The choice of Rome for the signature of the first European Union (EU) Constitution was not accidental. It was there, 47 years ago, that the European Union's founding fathers signed the original treaty establishing the body that was to become today's EU.  

That 25 European leaders returned to the EU's founding home late last month to adopt a constitution for the continent marks a significant step further forward for EU integration.

It established a new legal foundation for the Union and gave it a sharper profile on the world stage.

Consolidating all previous European treaties into a single document, the constitution is meant to speed up decision-making in a club now embracing 25 nations.

For the first time, the aims and powers of the Union are set out clearly in a single text.

If ratified, the treaty will alter the EU's voting system seen as paramount following enlargement in May.

Except for such sensitive areas as taxation, foreign and defense policies, EU will be able to make decisions without requiring that all members agree, which threatens gridlock.

The treaty gives the EU a formal legal personality, for the first time, enabling it to sign international agreements.

The creation of the post of EU foreign minister will combine, in one person, the different components of the EU's external relations, both political and economic in nature. To operate more coherently and consistently, the future EU foreign minister will represent the Union abroad and chair the regular meetings of EU foreign ministers. There will be better continuity in the EU policy-making system.

Moreover, the constitution foresees the launch of an EU External Action Service, which will bring together staff from different institutions which shape and implement the EU's foreign policies. For the first time, Europe will have a single team working under one roof and answerable to one person responsible for the full range of EU external relations.

Another innovation to the institutions of Europe under the treaty is a full-time president of the council of ministers based in Brussels, appointed for two and a half years, in place of the current rotation of the EU presidency every six months between prime ministers based in the distant capital of their country.

The appointments are intended to give the union a stronger, unified voice on the world stage.

What the Maastricht Treaty did for the euro, the constitution could do for Europe's role in the world.

The signing of the constitution shows that the EU has responsibility as a major international actor.

Member states have learned that they can only succeed in tackling the growing problems that defy borders in an increasingly interdependent world, if they pool resources and put out a united message.

They have stepped up their efforts to forge common European action. The constitution will help make Europe more operational.

Nevertheless, the treaty, which was finally agreed upon in June following more than two years of deliberation and negotiation, has also attracted controversy in several member countries.

Even calling it a constitution has triggered opposition from critics of EU integration, who see it as an attack on their national sovereignty and say it does little to repatriate powers to national capitals.

Herein lies the central tension within the EU. The body has been in continuous conflict with national leaders over power-sharing and authority.

The Eurosceptics bitterly complain that membership of the EU requires them to compromise with others and to give up going their own way.

Failure to agree on how to share power has rendered the EU ineffective and alienated the public.

Although the preliminary agreement on the constitution marks the next stage in the institutional evolution of the EU, ratification of the document is far from certain.

It must be ratified by all 25 member states before it can go in force as planned on November 1, 2006. At least 10 countries are scheduling the sterner test of national referenda.

The constitution therefore opens the battle by national leaders to win over voters to the cause of greater political unity on the continent.

With Europe's public becoming more and more skeptical about closer political integration, the possibility of at least a veto is very great.

If one of the original EU founding members rejected the treaty, then it would probably have to be scrapped, although rejection in one of the smaller member states might simply trigger a second vote or amendments to the treaty.

European leaders have yet to hammer out plans to deal with a rejection; a failure to plan for a setback of such magnitude is like whistling past a graveyard.

Most of the constitution is not new at all. Three-quarters of it is a consolidation of all the European treaties going back over half a century. If member states veto on those grounds they are rejecting the very basis on which they became members.

There has been a long march for the evolution of Europe into a partnership of nations that guarantees human rights and banishes war.

Membership has grown from a small club of six countries to a union of 25. A continent that was shattered by war and divided by ideology has been transformed into an attractive model of cooperation.

The lesson of the past is that when Europe is divided its views can be ignored and its values can be undermined.

Support is needed for the constitution for a united and strong Europe that can offer a multilateral partnership on the world stage although the road ahead is bumpy.

(China Daily November 19, 2004)