So a new Club Med is born! More than 40 presidents and/or prime ministers turned up in Paris on July 13 for the launch of the Union for the Mediterranean. It was a welcome diplomatic triumph for President Sarkozy, embattled as he is by a disillusioned and critical French public opinion.

When asked many years ago what was the collective term for a gathering of political leaders, British Prime Minister Callaghan suggested it was a “Lack of Principals”, and of course everybody is highly sceptical about the purpose and the prospects of the new body. It embraces all 27 member countries of the EU, the Balkans, the countries of the Maghreb and the Middle Eastern countries bordering the Mediterranean – 44 states in all including the Palestinian Authority. There are a few conflicting interests among that lot!

I must declare some sympathy with Colonel Gadhafi of Libya, who refused the invitation to Paris and gave a speech explaining why. It was the word Union which really got to him, given his lifelong experience in striving to create unions which failed, between Arabs, the Africans, the Maghreb countries, Libya and Egypt, Libya and Tunisia etc etc.

For example, he said, how could one possibly envisage a union between the countries of North Africa and those in Scandinavia “where it is common to see people walk around naked”. Quite so. It’s those Danish summer beaches!

Let’s agree with the Libyan leader that this is not a Union. But that doesn’t mean that it has no potential value. When Sarkozy originally floated the idea following his election it had the marks of a personal ego trip. He saw its membership confined to countries bordering the Med, quite firmly under French leadership, albeit with some financial support from the EU budget and widely perceived as a half-way house for Turkey in place of EU membership.

This formulation was well calculated to upset the Germans and everyone else, which it duly did, but with the help of Angela Merkel, Sarkozy’s brainwave has been transformed into a full-fledged EU initiative under the Barcelona process. See Stanley Crossick’s blog.

The Paris launch seemed to have a far more substantial political dimension than the Barcelona meetings ever did, so maybe the organisation can provide a valuable new forum for engagement between Europe and its neighbours and between the neighbours themselves. It is certainly conceived as a more balanced relationship, with a joint presidency and a secretariat outside the EU.

Europe needs to find traction for its role in advancing peace in the Middle East and the Paris meeting was notable for constructive comments made by the Israeli prime minister and the Syrian leader – see Mark Mardell’s blog - although a commitment to deal with weapons of mass destruction in the region had rather a hollow ring. If the new Union could really tackle problems of that scale it would be something special indeed.

But let’s look at some of the more practical long-term aims, which could offer major benefits to the region, such as cleaning up the Med, managing water resources (which is one of the conflict triggers in the Middle East), developing solar energy capabilities, improving transport links and tackling natural disasters. Really effective action in these areas could be a major contribution to the wellbeing of the region as a whole – and an experience in working together.

One issue of fundamental importance to the non-EU participants is better access for their food exports to European markets, but I saw no mention of that in the communiqué or reports of the Paris meeting. Given Mr Sarkozy’s attacks on Commissioner Mandelson for his stance on Doha it looks like deliberate avoidance, yet must surely be a fundamental element in helping to build the economies of our southern neighbours.

As the Doha Round reaches its climax (or anti-climax) perhaps this issue will be decided in another forum.

The immediate challenge is to decide where the secretariat is to be based, with the aim of having a fully operational organisation by the end of 2008. Let’s hope some of the high-flown rhetoric can be translated into tangible results and above all that the Union of the Mediterranean will provide a mechanism for the EU to make a substantive contribution to peace in the Middle East.

I see that the French National Assembly has agreed a compromise proposal on the accession referendum, which will give the President the power to opt for the people or the parliament to approve Turkish membership.

The clause requiring a popular vote for any new accession increasing the EU population by 5 per cent will remain in the French constitution, but the President will now be able to choose decision by parliament instead, as long as he gets the support of a three-fifths majority in both the Senate and the National Assembly.

Final decision on this formula is expected at the Versailles Congress on July 21, when various constitutional changes should be confirmed.

Mr Sarkozy has meantime confirmed to the European Parliament that further enlargement cannot be contemplated before the Lisbon Treaty has been implemented.

I may be sceptical about the timetable for EU enlargement of the European Union following Ireland’s referendum, but there has been one welcome development as France takes over the presidency: the French Senate has voted by 297 votes to seven to scrap the obligation to hold a national referendum over Turkish membership.

The issue is scheduled for final decision on July 7, when the National Assembly will be asked to revoke a recent bid to retain the clause.

Of course Turkey was not named in the legislation, which was introduced into the constitution by President Chirac in 2005. It applied to any candidate country representing more than 5 per cent of the EU population, but nobody doubted its target. It has seriously damaged relations between France and Turkey and cast a shadow over France’s chairmanship of the enlargement negotiations for the next six months.

Mr Sarkozy no doubt remains sceptical about Turkish membership, but this move would restore an element of good faith while talks continue. Chirac’s 2005 gesture did seem a somewhat cynical response in the face of opinion polls of the time.