When European Union (EU) leaders took delivery of Europe’s first draft of a constitution at a summit in Greece last June, it was with almost universal praise.
There was wide agreement that the text could save the EU from paralysis once it expands from 15 to 25 members next year. It would give Europe a more stable leadership and greater clout on the world stage, said the chairman of the Convention which drafted the agreement, former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing.
Such praise was too good to last. As the product of a unique 16-month public debate, the draft has become a battleground. Less than four months after it was delivered, the same leaders who accepted it opened the second round of talks on its content this week by trading veiled threats to block agreement or cut off funds if they don’t get their way.
The tone was polite, but unyielding. In a bland joint statement issued when the talks opened on October 4, the leaders stressed the constitution, "represents a vital step in the process aimed at making Europe more cohesive, more democratic and closer to its citizens. "Sharp differences remain, though, between member countries of the EU over voting rights, the size and composition of the executive European Commission, defense co-operation and the role of religion in the new constitution.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s hopes of wrapping up a deal on the constitution by Christmas seem far from being realized. While the six founding members of the EU--Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg--plus Britain and Denmark, want as little change as possible to the draft, the 10 mainly central European countries due to join the 15-nation bloc next year want to alter the institution’s balance.
Such small states are afraid their views will be ignored under the constitution and are determined to defend the disproportionate voting rights they won at the 2000 Nice Summit. EU experts fear such sharp differences will create exactly the paralysis in the EU the Convention was established to avoid.
A second round of talks were opened by some leaders, because（）
A. they want to make the first draft into a battleground
B. they want to tear the first draft up and write a new one
C. their needs were not satisfactorily met in the draft
D. their funds were channeled into inappropriate projects
