What can the EU do to help its weaker economies? And would measures like a common army or compulsory education help bring about a European identity, asks Joachim Bitterlich.
The horse has already bolted, so it makes little sense to lament the verdict of the French and the Dutch against the draft EU constitution - neither panic nor action for the sake of action will bring us any further. Naturally I would have welcomed a "Yes" from our neighbours. But if we're honest, a referendum in Germany could also have ended negatively.
The draft constitution has failed, even if the EU heads of state and government, sadly, have not - or have not yet - wanted to admit it.
No one can seriously expect to present the French or Dutch with the same draft in a year's time after the successful ratification by a large majority of member states.
What does this mean for the EU? A setback certainly. Loss of time, yes. However, the truth is even a bit more uncomfortable: there are many signs that on our breakneck trip through enlargement and the drafting of a constitution we have lost the trust of the sovereign - the citizens - and our credibility, without noticing it.
The low turnout for the European parliamentary elections last year was already a clear alarm signal which we didn't take seriously. There is no getting around the fact that Strasbourg still hasn't found its place in Europe.
Why do we no longer manage to engage the voters on Europe? For them, Europe no longer seems to be on the right track. They are anxious about losing their identity.
Brussels is for them the scapegoat it has been for several governments for many years. Why this uncertainty, why this worry?
Let us take the time for a debate with the citizens under the parliaments and the governments. Let's catch up on what we have obviously missed: a critical stock-taking of European integration on a national as well as a European level.
What is two years in the history of our continent on the way to reunification?
Europe has often enough in its successful history only managed it on the second attempt. Many crises or setbacks were, in the end, helpful in bringing us onto the right course.
In the coming months we must examine impartially the balance sheet of the EU in core political questions, and search together for more convincing solutions.
It is, above all, disconcerting that the EU is not in a position to support many member states in their mostly timid, overdue reform efforts to provide for more growth and jobs.
Loyalty and solidarity are constituent elements of a federative structure like the EU. This applies to the member states towards the EU as well as for the EU and its institutions - above all for the Commission - towards the member states.
Hence the first question of the European Commission to the member states with low growth and high unemployment should have been: what can we do for you? How can we best help you?
Such an examination incorporates a critical questioning of some of the fundamental elements of the European economic and currency union and to decide what type of "economic constitution" we want: a renaissance of the social market economy or another, first and foremost liberal-influenced, more Anglo-American model.
I have in mind a model of a working market linked to a social correcting factor and social justice, to use the words of seven European presidents in a joint article that appeared in mid-July in various newspapers.
We must seriously pursue the question of whether, in turning on its head the much sworn-at, but in reality little observed subsidiarity, we haven't gone too far in integration.
We have concentrated too much on an EU level, it seems to me, and taken away room for individual action by individual member states.
The entire EU Commission should carry out a thorough reorientation of its politics in the coming months. It should thoroughly examine all existing legal regulations in all areas, radically reduce their number and above all simplify them; less bureaucracy, fewer obstructions and clear, understandable regulations should be the common goal.
It is still the case that there is an exceptional political difficulty in bringing about efficient co-operation in foreign and security policy, or in interior and justice policy.
Even though there has been remarkable progress in this area in the race to catch up - not least because of the acts of terror of the last years - we still have to ask why for certain offences we do not yet have an effective European police operating beyond national borders; no effective controls on foreign borders; no common policies enacted for the integration of foreigners.
Despite some advances, and in spite of the self-sacrificing work of High Representative Javier Solana, the EU is still miles away from a real "common foreign and security policy" worthy of the name. It remains the problem child of integration.
Where is Europe's united negotiating on an international level? Where do things stand in its relationship to a key partner like the US, to Russia or towards Asia? Do we not need, in truth, a decisive attempt at common European defence and army to secure our vital interests?
I am also convinced that, given the challenges we face, we cannot afford to have every member state and the EU Commission pursue their own development politics. Through coherent negotiation we could do more and better.
Is the European Union adequately equipped to deal with all these challenges, given the enormous changes all around us from the already advanced globalisation?
Are the most recent reform steps adequate to successfully lead into the future the European Union of 25 and more member states?
There is room for doubt about whether we proceeded correctly, for the largest enlargement round of all time, to best integrate these countries. Above all, can the European Union simply just keep growing? Where are the borders? What, above all, of the Turkey issue and the continued hidden dissent among the member states?
Could it not be that we don't need a more radical modernisation of the EU, rather we need additional mechanisms for consensus-building and, above all, leadership?
A thorough consideration of all these questions means neither a pause nor that we simply throw the draft constitution overboard.
The constitution contains many good policies and steps forward which we should retain.
But we cannot allow ourselves to shy away from a critical examination under the magnifying glass of the Brussels structures, the competences of the EU and the unchanged, insufficient inclusion of the national parliaments - all of which are barely understood by citizens.
The observation of a French MP, that 80 per cent of the legislative activities of national parliaments today comprise of the implementation of European regulations into national law, without any real possibility for corrections, sounds more than disturbing.
Shouldn't there long since have been a thorough debate about the role of national parliaments, in particular in the European integration process?
And we must ask a key question which has been overlooked: how can we unite national and European identity, not least but not just with education policy? Along with a strengthening of foreign language lessons, "European Civilisation" - the communication of European history, culture and geography - should long since have belonged in all schools as a compulsory subject. Beyond the euro, could a common European army and a European development service not also bring about a stronger common identity?
At the end of the day there is no way around the fact that Europe today needs a new consensus.
This critical phase demands determined leadership now. We must find a new, convincing vision for the continuation of the success story that for more than 50 years has contributed decisively to peace, freedom, democracy and growing prosperity on our Continent. Only in this way will we meet the responsibility for the next generations.
But we must be careful about finding the ideal path. European integration was, and remains, a compromise. And please let's not call the result a "constitution" again. The term doesn't supplant the vision - on the contrary, it conjures up fear.
Joachim Bitterlich is former foreign policy adviser to chancellor Helmut Kohl and former German ambassador to Spain. The above represents a personal view. His book Europe - Mission Impossible, is to be published this autumn. (Droste Press, Düsseldorf).