AMSTERDAM: Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposed EU Constitution yesterday, dealing a devastating blow to hopes of salvaging a charter already decisively defeated by the French.

“The Dutch people have spoken tonight. It is a clear result. Naturally, I am very disappointed,” said Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende after an exit poll said 63 per cent had voted “no” against 37 per cent in favour.

“Let it be clear,” he added. “We will fully respect this outcome.”

The emphatic rejection came three days after France plunged the future of European Union integration into uncertainty with its “no” vote. It could prove fatal for the charter, which was designed to further unify the 25-nation bloc and give it more clout on the world stage but has instead polarised opinion across Europe.

The draft document needs approval from all nations to take effect in late 2006, but the resounding “no” votes in both France and Holland were a clear message that the project of European integration has gone awry.

Voter turnout was 62 per cent, far exceeding even the most optimistic expectations and a reflection of the heated debate in recent days. Dutch NOS television broadcast the results of the exit poll as polling stations closed, based on interviews with thousands of voters at 23 stations.

It had a margin of error of four per cent. Actual results were expected a few hours later.

Earlier, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso urged nations that had not yet ratified the Constitution not to make any rash decisions about cancelling referendums or parliamentary votes. He said EU leaders would assess the fallout at a summit in mid-June.

As he cast his ballot, Balkenende said he was still optimistic the electorate would defy the pollsters and vote on the merits of the Constitution rather than their general feeling of malaise.

“The question is: do we want to have progress today or do we choose a standstill, and for me the choice is obvious.”

After conceding defeat, he said Holland would “remain a constructive partner” in Europe and that the outcome should not be seen as “a verdict against European cooperation”.

However, voters marking paper ballots with red pencils or pushing electronic buttons clearly had a different view.

At an Amsterdam school, where about a dozen people waited to vote, a reporter had difficulty finding anyone in favour of the treaty. One said the Constitution would definitely bolster Europe.

“I think it’s a good thing if there’s a strong Europe,” said Jaena Padberg. “It’s good that our rights will be secured.” Members of the three-party governing coalition were quick to pinpoint the reasons for the stinging defeat.

The “yes” campaign “started too late and got hung up in too many details,” said Hans van Baalen, one of the coalition’s top campaigners. “The ‘no’ message was much more clear.”

Geert Wilders, a prominent opponent who has argued that the treaty would open Holland to greater immigration and for the admission of Turkey as an EU member, said voters were against “the country’s identity slowly being eaten away”.

Opponents fear Holland, a nation of 16 million people, will be overwhelmed by a European superstate, even though the Dutch pay more per capita than any other country into the collective European fund.

Others were concerned a strengthened Europe could force the liberal Dutch to scrap policies such as tolerating marijuana use, prostitution and euthanasia. Others feel cheated at price increases since they traded in their guilders for the common European currency, the euro, in 2002.

“Things are going too fast,” said Maarten Pijnenburg, in the “no” camp. “There’s not enough control over the power of European politicians,” under the new Constitution he added. (AP)