Europa ante un debate existencial, más allá de la Constitución

The impact of France and Holland’s rejection of the European Constitution is analyzed in-depth in this article. In the first instance, this “no” vote raises serious debate on the future of the Constitution and the European Union’s conceptual and geographic boundaries, a debate that, in the author’s opinion, is centered on the final objective of integration. In order to illustrate his point, Stephan Sberro points out that the institutional challenge posed by the expansion of the European Union has not been met, i.e. how to make a system devised for six nations function for 25 and achieve a balance between small, medium and large States. This situation, he says, has been exacerbated by other crises, such as the US invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, the successful adoption of the Constitution obscured underlying problems in the European Union. In this context, the author explains why ratification was impossible, the role played by the United Kingdom and the impact of disputes surrounding the budget and the Common Agricultural Policy. The author concludes that, as a process, the ratification of the European Constitution —although interrupted— had its merits, such as allowing the mass participation of civil society. Its rejection by France and Holland unveiled a crisis that has sparked off an existential dilemma for the European Union, yet this selfsame crisis constitutes an important step forward in the building of the Europe of the future.