The rejection of a European Union constitution by voters in France and The Netherlands may be more an issue of timing than substance. While fears of job loss and benefit cuts are real, many voters rejected the constitution out of frustration with their own government’s policies, not international concerns. Although EU leaders are eager to move ahead with more integration and streamlining of policies and practices, this week’s votes show that many European residents are not ready for such changes.

When the European Council meets later this month, it will have to decide whether the votes mean that the lengthy constitution needs to be rewritten – or merely better explained – or shelved, temporarily or permanently.

In the meantime, the rejection of the constitution does not mean that the confederation will fall apart or that EU policies will dramatically change. The EU will continue to operate under existing agreements.

The presidency, for example, will continue to rotate between member nations every six months. The new constitution would have made the presidency a permanent position, although the president would be more a spokesperson than a policy-maker.

It also doesn’t mean changes in the relationships between the United States and European countries or the EU. The United States will continue to work with France and Britain, for example, on diplomatic issues, such as Iran’s nuclear ambition, and it will continue to work with the EU on trade and finance issues.

Despite its limited ramifications, the French vote on “non” was especially troubling because for the first time a founding member of the EU has opposed the current path of European integration. On Wednesday, the Dutch joined them with an emphatic “Nee” vote of 62 percent, according to unofficial results. Nine countries, including Germany and Spain, have ratified the constitution.

The question boils down to whether the EU should be a tight confederacy where members surrender some of their sovereignty or a looser organization of states that retain most of their autonomy. The constitution favored the former model.

One possible outcome is to do what the constitution set out to do all at once in smaller pieces. For example, a simplified document that only dealt with the structure and terms of EU governance could first be passed. More complex, and controversial issues, could be saved for another day.

In the meantime, domestic concerns are likely to plague the leaders of three of the most important EU countries. French President Jacques Chirac, who replaced his prime minister the day after his country’s rejection of the EU constitution, is plagued by dissatisfaction with his handling of the economy. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder recently called for early elections and could be replaced. British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s party narrowly remained in the majority after votes last month.

The fate of these leaders, and their policies, will likely have a larger impact on U.S. dealings with Europe than will the fate of the EU constitution.