[Adrien]

Sorry if this source is in french but it's the only thing i had to back up what i am going to say..

http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3214--322775-,00.html

Yesterday, the responsible of the project of Constitution, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing met the representants of the institutions he wants to change: european deputies, direct representants of the government, members of the Commission, etc..

And things don't look very good for him: the gap between the two sides (for and against) is getting larger, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing totally changed his "alliances", and Mr. Blair claims loud that England won:

http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3214--321944-,00.html

[FCP]

I question the need for a European constitution. A common foreign policy? The UK and France?

[Siberian Fox]

There is no question that Europe needs a constitution - the treaty of Rome must be re-written to accomodate the expansion of the EU to include the former Warsaw-Pact countries. The existing institutions would grind to a halt, which is in nobody's interests.

The only questions are those of the powers and balance of the new Europe - ie there probably won't be a common foreign policy for quite some time.

[Adrien]

I posted on another post how i would see the european institutions, and i must say that i don't see them the way the Commission for the new Constitution do.

The fact is that if we claim to be a Union, something that could offer a counter power of even just something that would coordinate the European continent, we must give ourselves the institutions of a Union, especially now that we are going to be 25.

Like you said Fox the balance of power is important: with such a number of countries in the Union, we can't stay to this big trio UK-Germany-France, we must act like a Union, with an equal voice for everybody.

Again, we claim to be a Union, let's act like one.

[kcsefalvay]

FCP!

You doubt that a common foreign policy could exist, with Britain and France in the ring? You're not alone!

France has been displaying some sort of longing after the highest constant grade of military independence (e.g. by leaving the military part of the NATO), yet, it's important to see that they have been party to the EU's CFSP (Common Security and Foreign Policy). More to come tomorrow.

[kcsefalvay]

The CFSP is a highly integrative element of European foreign relations, and it's role as the binding element between Great Britain and France is undoubtable. However, the failure of the WEU (West-European Union) carries one important lesson for all of us: there is no such a thing as a common European military interest, and the basement of Europe's integrity may not rest on military issues! Thus, demanding obedience central command in military and defense issues from Europe's nations would not only be impossible, but even its attempt would tear the slighly disturbed bonds between some countries apart!

The Treaty of Rome - Mr. Fox is massively right on this point - has to be rewritten, because an entire paradigm change has happened! Actually, it is quite a delay that we think on this topic only now: 12 years after the party has started, a fairly drunk and inattractive old man is limping into the ballroom and wants the hottest women for a dance - who wouldn't laugh? Such is the EU: it missed the methaphorical bus, and is now quite nervous because of the 10 years that have passed. What would have been needed 1992 was not the Maastricht Treaty as we know it, but one that shows adaptation to the new world order: one that integrates what is now to be done regarding accomodation of the new member states.

To be concluded.