Leaders of the European Union have given themselves until the end of 2008 to resolve their differences and difficulties over whether to scrap, rewrite or press ahead with the constitutional treaty aimed at adapting its rules to a much larger membership.
At their summit in Brussels they agreed to await elections in France and the Netherlands next year and to see whether these create a new will to compromise. This will give more time for debate and argument so as to link the need for change to political developments.
At best this is a lacklustre outcome, but it has the merit of sensible realism when there is little capacity to resolve the political impasse.
In the meantime, the process of EU enlargement which gave rise to the need for new rules continues to apply. Bulgaria and Romania are due to join next year, as agreed, subject to a final review. Croatia had hoped to follow them, but must now accept that a delay is likely, arising from this new uncertainty.
Political leaders in key member-states have not persuaded their electorates that such a large-scale expansion is necessary and desirable and need more time to do so. That this will not be an easy task was signalled by discussion at the summit on whether the EU has the capacity to absorb new members.
Implicitly and explicitly the reference is to Turkey. While the summit rejected a proposal to incorporate absorption as a new criterion, the subject is to be studied further. Turkey will not be helped in this discussion by the spat over Cyprus which erupted at this meeting.
The Turkish government is refusing to allow access for Cypriot goods to its ports and airports until the Cyprus government lifts trade restrictions against northern Cyprus. Rows such as this can be exploited by those with larger agendas against Turkish membership. It is important not to lose sight of its potential long term benefits - but this requires mutual adaptation over the next 10-15 years.
Between now and their decision on what to do about the EU constitution, leaders will emphasise concrete projects in such areas as energy, judicial co-operation and roving mobile phone charges which can catch public attention and imagination. There will be renewed efforts to make the EU's work more transparent by publicising its meetings and involving more parliamentary scrutiny of its work. These could make a genuine difference in addressing democratic shortcomings which do not need treaty change to implement. National parliaments are to get more opportunities to scrutinise and respond to legislative proposals and the European Parliament will be more involved in regulations where it has co-decision with the Commission.
These are useful incremental changes. But they need to be pushed hard to succeed. That is a task for civil society, business and media organisations as well as political parties.