WILL it really be a crisis if France votes down the European constitution on May 29? That is certainly the kind of language being used. Jacques Delors, the former EU Commission President, gave warning in an interview published yesterday that “a rejection would lead to a political earthquake in France”. He added that a “no” vote would be a blow for Europe and for France.

In Poland, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, the Parliament Speaker, said: “Rejecting the constitution would send a signal to the world and ourselves that we are not able to modernise the union, that we are not able to work together.”

That is hyberbole. Of the two laments, the concern in Poland and other new entrant states is the more interesting. One important question is whether the reluctance revealed in France is a sign of enlargement fatigue, and whether the brakes may come on, even in the Balkans.

“It seemed many people in France felt better in the old Europe than in the new,” Cimoszewicz said.

But for all the gloom about the consequences of a French “no” vote on May 29, it is becoming easier by the month to see how the European Union might make do without the passage of the document.

It is still hard to believe that France will vote down the constitution, when the day comes, although a dozen consecutive polls have given the “no” camp a lead of about 5 per cent. France helped to found the EU; Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, its former President, was the architect of the constitution, marshalling the drafting of the text over two painful years.

But the polling represents so many intertwined gripes against President Chirac that it is hard to judge which ones are felt with passion.

Although the President has suffered this year from record heights of unemployment, the economic news is far from all bad. The Bank of France yesterday said that growth was set to accelerate in the second quarter, some antidote to the gloom.

So for all the agitation at the moment, the outcome is far from certain. But if France does vote “no”, what happens then? The short answer: not much. The EU will keep running under its old rules, cumbersome but not unbearable, while members work out whether it is worth trying to salvage the treaty.

In theory, all member states must approve the constitution for it to take effect. But for months, there has been much talk about how a “no” vote from a peripheral country might be fudged. One suggestion is that if the rejection came from a small country, it might be allowed to hold the vote again, as Denmark did after it voted against the Maastricht treaty in 1992, and as the Irish did when they rejected the Nice treaty in 2001.

A large country that happened to be a new entrant (a common, coy way of referring to Poland) might be excused on the grounds that it was a newcomer, and perhaps also allowed a second chance.

Volumes have been written already about what to do if Britain votes “no”. “Leave it on the sidelines” is a popular answer.

But if France voted against, it would be hard to fudge the question in that way. It is simply too central. Could the constitution be revised? That might not be as horrific as many assume.

The problem with the constitution is that it took far too long to draw up. The two years of wrangling purported to be an effort to find consensus, but the sprawling document includes something for everyone to hate.

A drive to find a much less ambitious text on which all agree could be a more refreshing and profitable exercise.

Or nothing happens at all. That could be the making of the EU. Small alliances would be formed; agreements would be struck between them.

That would not be the death of the EU, as some fear, but merely the death of the attempt to make so many policies apply to all countries. It could even help the acceptance of the new members by giving them more chances to strike alliances with the older ones.

Jan Rokita, Poland’s centre-right opposition leader, who hopes to become prime minister in elections this year, is of that school. Arguing that the constitution was not needed, he said: “Europe can integrate wonderfully without the treaty, and it can just as easily descend into crisis with it as without it.”

Times Recommends

• Experts baffled by vanishing sea lions
• CIA caught in a dirty and secretive war
• Double life of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab