A little history first. The search for an integrated European Union owes its origin to the age-old intense rivalry between Germany and France, which caused two World Wars in the 20th century with devastating consequences. In order to build a bridge between France and Germany and to lessen the risk of another Franco-German war, in may 1950, a French civil servant called Jean Monnet and the then French Foreign minister , Robert Schuman put forward the idea of a new framework for western Europe. An independent supranational authority to administer a common market for coal and steel --two items then considered as absolutely essential for all war efforts-- was set up in 1951 by France, West Germany, Italy and three Benelux counties. The members of this semi-federal organisation, called the European Coal and Steel Community ( ECSC) agreed to abolish all customs barriers and discriminatory practices affecting these two commodities. Although the immediate objectives were economic, some influential French and German politicians nourished the idea of an eventual political integration of the member states.

Today, after almost fifty-five years, the goal of political integration of Europe still looks distant. But what has been achieved in the fields of business and commerce during this period was most probably beyond the imagination of the founding fathers.

True, it has been a slow process but a steady one indeed. Today, the European Union is composed of 25 member-countries. Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia are expected to join the Union soon. If Europe can overcome its prejudices against Islam, Turkey will eventually become a member. There is a thriving common currency called the Euro , which is controlled by an independent European Central Bank. Despite slow economic growth in recent years, the fact remains that the EU has created an economic common market which is much larger than that of the United States.

Then , of course, there are the well-established organs of government like the Council of Europe, the Council of Ministers, the Commission (the executive body which proposes and administers EU laws) , the European Parliament, the Court of Justice etc. Although a political integration of Europe still looks distant, a major armed conflict among the major European powers seems impossible. While reviewing a recently published book called The United states of Europe, written by T.R. Reid , the book reviewer (Roger Cohen) pointed out that that the idea of a united Europe is based on "pooled sovereignty, the primacy of international institutions and law, the exaltation of peace, an inviolable secularism, a shared currency and a value system equating death penalty with barbarism and free health care with civilisation". "Europe", according to Reid, "is at a point in its history where making aggressive war is considered passe´, an outdated relic along the lines of burning at the stake or a medieval joust".

So it is argued that if not for anything else but for the continued peace , economic prosperity and a high standard of social welfare , the Spaniards and the inhabitants of other member-states of the European Union should give a massive "yes" to the proposed constitution. After all, " greater economic , political and military integration will give them ( the Europeans) far greater powers than they could ever achieve separately, whether to increase their prosperity, combat terrorism, extend the rule of law or serve as a counterweight to the United States". ( International Herald Tribune) Since the constitution needs unanimous ratification by member-states, the politicians across the continent are afraid that a low turnout in Spain on 20th February, 2005 will have a negative influence on similar consultations in other countries.

If the prospects for having a politically integrated Europe are still remote, why do we keep calling this 455-artcle document as a constitution? Actually, this long and complicated document tries to consolidate a number of treaties written over a period of fifty years which have so far guided the workings of the Union. As explained by Josep Borrell, the president of the 732-member European Parliament, " the word Constitution was adopted gradually , despite resistance.........because it has a strong symbolic value and reinforces the document's political dimension".

Besides consolidating the treaties and protocols which often overlap each other, the proposed constitution streamlines its cumbersome decision-making process to accommodate its recent expansion. It also introduces some new provisions , which in my opinion, are definite improvements on the current situation. It creates the position of a full-time president for a renewable term of two and a half years. This will do away with the current six-monthly turn-based system which has proved to be rather ineffective . There will also be a foreign minister of the Union to conduct the EU's " common foreign and security policy". The constitution also authorises the establishment of the office of a European Public Prosecutor The European Parliament will have the powers to legislate in more areas than ever. Despite considerable pressure from conservative groups and the Vatican to refer specifically to Europe's supposed Christian roots alone, the constitution maintains a secular profile, which in my opinion, is not a mean achievement in the current international environment of religious hatred and intolerance created by Bush and his fundamentalist acolytes. For the first time the constitution introduces a Charter of Fundamental Rights for all the citizens of the Union.

Of course, the constitution has got its detractors as well. It has come under heavy criticism from labour unions who think that the constitution lacks a good social policy. In their opinion, the European Union only caters for the interests of the businessmen and financial institutions. There is some truth in this criticism. But the politicians point out that the constitution has been the product of patient negotiations among member-states who at this stage do not want to commit huge funds for this purpose. But they feel that a good overall social policy will come gradually. It is interesting to note that countries like Sweden which have some of the most advanced social systems in the world have been against the idea of endorsing a generous policy for the European Union as a whole.

As mentioned before, to come into effect, the constitution requires ratification by all its 25 member-states. So a crucial question is : What will happen if some countries vote "no"? The answer is not very clear. But it seems that these countries will be given a second opportunity as it was given to Denmark in the case of the Maastricht Treaty and to Ireland in the case of the Nice Treaty. If a country persists in not ratifying the constitution, it may eventually have to get out of the Union. Although, in principle, it appears to be a simple solution to such an impasse, in reality, it is not going to be that simple. If a small country does not ratify the constitution, and is allowed to leave the club, the European Union will , no doubt , survive.

It may also open up the possibility of two-tier or three-tier membership systems. Those who ratify the constitution will try to form a more integrated inner club with the possibility of some kind of supra-national political integration at a later stage provided the United States can be convinced that such a political entity will not go against its interests. ( According to some political observers, in 1991,an attempt to launch a project called the Confederation of Europe by Francois Mitterand and Vaclav Havel was nipped in the bud by Bush senior.) The others will be governed by the terms of the Treaty of Nice.

Actually, the idea of progressing at different speeds towards full membership has already been accepted, in practice ,by the Union because there are members who have subscribed to the single European currency while others have not. Even if a country of the size and military importance of the UK decides not to ratify the constitution,--a referendum is likely to take place in the UK in 2006 -- the Union ,although weakened by the possible withdrawal of the UK , will survive. But what will happen if France or Germany does not ratify the constitution? Will it throw everybody back to the Treaty of Nice , (which in any case will continue to remain in force until 2009) or to new negotiations ? These difficult issues cast a shadow of uncertainty over the proposed constitution which, I am afraid , will not be lifted in the near future.