The debate was organised by the Institute for International Relations and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, pooling Croatian experts in politics and law and EU representatives, including the chief or the European Commission delegation in Croatia, Jacques Wunenburger, and Dutch Ambassador Lionel Veer.
Wunenburger said the European Constitution should be rejected by at least five countries to be considered dead, and added that its ratification should continue.
He cautioned, however, that the French and Dutch "no" could have an adverse effect in other EU member-countries, as seen earlier this week when the British government decided to freeze the holding of a referendum on the Constitution.
Wunenburger said that even if the Constitution was declared dead, the Union would continue operating in line with existing agreements.
He said that the left wing in France rejected the Constitution for fear of losing social security, and the right wing because it wanted a Europe of nations.
He cited current EU president Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who said the rejection of the European Constitution reflected a rejection of the Union as it was today, rather than of the text of the Constitution.
Ambassador Veer said the reasons why the Constitution was rejected in the Netherlands were primarily economic in nature.
He said that unlike the constituents, the Dutch parliament had advocated the European Constitution, which he added indicated a rift between politicians and the people.
Zagreb Faculty of Political Science professor Ivan Grdesic agreed, saying this rift had deepened in every European country. He cautioned about two processes in Europe, including Croatia -- a restored nationalism and a growing Euroscepticism.
Asked what citizens had rejected, the EU which could be or the EU as it was now, Zagreb Law School professor Sinisa Rodin said the latter. Asked how this would impact on Croatia, he said the question was not if but what kind of Union it would join.