The milestones in the evolution of Europe are well-known, from the rise of Charlemagne to the Enlightenment to the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and future scholars will agree (eventually) that yesterday’s “non” in France is a defining moment for both that country and the continent. There is something particularly ironic, perhaps unappealing, about the eccentric coalition of Left and Right that proved the campaigning engine for this monumental defeat of the French elite. And yet this unholy alliance is itself a reflection of the fundamental and fatal ambiguities of a constitution that is not worth the hundreds of pages it is written on (the exact length varies with language).

That backdrop means that it is trite to dismiss this ballot as the sort of intemperate activity that the French engage in every so often, one more ultimately futile revolt to add to a string of others. Jacques Chirac called this vote at a time of his choosing, confident that he had acted before his diverse opponents could mobilise and that once again a French President could set a precedent for the rest of Europe. That his administration, inconsistent and inept, is so unpopular did not help his cause but it can hardly explain this earthquake. The French have never repudiated a “European” cause in the past. That they have done so now demands deep contemplation.

Not that it will be M Chirac’s instinct to be that humble. If his record is any guide, then lesser heads will roll and blame allocated elsewhere. There have already been indications that he will urge others to continue with the ratification effort and if they fall into line he might come back to the electorate of France to demand a second vote with a political gun pointed at them.

It would be an outrage if others conspired to support him. The view of the French electorate should be deemed to be the last nail in the coffin of this unloved treaty. If, as expected, the citizens of the Netherlands again condemn it on Wednesday, then it will be more than six feet under. Rather than casting around for excuses and scapegoats, politicians, at home and abroad, should acknowledge the obvious. This text and the enterprise that produced it has long lacked the public enthusiasm that is required of democracies. The EU constitution is the dead parrot of the forestry of European politics.

No leader should be more aware of this than Tony Blair. He will soon assume the presidency of the European Union. Almost exactly 13 years ago, John Major, similarly poised to take titular command of the EU, was offered a lifeline by the people of Denmark as they spurned the Maastricht treaty. He chose not to treat this as a gift from the Gods but heeded the advice of the Foreign Office and steered the initiative to amend Maastricht and oblige the Danes to swallow it at another time of asking.

It was a decision that weakened him when the ERM crisis came, undermined his premiership terminally and ultimately condemned his party to three election defeats.

Far more importantly, though, the EU proceeded towards a monetary union that has so far produced pathetic economic growth, an appalling lack of competitiveness in international trade, massive unemployment, the revival of protectionism and an atmosphere in which extremists of several stripes can happily flourish. The single greatest condemnation of the EU constitution is that it promised more of the same. This fate can be reversed after this referendum. C’est “non” is surely clear.