The EU constitution's fate at the hands of voters has a mainly psychological impact - but Europe still needs to be able to speak with one voice, writes John Bruton.
Viewed from Washington, if there is any upside in France's rejection of the EU constitution last Sunday and the Dutch No yesterday, it is the level of interest US news organisations have shown in the outcome.
Several influential American commentators have devoted columns to the French referendum (not all of them flattering or well-informed), while the New York Times and Washington Post deemed the result significant enough to be their headline story on Monday.
The interpretation here of the French result seems to run the gamut between two extremes: that this is an apocalyptic event, plunging the EU into chaos and heralding the end of the EU, or that the overwhelming rejection by voters of a treaty backed by their leaders could actually be the catalyst needed to spark real public debate in Europe.
With all that is being said and written, the public needs to be clear about what the French No does and does not do. It does not bring about any reduction in the powers of the European Union, or in the rights Europeans enjoy as citizens of the union. The union still retains all its powers in trade, the environment, anti-trust, consumer protection and the rest.
Its two foreign policy chiefs, Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, remain in place. EU citizens still enjoy their existing treaty rights to live, work and do business in other European countries. To the extent that any EU country denies them those rights, it may find itself hauled before the European Court of Justice.
The EU constitution would have consolidated all these powers and rights in one document. It would have brought about a simplification of voting procedures, better consultations with national parliaments, a more unified formation of policy, and majority voting on cross-border crime. But the human rights provisions in the EU constitution are already being enforced by the European Court of Justice anyway.
In different circumstances, if the economy was better and if reforms had already yielded fruit, France might have voted Yes to the constitution. But we should not forget that No is always the easiest answer to give in any referendum.
Indeed, it may be time for democrats everywhere to reflect on the fact that if major political questions could all be reduced to a simple Yes or No, we would never have had much need for parliaments in the first place.
Looking at it from this side of the Atlantic, I see the main impact of the French No as psychological rather than legal. The confidence with which the EU opened its doors during the 1990s to new member states may be temporarily deflated.
On the face of it French voters seemed to be expressing reluctance about further enlargement. In the short term that may have a negative impact in places such as Ukraine, Turkey and the western Balkans, where the possibility of EU membership provided an incentive for democratisation and reconciliation of former enemies.
Legally speaking though, nothing has changed. The EU is still free to offer membership to additional states, and it remains the case that each proposed new member state must be approved by all existing members. With or without the proposed constitution, just one existing member state saying No was and remains enough to stop a new member joining.
Considering the difficulties the United States itself had in agreeing the basis for adding states to its union during the first half of the 19th century, the expansion of today's EU from an initial group of six to its present membership of 25 is no small achievement.
Another psychological impact of the French No may be the pace at which some remaining steps are taken to complete our internal market. Most of the job is already done, but action on services, on mutual recognition of professional qualifications and on state aid may be slowed down a bit.
That now is a matter of political will, but the legal basis for completing the job remains in place.
I believe that, after an initial period of mourning, the leaders of the three EU institutions - the parliament, the council and the commission - will set out to prove to voters that the EU project is not only alive and well, but that it provides a much better way to give Europeans security and prosperity in the 21st century than 25 different nation states could acting separately.
It is hard to think of any global problem that Europeans could cope with better as 25 separate states than they could by working together in shared sovereignty. That reality will reassert itself with the passage of time.
As far as relations with the United States are concerned, reality will also reassert itself.
Europe needs to influence US thinking, and the US needs to influence European thinking. That can best be done if Europe speaks with one voice, and listens through two ears rather than through 50.
The summit between EU presidents Barroso and Juncker and President Bush on June 20th in Washington will be a good opportunity for Europe's leadership to demonstrate a renewed self-confidence and a strengthened determination to get on with business.
Ambassador John Bruton is head of the EU Commission Delegation to the US