A year after our last discussion of institutional issues, where are we? We have two nos. We also have 15 yeses. We all know that institutional reform is needed; Nice is not enough. That’s why we spent so long on the Constitution. The Commission remains committed to its aims and principles.   

We need an institutional settlement. But there is no consensus yet on what it should be. So what to do? Some say “declare the Constitution dead”. Others say “the Constitution, the whole Constitution and nothing but the Constitution.” Both are dead ends.  

The way forward  the Commission proposed in its paper of 10 May is  a twin track approach.

First, the Europe of results.  To rebuild confidence, we need to show European citizens that we can deliver the policies they want.  In the past year, we have done exactly that.  Nobody can deny that agreement on the budget or on a difficult dossier like services does not leave Europeans more confident in the Union and more ambitious for the Union.  So we need to press ahead with a Europe of results.  The draft conclusions bring this out very well.

We must continue on this track; that’s why real progress, and not just words, on energy, on research, on EIT, on other parts of the Hampton Court agenda, are so important. And why we have proposed a series of new areas of action in the 10 May paper aimed at citizens; on the single market, on the new social reality of Europe, on  security, on promoting Europe’s values in the world.   

There should be no cherry picking of the Constitution. But we should use provisions from the existing Treaties to better effect – hence for example our proposal for better consultation of national parliaments. 

At the same time, we need to reach an  institutional settlement.   The problems addressed by the Constitution have not gone away – quite the contrary. 

That’s why we proposed on 10 May  a political declaration next year, the 50^th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. This is an opportunity not just to celebrate the past but to commit ourselves to the future. I think it needs endorsement not just of the member states but also of the Parliament and the Commission; we need each of the main institutions coming together on this issue.

The critics of the Union wish to paint a picture of a divided Europe uncertain of the way ahead.  The best way to frustrate them is to show the reality, a deep consensus about what the Europe of 25 or 27 is for and where it is heading.  At the moment, the Constitution cannot do this job.  A clear, short, forward-looking declaration, allied to concrete results,  would be a step towards an institutional settlement. It would show that Europe is not just technocratic, but political; that is the reality of European construction now – very different from twenty years ago. The referenda have opened up the public debate and we must respond to that.  

At the same time, let us not lapse into the temptations of euro-pessimism.  Some of those who support the European project have reacted to the two “nos” by indulging in endless talk of crisis. That talk is wrong, but can become self fulfilling. We all need to help the “crisophiliacs” return to a positive line. Otherwise they might provide, without intending to, unlikely allies for those who criticise only to destroy.

We also need to avoid the trap of wanting the ends – an enlarging, stronger, safer, more open, more dynamic Europe – but not willing the means. That is why making progress on issues like the extension of qualified majority voting for justice and security issues is important.   

I firmly believe that the twin track approach of a Europe of results, and a political declaration next year, offers the best way forward.  We need to prepare the ground for an institutional settlement.    Let’s concentrate on keeping the momentum going – that is how we will strengthen confidence in Europe.

That is how we will create the conditions to steer the process towards an institutional settlement.