The European Council's decision to kick for touch on the European Constitution, by inaugurating a "period of reflection . . . to enable a broad debate to take place in each of our countries", and to "come back to this matter" in the early part of next year was probably the best outcome one could have hoped for from last week's European Council.
However, its statement that recent events "do not call into question the validity of continuing with the ratification process" will raise some eyebrows, and it is also far from clear that the heads of state and government were right in declaring that the results of the French and Dutch referendums "do not call into question citizens' attachment to the construction of Europe".
For, whilst it does not appear that any particular part of this EU treaty evoked significant hostility, and most people accept what has so far been achieved in Europe, it seems clears that many are either not interested in, or actually suspicious about attempts to go further with the European project.
It is, of course, possible that these negative attitudes may be modified in the years ahead, which could open the way for a later adoption of the treaty, but this will certainly not happen within the next two years, and may not happen at all. In the meantime to persist now with trying to sell this treaty to a currently sceptical European electorate would be counter-productive. What was particularly disturbing about the outcomes of the French and Dutch referendum campaigns is that their "No" votes seem to have been directed against aspects of the union that derive from the original Rome Treaty of 1957 - which in combination with the recent enlargement of the union, appear to be evoking a belated backlash.
The free movement of services within the enlarged union and the right of free movement of people within it - the application of which to new member states has in fact been postponed by 12 of the 15 pre-enlargement members for up to six more years - is now being challenged.
This is demoralising for the new members - and very worrying for applicant states.
There may be valid reasons to delay for a year the entry of Romania and perhaps Bulgaria, on the ground that necessary reforms are not yet complete, and Croatia has yet to fulfil its commitments to hand over war criminals. But in view of recent evidence of belated negative western European reactions to enlargement, these applicant states are now more likely to construe delays as being motivated by other considerations.
Even more serious may be the doubts that all this has cast on the commitment of the union to admit eventually the states of the western Balkans, (and in particular the other components of former Yugoslavia), because the prospect of eventual EU membership has been a major factor in the restoration of peace in this area. Moreover former parts of the Soviet Union, such as the Ukraine and Moldova, are also likely to feel more insecure if even a possibility of eventual accession to the EU disappears.
The current negative climate of European opinion has certainly not been improved by the row that broke out at Friday week's European Council debate on future financing. There was always going to be a problem about settling the main features of the Budget for the years from 2006 to 2013, and it is in no way surprising that agreement was not reached on it at this stage. Agreements on future financing normally involve negotiations continuing right up to the last minute - and we are nowhere near that stage yet. This round of financial negotiations was always bound to be particularly difficult.
Many Western European countries are in severe economic and financial difficulties, and now they have to find additional money to assist eight poorer eastern European countries to adjust to EU membership. Moreover several states other than Britain - the Netherlands for one - are restless about the fact that their per capita net payments to the union's budget are disproportionately large.
But inevitable tensions arising from these factors were severely aggravated because of the hostile Anglo-French relationship. President Chirac, conscious that his failure to carry the treaty referendum had weakened his position both at home and vis-à-vis his colleagues at the council, sought to distract attention from his plight by provoking Tony Blair, through a particularly pointed attack on the two-decades-old British rebate, which, of course, Chirac knew to be a source of grievance to most other members.
Instead of seeking good-humouredly to deflect this rather obvious ploy, Tony Blair rose to the bait, responding in kind and thus seriously exacerbating all these pre-existing tensions. As a quid pro quo for looking again at this rebate he sought a further renegotiation of the Common Agricultural Policy (Cap) - despite the fact that this policy was reformed as recently as 2002, and that Blair had then agreed that this reformed system would continue until the year 2013.
This response gained Blair praise from the British media, who love nothing better than an Anglo-French row, and who have a particular detestation for the Cap. But this wasn't a great way to inaugurate the British presidency of the union, which starts in six days' time - although Blair in his speech to the European Parliament on Thursday last tried to sound conciliatory.
Why has France, in addition to Britain, become such a negative element in the union? The French used to have great pride in their country - and with good reason.
But during the past two decades there seems to have been an uncharacteristic loss of confidence in themselves by both people and politicians in France - and also by the French people in their politicians. This has been brought about by economic failures that have led to persistently high unemployment, and the loss of national self-confidence has increasingly made France into a difficult and uncertain EU partner.
No doubt part of the answer to the economic difficulties of France and some other EU states would lie in structural reforms that would free up too tightly regulated labour markets but, not surprisingly, in current conditions of very slow economic growth and high unemployment there is strong resistance to changes of that kind.