They would not accept the inevitable until it was recorded in French votes. And Mr Chirac's admonishment of the Taoiseach on the first Nice Treaty vote rings very hollow now.
European leaders are coming confusedly to terms with the fallout from the political explosion in France at the weekend when its voters rejected the EU constitution by a majority of 55-45 per cent with a 70 per cent turnout.
Major questions are posed by the result as to whether the ratification process should proceed, freeze or be abandoned altogether. How will such decisions feed into domestic politics in the 14 member-states still to decide after the Dutch vote tomorrow? Will their leaders be willing to spend the political capital involved on what is now an uncertain project? What should be saved from the constitution if it does fall? Can new policies be developed to address the concerns of those who voted No, some of whom want a stronger and different Europe and others a much weaker political entity?
This is a political earthquake for the European Union, as our Paris Correspondent, Lara Marlowe, characterised it yesterday, a cluster of problems on which there are no clearcut answers and even less convincing leadership. The negative French vote, and the expected Dutch one tomorrow, put the EU constitution back where it belongs: with the elite group of political leaders who have failed, so far, to make a case to their citizens for a new constitution rather than another treaty to accommodate the enlarged Europe of 25.
The constitution's merits should not be overlooked in the current admonitory climate. Nine states with 220 million inhabitants have already approved it, while the others retain the right to do so. The constitution sets out the values on which the EU will be based in the future and clarifies its governing structures and powers for a greatly enlarged European Union. It brings together in one treaty five previous ones and adapts decision-making for what it believes to be a more effective governing structure. It is a complex and lengthy document by reason of its treaty status between member-states which have agreed to share sovereignty in selected areas.
There are important questions to be addressed, and clarified, in the period of political reflection over the next couple of weeks before the European Council on June 16th. That must be done at national and European levels. The task is made more difficult by the damage done to French president Jacques Chirac by this stunning reverse, the fact that chancellor Gerhard Schröder faces re-election in September and the difficulties prime minister Tony Blair faces if a UK referendum goes ahead. It will be difficult for a smaller state such as Ireland to make headway with a referendum if the big ones fail these tests. There is no comfort in all of this for the advocates of the No campaign. They must offer a positive alternative to secure continued peace and prosperity in Europe, beyond petty nationalism and wishful thinking.