Over in Spain they've just had the first referendum on the European Constitution. The 'Yes' vote won on 77% (although turn-out was only 42%). Three countries have already ratified the treaty, Spain's now definite to, and quite a few others (Malta, Cyprus, etc) only have formalities to go through.

One thing about the referendum in Spain was notable though. Even though less than half the country bothered to vote, it seems even most of them didn't understand what they were voting on. One poll claimed only 10% of Spaniards said they knew what was actually in the constitution, which is even more worrying when you factor in the accepted fact that people aren't keen on admitting ignorance to pollsters. 'Don't knows' in polls typically make up a small number, but it's the majority response in 6 EU countries to the Eurobarometer poll on the constitution (and lies between 30 and 50% in most of the rest).

Another issue is what will happen if countries reject the constitution, as places like Denmark, the UK and the Czech Republic may well do. Anyonehave a clue how that would be dealt with?

Lastly, do any of you understand the constitution? And if so, what are your views?

I can't help but suspect that a certain amount of what's being voted on here is the idea of European union, rather than the specifics of the proposal. What I'm wondering is how much of the vote to ratify is driven by the desire to create a European entity that can tell the US where to get off.

I wouldn't get too agitated, caffiene - it's traditional for people to make decisions based on PR and convenience, and only later realize what they have let themselves in for. That's why history is a cycle of crushing, numbing despair under a brutal dictatorship, interspersed periodically with bloody revolution followed by gradual disenchantment with freedom and return to dictatorship. The EU (assuming that France and Germany don't break it up fighting about who's going to be Top Dog) will make sure it absorbs even the smallest disagree-ers one way or the other. Then, after power consolidation, it will become clear that the individual states have no ability to leave short of civil war or USSR-style dissolution.

The EU constituation is a compromise paper made in the convent and then altered by the national goverments for mainly national machismo. No wonder barely anyone understands it.

I am not sure however if knowing how it works in detail is important for knowing what to vote for in a referendum. It does not seem like if we don't get this constitution we are getting a chance for a different one soon. If you are in general for a EU constitution but have beefs with that one it seems to be the better strategy to vote yes and start lobbying for changes.

What would happen if some countries vote no is a tricky question. AFAIK some EU procedures would be changed so opposed to other issues like the treaty of Schengen you can't have countries that are in and ones that are out. Maybe you can make some sort of constuction for it though.

Otherwise we propably get a Europe of 2 speeds.

MrToad: whilst the constitution would make leaving the EU a bit more difficult than it it now; can you seriously envision Slovak and German troops closing in on Prague if the Czech Republic tried to opt out in ten years?

arcosh: surely it would become far harder to change through lobbying once the constitution's been established. I doubt a few countries refusing to ratify would lead to the breakup of the EU, but my major worry is that voting 'no' would be interpreted as a vote against integration fullstop - especially over here where the 'No' campaign is dominated much more by right-wing xenophobes than in, say, Sweden or Denmark.

The thing that's got me most confused is that, whilst the arguments of many left and green parties make me edge towards a 'No' vote; the sort of arguments presented on http://www.vote-no.com make me really want to vote 'yes'. It's similar to the original referendum on EU membership, when Tony Benn (far left of the Labour Party; advocates the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a democratic, socialist state) and Enoch Powell (far right of the Tory party, advocated drowning brown people in rivers of blood) found themselves having to share funds and stages for the 'No' campaign; despite the fact they despised each other.

All right, then - I'll put my money where my mouth is; I'll bet you a beer that in ten year's time, the component states of the EU find that their ability to withdraw from the Union is severely curtailed; by military force, if necessary! Check back with me in 2015, and we can watch the neo-Anschluss together!

It's a date!

You're on.

The attacks'll be made on Copenhagen or London if they're goign to take place anywhere...

And I'll match the beer and raise you a bag of crisps...

Or Stockholm. Sweden has the highest level of opposition to the constitution according to the Eurobarometer polls, it's just they're refusing to have a referendum on it. Only the Left Party and the Greens are demanding a referendum, because they both know the 'No' vote would win. Also, don't expect Prague to be too easy. their referendum is probably going to be held at the same time as the general elections, and if the Civic Democrats can mobilise their supporters as well as they're expected to, I can see a 'No' vote there.

I didn't consider Britain or Sweden, because the idea is they have to join and then try to pull out when they come to realize how they've been had. There's still some doubt as to whether GB will actually formally join, as they've managed to avoid being made part of Europe in strict terms since Wiiliam (I) managed to pull off that successful invasion. Personally, I have grave doubts as to whether Germany and France can coexist in a Union for longer than about 10 years anyway. It will be interesting to watch this one unfold.

France and Germany have already coexisted in a Union for more than ten years. The Constitution more clearly codifies, and in some cases expands the power of the EU. It's not creating much that's new, except permanent President and Foreign Minister posts and legal entity for the Union.

Sweden and Britain have already joined; they just haven't ratified the new constitution yet.

Don't think you can affect my prejudices with a few cheap facts! I'm more than a match for reality, I'll have you know.

I don't think the constitution as it is would be viewed as written in stone on the long run. Sure we will have it as it is for 5 or 10 years but then i think changes of little things one at a time will start.

If this constitution is not ratified i don't think that there will be an other attempt for a constitution for the whole EU soon. Then i rather expect after a break where everybody blames someone some deeper integration in a core europe, and "troublemekers" being pushed to the fringe gradually.

I am not sure which scenario i like better but in the latter case i'd want my country in core europe so i'd vote yes just to show that i am for deeper integration.

And i don't expect the EU to try to hold seceding members with military power. Usually the population of existing EU states has to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept new members. Various attempts of politicans have not been able to sellt he concept of "sheer size is cool". Far more likely would be IMO movements to throw individual countries out.

To back up arcosh's point, the French government has agreed to hold a seperate referendum on whether the French public will accept Turkey as an EU partner; as many feared accepting the constitution would pave the way toward Turkey's membership.