The Nice Treaty commits EU member-states to a continuing process of negotiation on the political shape and capacity of the Union. A Declaration on the Future of the Union attached to the treaty calls for a "deeper and wider debate about the future of the European Union". It should involve "representatives of national parliaments and all those reflecting public opinion, namely political, economic and university circles, representatives of civil society etc."
This public debate is to be encouraged by the Swedish and Belgian EU presidencies this year, culminating in another declaration to be published at the summit in Laeken-Brussels next December.
This may recommend a convention process involving national parliamentarians and government representatives. It might meet for two years to pursue the debate. In 2004 it would hand over to another inter-governmental conference to reach treaty-based conclusions - partly under an Irish EU presidency in that year.
The Nice declaration identifies five issues in this debate:
Agreeing the division of "competences" between the Union and the member-states - who should do what.
Whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted as a political declaration at Nice should be given binding legal status.
Simplification of the EU treaties.
The role of national parliaments in the EU's political system.
Improving the democratic legitimacy of the EU's institutions to bring them closer to the citizens of the member-states.
Other issues could be added to this agenda over the next three years. And while most of these five areas have already been discussed quite intensively, it can be seen that taking them together could involve a radical redefinition of how the EU works and relates to the nation-states it comprises.
Major political speeches by EU leaders over the last year have addressed these issues. They have introduced a number of different options as to the desirable status of the EU, including a full federation, a federation of nation-states, a pioneer group within a larger and looser whole, and a more inter-governmental structure with many autonomous areas of co-operation. Whichever model is preferred, the process resembles a constitutional debate.
Some leaders are more categorical than others, even though they speak in an individual capacity rather than on behalf of governments. They say it is necessary to reach agreement because of the pressures of globalisation and international competition, even if citizens are as yet ill-prepared. Others say this is why the process must not be rushed or go beyond what citizens are ready to accept.
One way or another this debate will preoccupy EU leaders over the next three years. The Government may accept a Labour Party proposal to conduct it through a body similar to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation on Northern Ireland that met in the mid-1990s.
Tomorrow: Ratification timetables.
