The machinery of the European Union has recovered from the shock of the failed French and Dutch referenda, but not the heart that pumps it, says Aurore Wanlin.

The double “no” in France and the Netherlands is also a demand for better European democracy from the European Union and national governments alike, says Aurore Wanlin of the Centre for European Reform.

European think-tank leaders from Western and Eastern Europe addressed the following message to the June 2005 Brussels European Council.

Contrary to popular fears, the 2004 enlargement of the EU had a positive, albeit limit impact on western European economies, according to a study published today (27/04/2006).

EU co-operation in justice and home affairs (JHA) is helping the member-states to fight crossborder crime. However, having agreed ambitious innovations like the European arrest warrant in 2001, the governments have become less enthusiastic about working together at EU level. The way the EU takes decisions on criminal justice issues holds back progress. Governments agreed to fix this decision-making machinery in the EU constitutional treaty, but its rejection in 2005 has prevented the planned reforms from entering into force. Another major problem is that governments cannot agree on how best to protect their citizens’ rights if they are arrested or imprisoned in another EU country. Finland will review the Union’s JHA policies when it takes up the EU presidency in the second half of 2006. The Finns should devote a European Council solely to JHA, to come up with some practical solutions to the current problems, such as inadequate rules for decision-making.

The EU has begun debating what to do in response to the rejection of the draft European constitution by French and Dutch voters in referendums last year.

Austria’s priorities for its EU presidency are: the future of the EU constitution; jobs and growth; and EU enlargement to the Balkans. But much of the presidency’s time will be taken up by more pressing issues, such as getting the European Parliament to pass the EU budget or dealing with Iran and bird flu. Austrians are the most eurosceptic people in the EU. With elections coming up in the autumn, the government of Wolfgang Schüssel will not have much room for manoeuvre during its presidency. Schüssel’s idea – backed by Germany and the European Parliament – of reviving the EU constitution is unrealistic. EU countries will waste time and energy on a renewed institutional debate at a time when they should be focusing on economic reform, the EU neighbourhood and global issues.

Western European politicians should stop exploiting populist fears of low wage competition.

EU leaders must champion an interpretation of the French and Dutch referendum results that recognises them for what they are: the expression of popular sentiment on a range of domestic and European issues, of which the Draft Constitution was only one. The two referendums were not a definitive vote by a majority of the electorate on the idea of the Constitution. The results were more likely a repudiation of existing elite-driven processes of EU reform, though even that interpretation is open to question. Further serious analysis of the two results to establish actual voter sentiment in both countries on the draft Constitution is essential. EU leaders must change course on the timetable for ratification of the draft Constitutional Treaty. This does not have to mean abandoning its contents or visions. As polling on voter sentiment at the time of the referendums has shown, the draft itself is simply not politically contentious for the majority of voters. Suspending the ratification process for a couple of years may be the minimum amount of time required for future success. A review of the referendum process itself is also needed. It may be desirable for any future referendums on EU constitutional issues to be held simultaneously with national elections. Not only does this make economic common sense, but will allow voters to express a range of views, both on their government’s performance and the referendum question. As such, in the medium term, the European Council must adopt a policy of reform based on a more sensible approach to use of referendums to ratify major changes.