentions in favour of a resolution which trusts that no enlargement negotiations will be concluded in practice before the necessary institutional reforms have been introduced". Negotiations are due to take place with Cyprus in the next six months, but Parliament can veto the accession of any new member state if it considers the EU has not been streamlined sufficiently for the next century.
And this does not mean allowing a select few to speed ahead, using the so-called "flexibility" or "enhanced co-operation" clause. As far as the integrity of the union, and especially the internal market is concerned, MEPs want the EU to stick together. Policies should apply across the board.
Against this, however, there is satisfaction at the belated recognition of an absence of democratic controls and safeguards on fundamental rights, on such issues as asylum and police co-operation.
Here, decisions are generally taken behind closed doors on an intergovernmental basis. There is no proper supervision by the European Parliament or national parliaments, a point acknowledged by the Dutch Foreign Minister and out-going President-in-Office of Council, Hans van Mierlo.
But his explanation of a new more efficient way of foreign policy-making, by taking implementing decisions by majority vote and still allowing one member state the possibility to object, showed just how difficult it is to find a consensus on how to move forward in this area.
In the debate, it was jobs, and how to bring down the number of Europe's 18 million unemployed, that dominated proceedings.
There was support for a more concerted EU action, and for the employment chapter to be written into the Treaty, as well as a more flexible approach to the labour market.
Making the EU more visible and bringing closer to the citizens was another theme. The party of European Socialists' leader, Pauline Green underlined the importance of strengthening fundamental rights. Transparency - making the EU, especially the Council, more open in its proceedings - and a willingness to publicise its activities, was another of her concerns.
Gerard Collins (Munster, UFE) was concerned with making the EU more visible to the citizen. He also wanted action taken on the jobs front, where he pointed out that unemployment in the EU was double that of the USA and three times the level in Japan, in other words, unacceptably high. He particularly wanted more answers given on action to help young people, to make EU companies more competitive and for the EU itself to attract more investment.
He urged against the adoption of any measures that could put an increased burden on firms or threaten productivity. There was a need to improve skills, and as far as trade with third countries was concerned, he urged the adoption of true reciprocity. As he put it, there was no point in the EU liberalising trade if other countries were not prepared to do the same.
Jim Nicholson (Northern Ireland, IEN) felt too little account was being taken of the genuine concerns of the citizen, and that the Council and Commission were once again engaged in artificial arguments. As to the future and the single currency, he pointed out that moves to get there had resulted in national finances being drained and citizens paying the price in high unemployment. The EU should be careful not to destroy what had already been achieved, he said.