Europe's future as a nation

Last year's divisions among European Union leaders over the draft constitution have experts wondering about Europe's future as a nation. Though aimed to simplify and unify, the draft actually made things only more complex and discordant. Getting 25 sovereign nations with different national interests, histories, religions and economies to agree on a single document that speaks for each of them, including Malta, is certainly very difficult.

The present 15 have not agreed on currency. They obviously did not concur on one foreign policy during the Iraqi war. On October 30, last year, the Financial Times stated that "The European Commission... warned that the road to final agreement looked more perilous than ever... In all there are more than 100 areas in the policy-related part of the constitution alone for which countries have submitted amendments".

Many of the issues concern smaller countries being afraid of being bullied by Germany and France, along with other large states of the Union. I am afraid that if a number of Labour supporters would boycott June's European parliament elections, Malta, like other small states, will be swallowed by a behemoth Union and lose our voice within the cemented mass.

Besides, some eastern European states fear that, having gained their freedom from one federal, Soviet empire, they are about to lose it to another.

Other scepticism arises over the creation of a European foreign minister position. The UK doesn't like the term "foreign minister" because it implies a single government which is exactly what the EU is going for. Britain also opposed the proposed common defence policy which states that "member states shall certainly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".

Another idea being floated is a two-tiered Europe, with France and Germany included in one tier and some of the smaller nations of the Union in another. This has been considered by Eurocrats since the early 1980s. We know that larger states, particularly Germany, will carry the lion's share within the EU.

A series of articles in Le Monde (November 2003), exposed the idea that it seems that Paris and Berlin were considering a stronger alliance in order to cement their domination of the EU. Germany and France were acting on fears that they may lose much of their influence when the 10 new nations are added to the Union next May.

Talk of this Franco-German axis, I remember the asse Roma-Berlino rapidly increase uneasiness in the rest of Europe, especially in Britain. I fear that all this will leave Malta a mere vassal state dancing to the Franco-German tune.

Readers certainly remember when, during the summit last year, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, not present at a particular meeting, delegated President Jacques Chirac to speak on France and Germany's behalf. Germany is not satisfied with a federal union where every nation is equal. She uses its relations with France to disguise its aims for pre-eminence in the EU politics.

On top of the above political hurdles are Europe's economic difficulties. The cause of this economic failure will be the fiscal cost of supporting the EU and the ultimate refusal of the main paying state (Germany) to meet its obligations.

Then there is the issue of religion. Giscard d'Estaing and friends kept agonising over the issue throughout the 16-month drafting of the constitution. Staunch Catholic nations want direct reference to Christianity while secular democracies want no reference to religion at all. Some fear that a reference to Christianity will polarise it against the Muslim and Jewish world.

Finally I ask: Are the divisions plaguing the EU today only bringing us closer to a time when terrifying leadership takes hold of our continent, sending more millions to the same abysmal suffering of the years 1914-1918 and 1939-1945?