Paris sneezes - EU faced with choice between aspirin and pneumonia

What to make of French referendum? Rather than see it as Apocalypse Now, Peter Preston of The Guardian has a more restrained view:

"What really goes down the pan with Giscard's discard? The difficulty has always been that this desert of text conceals only an arid agenda for change. Take away a European foreign minister, a full-time president of the European Council, scrapping of various minor vetoes and, after 2014, a smaller commission, and what have you got? Not a fat lot: a charter of rights that may or may not make a difference, some added powers for national parliaments they may or may not choose to exercise, better security planning that will probably happen in any case.
Of course it would have been better to sign up and move on. Of course rejection presages turmoil. But the blow is emotional and symbolic, rather practical or fatal.
Europe's single foreign supremo was never going to supplant his British, French or German masters when the chips were down on vital issues like Iraq or relations with Bombardier George W Bush. He'd only be managing the small change of consensus and cooperation. No match for Condoleezza Rice - just as, come to think of it, Ms Rice is no match for Colin Powell, because the second Bush administration has already lost clout and direction.
Does it make sense to have a more permanent president or chairman of the council based in Brussels, rather than swap Europe's titular leadership every six months? Yes: but the sense is administrative, not ideological (and hardly crucial, except as a job opportunity for retired prime ministers). Are many of the scrapped vetoes important? No, even our own, dear Tory party
wouldn't claim that."