Long ago, European rational thought learned to ward off bad omens. The violent storm that hit Porto Carras, Greece on Thursday, June 18, may have delayed the start of the 2003 European Summit. One thing it did not do is dim the enthusiasm - and for good reason.

The fifteen member states of the EU, furthered by the ten who would become full-fledged members by next year, met to draft historically groundbreaking administrative reforms. Their primary purpose was to present the draft of a European Constitution. Under that centralized project came adjoining ones such as establishing a Presidency, reforming the governmental structure known as the European Commission, determining a Foreign Affairs Minister and confirming the Head of the European Central Bank.

As if to underscore how recent world affairs have given macropolitical reforms urgency, first things had to come first. A dinner party following the first work session aimed specifically at issuing a collective statement on the world and wars. Most challenging for the Summit was to make that statement sound as collectively harmonious as possible. Recent divisions among older and newer members regarding the American assault on Iraq, and the price each country was willing to pay in future trade relations by sticking with the United Nations, softened what is already Europe’s vulnerability - the lack of a concerted foreign policy.

Ever since civil war tore Yugoslavia apart in the 1990s, the EU leadership has sat uncomfortably regarding its foreign policy agenda. Can an international union whose collective purpose is primarily diplomatic simply ignore the call to engage in warfare when it threatens?

June 20 is set to be remembered for the day when the Union responded with a “No” to that inquiry. The resolution for a common security policy drafted by the EU’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, is determined to overcome past paralysis. Most members noted the sharp turn away from America’s interpretation of security concerns. The agreement struck among all member states to make appointment of a president and foreign affairs minister pivotal elements of the Constitution draft directly prompted that logic.

It was the vastness of the reforms to be amended in the Constitution draft that occupied the Summit foreground. The crowning moment came as the head of the Constitution Convention, Mr. Valery Giscard d’Estaing handed over a draft version of the Constitution on June 20. The paper was elaborated by a group of 105 members who worked under his supervision for over fifteen months. As democracy is the EU’s order of the day, the Constitution draft is only and primarily a basis for further discussion, set to be engaged by an Intergovernmental Conference starting in October. The objective is to get all adjustments to be agreed upon in time for the formal enlargement of the Union with its ten new members on May 1, 2004, and make its final version available for public consultation prior to next summer’s EU elections.

Besides advocating a foreign affairs ministry, the final draft also aims at implementing reform at the deliberative level. Until now, executive decision-making has proceeded by a rotational leadership scheme in which each of the fifteen member states would take turns spending six months apiece presiding over the European Commission. This weekend’s summit marked the end of Greece’s six-month term of Presidency. On July 1, Italy will assume its own term.

What is set to change the most, structurally speaking, is the size and procedural policies of the European Commission itself. Previously the Commission seated all members (i.e. the 15). But the Union will now be increased to 25 after the recent inclusion of former Eastern Block countries, such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. Up until now pro-active decisions have been taken only after unanimity had been reached on the Commission floor.

This meant that a single country, irrespective of its size or importance, could block any concerted action the Union may have had to take. England or Spain, for instance, could veto and paralyze the EU’s maneuverability on foreign policy issues. With the proposed reforms and Constitution, however, the Commission would be kept at fifteen states operating along rotational admittance to all of the 25 member states. In addition, deliberation would now proceed according to majority instead of unanimous vote - with what exactly makes up a sufficient majority to be determined in the upcoming Intergovernmental Conference.

The majority poll system, which annuls the supremacy of the 2000 Nice Convention, was hotly contested by Spain’s President Aznar. It is set to be one of the major obstacles to having the Constitution adopted by early 2004. Indeed, President Chirac of France strongly suggested that its final version could be subject to referendum in France. Italy’s Romano Prodi, for his part, suggested that the move from 37 to 80 issues that will be subject to majority vote was still insufficient as it left out key issues such as taxation and foreign policy. In the end, Mr. Giscard d’Estaing stood by his conviction that the Intergovernmental Convention would modify little of the draft.

The final chess piece to be designated in this most macropolitical of EU summits was the identity of the future head of the European Central Bank. Jean-Claude Trichet, current president of the Bank of France who has been cleared of fraud allegations, will take charge of the function, which is seated in Frankfurt. He will be replacing Win Duisenberg from the Netherlands.

The foreign affairs message delivered during the first night’s dinner party was as conservative as it was conciliatory. The EU called upon North Korea and Iran to collaborate with the international community so as to lift suspicion on their respective nuclear programs. Side-lined from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict since Sharon’s destruction of the Palestinian Authority, the EU also summoned both sides to make pledges for peace. Finally, the EU collective reiterated its commitment to the United Nation Organization and the need for it to wield a central role in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Akin to one of its famous football players, England tried to capture the spotlight with its hard-line on immigration. Tony Blair sought to have member states accept construction of special detention centers for illegal aliens at the outer limits of the Union, as in Greece for example. His motion was swiftly rejected, but the backdrop of dozens of missing African passengers from a sunken Libyan ship illegally headed for the frontiers of the Union confronted the richest EU members to an ever delicate geopolitical situation.

Many member states clearly take advantage of the often desperate acts of courage displayed by foreign nationals in their attempts to flee hardship, war zones or, at times, justice, by reinforced policing and satisfying a local population’s need to lean on expiatory scapegoats to quell their anxieties. Yet in its June 22 editorial the French daily Le Monde reminded that the Union is experiencing a “demographic deficit” and requires immigration. The same logic of collective greed could be seen to be slamming shut frontiers within the perimeters of the Union itself - despite the Shengen accord on internal security. Blair’s measure also aimed at dispensing financial assistance to what amounts to the EU’s poorest members, who are most vulnerable territorially to population influxes. The Summit ended without the drafting of any determined proposal meant to confront immigration in its real shape.