The setback at French and Dutch referendum on proposed European Union constitution shows that popular support for further European integration has not been studied well by European planners. It is one of the confounding setbacks of the present time. In plainest term, the French and Dutch 'NO' has brought plans for European integration down to the earth, to the people's level. It has added a new aspect of social and human issue to European integration. There is a strong need for making EU more than a trade and commerce club run by monetarist rigidity. In fact Pax Europa is an ideal ahead of its time! The condition for it has not yet matured, murmur European observers.

Europe has seen considerable successes since the Rome Treaty of 1957 established European Economic Community. A democratic society throughout the continent, albeit in a weaker state in the former soviet republics, makes pluralist and tolerant polity its major gain. The values of personal freedom, security and justice, supportive jobs, and environmental protection etc. are worthy achievements. In spite of all these gains the French and the Dutch rejected the proposed European constitution. It is a matter for European leaders and planners to ponder over.

It is particularly surprising that the French who led the idea of European integration have rejected the constitution. The idea of European Union came into being when the then French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed the integration of the coal and steel industry of Europe on 9 May, 1950. Accordingly France along with five other states, Belgium, West Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Italy formed European Coal and Steel Community ECSC in 1951. The 9th of May is now observed as Europe Day.

It acted as catalytic agent in the formation of European Atomic Energy Commission EURATOM and onward to the formation of European Economic Community commonly known as the Common Market.

It is evident that governmental cooperation was the driving force behind the growth of the union and in raising hopes of a united Europe. Successive governments of the member states took part in broadening the union. It is the Maastricht Treaty of 7 February 1992 that made it a major representative body by bringing into its fold cooperation in the fields of defence, justice and home affairs. The growing number of member states visualised it as a supranational body not as a replacement of states, neither as an international organisation. Peace and prosperity were the broader common goals they had in mind. It illustrates the shared will of the member states.

As far as economic integration is concerned, EU was on the right track. It focused on forming common policies in different fields of economy, security, inter state travelling, people to people contact and environment. The common policy covered agriculture, the broader aspect of trade and commerce from consumer affairs to competition, the vital energy sector and the sector to be watched -- environment, better people to people contact through cultural interaction and relaxed inter-border travelling. And the importance on coal and steel was there from the beginning.

The formation of European Monetary Union in 1992 was a major step in empowering European Union as a supranational body. It paved the way for the introduction of Euro, a common currency, replacing national currencies on January 1, 2002. For the first time a split came into the fore with Denmark, Sweden and United Kingdom opting out of it. Denmark had rejected the Maastricht Treaty in a referendum much earlier. Sweden rejected the Euro in a referendum in spite of government campaign in favour of accepting it. The Swedes found the EU programme much too monetarist to the peril of their welfare system. They had seen what it did to the German economy. It was a widely held belief that like the German economy the Swedish economy was much better organised than of the other states of Europe. England was always the odd man out in Europe. Besides, as an ally of USA it saw a 'euro-machismo' in the monetary and economic programmes of EU. Moreover they had reservations about the export of institutions into Britain. Furthermore their Central Bank and exchange commission have been largely independent even without the prescriptions of Maastricht Treaty.

The seeds of discord lay in the overbearing nature of the commercial and monetarist policies laid down in the Maastricht Treaty. It laid down three basic conditions, convergence on Maastricht Treaty, complete independence of the Central Bank and unhindered operation of the exchange commission. There is also a good ground for Europeans to believe that the treaty has been the product of predominance of economic planners who see the market before people. In article 2, it clearly states that 'The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or objectives referred to in article 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the community a harmonious development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary economic growth respecting the environment.. ... .'

As things are EU has been badly handicapped by the French and Dutch 'NO'. Those who were sceptical about the speed and direction of EU right from the beginning are now speaking of reforming it. A look at the French rejection shows that it was not the agenda of a major political party. Only the ultra-leftists and ultra-rightists were openly against it. As for the rest of the parties, Chirac's Rally for the Republic RPR (Rassemblement pour la République), the Socialists and UMP all campaigned for 'Yes'. But there were dissidents inside all the parties. They worked against the ratification. The rejection was much more decisive at the Dutch referendum, 65 percent of the Dutch said 'No' as against 55 percent French.

The European planners have failed to read the minds of the disenchanted voters. The proposed constitution was elaborate on making Europe a finely crafted market and it obviously did not unfold a vision of a Europe winning the hearts and minds of the voters. A feeling has grown among the voters, in almost all the member states that EU at Brussels is being run by economic mandarins. There are perceptions among many voters that the 'Eurocrats' are unfeeling, aloof and carry them about in such a manner that is costing Europe lot of money -- that the human and social side of Europe do not carry much consideration for EU planners. Perhaps one of the important things working in the minds of the French and Dutch voters was the fear of being swamped by Turkish immigrants. There are about 4 million Arab and Turkish expatriate community in France. The slaying of a Dutch writer also might have alienated the Dutch against Muslim immigrants.

Under the present format the EU has five institutions to perform specific tasks. These are 1) European Parliament (elected by the member states), 2) Council of the European Union (representing the governments of the member states), 3) European Commission (driving force or executive body), 4) Council of Justice (ensuring compliance with law), 5) Court of Auditors (controlling sound and lawful management of the EU budget).

The main features of the constitution endeavour to make EU a well-coordinated, clearly defined and broader supranational body subsidiary to the member states. It undertakes to bring together all the treaties and agreements relating to EU and in clearly defining the functions of its institutions. Besides it addresses the vital aspect of EU in defining where it can and act and where the member states retain the rights of veto. The constitution defines the powers of EU as subsidiary to member states and can act only in areas where "the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states but can rather be better achieved at Union level."

Tthorny issue in the proposed constitution is that it will extend the powers of EU to legislate over justice policy. EU already has powers to legislate over external trade and customs policy, the internal market, and the monetary policy of member states within eurozone. On decision-making the constitution speaks of qualified majority. By qualified majority it means " at least 55 percent of members of the Council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing member states comprising 65 percent of the population." The President of EU will be elected by qualified majority by the European Council represented by their respective heads of state or government for a term of two and half years, renewable once. The European Parliament will then approve the chosen candidate, and the President will chair the Council. EU will also have a foreign minister elected by qualified majority and who will conduct common foreign and security policy. On paper it looks befitting for a supranational body but its interpretation will lay bare many contentious issues, unless of course the member states have no lurking fear in their minds.

Integrated Europe holds out a vision of countries at peace and enjoying prosperity through common policies. This is an enlightened concept and its success may set a workable example of building peace and progress throughout the world. It has rightly chosen common economic and commercial policies for enlarging the concept. But economic policies and theories are mere servitors of big capital and accumulation of wealth unless they bring maximum good for maximum people. EU economic and commercial policies have proceeded in a manner that subjected their human and social commitment to serious scepticism. It has failed to win the hearts and minds of the French and Dutch common people.

For the time being Pax Europa has to recover from the reverses. It may not happen soon. This is the time for a candid dialogue among the EU states, a time for overcoming the lingering doubts and fears of a United Europe. Every crisis is a challenge. It is for the European leaders to prove that they can rise to the occasion and are capable of converting a crisis into a lasting gain.

Syed Maqsud Jamil is a freelance writer.