Is this the moment to seize control of the European Union?

The momentum is now with the `root and branch' reformers, so some good can come of all this chaos

THE FEBRILE politics of Brussels has served up a massive feast on which Europhiles and Eurosceptics in Britain can gorge themselves. But once all appetites have been sated, who will emerge the stronger? The answer to the question will determine the course of British politics over the next few years.

Initially, the resignation of the entire European Commission, after a report linking it with fraud and mismanagement, will play into the hands of the sceptics. The populist arguments are all theirs: "Not just one commissioner has gone but the whole damned lot of them. Never did like that Kinnock, anyway. As for the French, I am surprised the woman did not hire more than her dentist. She probably did. The Spanish were up to their eyes in it as well: talk about `Spanish practices'. Santer turned a blind eye to it all, as they do in Europe. To think that we could be part of a single currency with that lot."

And, of course, that concluding observation explains why the drama, from a British perspective, is heightened all the more. At a time when the Labour Government is navigating Britain slowly towards Emu, Brussels seemingly implodes.

The reality is very different. Indeed the events of the last 24 hours illustrate the robust nature of democracy and accountability in the EU. The elected Parliament, after careful consideration, clicked its apparently powerless fingers and the entire commission resigned. Indeed the complex system of checks and balances that shape decision-making in Europe often works against the commission. Commissioners despair of devising policies that require the agreement of so many member states. Making policies is a slow process when it happens at all.

The commission is not some wildly out-of-control body, but one which is deeply restricted in its scope for manoeuvre, while simultaneously being given a range of complex managerial responsibilities. As Leon Brittan pointed out yesterday, on a staff level half the size of the BBC the commission can suddenly be asked to manage the Russian aid budget. This raises questions about the way the commission is organised, its staffing and funding level, but does not imply that it functions in a detached, carefree manner.

What is more, part of the current problem testifies to the power of elected leaders of member states. Jacques Santer has been a weak president. He was put there by John Major, who vetoed the original choice of other members. The Eurosceptics in Britain are making mischief when they are a contributing factor to the chaos in Brussels. Major put on a display of irrational British machismo to soothe the anger of his MPs back at Westminster. For about 10 minutes it did the trick and he was cheered by his tormentors when he returned to the House of Commons. Exercising his right of veto five years ago, Major must take some responsibility for what has happened since.

So, out of the chaos, can the Europhiles seize the initiative and finally impose what Tony Blair described yesterday as "root and branch reform"? Is this the moment, combined with the resignation last week of Oskar Lafontaine, when events can work in favour of the pro-Europeans? Blair certainly thinks so. Rightly, he regards political and economic reform as an essential precondition to winning a referendum on a single currency.

His statement to the Commons earlier this month in which he "stepped up a gear" his support for Britain joining the single currency was a carefully composed document of two halves. The first put the case for Britain signing up to EMU and could almost have been delivered in a "Yes" rally during a referendum campaign.

Some pro-Europeans got so excited by the symbolism of the event and the substance of those early words that they paid less attention to the second half of the statement. Blair's later words contained important qualifications, which were not inserted simply to provide politically expedient get-out clauses.

In this part of the statement, he insisted that Europe had to introduce economic reforms to demonstrate that a single currency was competitive and robust. Further political reforms were also essential. Increasingly, he is confident that he will be able to demonstrate in a referendum that Europe is responsive to the need for economic reform. More urgently, he needs to show that the EU is capable of political reform as well.

In my view the current political crisis will help him do so. Hopefully, Blair will now be able to show that the commission is capable of changing its personnel and its brief. Britain and other states will place enormous pressure on countries not to reappoint commissioners who have been singled out for criticism. If Santer goes permanently, along with several commissioners, Blair will be able to argue more convincingly that the process of reform is underway. Every commissioner interviewed over the last 24 hours has agreed that wider reform is essential. The momentum is with the "root and branch" reformers.

So in the medium term, some good can come of this. The pro-Europeans will leave the feast in better spirits. But there is a wider message which is more ominous. The events of the last 24 hours have underlined that the politics of Europe are highly unpredictable and almost impossible to control. For a few years, Blair managed to control the Labour Party and win a general election in Britain. He will not be able to manage the politics of Europe in the same way in order to win the referendum on a single currency.

Imagine if the Government had decided months ago to hold the referendum campaign over recent weeks. The outcome would have been swayed hugely by external events that no campaigning genius nor focus group convenor could have envisaged. Last week the "Yes" campaign would have received a boost from the dramatic departure of Lafontaine. But now, if a referendum had been scheduled for the next week or so, the "No"s would have been on their way to victory.

The young, fragile and still evolving constitution of Europe vindicates Blair's caution about holding an early referendum, but it also calls into question whether it will be ever politically safe to announce one. The idea that the political and economic cycles will conveniently synchronise in the honeymoon of a second term is dangerously complacent.

How much better if the Government could select the moment of entry without having to win a plebiscite. But that was always an unrealistic hope in Britain. Instead Blair has to show that Europe can change its political institutions as well as its economic policies, and then wait for a credible period of economic and political stability before holding the referendum. Unfortunately it could be a very long wait.

Steve Richards is Political Editor of the `New Statesman'