The member states of the EU celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome with the signing of the Declaration of Berlin on Sunday. The Declaration was one of many events to celebrate 50 years of European unity. Capital cities across the EU have seen ceremonies and street parties and in the UK football fans were given a special treat as some of Europe’s greatest footballers took part in a Manchester United vs Europe XI charity match.

The adoption of the Declaration of Berlin by the EU member states is part celebration of what has been achieved in Europe in the last 50 years, part acknowledgment of the challenges still faced by European countries and part commitment to overcoming those challenges by continuing the close cooperation between the EU states that has brought Europe so much success in the past. The Declaration celebrates the peace and prosperity that Europe has experienced due to the Union, the freedoms and rights enjoyed by EU citizens and the cultural diversity of the nations. The member states agreed that the EU should remain committed to protecting its citizens from organised crime and terrorism, and should continue its good work tackling environmental challenges. To read the full text of the Berlin Declaration click here.

The declaration was somewhat vague on EU enlargement to admit Turkey and the Balkan states, referring only to its 'openness'. The Pope and Poland had raised concerns over the declaration on the grounds that it made no reference to the Christian values they believe the EU was founded on (although Poland has given its support for the Berlin Declaration). Fortunately, other countries faced down this attempt to make Europe seem linked to religion.

May I wish readers a Happy New Year!

Today, 1 January, Romania and Bulgaria become full members of the EU, and Slovenia switches to the euro as its national currency. All of the twelve countries who have joined over the last two years (ten from Eastern Europe and two Commonwealth mediterranean countries) intend to join the euro over the next five or six years.

What will 2007 have in store for Europe?

First, a celebration of 50 years since the EEC Treaty was signed in 1957. To mark the occasion, the 27 Heads of government of EU countries intend to issue a declaration on the achievements and purpose of the EU. I hope this emphasises the dynamic nature of the EU, which has evolved over time from the Coal & Steel Community of 1951 (the real first step, the EEC only coming five years later) to the Union we know today through successive treaties, each one agreed by every member state, while it has also grown from six to 27 members through successive enlargements.

Then, more mundane tasks, like developing policies on climate change, cooperation against transnational crime, energy policy, the WTO trade negotiations and so on.

Finally, a return to the issue of the constitutional treaty, which has now been ratified by 18 Member States, but rejected by two. Agreement will be sought in June about what to do about this text, with a large majority wanting to salvage as many as possible of the reforms it contains, but awre that any new text needs the agreement of all 27 countries.

All this will take place under German presidency of the Council of Ministers during the first half of the year and Portuguese presidency in the second half. No easy task, as the "Presidency" has no extra powers, merely the task of chairing one of the institutions and trying to broker fair compromises among 27 governments - some of which (not least the UK and France) will have new leaders.

What to do about the EU constitutional treaty? That's the question we debated yesterday and voted on today.

There are at least two views. One is that this text of the Constitution is dead following the referenda in France and the Netherlands; that we had better start thinking of something else and preparing a different way forward.

The other view is to say: hang on a minute, this text has actually now been ratified by a majority of Member States. The 25 national governments themselves did not declare it dead. Instead, they extended the period of ratification and opened a 'period of reflection'. In that period of reflection we must listen carefully to those who said ‘no’, but we must also listen to the majority who have said ‘yes’ and find a way forward that can ultimately bring the two together.

Eurosceptics shout loudly about the French and Dutch referenda showing that "Europe" has lost touch with public opinion and that the constitutional treaty (presumably unlike any other treaty) was an elitist project which the public is now revolting against. They never mention the referenda in other countries which endorsed the treaty, nor the fact that, in total, more people voted in favour than against.

What we have is not a mass revolt, but a divergence of views. In the EU, when countries' views diverge, the traditional pratice is to talk things through to try to overcome that divergence and to find a compromise solution. In the past, when new treaties have been rejected by a member country, ways have been found, with the agreement of the country concerned, to reassure public opinion and to allow the treaty to be adopted after a new referendum.

This time, it is far too soon to draw conclusions as to the best way forward. The period of reflection has begun by addressing issues of context rather than the text. It is only now that several governments have begun to float ideas as to what could be done about the text.

Parliament concluded that the period of reflection must be extended at least until 2007 to enable a longer and deeper reflection. Until then, all options should be kept open. Of course – as is to be expected – Parliament would prefer to maintain the text, but it recognised that that would only be possible if measures were taken to reassure and convince public opinion. What those measures might be is left open. Parliament pointed out that there are, in theory, many options: supplementary interpretative declarations, extra protocols, rewriting part of the text, rewriting the whole text, drafting a new text and so on.

Which option is best and feasible will only emerge at the end of the period of reflection. The conclusion cannot be drawn now. But one thing is certain: the status quo – that is, the current Treaties – is not sufficient for this Union in its enlarged form to function effectively or democratically. This issue will not go away.