Too bad the question was stupid: yes or no. What can you do with that? Moreover the "thing" you had to decide on was not really a constitution but a genuine international treaty, the full monty, with everything written in lawyerish (a variation of gibberish). European Institutions prove here, time and again, that they are unable to understand the citizens they claim to govern.
They should have made two texts out of this big mess:
- A jolly constitution with a dozen of points, written in the vocabulary of an eight years old kid, and talking about peace, human rights, access to free healthcare, decent housing and jobs and whatnot. This constitution should have been approved by referendum.
- An international treaty for replacing the Nice Treaty, which monicker comes after the city on the French Riviera and not because it is nice in any way. This treaty should have been signed by politicians without asking anyone, if possible in a city of a newly enrolled country with an unpronounceable name, just for the fun of it (it has been so cool to slaughter the pronunciation of Maastricht for years !).
I might have found another reason to vote yes: to compensate someone who voted no for a bad reason. This is democracy. With a spin.