Mr Wim Duisenberg held court in Dublin Castle yesterday in an exercise designed to bring the European Central Bank (ECB) closer to the people.
Just two weeks after Irish voters rejected the Treaty of Nice, this seemed timely, if not a little hasty.
But the meeting had actually been postponed since the foot-and-mouth alert in March. Whether central bankers pose an additional risk to livestock is a moot point - the ECB decided against taking the risk.
Of course Mr Duisenberg has been prone to foot-in-mouth ailments in the past, driving the euro lower on the unforgiving international markets with mere slips of the tongue. That did not happen yesterday, although a sizeable herd of reporters from around the globe gathered to hang on every word he uttered.
Like many central bankers, Mr Duisenberg deals in a language that is not simple.
Indeed his US counterpart, Mr Alan Greenspan, has admitted that clarity is not the objective in this game.
"I spend a substantial amount of time endeavouring to fend off questions," he once said, "and worry terribly that I might end up being too clear."
Thus did Mr Duisenberg, guardian of "the euro, our money", declare his intention not to comment on the Irish economy. Then, without a hint of contradiction, he praised its record of speedy growth - and added that he concurred with warnings about expansionary budgets.
Translators were present. But there was no need to decode Wim's dim view of Charlie McCreevy's fiscal strategy. It was not quite a kick in the shins, though Mr McCreevy's ears must have been burning. Still, as a democrat in the old-fashioned liberal tradition, he knows by now that such commentary can always be expected when the European Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner, Mr Pedro Solbes, is in town.
Wily warrior that he is, Wim had other serious business to attend to in Dublin. Most important was the decision of the ECB governing council not to change the interest rate.
He also found time to examine economics as only a central banker can, and delivered a learned paper on the "one-size-fits-all" monetary system.
Here, there was gentle concern about "divergence" - and a "situation marked by high rates of national inflation as a result of excessive wage increases, an unsustainable expansion of profit margins and/or an expansionary stance in fiscal policy.
"If such developments were to become entrenched in the economy, this would lead to a loss in competitiveness and, eventually, to a loss in output and employment growth."
Wham, bam, Wim. That's the style.
