BRUSSELS: At worst, it is reviled, and at best, it is seen as a fudged compromise. The European Union constitution was never likely to please everyone, and so it has proved.

The deal hammered out Friday at a tumultuous summit of EU leaders bears all the hallmarks of a text put under the near-impossible strain of satisfying the vastly differing interests of 25 nations.

Still, the EU's Irish presidency did well to get a deal at all after the fiasco of a failed December summit. At one point late in the day, God nearly scuppered accord. Poland and other Roman Catholic nations fought in vain to have a mention of Europe's Christian roots inserted into the constitution's preamble.

But Irish leader Bertie Ahern managed to steer a deft course through a bewildering maze of "red lines", blocking manoeuvres and obscure explanatory clauses so that all leaders could come away with a "win-win" solution.

The 333-page end product condenses 80,000 pages of EU laws spread across four treaties into one new one. It was labelled "historic" on all sides as bleary-eyed EU leaders took to the microphones to start the toughest battle of all - persuading their nations to ratify the treaty.

Much of the European press reaction was disgruntled at Britain's Tony Blair for pushing through what they called a watered-down treaty. Mr Blair secured his "red lines" that Britain will not lose its veto over a range of EU policies including taxation, defence and foreign affairs.

"Why did you join the union if it was only to sabotage it?" the Brussels newspaper La Libre Belgique demanded to know, angry also at Mr Blair for rejecting Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt as the next chief of the EU executive.

For its part, the eurosceptic British press reprised its charge that the constitution amounted to a "blueprint for tyranny" by Brussels and predicted Mr Blair would never win the referendum he has promised to the British people.

But for Julie Smith of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, "the real winner is Mr Fudge". "A lot of decisions seem to have been pushed over and rolled back," she said.

The leaders agreed to limit the size of the European Commission to 18 members - but only from 2014, and then only if member states don't unanimously agree in the interim to change their minds.

The smallest member states such as Malta and Luxembourg are guaranteed a minimum of six seats each in the European Parliament, which will see a doubling of its powers to co-legislate with the member states.

On the most vexed issue of all, the constitution settled on a new "double majority" system to decide EU laws. Legislation will need the approval of 15 of the member states, representing at least 65 percent of the bloc's population.

Crucially, it also sets out that a minimum of four countries is needed to form a "blocking minority" - effectively ensuring that EU heavyweights Britain, France and Germany cannot themselves throw out a piece of legislation.

"It could be quite significant in stalling legislation. Four member states isn't actually very many to block legislation," Smith commented. More positively, the constitution will give the EU a "president" elected by its member states to guide its work.

That should give continuity to policy-making by replacing the current six-month rotating presidency. But ministerial councils will be divided up among three countries for 18 months, ensuring everyone gets a crack of the whip.

The 12 euro nations will get more formal powers of decision-making on issues related to Europe's common currency. The range of majority, as opposed to unanimous, voting is extended to 30 new areas, including asylum, immigration and aspects of criminal law.

But Britain secured an "emergency brake" to ensure sensitive items of legislation that do not require unanimous votes must be reconsidered if a country so demands.

The EU will also get a "foreign minister", almost certainly to be EU foreign affairs "high representative" Javier Solana, to strut the world stage and oversee a fledgling EU diplomatic service.

The constitution's drafters had hoped the text would emulate the ringing tones of the American Declaration of Independence. It stops some way short of that. -AFP