European Diary: The spirit of European solidarity was sorely lacking when justice ministers met in Finland last week for talks on how to improve EU decision-making. Seven years after the EU was first given a role in justice and home affairs at a summit in Tampere, ministers returned to the city and applied the brakes to further integration in the area.
Billed by the European Commission and Finnish presidency as "Tampere II", the meeting was the first opportunity to debate a proposal to remove the national veto over sensitive justice matters, such as police and judicial co-operation.
Enthusiasts, led by EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini and Finland's minister for justice Leena Luhtanen, urged ministers to change the process of making decisions in these areas by moving to a system of qualified majority voting (QMV).
Under this system, which is the normal procedure in areas such as environment, a qualified majority of states can carry votes at the council of ministers. This means individual states cannot block laws they do not like from coming into force.
Ms Luhtanen said the current system was "undemocratic" as it allows a single state to veto legislation that could help in the fight against terrorism. For example, proposals to share information between national police forces were being hindered.
Delays to new legislation had also led to "compromised laws" being passed, because opt outs had to be added to legislation to meet individual state's interest, she added.
Mr Frattini said opinion polls showed the public was demanding "more EU" in the area and repeated concerns that lives were at risk from terrorism due to delays in passing new laws.
The solution presented by the advocates of further EU integration was to invoke a "passerelle clause" in the EU treaties. Triggering this bridging mechanism would enable ministers to change decision-making to QMV for all decisions taken in the justice area (a few, such as illegal immigration, are already decided this way).
"Europe is not a joke. It's like a bicycle, either it goes ahead or it falls to the ground," said Mr Frattini in an impassioned speech to ministers urging support for the plan.
But his pleas fell on deaf ears, with 14 out of 25 ministers expressing reservations.
Even before the official talks had begun Tánaiste Michael McDowell had launched an all-out assault on the EU's record in the justice area, blaming it for passing a raft of useless legislation and accusing it of extending its powers unnecessarily. Justice is a particularly sensitive area of law that impacts on national sovereignty, he warned.
Germany's interior minister Wolfgang Schaüble accused the commission of endangering the EU constitution, the treaty that remains stalled after negative votes in referendums in France and the Netherlands.
If the constitution enters into force states would lose the right to veto most legislation in the justice field. He also raised difficulties with invoking the bridging clause, particularly the requirement to ratify the change in each member state - a process that could take more than a year.
Just five EU states, France and Spain being the largest, spoke in favour of the plan, signalling that the ambitious proposal is either doomed to failure or significant revision.
But why did so many states reject the "passerelle" in Tampere when they have already signed up to giving away national vetos in the constitution? Ministers at the talks pointed out that safeguards in the constitution would not necessarily apply if national vetos were removed by invoking the bridging clause. For example an "emergency brake mechanism", which allows a state to refer a particular legislative proposal on sensitive justice matters to EU leaders for further discussion, would not apply.
Similarly, under the constitution four states could band together to propose justice legislation, whereas invoking the "passarelle" would remove the right to initiate laws from states and give it to the commission.
Another consequence of changing decision-making would be that sensitive justice legislation would fall under the competence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and give a stronger role to the European Parliament. Ministers are wary of both institutions. Changing the legal base for justice legislation would enable the commission to take legal suits to the ECJ against states for not implementing EU law.
Meanwhile, giving parliament a co-decision role in these matters is not popular among ministers as the legislature tends to emphasis civil liberties more than other institutions.
For example, it fought a tough legal battle against the council of ministers to overturn a contentious decision to send airline passenger data to the US authorities.
But perhaps the most important reason ministers are balking at giving away their power of veto is the damage that it could wreak on attempts to renegotiate the EU constitution.
The finely-crafted document is the result of a trade-off between states on different policy areas. For Ireland, giving ground on the sensitive area of justice before these wider negotiations begin in 2007/8 could undermine their future bargaining position.
So when ministers meet again to discuss the issue next month few expect the EU bicycle to move forward. Instead, as the Maltese justice minister told Mr Frattini last week, states are more likely to put their feet on the ground and pause for breath.