Europees Parlement debatteert over Europese Grondwet (en)

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - On the eve of the European Parliament's vote on the EU Constitution, a large majority of MEPs on Tuesday (11 January) spoke out in favour of the new treaty.

The six hour debate - many of whose arguments are likely to be heard through out capitals in the coming months as the documents goes to ratification - came ahead of Wednesday's non-binding but politically significant vote.

"In a divided Europe, what this Constitution does is guarantee peace", said Spanish centre-right MEP Inigo Mendez de Vigo.

The Constitution will make the European Union "the most democratic international structure that exists in the world", according to UK Socialist MEP Richard Corbett.

Both men are authors of a report endorsing the Constitution - set to be adopted on Wednesday.

The main groups in the Parliament also supported the Constitution.

The report concludes that "the Constitution is, globally, a good compromise and a vast improvement on the existing treaties which will, once implemented, bring about visible benefits for citizens".

To its critics, however, the Constitution provides the means to create an EU superstate. French MEP Philippe de Villiers, from the eurosceptic ID group, said that "national democracy will be crushed".

A vote in favour by the EU assembly would make it the third parliament in the EU to come out in favour of the text after Lithuania and Hungary ratified it last year.

However, it will just be the start of a long path to full ratification in all 25 member states - something that is needed before it can go into place.

Many countries are set to have referendums with Spain to lead the way on 20 February.

In several countries, such as the UK, the Netherlands and Denmark, a yes vote is far from assured.

The Luxembourg EU presidency said it was "up to each government" to make a success of ratification.

Margot Wallstrom, the communications commissioner, admitted that citizens' knowledge of the Constitution was poor but said she would not tolerate the debate being "confused by myths about the content of the Constitution".