Will they or won't they get their treaty?

By the time this column appears the European Union might have managed to salvage its old constitution, albeit without some of the trimmings and embroidery. If the EU's 27 leaders have agreed to the 'treaty' that has replaced the much maligned constitution for the Union, it is still not certain it will be a done deal.

Despite German Chancellor Angela Merkel's six month long effort to revive the discarded constitution, obstacles still stand in the way even if it passed muster at the EU summit that concluded in Brussels yesterday. One problem is that even if departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair did eventually sign up to it, there is time for his successor Gordon Brown to turn it down when the time comes, probably next month.

One thing Gordon Brown would not want to do is put this before the people at a referendum. It is a risk he cannot take. And if Blair has signed up to it saying it will not do much damage to Britain's interest, Brown might want to wash his hands of it.

Merkel has been determined to get this through before she hands over the EU presidency at the end of this month. That is why last week's summit was so crucial for her. It was also the last for Tony Blair.

Though her entreaties may not fall entirely on deaf ears, trouble was looming on the horizon, as at least one member-state threatened to use its veto and others hesitated in the face of domestic opposition to an emerging "superstate". This time round the package is called the "treaty on the functioning of the union" instead of a constitution. But what's in a name? The new draft treaty is no more than a reheated version of the EU constitution proposed in 2004 and rejected by Dutch and French voters at referendums a year later.

Though some minor changes have been made to the prototype- such as the dropping of a Beethoven Ode as the EU's national anthem and the formal adoption of an EU flag- most of it remains the same.

Therein lies the rub. However much Merkel might be keen to have her Constitution Mark 2 adopted before she hands over the reins, neighbouring Poland is red in the gills and is threatening to scupper the grand, if not grandiose, scheme if its concerns are not accommodated. Poland's President Lech Kaczynski is not at all happy with the proposed change to the union's national voting system. It would sharply reduce Poland's power while substantially increasing that of Germany, Warsaw's one-time enemy.
President Karzynski is urging a fairer voting system that is not based simply on the population of each member-state.

The problem is that this particular issue was not to be discussed at the summit, though six other problem areas had been identified and were up for grabs. While Warsaw is breathing fire over the proposed cut in its voting strength and believes that acceptance of it is tantamount to caving in, the UK, a founder-member of the European Common Market that has metamorphosed into a huge Brussels bureaucracy, has other concerns over the treaty. Some here feel this is constitution-making in stealth.

Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independent Party (UKIP) that opposes the treaty and the increasing loss of British sovereignty was quoted as saying: "In essence this EU treaty will contain the provisions of the failed constitution but drop the C-word itself. It is all an exercise in deceit."

The Labour government that promised a referendum on the constitution in 2004 quickly went back on it after the Dutch and French voters threw it out. It dare not put it to the test now for fear of being turned down by the British people who are critical of the burgeoning bureaucracy and what they perceive as the gradual surrender of British sovereign right to make their own laws on key issues such as immigration, terrorism and law and order, foreign policy and human rights.

New French president Nicolas Sarkozy is dangling a carrot before Prime Minister Tony Blair, who will himself be handing over power to his successor Gordon Brown this week. Sarkozy is touting Blair as the first full-time president of the EU under the treaty. Once he leaves the premiership Blair will be a much sought-after figure in the international lecture circuit.

But that would be money without power, unlike a full time presidency of the emerging super-state which would be tempting to Blair. Despite the obvious attraction there are some provisions in the treaty that are worrying the British. More areas of EU policy will be subject to a majority vote and that is troubling the Labour government, especially with the opposition Conservatives breathing down its neck in public popularity.

Britain is bound to oppose the making of foreign and security policy subject to majority voting, particularly when it expects to tighten further its anti-terrorist and asylum laws shortly. The treaty also gives the EU its own legal personality that would allow the Union to enter into treaties with other countries in its own right which the UK does not wish.

Another major sticking point is the charter of fundamental rights that provides a raft of concessions to workers which German Chancellor Merkel hopes to see accepted. This is viewed as highly detrimental to Britain as it will give trade unions the right to challenge its labour laws."In relation to the European charter I will agree to nothing that allows Europe to alter our laws without the consent of this House," Blair told MPs' recently. This perhaps also implies that the government will not risk a referendum given the mood of the British public angered by creeping Brussels' bureaucracy. But which way would Blair jump? That was the vital question at the time of writing.