Poland standing firm
It is an article of faith in Brussels that the EU is based on compromise. What is less often said is that sheer bloody-mindedness also often pays dividends. The most obvious example was the way in which Margaret Thatcher handbagged her way to securing a British rebate in the 1980s. The Spanish have also always done well by their ferocious insistence on not leaving the negotiating table until they secure what they want - whether on structural funds or voting weight in the council of ministers. The latest country to adopt these tactics is, of course, Poland, which is insisting that it will not accept any new constitution that does not preserve the grossly inflated voting weight that the Poles and Spanish were awarded in the Nice treaty negotiations three years ago. The Brussels corridors are abuzz with talk of complex deals for buying off the boys from Warsaw. How about changing the threshold of what would constitute a "blocking minority"? Or reinstating the rule that big countries get two European commissioners, and counting Poland and Spain as big? Gradually, however, it is dawning on European leaders that the Poles may actually mean it when they say "Nice or nothing." Even at the opening of the intergovernmental conference (IGC) in Rome in October, Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister, sounded as if he was preparing to throw in the towel. If the Poles and Spanish do not accept the deal on the table or some compromise, he admitted, then there will be nothing to be done about it. It will be back to the voting weights agreed at Nice.
Referendum traumas ahead
For all that, it is still assumed that a deal will be reached on the new constitution. Then there is just the small matter of ratification, with an increasing number of countries committed to referendums. The Spanish are widely believed to have opted for a referendum to give themselves maximum bargaining power in the IGC. The not so subtle message is: "Screw us over voting weights and the Spanish people will kill your constitution." The Poles point out that they do not need a referendum to block an unsatisfactory outcome - every party in the Polish parliament has already said that they will reject any deal that reduces Polish voting power. The Dutch vote could also be interesting. The very fact that the Dutch are on the brink of calling their first ever European referendum is a sign of a new post-Fortuyn populism. Combine that with a recession, Dutch anger at France over the stability pact, and Dutch irritation at being one of the biggest net payers per head into the EU budget, and you might get a surprise. Irish diplomats, meanwhile, are worried that whatever the outcome of the IGC, their people are liable to say no. The two fraught referendums that were required to get the Nice treaty through in Ireland are taken as evidence that the Irish are reaching the limits of what they are prepared to accept from Brussels. Nor does it help that Bertie Ahern, the Irish prime minister, is deeply unpopular. "The whole situation's fucked," is the pithy analysis of one Irish diplomat.
Will France vote no?
An Irish or a Danish no would be one thing. But if the French rejected the constitution, the whole thing would surely be dead. Despite Gilles Andr?ani's obligatory optimism in the Prospect roundtable this month, French pro-Europeans recognise that there is a serious risk that this might happen. Unlike their Blairite counterparts, many are still in favour of a vote. Alain Lamassoure, a centre-right MEP who played a leading role in the constitutional convention, was asked by your diarist whether it was more important to have a constitution or to have a referendum. He replied-"If it is not approved by a referendum, it will not be worthy of being called a constitution." Lamassoure is already thinking about how a French campaign might be won. One of his biggest fears is that the rejectionist camp will make much of the prospect that Turkey will soon join the EU - conjuring up fears of mass immigration and huge Turkish influence. To prevent the vote on the constitution turning into a vote on Turkish accession, Lamassoure believes the yes camp would have to promise the French people that there would be another referendum on Turkey joining. If the French were to make a promise of this nature, it would be regarded as a betrayal in Ankara. But the French did once have a referendum on whether Britain should join the EEC. Amazingly, they said yes.
Jacques Delors has a plan
Meanwhile, other fine minds are dreaming up ever more exotic stratagems for winning referendums in France and elsewhere. There is much regret among diehards that the conventioneers did not write a clause into the constitution saying that any country that rejects the new treaty will be forced to leave the union. Less aggressively, there is also a growing movement to persuade all the EU countries that are having referendums to vote on the same day, perhaps in mid-June. This - it is felt - would help to create a genuine pan-European debate. It might also frighten potential no voters, since countries would be fearful of the consequences of being the only naysayer. At a recent meeting in Brussels, Jacques Delors (now nearly 80) came up with a novel idea. He suggested that the French government should promise to abolish motorway tolls, but only if France votes yes to the constitution. Now that is the kind of lateral thinking that Brussels so badly needs.
