FOR some of those working in the EU there will be one test alone to determine whether or not Amsterdam is a success: enlargement, and the European Union's ability to do so without grinding to a decision making halt.
The summit, these people say, is really about the institutions and flexibility. That is where the Union gets real added value in its treaty reform: the rest is for the optics, or so the argument goes.
If that is your perspective, the publication by the Dutch of their final draft treaty will have come as something of a disappointment. On one key issue, the reform of the size of the Commission, the presidency has substantially thrown in the towel.
The draft suggests that the current entitlements of states to a member of the Commission should be left intact until a further five states join the Union. Then there will be a review summit but with nobody committed to any particular outcome. By that stage probably in 2003 or 2004, the Commission will be 25 or 26 strong (four states have two commissioners and Poland will probably have to be extended this right).
But the tussle between large and small over the issue (the large insisting that an upper limit of 20 should be imposed for the sake of efficiency), reflects more than a desire to hold on to "our man".
There are important differences in perceptions of the Commission. For the small states it is a crucial listening post and early warning system, an essential safe guarder of the treaty and the rights of all.
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Spring, has argued that a presence at the table is also a vital legitimiser of Commission decisions and warned that taking away some countries' right to a seat would jeopardise a referendum on the treaty. But for the larger states, the Commission is little more than a glorified civil service.
Yet while it seems likely that the small states have successfully blocked attempts to cut their automatic entitlement to a commissioner - a key priority of the Irish the Commission president is likely to be given a new authority over his sometimes wayward charges.
Besides the right to reach a "common accord" with the member states on suitable members of his team, the Dutch have proposed a declaration giving him broad discretion to reshuffle; that should put a halt to their gallop.
The Dutch text also goes some way to meeting the concern of the larger states that the weighting of votes under the qualified majority system in the Council of Ministers is unduly balanced against them. When the Union is enlarged by two, they suggest a new formula for weighting votes.
It is proposed that Germany the UK, France and Italy should have 25 votes each, up from 10 at present; Spain to 20 from eight; Netherlands to 12 from five; Greece, Belgium and Portugal to 10 from five; Sweden and Austria to eight from four; Denmark, Finland and Ireland to six from three; Luxembourg to three from two.
Although Ireland and others will argue that such a change is unnecessary they will probably accept the formula.
Perhaps the most eagerly awaited of all the reforms in the current treaty round is the list of issues to be moved from the realm of unanimity voting to qualified majority voting. This includes, among other issues:
- The right of movement and residence (after three years with a possible opt out for Britain) and linked social security issues;
- The co ordination of provisions covering the treatment of foreign nationals;
- The mutual recognition of professionals;
- Culture;
- Industry - the joint research programme;
- The environment;
- Some new trade competences;
The implementation of foreign policy strategic decisions taken unanimously by the European Council.
Broad agreement appears likely on the list, with memberstates insisting, however, on retaining the veto for such issues as taxation, treaty reform, new accessions, most of foreign policy and justice and police co operation.
The list reflects the Inter Governmental Conference's limited ambition. These are changes of a quantitative not qualitative character to the functioning of the EU. "Son of Maastricht" will never have the capacity to be the bete noir that was Maastricht I, nor indeed of its progenitor treaty, the profoundly important Single European Act.
A simplification and significant extension of the rights of MEPs has also been agreed, reducing procedures from more than 20 to three - assent, co decision, and consultation. Parliament will still not be able, however, to initiate legislation.
The right of "assent" allows MEPs a veto on specific measures of the Council of Ministers, but not the right to amend them. In "co decision", Parliament shares legislative authority with the Council of Ministers. Amendments, if not acceptable to ministers, go through a conciliation process between the two bodies. Under the "consultation" procedure, Parliament is entitled only to express its opinion.
Codecision will be extended to cover most of the areas in which the Council of Ministers can enact legislation. In many, MEPs previously only had consultation rights.
The future size of the European Parliament will be limited to a ceiling of 700. A provision is also agreed for ensuring that Parliaments get EU legislation ahead of enactment in time to debate it and to allow the Conference of European Affairs Committees (COSAC) to make submissions to EU institutions.
