Analysis/EU: EU leaders did their best to talk up the outcome of the European Council meeting yesterday but in truth there was little to get excited about.
Arguments over semantics rather than solving the big institutional questions hanging over Europe took centre stage.
The summit, which was billed last June as an opportunity to kick start the process of fundamental reform of the EU, put off most of the tricky questions amid entrenched divisions among member states over what to do with the EU constitution.
Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel of Austria, which holds the presidency, put the best spin he could on proceed- ings, declaring the one-year "period of reflection" on the constitution over in one breath, only to usher in what he described as a two-year "period of analysis" with the next.
Even the debate on enlargement got bogged down in technical language such as defining what the term "absorption capacity" actually meant and whether it is a criterion the EU can use to prevent an accession state joining the union. In the end EU leaders decided it wasn't a strict criterion, but asked the European Commission to prepare a report on the concept for a debate on enlargement scheduled for December.
"It wasn't as bad as it could have been," joked France's president Jacques Chirac when entering his press conference, but Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern, who stood in for the Taoiseach at the summit, probably spoke for many when he admitted he would have preferred to be elsewhere.
The formal conclusions of the European Council reflect the verbal gymnastics practised by politicians and officials during the 10 hours of talks over two days.
On institutional reform, EU leaders agreed a deadline to reach a decision on a "further reform process" by the second half of 2008 but there was no explicit mention of a final deadline for ratification of the constitution or a new institutional agreement.
Member states remain hopelessly divided on whether to ditch the EU constitution following its rejection by Dutch and French voters last year or to try and breathe new life into the treaty by amending it or putting it to voters again in a new referendum.
President Chirac reiterated his belief that it was very unlikely the same constitutional text would be voted on again by the French people, while Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero said Spain wanted the constitution, which it has ratified, implemented in full.
The stark differences between member states' positions meant the summit conclusions on the constitution amounted to little. Instead of outlining what should be done, they simply called on the German presidency in the first half of 2007 to prepare a new report on how to move forward.
Yet behind the official declarations there is increasing acceptance that the EU constitution in its current form will not be implemented. The British favour a name change while the French favour "cherrypicking" the best parts of the treaty for a new slimmed down version that could be either voted on again or ratified by parliament. Even European Commission president José Manuel Barroso is now hinting that the constitution will need to be amended.
But with 15 states having already completed the ratification process, amending the text of the treaty is politically difficult. Member states would prefer to wait until the French and Dutch hold elections next year before deciding a way forward.
Instead of focusing on an institutional settlement that is currently impossible, the EU needs to focus on concrete results, said Mr Schüssel, simultaneously publishing a list of 26 EU projects that are delivering results for Europe's citizens. These included: the services directive, more transparent decision-making, a proposed European Institute of Technology and a common energy market.
The summit tried hard to deliver good public relations but with the EU likely to expand to 27 members with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in January, many pro-Europeans are concerned the current divisions over the way forward may just get worse.
The mood of diplomats and journalists at the meeting was downbeat, reflecting the impasse on the treaty. EU leaders will return to the institutional debate next year hoping for a better atmosphere and a deal.