"THE main job for the next few years is to so sedate the European citizens that they won't make a nuisance of themselves again." Prof Joe Lee was not expressing his own view at the weekend conference, organised jointly by the institute of European Affairs (IEA) and the TransEuropean Policy Studies Association (TEPSA), but what he believed was now the mindset of many who want to continue building the European Union.
Unfortunately for them, as he said himself, it will not work this time.
The citizens of several EU member states frightened the life out of their rulers last time by almost rejecting their carefully constructed Maastricht Treaty. Late next year, the great European public will be asked to approve yet more EU treaty changes.
Ireland takes over the EU presidency on July 1st, at a time when the Union must try more than ever to convince its citizens that it should be developed further. It is an irony that while the people of the central and eastern European states clamouring for membership have no doubts that their future lies with the EU, people in several member states are becoming more and more sceptical.
What is the European Union for now? The answer was easy after the second World War, when, in an effort to ensure that there could be no more conflict in Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community was founded.
Make the economies of France and Germany interdependent the founders reckoned, and they will not want to go to war.
The answer was easy, too, for Ireland in 1973, when we joined. It was about money, farm subsidies, trade opportunities, and not being left behind by our major trading partner, Britain.
The single market project towards the end of the 1980s also made sense: remove barriers to trade and everyone would be better off.
Then came Maastricht with its three pillars: convergence criteria, subsidiarity and general incomprehensibility. The political leaders of Europe had come up with an ambitious and complex blueprint for the future. To have it put into effect, they needed it to be approved in all member states.
But their electorates were sceptical and confused.
The Danes said No in one referendum, before saying Yes in a later one. The French almost said No, with their government winning a referendum by a very narrow margin. There was a lively No campaign in Ireland as well before the amendment was passed.
Several speakers at the weekend conference said that the EU now had no vision to propel it forward.
Reunifying Europe through the enlargement of the EU eastwards seems a laudable vision. But the realisation that the likes of Poland and Hungary may then have much more pressing demands on the European agricultural and cohesion budgets than, say, Ireland may temper public enthusiasm for such a vision.
An Intergovernmental Conference of the Union began in March and will continue into next year. It will discuss proposals for more majority voting, thus further eroding national sovereignty, the development of common foreign and security policies, streamlining decision making giving the Union more powers to deal with crime and drugs, etc.
At the moment, it is not expected to propose radical changes - consolidation rather than major empire building is the forecast.
In an attempt to make the Union appear more relevant to its citizens, the Irish presidency has adopted employment and drugs as two of its central priorities. Opinion polls in almost every member state reveal these as the two issues of most concern to the public.
Continued concentration on discussions of technical sounding issues might turn off the public. By discussing employment and drugs, the EU leaders reason, the public may see their activity as directly relevant to their lives.
The EU Commission President, Mr Jacques Santer, has proposed an "employment pact", somewhat along the lines of Ireland's PCW but at international level. Ireland is supporting this proposal, and seeking to ensure that initiatives on unemployment agreed in the past are implemented.
Dramatic initiatives on such issues would undoubtedly please Europeans. On employment, however, traditional left/right divisions on how to tackle the problem may make a dramatic move difficult.
On drugs, arguments over whether the proposals would entail member states ceding sovereignty to the Union may also make it hard to bring about major change.
Waiting in the wings as, the complex IGC debates continue are the sceptical electorates, who may delight in nothing more than giving their rulers a kick in the teeth. Ireland now has a significant role to play in ensuring that they do not.