SO, IT is “no”, and by an unambiguous margin. For France, this is turmoil. A country that was a founder of the European Union — and had used that claim of superior commitment to impress its views on other EU members in countless late-night rows — has discovered in its population a many-sided antipathy to the project.

For President Chirac it surely signals the end. He appealed on television to his nation to vote “yes”; they did not. In doing so, they rejected him, as well as the philosophy of European expansion.

If he is going to blame someone, other than himself (an option he has not yet pursued), it should be Tony Blair. True, M Chirac misjudged the mood of his country on an issue central to its identity. If there is a measure of political failure, it does not come simpler than that.

But M Chirac was bounced into calling a referendum by Mr Blair’s sudden decision a year ago to call one, after having pleaded with France not to do so. It was a discourtesy of Mr Blair, to say the least, not to consult Chirac. And it was a serious miscalculation of British politics — shared by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who urged it on the Prime Minister, although Blair maintains indignantly (as always) that the decision was his alone.

It now looks like a terrible one, for those who support the constitution. The reasoning, which even a year ago looked suspect, was that the Tories would insert a pro-referendum clause into legislation. The Lords would likely support it. The Government would be forced to overrule the Lords, looking anti-democratic, in the run-up to the European Parliament elections.

Blair’s answer should have been: that is a small price to pay. Instead, he committed himself to a referendum, embarrassing France and then the Netherlands into following suit. The black comedy is that three countries that did not need to have referendums chose to do so at what is proving to be huge political cost to their leaders.

But that is to look backwards. What happens now? Should we assume that the constitution is now dead? Probably, yes.

Of course, there is room in the next few days for the “think again” campaign to make its pitch. A Dutch “yes” might keep that alive, although a Dutch “no” would kill it.

But beyond that — even if the Danes vote “yes” in the autumn — looms the prospect of a British vote. Nothing has emerged to make the “yes” campaign seem winnable. The Government’s incentive to cancel the referendum will be huge.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, former head of the British diplomatic service and one of the authors of the constitution, who argued to The Times last week that the biggest effect of last night’s result will be psychological, is surely right.

The sense of shock in Europe is real. It may well be deepest in the Eastern and Central European countries who joined less than a year ago, and will be disconcerted to see the club they have fought to enter so disillusioned with its own ideals.

The vote represents an inarticulate nervousness about the expansion of the European Union not easily captured by either “no” or “yes” — a startled sense of how big the union now is — which politicians in all countries have to take into account.

Yet it is hard to claim that the practical implications of losing the constitution will be huge. The EU will muddle on, as it always has done, implementing only what it chooses rather than what it notionally has agreed. Even if the constitution were ratified, the EU would still ignore bits of it.

You have only to look at the scrapping, in effect, over the past 15 months, of the financial rules supposed to govern the eurozone. Although these are a central part of the constitution, France and Germany have found them inconveniently tough. They have now been watered down until they are almost meaningless.

If the constitution fails, as now seems likely, the EU will still salvage the parts it most needs (such as the replacement of a rotating presidency).

It will be helped in that by the keenness of the ten new members to keep the show on the road. They have been happier to compromise than many expected; on the whole, they have injected a sense of direction and momentum, rather than added to complexity.

The EU’s greatest problem is the depth of disagreement between members over its goals. The row over the next budget is a symptom of that. So was the row over writing the constitution itself.

These disagreements would not be solved by passing the constitution. They remain the real obstacle to progress in Europe, not the lack of a 336-page compendium of its past compromises.

Times Recommends

• UN may halt 400-year-old 'freedom of the seas'
• Where the Rosetta belongs can’t be set in stone
• Gas deal on hold, but Ukraine may pay in the end