There has been no Plan B in Brussels for an Irish “no”. As the results came in from Ireland, the reflexes of many in the pro-treaty camp appeared to be to continue with the process of ratification. This would be the worst choice, if legally possible at all. It would tell small countries that their views did not matter – exactly what Irish voters were recoiling from.

The next worst option would be to try to write a new unifying treaty. Not many European leaders have the stamina for this, and the legitimacy of the exercise would be ever more open to being challenged.

The best option would be to continue as the European Union has done in recent years, ever since it began the agonised process of trying to equip itself with a constitution. It has not done badly without one. Far better now to try to deal one by one with the different questions of how the EU should run itself, such as whether it needs a single president, where it might want a common foreign policy, and other aspects of economic or social policy. This would be messy – and much more limited than the architects of a new constitution originally wanted – but that appears to be the Union that voters find tolerable (in the few cases where they have been asked for their opinion).

There will be, as there was after the French and Dutch “no” votes, an attempt by some to say that the Irish did not understand what they were rejecting.

True, the “no” campaign was garnished with fears that would not obviously have followed the passage of the treaty, such as a loosening of Irish restrictions on abortion, or on the country’s historic neutrality. But voters seem to have been clearly afraid that Ireland, as a small country, would lose its say in a bigger Union, where more laws and other internal arrangements would be agreed simply on the view of the majority. Ireland’s power to veto these would drop.

It is impossible to dispute this point. It would be foolish for other countries to proceed with ratification and hope that the Irish will come to their senses, shamed into compliance by dislike of being the only one out. That is exactly the patronising attitude that leads voters to vote “no”.

The only argument that the pro-treaty camp could offer is that the benefits of its passage would outweigh the costs; this is a hard case to make because some of them are invisible at this point. True, some difficulties of trying to run a Union of 27 members have become evident. At the Nato summit in April, Greece blocked the membership of Macedonia, perpetuating its endless quarrel with the country’s name, and Germany checked the progress towards membership of Ukraine and Georgia. The EU has no common policy on those points. Poland, strongly Catholic in a Union founded with a secular character, could complicate other strands, including development aid and family planning.

The treaty set out to bridge such awkwardnesses by removing the ability of one country to block a policy. But it seems, after three “no” votes, that this is a solution with which voters are profoundly uncomfortable. This cannot be brushed aside as the reflex of a population that has neglected to be as educated in the subclauses of the treaty as its authors would like.

The effect may be that Europe will be more limited in what it can do as a Union, and that the number of policies on which all members will agree is narrow compared with the past. But the recent past, since the two expansions that took in Central and Eastern European members, is not dismal. Europe has not collapsed or stalled – far from it. To continue with the model of the past few years, without a new treaty, dealing with the need for particular agreements as they present themselves, looks like the best shape of the future.

EU treaties

Treaty of Lisbon (2009?)
Creates new jobs of president of the European Council and EU “foreign minister” with an extensive bureaucracy, the European External Action Service. Ends national veto in 51 areas and gives the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force. Gives European Parliament more say in decision-making and updates voting weights for 27 members. Commission down to 18 members. Combating climate change becomes formal EU objective

EU constitution (RIP 2005)
Attempted to do essentially the same thing as the Lisbon treaty but by replacing and consolidating all the previous treaties in a single constitution for the EU, with more grandiose terminology, eg, EU “laws” were to replace directives. Scuppered after French and Dutch voted “no” in referendums

Treaty of Nice (2003)
Set voting rules for up to 25 member states to allow the EU to expand into Eastern Europe, extended qualified majority voting and allowed for “enhanced cooperation” by groups of countries. Set new voting weights for member states and scrapped the second commissioner for big countries including Britain

Treaty of Amsterdam (1999)
Gave legal basis to the Schengen visa-free travel zone in mainland Europe. Introduced High Representative for EU foreign policy

Maastricht treaty (1993) Introduced the single currency and created the European Union, giving it far-reaching new powers over criminal, military and foreign affairs

Times Recommends

• Should Knox’s trial even have reached the courtroom?
• 'Was it real?' The US bailout nightmare
• Iranian opposition plays the long game