From Paris to The Hague, the answer is definitely 'maybe'

When France and Holland vote on the new EU constitution they will shape the future of Europe, and of Tony Blair. Our Foreign Editor, Raymond Whitaker, walks the streets of both capitals to assess the likely results of two historic polls

'This vote is just about the European constitution," pleads Lousewies van der Laan, alone in the studio with a television camera. The window behind her frames the Dutch parliament in The Hague; the desk in front conceals her blue jeans. "It's not about whether to allow Turkey to join the EU, or whether we should abandon the euro and get the guilder back."

As one of the more photogenic and articulate MPs backing a "yes" vote in the Dutch referendum on the constitution next week, Ms van der Laan, 39, is much in demand to explain why the Netherlands, one of the six founding members of the European Community, should not turn its back on its creation. She is fighting an uphill battle - just like her counterparts in France, where the vote is on Sunday.

France's centre-right great and good were out in south-west Paris on Wednesday evening to press the case for a "oui" vote.

Edouard Balladur, a former French prime minister, admitted that the constitution is "perhaps not everything we would wish for", but insisted that it had many good things in it: more democracy, with an elected president of the European Council; more efficient decision-making, with member states being represented according to the size of their populations; and the creation of a European foreign minister.

All very reasonable and rational - and uninspiring. In the nearby Rue du Commerce the next day, Claudia Dumuis, 18, a lycée student, said: "I'm voting no. I have no confidence in the politicians. They keep things hidden. If we vote yes, more things will happen without explanation." A 28-year-old woman with her child in a pushchair agreed, saying: "France has no sovereignty any more."

Patrick Sabatier, the deputy editor of the left-wing newspaper Libération, which like every other major French newspaper is backing the constitution, said: "An appeal to reason is always going to lose to an appeal to passion." And the "no" campaigners in France and Holland are trading in far more dramatic rhetoric than the constitution's supporters.

The French far left argues that it is all a plot to destroy public spending and the 35-hour week, replacing them with the Anglo-Saxon model of unbridled competition. Dutch voters, jolted by two political assassinations, worry that the country's traditional social tolerance on such issues as soft drugs and gay marriage is under threat.

In both countries, the spectre of Turkey - populous, poor and Muslim - joining the EU has been raised.

French opinion polls show that "non" has nosed ahead of "oui" once again after an interlude when supporters of the constitution held a narrow lead. In the Netherlands, as Ms van der Laan's television interviewer points out from his studio in Amsterdam, the figures for the "yes" campaign are getting worse.

The channel RTLZ has commissioned a survey that shows 36 per cent of voters are "negative" towards the constitution, against only 30 per cent who are "positive". Watching all this is an anxious Tony Blair, whose government will publish its referendum Bill on Tuesday.

A Dutch vote against the constitution on 1 June may not, however, be final. The government insists that the referendum, forced on it by parliament, is purely consultative, though the parties in the governing coalition have promised to accept the result if turnout is greater than 30 per cent. But a rejection by France, not just another founding member of the project but its moving spirit for decades (in partnership with the Germans), would be the end of the matter.

Such an outcome would land Mr Blair and the British presidency of the EU, which starts in just over a month's time, with some difficult negotiating to do over what happens next.

But the Prime Minister almost certainly would prefer a "non", supplemented three days later by a Dutch "nee", than the alternative.

A double "yes", or even a French "yes" on its own - because in those circumstances a Dutch "no" could probably be fudged - would force him to go ahead with a British vote next year.

All the same arguments against the constitution now being heard in France and the Netherlands would be refined and repeated here, among a public far more disposed to be anti-Europe.

Loss of sovereignty? A staple argument by the Eurosceptic right for more than a decade. Turkish entry? A gift to those who saw immigration and asylum as the only issues on which the Conservatives drew blood during the election campaign - in vain does the Dutch MP point out that rejecting the constitution will not prevent the Turks joining.

And while the French are told their jobs will be exported, the British will hear that their earnings are to be raided to pay for lazy, spendthrift bureaucrats in Brussels. The prospect of Britain voting "no" when everyone else has approved the constitution, and therefore being presented as the wrecker of Europe, is one that must haunt Mr Blair. So it is likely that a briefing he received last week from members of an informal Anglo-French-German network endorsed by Lord Weidenfeld secretly heartened the Prime Minister.

Not only would Gerhard Schröder's Social Democrats almost certainly lose a key state election in Germany tomorrow, Mr Blair was informed, but French supporters of the European constitution were staring defeat in the face.

While preserving a grave appearance for these Europhiles, the Prime Minister must have been breathing an inward sigh of relief.

Lord Haskins, the chairman of the European Movement, believes there will be "no" votes in Holland and France.

"A French no would lead to a period of intransigence on a whole range of issues at a critical period," he said. "There would be much less chance of movement on CAP [common Agricultural Policy] reform, enlargement, world trade and environmental change."

Turmoil within France and Germany means much less chance of Britain being left isolated as a "hard core" of EU members steam away. Indeed, the unravelling consensus means Britain might be in a stronger position to dictate the direction of the EU in the wake of a no vote.

Supporters of the constitution, like M. Sabatier, argue that a French "non" is by no means certain, though he admitted: "I wouldn't bet on the result. It's going to be a close call." But why is such an outcome even thinkable in two countries that presided over the birth of the European project?

The answer is that Europe's chronic lack of consultation, and voters' discontents with their own governments, have seen frustrations boiling over. In the Netherlands, which now contributes most per head to the European budget, there is fury that the guilder joined the euro at what many consider too high a level. The country had to make painful spending cuts to comply with the European stability pact, only to see France and Germany break the rules and get away with it.

In Libération's canteen, which has a breathtaking view over central Paris, M. Sabatier said: "There is a real disconnection between ordinary people and the élites in Paris and Brussels, which are seen as a two-headed monster.

"We are also paying the price of European enlargement. In the view of many here, the decision to allow 10 more countries to join was pushed down French throats by a coalition of Britain and Germany. We had no choice but to go along."

Back in The Hague, Ms van der Laan was still in heavy television makeup as she crossed the road to her parliamentary office. She said: "What people don't understand is that you vote no because you are unhappy with Europe, you end up with it the way it is now." But in the Dutch capital's pleasant pedestrianised lanes, it was virtually impossible to find anyone who plans to vote "ja".

Mandy Tamerus, 33, and her 39-year-old husband, Henrico Smit, were both opponents. "I will say 'no' to protest against developments in Europe," he said. "I'm afraid the large countries will get the upper hand and decide things for us." His wife also aimed to cast a protest vote, but against the Dutch government: "They are exaggerating the consequences of a negative result."

"There's a lot of space right now between the people and the government," said Baudoin de Heer, a 54-year-old bank consultant. "You feel we will be taken into the constitution whichever way we vote." The only person who thought she might vote "yes" was Devorah Hasanudien, a 26-year-old student of Indonesian origin, who said: "It's important for co-operation in Europe. I don't believe the Netherlands will lose its character." Many of the same concerns are echoed in the Rue du Commerce in Paris's 15th arrondissement, even among those planning to support the constitution. "I am voting yes because I am for Europe," said Michelle Ladoux, 60, a customer in a bakery. "But I don't want Turkey to enter. That's something that disturbs me."

An estate agent smoking a cigar outside his shop saw the dire warnings of the left as a reason to back the constitution. "Britain has done well, because it has kept control of its own affairs," he said. "We must take the Europe train to free our businesses from regulation. Here the unions block everything. People who are voting no are doing it to punish the politicians - it has nothing to do with the issue in the referendum."

In France and the Netherlands the strain is telling on proponents of a "yes" vote who are being accused of scare tactics. Piet-Hein Donner, the Dutch Justice Minister, raised eyebrows when he said a rejection of the constitution could repeat "the scenario that plunged Yugoslavia into a state of war". The French Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, talked of "long months of economic crisis", bringing complaints from the normally supportive Figaro newspaper of a "catastrophist point of view".

The French centre-right is fairly solidly behind the constitution, however. The quarrel is on the left, where M. Sabatier's Libération has accused supporters of a "non" of "chauvinistic tendencies" and "Trotskyism". Socialists found themselves having to vote for Jacques Chirac in the last presidential election in 2002, when the far-right National Front's Jean-Marie Le Pen was the only alternative. Many feel they are again being railroaded into voting against their instincts.

Laurent Fabius, a former Socialist prime minister, has urged a "no" vote because, he says, the constitution does not go far enough towards European integration. Support for this viewpoint, added to that of right-wingers who simply want to keep foreigners out, could be enough to scupper the proposal.

The fact that the moderate right is pro-constitution and a significant chunk of the moderate left against is not the only difference with Britain. The French Socialists have brought in allies from across Europe to urge a "yes" vote, including Mr Schröder and his Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, President Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland and the ex-president of Portugal, Mario Soares. In Britain such a presence would be sure to boost the "no" vote, which helps to explain Mr Blair's absence from the invitation list, and Ms van der Laan said the tactic would not work in the Netherlands either.

"Voters here want to hear from Dutch people," she said. "I am encouraged by the endorsements from groups who are trusted more than politicians, such as the churches, trade unions, employers and animal welfare organisations." (The latter includes, with typical Dutch eccentricity, a body called "Pigs in Danger". But as one local pointed out, there are far more pigs than people in Holland, which has about 16 million citizens.)

The veteran French journalist probably has more reason than the Dutch MP to believe the "yes" campaign could pull things round in his country in the last few days. M. Sabatier points out that books on European institutions are topping the French best-seller lists, while Ms van der Laan admitted: "Nobody has read the European constitution here." There also remains a sense of duty towards the European ideal in France, reflected in the Rue du Commerce by Marie, 33 and unemployed, who said: "The constitution is not perfect, but France must have faith in it. It's our history to trust in Europe." Marisa Hubert added: "We can't go this far and then say no. We must go all the way."

If the "yes" camp is to prevail, it will probably be because of people like Henri Morlier, a 58-year-old butcher: "I will probably vote yes, but without pleasure. I'm not convinced." That summed up why the mood in France was so sour, said M. Sabatier. "We prefer passion, to die gloriously in defeat. Reluctantly to support a compromise like this is against the French temperament."

Tony Blair, however, will be in the ironic position of hoping that the French choose gloire rather than pragmatism. If they vote "oui", and somehow create the momentum for a Dutch "ja" three days later, the Prime Minister will find himself in the midst of a nightmare - one that could blight his final period in office.

Ja, Yes

The pressure would be on Britain, and Blair, to hold a vote next autumn

If the French and Dutch both vote yes, then the process of ratifying the European constitution will achieve considerable momentum. That would place Tony Blair under immense pressure to name the date for the British referendum, thereby providing what will inevitably be seen as a timetable for his departure from office.

Respite could yet come in the form of no votes in Denmark and Poland this September, but the Government knows it would have to start the long and difficult process of softening British public opposition immediately. A series of events by the yes campaign is already planned, including keynote speeches by Gordon Brown.

For once Mr Brown's and Mr Blair's interests perfectly coincide: both know that if a referendum is to be held in Britain they must do all they can to win it. Even if the Chancellor's credibility survived a no vote, he would, if he became Prime Minister, still have to deal with its consequences.

The Government publishes the Bill paving the way for the referendum on Tuesday, although the date for the actual vote probably won't be set until later.

The European Commission expects Mr Blair to plump for autumn 2006, partly on the grounds that public opinion is less hostile to Europe in the months after millions of Britons have spent holidays on the Continent. An autumn date - close to the deadline for ratification - would give Mr Blair a longer period to achieve other aims, as well as increase pressure on the public not to "wreck" a European settlement that every other country had accepted. Francis Elliott

nee, no!

Rejection could kill off the new constitution, but leave very little in its place

A double no in France and Holland would sound the death knell for the constitution. The last rites, however, would be delivered shortly after those votes at an emergency heads of government summit in Luxembourg.

Other countries may push ahead with referendums but the most likely outcome would be a formal pause in the ratification process. This would free Britain from its obligation to hold a referendum, but it would be left to the British, as holders of the EU presidency from 1 July, to hold the ring while 25 nations with competing interests try to salvage what they could from the mess. Some of the institutional reforms could probably be put in place without the need for a formal treaty, but anything more substantive would require renegotiation.

On the face of it, a no would lift from Tony Blair's shoulders the burden of having to sell a European constitution to the British. But pro-Europeans claim privately that this is actually the outcome Tony Blair least wants: because if France rejects the constitution on the grounds that it is "too Anglo-Saxon", it will be virtually impossible for him to secure a new constitution that the British people will like any more than the existing one.

The one man who fears that scenario more than Mr Blair is Gordon Brown, say insiders, since it could land the expected successor with an unwinnable referendum just months into his premiership. Britain is therefore very unlikely to agree to any renegotiation. The most likely result of a wholesale rejection of the existing constitution is a "hard core" of nations such as France, Germany and Belgium pushing ahead with their own vision of Europe. FE

How European are you?

Do you know your Brussels from your sprouts? Would you vote "Oui!", cry "No!" or shake your head in confusion and mutter "boom bang-a-bang"? Find out, here, now:

What is the proposed slogan of the new EU?

a) "Unity and diversity"

b) "Greed and bureaucracy"

c) "Like a puppet on a string"

The new President of the European Council will be:

a) Appointed by the national leaders

b) An unelected pompous fat cat

c) Terry Wogan, for all I care

On Europe Day, 9 May, Downing Street has to fly the EU flag above our own. This is:

a) A reasonable annual recognition of our place in the family of Europe

b) A threat to warm beer, the village green and our whole way of life that achieves what Hitler and the Luftwaffe never did

c) Quite pretty

The earliest Britain can have a referendum on the European constitution is:

a) 13 October

b) The day they go ice skating in hell

c) Vote? I haven't done that since Abba sang "Waterloo"

What is a 'messy core'?

a) Politico speak for the fudge the leading countries will agree on if the constitution fails

b) What that Jack Chirac will get if he comes round here with his straight bananas

c) The blubber spilling out of a Belgian singer's leather waistcoat

How should France vote?

a) "Oui!" No question. We don't want to lose the chance of a better future

b) "No!" We don't want those frogs hopping over here and taking our jobs

c) For the British song, for a change. At least we didn't send Jordan to sing at 'em

What is Ode to Joy?

a) Beethoven's masterpiece adopted as an anthem of European solidarity

b) Something johnny foreigner likes marching to

c) That thing they play when the football comes on

Who said: 'When I have to choose between Europe and the wide open seas, you should know that I will always choose the wide open seas'?

a) Winston Churchill, but those were different days

b) Peter Mandelson, I dare say

c) Judith Chalmers

Who is your idea of a great European?

a) Romano Prodi

b) Robert Kilroy Silk

c) Dana International

What do the words 'Euro' and 'vision' mean to you?

a) The dream of a family of sovereign states working together to preserve peace, nurture prosperity and stick it up the Yanks occasionally

b) The nightmare of a world in which we lose control of our own country and the Queen has to give up her crown to an Italian porn star

c) Bucks Fizz whipping their skirts off. Heaven

Mostly As:

Brussels needs you.

Mostly Bs:

Veritas needs you.

Mostly Cs:

It's time you were makin' yer mind up.

Cole Moreton