In both cases, the turnout was unusually high. The consequences of this rejection are still unpredictable. Some think by doing so, the French and the Dutch have effectively killed the constitution, which is such a long and cumbersome document that one needs to have an advanced law degree to understand it. Others, who are slightly more optimistic, think that it will merely slow down the pace of European integration.

Almost everybody agrees that it will open a period of uncertainty and turbulence. Now the question is: If the Union has got twenty five members, why rejection by only two should create such a crisis ? There are two reasons for that. This treaty or the constitution or the constitutional treaty, however one wants to describe it, can only come into effect if it is ratified by all the member states. Both France and Holland happen to be founding members of the Union. It is inconceivable to have an integrated European Union without the presence of France and Germany. Why?

The search for an integrated European Union owes its origin to the age-old rivalry between Germany and France, which caused two world wars in the twentieth century with devastating consequences. In order to build a bridge between France and Germany and to lessen the risk of another Franco-German war, in May 1950, a French civil servant called Jean Monnet and the then French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman put forward the idea of a new framework for western Europe.

An independent supranational authority to administer a common market for coal and steel -- two items then considered as absolutely essential for all war efforts -- was to be set up in 1951 by France, West Germany, Italy and the three Benelux countries. The members of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) agreed to abolish all customs barriers and discriminatory practices affecting these commodities. Although the immediate objectives of these economic measures were to prevent another Franco-German war, some influential French and German politicians nourished the idea of an eventual political integration of the member states. This is why many in France and Germany thought that this European Constitution was one more step in that direction. If that is so, why all of a sudden have so many French voters turned against it?

There are varied reasons for this resounding rejection. Memories of the two World Wars have faded in French minds. Now they take peace for granted. The disenchantment with the EU has come gradually. Anyone who bothered to follow French domestic politics in recent times could feel that it was growing. The fact is that there is a total disconnect between the elite, who govern the country and run the bureaucracy in Brussels on one side, and the ordinary people on the other.

First of all, it was not even necessary for President Chirac to submit the constitution to a referendum. Like his German colleague, Gerhard Schroder, he could have had it approved by the national parliament without any difficulty. Instead, he wanted to be too clever and play domestic politics. He thought that he was going to win anyway and that

a referendum would split the Socialist party in such a manner -- which it did -- that his chances of winning the 2007 presidential elections would be enhanced by a victory. Needless to say, he failed to gauge the mood of the country.

Let me give you another simple example to illustrate the point that there is a great divide between the French ruling class and the ordinary people. While the US constitution starts with the words, "We, the people of the United States," the

European constitution which was drafted by a former French president called Giscard d' Estaing, who is an aristocrat, starts with the words, "His Majesty, the King of the Belgians" and other European heads of state have "agreed on the following dispositions." No wonder, the French, who sent their king and the queen to the guillotine more than two hundred years ago, rejected this "royal document" so unceremoniously.

The current socio-economic problems have also played an important role in this rejection. Poor economic growth, high unemployment, more Anglo-Saxon-inspired deregulation which may threaten jobs and existing social benefits, low wages, high profits for big business, ever-rising compensation packages for senior executives, globalisation which is leading to outsourcing and transfer of production facilities to poorer countries of Europe and elsewhere, a certain incomprehension of many European directives coming from Brussels -- all this have created such anger, fear, and frustration among the French that they no longer trust their government.

On top of all this, the French are suspicious of the EU's "Lisbon Agenda" -- an Anglo-Saxon style economic programme, which apparently would make Europe more competitive in the world market. There is a growing feeling among the French that their legislators and bureaucrats in Brussels have become so remote from reality that they no longer know how the ordinary French people live or what they think.

The EU government in Brussels is perceived as a club of distant heartless technocrats who want to lay down centralised economic policies for the whole of Europe and control every aspect of human life like the much-discredited economic planners of the now defunct Soviet Union. However, unlike the Soviet Union, where the state controlled everything, here in France and Holland, many ordinary people, in the best populist tradition, think that the European Union is pursuing an agenda which is driven by big business. The French want their government to fight for a more social Europe in Brussels.

As mentioned before, the Union has already got 25 members. Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia are expected to join it soon. Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, and Macedonia are waiting in line to join the Union. In France and Holland already there are serious complaints against the immigrants from East and Central Europe, who are apparently taking away jobs or lowering wages. Because of its colonial past, France has already got the largest Muslim population in Europe. Now simply the idea of letting a Muslim country with a large population like Turkey become a member of the European Union frightens many French people. Many people in France and Holland think that the expansion of the Union "has gone too far and too fast." Even worse, they feel that it has been done behind their back without their participation. The referendum on the constitution has been perceived as an after-the-event consultation. This referendum has been their only opportunity to take revenge, which they have not missed.

Now what? There are several options. Some politicians (e.g. EU President Juncker and President of the Commission Durao Barroso) think that the EU should stay the course and continue with the ratification process until 2006 and give a second chance to the countries which rejected the constitution. Others think that after such an ignominious defeat, the ratification process should be suspended and the constitution in its current form should be scrapped.

Given the strong nationalistic feelings in many countries, one should forget these grandiloquent expressions like European citizenship or European constitution and concentrate on those parts of the draft which would "streamline the bureaucracy that the voters assail and strengthen the management of the EU."

Most probably, Tony Blair would use the forthcoming British presidency of the Union to push forward this line of thinking because on the issues of national identity and sovereignty, the British public feel exactly the same way as the Dutch. There are still others who think that the EU should fall back on the Treaty of Nice.

The future course of action will probably be decided at the next summit meeting scheduled to be held in Brussels on the 16th and 17th of this month. Meanwhile a lot of soul searching and reassessment of the situation will take place in the European capitals.