How far? How deeply? How quickly?

The European Union can continue without a Constitution. There will be no major institutional gridlock to prevent the EU from doing major institutional and pragmatic steps to further foster European integration even after the French and the Dutch voted no to the EU?s constitutional treaty. Among those steps are the agreement on a reformed EU Budget to modernise the EU policy making, the setup of a European Diplomatic Service, the extension of the Schengen zone (and ultimately the Euro) to the 10 new members. There is need for institutional reform, as the Nice Treaty only allows for the membership of 27 countries. But there is no need to hurry with the next institutional steps. It would be sufficient to fix this around 2009, when a new Commission would be in place. Then, a revamped EU may again be able to shoulder a new enlargement round. On a more abstract level, Europe needs to stop the ?finalité? discussion. The EU is not static. It is a project and a process at a time. In this context, it seems therefore indispensable that the EU redefines itself and moves toward a new geo-strategic concept. The EU needs to keep open the discussion on its borders. Even more, it needs to turn around the argument of ?costs.? There should be a discussion about the ?costs of non-enlargement,? as the EU would suffer politically, geo-strategically, economically, and culturally if it were to close the borders. It is essentially France and Germany that need to embrace a more modern vision of Europe. Romania and Bulgaria should join in 2007, but the accession must be successful. The EU needs to start negotiations with Turkey, as the EU is much too engaged to turn around now. And the EU needs to offer a clear perspective for the Balkans. An open Europe is also the best ? and perhaps only ? way to improve the transatlantic relationship, as many things the U.S. really want in and from Europe depend on the EU's engagement in its neighborhood.