The deficiencies of the document itself — Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s last great vanity — were laid out by Tim Hames yesterday. It is a toxic mixture of windy statements about “social democracy” and complacent grapplings of power to Brussels’s bosom. Compare it with the visionary simplicity of the US Constitution and you blush. Note that American states have some independent legal freedoms that European nations have already surrendered, and the blush goes nuclear. Like Tim Hames I can see the case for a formal tidying-up operation as the EU becomes larger, but this was not it. It is a disgrace that our own Government, full of qualified lawyers, saw nothing wrong with the document. It is even more dispiriting that Germans, Austrians, Belgians, Maltese, Finns and Italians must have it “ratified” willy-nilly by their governments; and worse still that countries newer to democracy — Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia — are not to be given a chance to try out their new freedom on this issue.

But if you really want to be depressed, listen to José Manuel Barroso, shrugging off defeat with the devious statement that “nine countries said ‘yes’, one said ‘no’ ”. Or hark at Peter Mandelson: the result, he says, wasn’t about the treaty or the EU but “the unpopularity of the Government and concerns about high unemployment”. Then, echoing Senhor Barroso but with more flagrant cheek, Mr Mandelson adds sententiously: “The views of the public are paramount. And with 49 per cent of Europe’s public having agreed — or their governments having agreed — to say yes . . .”

Oh, come on! That little aside — “or their governments” — gives away the whole mindset which has made the French say “non” and will make the Dutch and British follow. A government’s having agreed to something is not proof of public endorsement. We are all forced to vote for governments on a mosaic of policies, embracing a least-worst principle (I know a hunting woman who voted Labour in 1997 because of its policies on social justice, even though her sport was likely to be doomed). Usually we take the rough with the smooth, and accept that this is the best democracy can do. But when it is a matter of altering national independence and sovereignty we should be asked specifically: not expected to go along with the fancy of some government we elected three years ago with pensions or healthcare or sleaze on our minds. To his credit, Tony Blair did finally accept this.

The French “non”, the Dutch “nee”, next year’s “no” from Britain have, I think, several roots. One is a well-founded suspicion of this particular document, which even senior Europhile lawyers on Radio 4 described as a “dog’s dinner”. Another reason is a general tendency to resent the way that governments, once elected, think they can move the goalposts. But a third, important reason is that this is the first time we have ever had a chance to express undiluted unease about the power of Europe. Thirty years ago, we voted for a fairly simple trading bloc. The “Common Market”, we called it — not a “Community” and certainly not a “Union”. Ted Heath sold out the fishermen, but otherwise it felt reasonably benign and unthreatening to everyday life. The idea that Europe might have primacy over trade and customs policy, environment and workplace regulation would have seemed ridiculous. An EU foreign policy, or the proposed extension of the EU’s “exclusive competence” into justice, asylum and immigration would have been a scaremonger’s nightmare. People would have laughed at you for predicting a European currency, a flag, and workers and claimants moving freely from Tallinn to Tipperary. The old Common Market felt local and limited, a trade deal with familiar neighbours.

Since then we have had Nice and Maastricht, vastly extending European powers; and equally vast enlargements of the Union itself. Nobody has been able to vote specifically on any of this, unless by abandoning all common sense on domestic issues and endorsing some wild fringe party full of xenophobes. The newest European countries may be temporarily thrilled at their new freedom and chance of prosperity, but in the older EU countries even the most progressive and internationalist thinkers may well nurture a quiet irritation at the way that political leaders go barrelling onwards towards ever-closer union without respecting the qualms of people who know in their guts that they are French, Dutch or British and that it really matters to them to be so.

The voices of the Euro-establishment remain piqued and uncomprehending. Chris Davies, leader of the Lib Dems in Europe, says: “The French people have sent a mixed message.” Mixed? A 10 per cent lead on a 70 per cent turnout? Blimey, any Lib Dem in the real world who won a vote like that would claim it as a ringing endorsement. But Euromaniacs live on another plane. Jacques Barrot, the French Transport Commissioner, said loftily that France must change its mind, as “once a project has been launched, you cannot abandon it”.

Er, actually, Jacques, you can. You can pull it back up the slipway, examine it, repair it or build another. It’s better than having the damn thing sink in front of you just because you can’t accept that it has a huge hole in the bottom.

Times Recommends

• Falling pound? The only way is up
• Britain 2028: we need ten new cities
• New Orleans: a hopeless case