There is more: Schröder, another opponent of the war, seems to be close to the exit door. Berlusconi will do anything to conserve his post. The Euro has taken serious blows. After the Dutch “nee” the constitution in its present state looks dead.

Europe is weakened and in crisis. Conservative Americans might rejoice. But they should not rejoice for too long. Here are three reasons why.

First, contrary to the notion that a pro-European “yes” would automatically have been anti-American the “non” should be seen as a strong rebuttal of globalization with an American face. Mark Anderson says it clearly in the June 2nd issue of his Strategic News Service newsletter (subscription required): “The French seem to equate their new proposed constitution not only with Globalization, but, therefore, with the U.S. A vote Non is a vote against the U.S., which, as any good Francophile knows, is almost always a sure bet.”

Second, as Federico Rampini has commented, “A weaker Europe is no good news for the US” for the very good reason that Europe is its closest ally. Only a very shortsighted view of the world could lead anyone to think differently.

The third reason for not popping open the Champagne is that there is not one crisis but two.The second one could be so bad that stability, this sacred value of traditional foreign policy, could be at stake. Even those who despise it should pay attention.

France does not seem to be able to adjust to the changing world. This is true both in Thatcherian and in progressive terms. Structural reforms are not implemented, and the famous “social model” is not working anymore. Competitiveness is low. Innovation is stalled. Higher education is in crisis. Social segregation is on the rise. Identity is confused. Fear of openness to the world is high and racism has played a role among some of last month’s “non” voters.

Elites appear to be paralyzed. Unable to reform the country in a meaningful way, Chirac should have quit to leave room for change. Instead, he has appointed a new Prime Minister who has never faced electors and who only has a little over a year to do anything. And he won’t because everybody knows that structural reforms when they work require time to show their benefits. Doing anything now would mean risking the 2007 presidential election.

On the other side, the Socialist Party is highly divided and seems to be “on the verge of a nervous breakdown,” according to Arnaud Montebourg, one of its leaders. Nobody will laugh and this drama has no Almódovar to direct it.

Most commentaries agree in seeing the “non” as a rejection of the elites by the people. But the vote goes much further than a rebuff merely of Chirac and his government. Party bosses and militants, most media, a significant number of union leaders, most highly educated people, were in favor of a “oui”. Nevertheless, the “non” won overall, with impressive margins in rural areas, among those affected by unemployment, and among factory workers and employees.

Social unrest is a possibility.

It is already there in one of its political forms if one is to believe Nicolas Baverez, a French lawyer and commentator, author of a book titled "The Fall of France." He is quoted in the New York Times as seeing in the vote "an insurrection, a democratic intifada." that reflects the "despair and fears of the French."

We should not forget that France has shown over centuries that it does not know well how to adjust peacefully--as 1789 and 1958, when de Gaulle returned over the decolonization of Algeria--have shown. But adjust it must.

The incapacity of governing classes to govern when the people are fed up and angry is a classic formula for upheaval. To be sure, it is doubtful that a population that favors security, a 35hour work week and 2 months vacation per year would opt for revolution. And no movement nor leaders are advocating overthrowing the state.

The most likely outcome seems to be some degree of chaos, authoritarian rule or both… and it could be contagious.
Is this really good news?