Reformed Stability and Growth Pact no good

It is well known that France and Germany, the engines of integration, are serial violators of the Stability and Growth Pact.  In recent years, they have been joined by seven other member states including the UK.  The inability of member states to meet the requirements of the pact and of the Commission to punish violators credibly has resulted in members states negotiating a reformed Stability and Growth Pact that is expected to be approved at the next European Summit.  The deal keeps the 3% deficit/GDP and 60% debt/GDP criteria in place, but increases the number of exceptions.  Some of the major changes, according to Euroactiv, include:
        •        No enforcement proceeding will be launched against a member state experiencing negative growth (previously the exception was for countries in a recession of 2% negative growth).
        •        Leeway will be given for spending on efforts to "foster international solidarity and to achieving European policy goals."
        •        Countries will have two years (previously one) to correct an excessive deficit.
Euroactiv also summarized the positions many analysts are taking on the new changes.  Governments seem to be glad to have escaped any economic consequences to their deficit spending, while business leaders believe the reforms threatens to undermine the pact altogether.  In the latter camp, they report:
Analyst Charles Wyplosz says the bigger countries got what that they wanted and the pact has been further politicised and is unlikely to "bite" at least in the case of the big countries …
In a press statement the Governing Council of the European Central Bank expressed serious concern about the proposed changes to the pact. It stressed the importance of making sure that changes in the corrective arm of the pact do not undermine confidence in the fiscal framework of the EU and the sustainability of public finances in eurozone countries …
EPP-ED Group Chairman Hans-Gert Pöttering calls the deal reached by EU finance ministers as a "regrettable backward step for European currency stability" …
Paul Skehan, deputy secretary general of the European Association of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Eurochambres), criticised the deal: "The review of the pact should be based on economic objectives and principles. Instead, political considerations seem to be the decisive factors. A lite-pact will not restore credibility in the pact, Europe and its institutions."
The German BDI industry association warned that the pact would soon become "toothless".
I tend to agree with these analysts.  If the rules are changed to benefit those who break them, the EU loses all credibility in the enforcement of commitments between the member states.  The pact should not have been politicized.
 

Constitution too small a step to justify its grand name

I came across an interesting critique of the Constitution for Europe today.  Charles Wyplosz suggests that the debate over the constitution is already a failure (warning: PDF):
But success has had its price. Twenty-five countries do not cooperate as six used to. Each enlargement inevitably gives the impression that the undertaking is being diluted, and perceived dilution means more weight to national interests and less willingness to take the next integrative step. Or so it seems. This paper argues that this perception is misguided. The EU-25 group is considerably more integrated than the EU-6 ever was. Dilution is not a necessary consequence of enlargement, rather enlargement is bringing to the fore a number of institutional failures that were present all along.
What is needed now is a clean-up of European institutions and practices. Fifty years of negotiations have lead to good and less good agreements, which warrants re-examination. Anyway, times have changed and old agreements, including old acquis communautaires are outdated. The European Constitutional Convention, a consequence of the failure of the Nice summit in December 2000, offered a unique opportunity of sorting out this legacy. This opportunity has not been well-exploited. By refusing to open the Pandora box that a clean-up requires, and by adopting wholesale all the acquis communautaires, good and bad alike, today’s leaders have failed their duty. The Constitution is not bad per se, it is just too small a step to justify its grand name.
He is probally right, but it would be hard to sell a Constitution any more grand then the current one.  And that is going to be a tough sell as it is.