IN THE early 18th century Poland experimented with a new "ultra democratic" way of running its affairs. The parliament, or Sejm, adopted the liberum veto rule of unanimity which meant that all any MP needed to do to block legislation was to shout out "nie pozwalam" - "I do not permit."
The formula was not a success, to put it mildly. It was an invitation to inertia and corruption, eagerly taken up by Russia. Effectively it left power outside the Sejm in the hands of a few competing great families who shamelessly courted foreign powers to prop up their ambitions.
The ungovernable Commonwealth lapsed into anarchy and went into a terminal decline - not entirely, I hasten to add due to the voting system in the Sejm. But the story of the decline of what was promising to become one of the world's first liberal democracies makes a salutary parable for our time.
The EU today begins the process of reinventing itself in a refurbished Fiat factory in Turin. Heads of government and foreign ministers assemble for the launch of the treaty changing Inter Governmental Conference, a process likely to last 15 months - not least because of the propensity of one of the members to shout "nie pozwalam."
There is no doubt that the opening will be soured by this week's ban on the export of British beef, and not just because it will have affected the temper of the British Prime Minister, Mr Major. The use of a qualified majority vote of member states in the Standing Veterinary Committee on Tuesday evening went to the heart of the IGC's debate.
In part it is a question of efficiency, in part one rooted in fundamental values of political philosophy. At the simplest level the Union must ask itself whether a system of co operation between states which rests in many key areas on national vetoes - already creaking at 15 - can function at all at 27 after the enlargements to eastern Europe that all agree are necessary.
At another level, it is about whether one believes that the great creation of the age of capitalism, the nation state, is being surpassed in an age of globalisation and interdependence by the need to develop supra national forms of co operation.
The German Chancellor, Dry Kohl comes here to make the case for the pooling of some sovereignty. Mr Major will make the case for a Europe of the nation states, "inter governmentalism" and the national veto.
In between there is a huge range of alternatives. Indeed, the uniqueness of the EU consists in the simultaneous, complementary use of the two forms of interstate co operation in different "pillars" or areas of competence. The issue facing the IGC is not one or the other, but of how far to shift the balance.
Ireland, which has decisively joined the ranks of the federalisers this week with the publication of its foreign policy White Paper, accepts the case for less veto voting, but not when it comes to Common Foreign and Security Policy and some areas of, justice co operation.
The White Paper argues that the problem is not simply about how to take a decision, but how to invest it with credibility and give it weight internationally. That requires working on a consensus. And although the extension of qualified majority voting (QMV) is seen by many as the key test of the success of the IGC the position is in reality far more nuanced.
Briefing journalists the other day, the French ambassador to the EU, Mr Philippe de Boissieu, teased backs with a demonstration of how by simply drafting a treaty clause in the negative one could change the interest of a member state in whether QMV was used on the issue. (The case cited was a clause requiring - or, alternatively, exempting - the citizens of certain member states to have visas before entering the EU).The conference will not be able to avoid the question of whether integration should be allowed to proceed at different paces. There is general agreement that this should be possible, but fundamental differences between Franco German proposals to allow faster movement within the framework of the Union and to a common purpose, and British willingness to see states picking and choosing the bits of the Union that they want. Any new ground broken, they believe, should be in alliances, like the Schengen agreement on passport free travel, outside the Union's ambit.
The conference will also face pressure from the larger states to rebalance voting in their favour in the Council of Ministers and to change the rotating presidency. Any suggestion the smaller states should lose their right to nominate a commissioner will be resisted stoutly.
There is general agreement, however, on the need to simplify legislative procedures from 23 to three, and to restructure decision making in the cumbersome and much criticised field of justice and home affairs.
Much noise will be made about the need to address concerns of ordinary citizens on issues like jobs and drugs. Few genuinely believe that the employment related treaty changes being proposed by the likes of the Commission and the Swedes, will actually add to the Union's ability to deal with joblessness.
Turin is the first very small step. It is a setting out of positions. The IGC will be a pit stop, not the first, but a significant overhaul. Beyond that ... another IGC.
