The conflict between large and small has proved considerable, writes Denis Staunton
The world scoffed when Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing compared the Convention on the Future of Europe to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention that drew up the US constitution. But in one respect at least, the European convention is following the pattern of its illustrious forerunner with remarkable accuracy.
Before the Philadelphia Convention had even met, James Madison and the other Virginia delegates developed a plan of government that went far beyond the stated goals of the convention. It created an entirely new government which gave great power to the larger states because voting was proportional to the number of inhabitants.
The small states, led by New Jersey, proposed an alternative that maintained strict equality between states, regardless of their population. Disagreements between the two sides almost led to the convention's collapse before a compromise was found.
The conflict between large and small has proved so great at the European convention that the body's 12-person presidium is itself deeply divided. Although the draft articles published yesterday include proposals for reforming the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, even Mr Giscard knows that they will not survive in anything like their present form.
The deadlock over the institutions should not, however, obscure the convention's success in securing agreement on many important changes in the way the EU functions.
The first part of the draft constitution published yesterday sets out in clear language what the EU stands for and what it does. It represents an enormous step forward from the present jumble of treaties that are incomprehensible to most citizens.
The Union's structure is simplified by abandoning its complicated "three pillars" and, instead of using 15 legal instruments, the EU will now use just five.
National parliaments will have a role in determining whether the EU is interfering too much in national affairs. National parliaments can oblige the Commission to reconsider whether it is appropriate to take a particular action at a European level, but it would ultimately be for the European court to adjudicate any dispute on such an issue.
Ireland's only member of the convention's presidium, Mr John Bruton, expressed disappointment yesterday that the draft constitution had not gone further towards making the EU more democratic. There is no proposal to allow the Commission president to be elected by European citizens. Instead, the draft constitution proposes that the European Parliament should choose the president from a list of just one candidate proposed by EU leaders.
The presidium will release the second and third parts of the constitution this week and its preamble - which is likely to mention God - early next week.
After that, the convention will enter an intense period of negotiation, abandoning its plenary sessions in favour of small meetings of its constituent groups. They will meet almost every day during the first two weeks in June in an effort to agree a text to present to EU leaders on 20 June.
Mr Giscard has indicated that he would prefer to offer the leaders a series of options on institutional reform rather than presenting what he calls "a bad compromise". But most of his colleagues on the convention know that their best hope of ensuring that their constitution becomes a reality is to agree a unified text.
The inter-governmental conference that will begin later this year can, in theory, reject the constitution altogether and any final draft must be approved by all governments. But governments would find it difficult to reject out of hand the work of a body such as the convention that has been meeting for more than 15 months.
The dispute over reforming the EU's institutions has changed during the past week as Spain has joined the small states in opposing any renegotiation of the formula agreed at Nice for representation in the institutions.
At Nice, the big countries agreed to give up their second commissioner in return for greater representation in the European Parliament and a greater voting weight in the Council of Ministers. Each country would nominate one commissioner until the EU grew to more than 27 countries. After that, the Commission would be reduced but the places would be filled in rotation on the basis of strict equality between member-states.
The small states know they got a good deal at Nice and they are reluctant to change it. Spain is opposing change because at Nice it was defined as a large country, offering it a voting weight in line with that of the EU's most populous states.
Mr Giscard's proposal would give population size a central role in determining representation, thereby reducing Spain's influence along with that of smaller states.
At the Philadelphia Convention, the smaller states won the day, securing in the Grand Compromise equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. With only three weeks to go before the European convention finishes its work, Europe's small states will hope that history will continue to repeat itself.