It was bound to happen.

Last year’s European Union expansion from a 15-nation bloc to one of 25 brought about celebrations across the whole of Europe. It was described as a great day in European history, one that would bring about more unity and stability in a region which had gone through centuries of wars before peace finally reigned.

The establishment, soon after the end of World War II, of what would grow into a European Union was the step needed for Europe to come out of long periods of strife in which the biggest nations were often at war with each other.

The six founding nations grew to nine, 10, 12, 15 and now to 25. But what, last year, seemed to be a great event, leading many observers to comment it was the way that Europe could respond to the United States and growing nations in Asia, has now backfired.

The “non” and “nee” votes in France and Holland over the ratification of the European Constitution seem to have triggered a ripple effect of negativity in the EU. Deciding what to do after the two rejections led to moments of disarray on the first day of the EU leaders’ summit in Brussels last week, and although the ratification deadline was eventually extended, it is still unclear how long the EU is prepared to wait.

Ten countries have ratified the EU Constitution, but five others – Britain, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden and Finland – have put their ratification process on hold. Others, like Malta and Luxembourg, have announced that they will carry on with their plans to ratify the Constitution, here through a parliamentary debate and in Luxembourg via a referendum on 10 July.

But the worst was still to come as, a day later, the EU failed to reach agreement over its proposed budget for the 2007-2013 period. Two European heavyweights, France and Britain, locked themselves in a dispute from which no one was a winner but everyone a loser.

This is because no accord was reached, and this in spite of last-ditch efforts by the Luxembourg presidency, as well as proposals by some of the new member states to accept cuts in their allocations if this helped to reach a compromise.

There are now differences in how to interpret such a failure. Some are saying it is a crisis from which the EU will take a long time to re-emerge. Others are more positive and say that it is a challenge that Europe must overcome together, adding that solutions are there to be found with a strong effort from all parties.

But there are some observers who have said that this fiasco – on both the Constitution and the budget – was the result of an enlargement process that went too wide and too fast, adding that Europe cannot sustain its own growth.

What has happened in Europe over the past weeks, and in particular during the summit, has had its own effects on Malta. On the Constitution element, the government has said that it will go ahead with the ratification process. There seems to be no problem about that although, at this stage, the future of the Constitution itself – which must be ratified by all member states to come into effect – is still debatable.

On the budget issue, the lack of an agreement has stalled the whole process of funds that each country will be receiving in the seven years starting in 2007. This means that Malta, like any other country, cannot plan ahead as it is still unsure as to what funds it will be getting.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has described last week’s failures as “new challenges brought about by enlargement”, adding that the EU is passing through a difficult phase. He said that solutions are there to be found if there is a concerted effort.

As things stand now, we admire Dr Gonzi’s optimism, but we do not share it.