AN EU PRESIDENT

What: A full time president or chairman of the European Council.

Why: To replace the current six-monthly presidency that rotates between member states.

Advocates (the EU's big countries) say it will reduce the current confusion of the presidency and make the EU more efficient.

Also in an EU of 25 member states each one would hold the presidency only once every 12.5 years.

Opponents (small countries) say the person would be overly influenced by big countries.

UK government position: In favour.

Conservative position: Claim Tony Blair wants it for his next job. The Tories believe the council needs reform and the creation of this post centralises power and does nothing to enhance the EU's democratic accountability.

Liberal Democrat position: Maintain six-monthly rotating presidency.

SIZE OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION

What: The size of the European Commission should be reduced.

Why: In an EU of 25 countries, if every country had its own commissioner then the body may become unwieldy.

However, opposition comes from small countries who do not want to lose their commissioner.

Government position: In favour of smaller commission for greater efficiency.

Conservative position: Wants the commission to move to becoming more of a civil service for the EU, but still with an active role in enforcing European law.

Liberal Democrat position: In favour of a reduced commission.

AN EU FOREIGN MINISTER

What: A single figure to replace the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy in the Council (Javier Solana) and the Commissioner for External Relations (Chris Patten). The person would sit in both the European Council and European Commission.

Why: Would give the EU a single representative on foreign affairs to cut confusion and allow third countries an obvious point of contact.

UK government position: In favour but against the term "foreign minister" since it believes it makes the EU sound like a government.

It prefers "external representative". Wants the figure to be primarily controlled by the council, not the commission.

Conservative position: Against. Nation states should retain the initiative in foreign policy.

Liberal Democrat position: Thinks the current High Representative should also become a member of the Commission.

ENHANCED COOPERATION ON DEFENCE

What: The possibility of certain countries going further with defence co-operation, like a eurozone for defence.

Why: France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg want to eventually have an EU mutual defence clause.

UK government position: The UK objects, believing it could rival Nato. However, the government would agree to a "solidarity clause" on fighting terrorism.

Conservative position: Against anything that undermines Nato.

Liberal Democrat position: In favour of more cooperation

ARMS AGENCY

What: Agency to harmonise procurement and support research.

Why: To achieve economies of scale in procurement, avoid duplication and boost research spending.

UK government position: In favour - suggested it at the February Franco-British summit.

Conservative position: Against. Concerned that if Britain's defence industry is handcuffed to such an agency it could threaten its unique defence technology relationship with the US.

Liberal Democrat position: In favour.

MAJORITY VOTING ON ASYLUM, VISAS AND IMMIGRATION

What: Decide on common asylum and immigration policies by majority voting rather than needing unanimity.

Why: Progress has been slow on creating the common asylum and immigration rules that leaders wanted in 1999 and again in Seville last year.

A common policy is needed because asylum seekers often travel through several EU countries.

UK government position: In favour. Asylum seekers often wind up in Britain who have travelled through other EU countries.

The government thinks that majority voting will force other countries to be stricter (i.e. laxer southern European countries).

Conservative position: Against. Conservatives believe the government is ceding sovereignty in a crucial area and should just use bilateral co-operation.

Liberal Democrat position: In favour of more cooperation on asylum but more work needed on border control.

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

What: Agreed in 2000, "the charter defines fundamental rights relating to dignity, liberty, equality, solidarity, citizenship and justice".

Many convention members want to incorporate it into the constitution and make it legally binding.

Why: Leaders could not agree in Nice in 2000 to make it legally binding.

UK government position: Will accept it in the constitution but will not allow it to affect UK employment/ social laws.

Conservative position: Against it having any legal effect.

Liberal Democrat position: In favour of inclusion in its present form.

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS

What: National parliaments to have a say on whether a proposal for a law should rightly be tackled at EU level.

Why: This will allow national parliaments to play a greater role in EU politics and control whether the EU is acting outside its remit.

UK government position: In favour.

Conservative position: In favour, but want to increase their power so that a proportion could block excessively intrusive laws.

Liberal Democrat position: In favour.

HOME AFFAIRS HARMONISATION

What: For serious crimes of a cross border nature, the harmonisation of rules on what constitutes a crime, criminal procedure and minimum sentences.

Why: To ensure that cross-border criminals cannot escape justice.

UK government position: In favour - believes it will cut crime. But it won't allow the EU to set maximum prison sentences or to criminalise conduct that is not a crime in the UK.

Conservative position: Against - believes it will remove important powers from the British judiciary and police and could affect trial by jury, habeas corpus.

Liberal Democrat position: Prefers mutual recoginition of other countries' legal decisions. Wants a "European Criminal Law" institute.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE EU

What: Give the EU a single legal status so that it can sign international agreements.

Why: The EU is made up of different treaties with different statuses. Currently it can conclude international agreements on trade, but not on other areas, for example.

UK government position: For. Refutes Conservative arguments.

Conservative position: Against. Say it will mean the UK losing its seat at the UN Security Council.

Liberal Democrat position: In favour.

SIMPLIFYING EU LAWS

What: Cutting the number of different kinds of law from 15 to 6 and renaming them, e.g. the "regulation" and "directive" will become a "law" and "framework law".

Why: Make the EU easier to understand.

UK government position: In favour.

Conservative position: In favour.

Liberal Democrat position: In favour.

DEFINITION OF EU POWERS

What: The constitution will set out what is an EU power, what is a national power and what is shared.

Why: To simplify the complex treaties.

UK government position: Good - this will establish the limits of EU powers.

Conservative position: In principle in favour, but Conservatives believe this constitution has in practice used it to increase the EU's powers, for instance on social policy.

Liberal Democrat position: In favour.

EU CITIZENSHIP

What: At the beginning of the constitution it will say that every citizen has dual citizenship of the EU and their own country.

Why: Clarify matters in the constitution. Could have more meaning depending on the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

UK government position: We have been EU citizens since the Maastricht Treaty signed by the Tories.

Conservative position: EU citizenship should be secondary to national citizenship, not in parallel.

Liberal Democrat position: No problem with this.

EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

What: A figure that would pursue the fraudulent use of EU money and serious crimes affecting various member states.

Why: The commission says that member states do not give this enough attention.

UK government position: Against one single figure for the EU since it believes criminal prosecutions should be a matter for national courts, but in favour of more judicial cooperation.

Conservative position: Against.

Liberal Democrat position: Against.