A statue holding the symbol of the Euro, the European common currency, stands in front of the European Parliament | Mark Renders/Getty Images Italy and Austria: Two votes, but only one excites Brussels ‘Populism is not a fatality:’ Commissioner Pierre Moscovici

Italy voted. Brussels yawned. And the financial markets shrugged.

A day after Italian voters decisively rejected a package of Constitutional reforms, effectively dismissing their government, EU officials were far more animated by the results of the Austrian presidential election, in which voters spurned Norbert Hofer of the far-right Freedom Party and instead bet their future on a Green-backed independent: Alexander Van der Bellen, a liberal lawmaker and former university economics professor.

The decisive Austrian result was immediately hailed in Brussels as a fire-line — temporary as it might be — in the populist, Euroskeptic blaze that has swept across the Continent.

“Populism is not a fatality,” Pierre Moscovici, the European Commissioner for economic and financial affairs declared, emerging Monday morning from a chauffeured, silver Audi for a meeting of Eurozone finance ministers. “The far-right is not irresistible. We were facing the risk of having the first far-right president since World War II in Europe. Austrians refused this choice, and in such fashion.”

Meanwhile, the economic mudslide that many feared could follow the Italian referendum did not materialize — at least not yet — and EU officials quickly portrayed that vote as a narrow verdict on Italy’s internal, domestic affairs.

Italy’s banks did not teeter. The markets did not swoon. And, for the moment at least, the only one who seemed in need of an urgent bailout was Prime Minister Matteo Renzi who called the referendum and resigned when he lost.

“We think that the referendum in Italy was about a change to the Italian constitution, not about Europe” — Margaritis Schinas, Commission chief spokesman

“We should trust Europe better, we should trust Europeans better,” Moscovici said, noting that unlike the Brexit vote, the Italian ballot question was not a measure of the country’s views on the EU. “Referenda are not always about being in favor or against Europe. We cannot compare what happened in Italy and what happened in the U.K.”

Margaritis Schinas, the chief spokesman of the European Commission, echoed that point. “We think that the referendum in Italy was about a change to the Italian constitution, not about Europe.”

Like many EU leaders, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister who is president of the Eurogroup, expressed confidence in Italians to carry out a stable political transition in the days and weeks ahead. And, for better or worse, he said, the rejection of the constitutional reform package did not signal any immediate sea change.

“It doesn’t really change the situation economically in Italy or in the Italian banks,” Dijsselbloem said. “The problems that we have today are the problems we had yesterday and they still have to be dealt with and that process will continue as far as I am concerned.”

“It was the outcome of a democratic process on one particular reform,” he added. “The process of dealing with some of the banks that have problems will continue and needs to continue.”

Even many educated voters said they were confused by the suite of proposed constitutional changes that would have reduced the power of the Italian senate, streamlined the legislative process and curbed the authority of regional governments. But voters understood that “Si” was a vote for Renzi and “No” was a vote for his resignation. His resignation prevailed.

If the referendum had been a strategic ploy to secure concessions from Brussels, Renzi might have been able to declare a narrow victory. In recent weeks, EU leaders seemed all-too-willing to lend him a hand, and even agreed to give Italy — and other heavily indebted EU countries — some breathing room in terms of the budgetary cap on deficit spending.

At Renzi’s prodding, European Council leaders also had a lengthy discussion on Russia over dinner at their last summit meeting in Brussels and agreed to put additional resources into addressing the flow of migrants from Africa across the so-called central Mediterranean route, which affects Italy most directly.

During a news conference Monday, Marianne Thyssen, the European commissioner for employment, social affairs, skills and labor mobility, denied that there had been special treatment for Renzi.

“First of all, let me tell you it is the Italian people that have spoken yesterday and we fully respect their democratic choice,” Thyssen said. “We are confident the Italian political forces and the institutions of the republic will provide robust political answers.”

As for the adjustment in budget rules, “Yes, indeed, we had some flexible aspects,” she said. “But let me remind you, this was not only for Italy.” She added, “This is not an aid to Matteo Renzi, this was a use of the rules we have.”

In any event, the referendum was not a ploy. And Renzi, who has made a habit of infuriating his colleagues in the European Council, in many ways ran a campaign against Europe and often seemed unmoved by the efforts in Brussels to give him a boost. If any of those colleagues were feeling particularly broken up about his impending departure, there was no public shedding of tears.

If Renzi's goes, but Italy remains firmly pro-EU, the prevailing sentiment seemed to be: "tutto bene!"

"People want to see results. They want a convincing European investment package to end the economic crisis” — Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian MEP and former prime minister

Some liberals predictably cast the result in Italy as a rejection of Europe’s German-led austerity program, and a cry by voters for greater economic investment, government spending and jobs creation.

In a post on Facebook, Belgian MEP and former prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, who now heads the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), said the Italian referendum was a power play among entrenched political elites.

“Italian voters were craving for the opposite: fresh blood and new ideas in Italian politics,” he wrote. “No wonder Renzi lost.”

Verhofstadt added, “What people are fed up with is the static division of power between the two big old parties who have mismanaged both Italy and Europe for decades. People want to see results. They want a convincing European investment package to end the economic crisis.”

French MEP Sylvie Goulard, a member of liberal group ALDE, said the recent trend of public ballot questions was a disservice to moderate voters.

“These referenda never benefit moderate people,” Goulard said. “In Brussels, people act as if it had been a referendum on Europe as if European officials had asked Renzi to get rid of the senate.”

She said the Austrian vote, too, was not really about Europe, even though EU leaders were happy with the outcome. “In Austria, Van der Bellen is pro-European but Europe wasn’t the focus in these elections,” she said. “We shouldn’t tack on a European reality to a national election. It is abusive.”

Still, Schinas, the European Commission spokesman, couldn’t help but claim a bit of victory for Brussels in the Austrian outcome. “Many of the debates in the course of the presidential elections in Austria gravitated around the country’s link with Europe,” he said. “I think the result speaks clearly of the way Austrians wanted their country to be seen in connection with Europe."

Quentin Ariès and Maïa de la Baume contributed reporting to this article.

Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that Van der Bellen, a former Green Party leader, ran for president as an independent.