Where Silvio Berlusconi created waves during his presidency of the European Union, Bertie Ahern has gone out of his ways to prevent feathers being ruffled. It is understandable, therefore, that he must be hoping to succeed where his predecessor failed in his efforts to turn the draft European constitution into a document that will "run" a much enlarged Union. Yet, this may be the most critical aspect of the constitution as it is set forth. It is trying to "run" too many areas of government when it should be doing the opposite.

Mr Ahern is no novice to politics. He has established a deep personal relationship with most of the leaders of the countries that make up the EU. He has spent 17 years wandering the various corridors of Brussels. Despite his calm outward demeanour, he was once praised, or damned, by a predecessor as "the most devious, the most cunning, the most ruthless of them all".

Today and tomorrow he will be tested as never before. European leaders are divided over their attitude to the lugubrious document hammered out by Valery Giscard d'Estaing. Its main critics point to the sheer length and wordiness of the document (something like 240 pages as opposed to the two dozen pages or so of what the Americans had signed in 1789). Where fine minds forged by the War of Independence drew up a document that remains truly lofty to this day, the European constitution builders seem to have gone out of their way to create a draft that is clumsy, over-long and uninspiring.

The European draft as it stands will not easily overcome British fears that Brussels is attempting to do too much that is best left to individual countries. Where the draft tends to bring about more centralisation, Britain and other countries are insisting for more devolution. Where France and Germany want to see a more integrated Europe, Britain would like to have key areas - what Mr Blair has called Britain's "red lines" - left outside Brussels' remit.

There still remains the business of the national veto versus majority voting and the weight of national votes, on which, among other things, last December's effort to achieve agreement on the draft constitution was finally shipwrecked. Malta should have no truck with a document that does not allow the national veto on such matters as tax and social security. Our economy is too small to disallow the local government tackling both within the context of such an economy.

Also a number of countries, including Malta, Poland, Italy and Ireland, wish to see a reference to God or Christianity in the preamble to the constitution as a self-evident acknowledgement of Europe's basic identity. More secular states, including France, disagree. Will this be a sticking point or will the die be cast in favour of a secular outcome? We hope this will not be the case and that Malta, little as it is, will see to it that it is not.

Elections across Europe last weekend demonstrated for the most part that the majority of voters all over the continent were underwhelmed by the experience and, rightly or wrongly, preferred to replace the European question with matters pertaining to local affairs. This was a great pity but it makes it all the more important for the European leaders now assembled in Brussels to avoid signing a document that may alienate their voters from the European experience even more.