By Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent

Instead, it is to stay the same: "European Union."

That is the proposal in the draft constitution and it perhaps sums up what is going on in the convention drawing up proposals for a new EU constitution - a compromise between those who want the EU to remain much as now and those who want to forge ahead to a much integrated structure.

DRAFT PROPOSALS Powerful EU president EU foreign minister Common foreign policy Legally-binding charter of rights EU to have "legal personality" Have your say on referendum Excerpts: EU draft constitution EU battle for power

And since those governments which oppose too much change have a veto, it is much easier for things to stay the same than for things to change.

The basic structure of the EU will remain - the Commission as the proposing body and civil service, and the Council of Ministers (made up of the member states) acting with the advice or consent of the European Parliament, as the deciding body.

The draft text calls for a general rule of qualified majority voting and gives more power to the European Parliament, perhaps more than many had predicted, but rejects a lot of the integrationist measures proposed by the federalists - harmonising some taxes for example.

The Community way

Even the word "federal" is dropped in the first article from an earlier draft. Instead of the Union administering "certain common competences in a federal way" we now have the Union exercising "in the Community way the competences they [the member states] confer on it."

EUROPEAN CONVENTION Chaired by Valery Giscard d'Estaing Holding year-long discussions Aims to simplify treaties Trying to decide balance of power between Brussels and governments More about the convention

Note also in that change how it is stressed that the powers of the Union come from the member states.

Nevertheless there are proposals which have caused concern among the sceptics, like the incorporation of a Charter of Fundamental Rights.

And they fear that Europe is being taken in one direction by all this - towards a closer union instead of an alliance of nations.

They predict that the Union will make a grab for more power in certain domestic policy areas (environment, energy, health and social policy among others) in which it shares competence or responsibility with the member states.

Vetoes preserved

Sometimes the argument can go both ways which makes interpretation depend on your point of view.

Take foreign policy as an example. It is true that the text states: "Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy..."

That sounds fairly fundamental.

However, dig deeper into the text and you find that foreign policy is subject to "specific provisions."

It is ring fenced by a general power of veto for each member state. The draft states: "Decisions relating to the common foreign and security policy shall be adopted by the European Council and the Council of Ministers unanimously..."

There would be an exception but only if heads of state and government agreed to this first, by unanimity.

The right of a country to go its own way (Britain over Iraq as an example) is maintained.

The same is true of defence. The aim is for a common defence policy one day: "The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy."

But again, read the whole text: "This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council acting unanimously, so decides."

Point by point

So what would the main proposals amount to?

• A permanent President of the Council of Ministers would substantially raise the profile of the European Union as a unit. At present the Presidency rotates every six months between member states. With 25 such members, this is seen as impractical. So it is proposed that a senior figure be chosen by heads of state and government to serve for up to five years. This alarms smaller states who feel their influence would be diminished. A new text on this plan is awaited.
• An EU "Foreign Minister" would represent the EU but he/she could only do so if the EU was agreed on a policy which Iraq has shown they cannot necessarily do. The powers and indeed the name of this office remain to be determined. Again a new text on this is due out soon.
• A reformed European Commission would make it less unwieldy and a new system of qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers would simplify the procedure. Small countries are concerned about this though. The Commission president would have to be approved by the European Parliament.
• More qualified majority voting across a wider range of policies is attractive to many and even to some of the reluctant countries on specific issues where they want action. The rule would be to vote by qualified majority unless the constitution stated otherwise. A qualified majority would be a double one -- a majority of countries and amounting to 60 per cent of the EU's population
• Increased powers for the European Parliament, extending the number of issues on which it has to give its assent, is proposed and is quite hard to oppose given the democractic nature of the parliament. But those who want no further dilution of national powers will oppose this.
• A redefinition of the law-making process would get rid of the confusing word "directive" and call it a "European law" instead. Supremacy of European law over national law in areas where the EU has competence is stated but no new legal position is created by this.
• The powers of the Union are defined to make sure that the concepts of "subsidiarity" and "proportionality" are established. Those mean that the Union should do only those things which the member states cannot do and only in a reasonable way. National parliament would have a role in monitoring this.
• Common citizenship. This confirms the status quo and does not detract from national citizenship. It gives people the right to stand in local and European elections wherever they live and the right to protection abroad in places where their country is not represented
• Charter of Fundamental Rights. There is an argument going on about whether this Charter, which was agreed in 2000 should be part of EU law. The British Government would veto that. It enshrines incidentally a "right to strike" (Article 28) but only "in accordance with Community law and national laws and practice."
• Home affairs and justice issues: the idea is to bring more of this into EU procedures rather than leave them to be dealt with government to government. For example, coping with asylum seekers would be easier EU wide though countries would retain their right to border controls. A European Prosecutor's office for certain trans-EU crimes is proposed.
• A new clause allowing for a country to leave the Union is outlined. It would have to negotiate a new relationship with the others especially over trade. But its right to leave is formalised.
• Giving the EU its own "legal personality" would allow it to sign a trade or other agreement on behalf of member states instead of having them all having to do so. Opponents fear that this will strengthen the EU as a single entity.
• A role for the EU in economic polices is contentious with some opposing an EU right of "co-ordination". There is no suggestion of a Union role in setting taxes but there is one to give it a say in fighting tax fraud. Giving the countries using the euro extra powers to develop policies on their own is worrying for those not in the eurozone.

Does all this amount to the creation of a European state?

There are some measures which would move it in that direction but by themselves, the proposals do not create that state.

Some of them (a common foreign policy is one) would help that process - but only if implemented. The role of national governments remains strong.

But does it give another nudge towards federalism? The sceptics will say so.