A Constitution for Europe?

In May 2005, every French home received a book titled Treaty for the european Union. Based on the notions of liberty and democracy, the european Union was already unequal in the way to adopt or not the european constitution. Defending the ideas of freedom since their adhesion to the EU, a lot of political leaders didn't hesitate however to withdraw the power of expression to the citizens.
So some countries submitted the Treaty to their Parliament -maybe scared by the reaction of their compatriots against an ideal guilty they charged for a so long time with their own political mistakes, some others chose to give the first payers the right to express themselves-"no taxation without representation", that is to say the european citizens. So did Jacques Chirac, who decided to organize a referendum in France on the 29th May 2005, with the result we know.
But why should the EU need a constitution? Some countries like United Kingdom can survive without it, so why did we need this constitution? This reject of the constitution was maybe a consequence of a 50-year-old absenteeism, a reject of an "invisible hand" which can provide founds as well as use of the stringent power we gave it, still the old rule of "carrot and baton". However, EU could not have gone so quickly until today without stopping one time to take her breath, and look behind her shoulder: "we advanced a lot since 1951, what do you think about that? Would you like it to be pursued or not?" This was the real question this constitution involved, the real aim was to give a legitimacy to the steps accomplished -up or down- since a so long time and without the opinion of the europeans. So this constitution has now become a great deal, because there is no way to force countries to adopt a common policy without a clue of legitimacy, especially in a circle of 27 countries.
So many things have been reproached to the EU: a weighty bureaucracy of 20 000 civil servants working for Brussels? France uses 2 times more only for Paris. Some though quotas concerning trade or fishing? So much money was dealt for years in european Social Funds without any restraint. european Union has already got some hard times; there is no big deal today with the reject of this Treaty, just a hurdle furthermore to cross.
To put it in a nutshell with this introduction, let's present what is going to follow. This whole reflection is focused on the idea that the european Union has been more and more taken away from its citizens, so the construction of the Union is not legitimate from the first steps in the 1950's to the reject of the Treaty for a european Union in 2005. However, there are some solutions to bring back to the Union its legitimacy and the interest of the european citizens, and this is exactly what this reflection deals with. This is the reason why some main issues will be dealt with here in order to say what has to be improved -or not because not everything is hopefully wrong- and how the bad points should be improved.
This paper is divided in 4 parts: the 1st one is called The paradox of equality and deals with the notions of legitimacy in link with the process of adoption of the Treaty for a european constitution. The 2nd one, An eternal provider of resources, tackles with the economy and finances of the Union and evocate the situation of Welfare State that the EU has become nowadays and its policy to support the different national interests on a supranational level. The 3d chapter, "Brussels made me do it", is a reflection on the coercive power of the Union on the member states by the process of "negative integration" argued by A. Moravcsik. Finally, the 4th and last chapter, A constitution for a powerful Union, will evocate the possibility of transformation of the EU in its shape in the next decades, and the part it has to take in the worldwide economies.