EU-Council president Angela Merkel announced with regard to the EU-summit on 21/22 June that the substance of the European constitution must be kept but one could get rid of the symbols. This magic formula "keeping the substance and renouncing the symbols" pleases a number of governments, neglecting however that symbols mean substance and the deletion of those elements of the Treaty represents a political loss.

1. The Name

It starts with the name. The future EU treaty shall no longer be called Constitutional Treaty but "Reform Treaty" to the existing Nice Treaty. With the deletion of the word "Constitution" a vision for the European Union gets lost. The term "European Constitution" should reveal that the EU is more than a common market and a monetary union. The notion of "Constitutional Treaty" indicated and demanded the perspective of a Political Union and a visible ambition of creating not only a Europe of governments but a Europe of citizens. Most explicitly, the resistance against a citizens' Europe is expressed by Czech president Vaclav Klaus: he clearly wants that the EU must only work with the governments and their administrations and that the citizens should not be given possibilities of intervention in European affairs. The loss of the term "Constitution" will be noticeable only in the coming years. It might well take a long time until a new attempt for such a fundamental treaty can be made.

2. EU Symbols

Some governments argue that the EU symbols, such as the flag with the twelve stars and Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" were the reasons for the No to the constitution in their country. The Dutch head of state Balkenende put the deletion of symbols on the top of his wish list for changes. The deletion eliminates the very few elements for identification with the "European Union". Commonly, the EU is perceived as "Brussels", and described as a bureaucratic construction. Europe should have a "soul" demanded years ago the former president of the EU Commission, Jacques Delors. The deletion of symbols shows clearly that a "soul" for the EU is not wanted by some politicians and the non-relationship between the Union's citizens and the Union's institutions should be kept further in the future.

3. European Foreign Minister

Great Britain demands to delete the term "European Foreign Minister". By taking away the name "Minister" one wants to avoid a public impression that there might be a real common foreign policy in the EU. With the notion of foreign "minister" the Constitutional Treaty wanted to clarify that the EU's top-personnel can be elected and deselected in the future. The word "foreign minister" was furthermore an attempt to point out that the EU Commission is not a bureaucratic agency but the executive - the "government"- of the EU. Some member states want to stop this development by all means.

4. European Laws

A loss in transparency will be the re-naming of the "European laws" into the hitherto existing term "regulation". Here as well, a subliminal deception of the public takes place. In all national states regulations are sub-legal norms that can also be decreed by administrations. In the EU however, "laws" are valid for 500 million citizens. Instead of creating a better understanding the re-naming of the EU norms into regulations and directives reinstalls the misunderstandings for EU legislation.

5. Charter of Fundamental Rights

A real dip in the pond is the attempt to delete the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union from the treaty. The fear, in particular in Great Britain argues that the Charter would create new competences for the EU. Great Britain already limited with horizontal articles the scope of the charter to the established EU competences. This was enforced again by even further reaching formulations in the Constitutional Treaty. Now, Downing Street N° 10 undertakes the third attempt to destroy the Charter of Fundamental Rights. At this moment the "red line" should be crossed for other member states. The European Parliament clearly stated that a new European Treaty without the judicial liability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights cannot be accepted.

6. The "Amended treaty"

With the "Reform Treaty" announced by Angela Merkel the fundamental part of the Treaty (part I) will be vanished and the Charter on Fundamental Rights (part II) will be banned into an annex as a protocol. The hard to read and to understand part III on policies and procedures within the EU will remain. The formula of the "simplified Treaty" most probably brings about higher complexity instead of more simplicity.

Conclusions

The genesis of the European Constitution since the Laeken Declaration of 2001 clearly shows that there are still different philosophies for the European integration. The dispute between intergouvernementalists and integrationists continues unabated. The lessons learned from the constitutional crisis first needs to be reflected. After the enlargement to 27 member states the consolidation of the EU will not come in the quick way the friends of Europe thought. This will have consequences for further EU enlargement approvals and for constellations within the EU. If the blockade continues a Europe of two speeds or even two tears with an avant-garde of willing countries cannot be prevented. The consolidation of the European Union was delayed by the resistance against the Constitution. But at the end, the European integration cannot be stopped because the challenges of the 21st century demand not less but more Europe.