There is a certain courageousness about Peter Mandelson. Not that many in nationalist Ireland would this morning rush to concur.
On Tuesday night in the Commons, the Secretary of State savoured another historic landmark in the Northern Ireland peace process.
Certainly in his own mind Mr Mandelson had achieved something highly significant. Back in July, with his "title deeds" manoeuvre, he had actually brought the Ulster Unionists and Conservatives to accept the reality that the RUC would give way to the newly-titled Police Service of Northern Ireland. He had done a lot more besides. Directly contradicting former Commissioner ProfShearing, other sources close to the Patten Commission privately say Mr Mandelson's Police Bill will give Northern Ireland "the most accountable police service in the world".
Caught as they are between a hard place and the SDLP, some figures in Dublin also privately agree that the Bill delivers substantially on Patten, while anticipating delivery on the rest via the promised Implementation Plan.
Yet there was no congratulations from the SDLP. Instead the party's three MPs provided a perfect mirror for the angry, baleful, suspicious looks on the faces of the assorted unionists on the benches opposite.
The spin meister Mandelson might see that as being helpful in the greater scheme of things. Secretaries of State caught in unionist/nationalist cross-fire usually content themselves they have the balance about right.
In his compelling book Servants of the People, Andrew Rawnsley describes "the pale intriguer" as "the most overblown myth of all." While capable of "intestinal deviousness," Rawnsley said that far from being "cool" Mr Mandelson is as changeable as the weather. "Depending on his state of mind and the company, Mandelson might be charming, kind, witty, unswervingly loyal and utterly reliable; or petulant, bullying, vain, aloof and manipulative."
It was always predictable that those journalists and others who thought themselves the victims of these latter traits would be swift to exact revenge, for example over the infamous home-loan affair.
But among those who admire his skills, while being prepared to acknowledge his shortcomings, there is acute awareness that criticism of Mandelson is also sometimes fuelled by underlying prejudice and hostility about his personal life.
Which brings us back to the question of courage and the (for some, surprise) discovery that, when it comes to issues about which he feels deeply, Mr Mandelson appears disinclined to opt for the easy life.
Certainly he might make things easier for himself by bowing to prevailing British public opinion and keeping his Euro-enthusiasm in check. Gordon Brown, after all, seems to have managed a neat trick presiding as all-powerful Chancellor in a pro-European government, while encouraging tabloid hopes that he might be the man to save sterling from the "Euro-federalist" designs of Prime Minister Blair. But no. Over dinner with business leaders, Mr Mandelson acknowledged the government was making a huge mistake to fancy it could convert public opinion to euro membership on the strength of economic arguments alone.
Effectively rubbishing the received wisdom that the political argument was already settled, and that eventual membership would turn on the Chancellor's five economic tests, Mr Mandelson told his hosts they would have to make the case for Europe in advance of any referendum.
The leak of these private comments inevitably revitalised the story of powerful personality faultlines at the heart of this government.
Return fire from Number 11 Downing Street was only diverted when Foreign Secretary Robin Cook allegedly authorised an ally to tell the Sunday Telegraph the Chancellor should stop interfering in policy matters (like the Nice summit) which were "none of his business", and "try to remember he is not the prime minister".
The damage for Labour, as one civil servant put it, is that the denials are no longer believed: "It's like it was with the early stories about Charles and Diana, eventually the truth was out there. People know these guys hate each other and so they'll believe anything that appears."
The angst for such party loyalists is that the seeming resemblance with the Major government is both absurd and unnecessary: this government has a 170-strong majority and suffers no ideological split on Europe whatsoever.
It is compounded by speculation that - taking the next election for granted - Labour's big beasts are already consumed by "who-gets-what-job?" in the second term.
Taking the electorate for granted is never a good idea. Which is why Mr Mandelson has done the Blair government - and the people of Britain - a service.
Since the original decision to join the Common Market, there has been a persistent feeling here that Britain's Europhiles have never come-clean about their own intentions, or the true nature of the European project. The argument over the currency goes to the heart of this country's sense of nationhood, and the people know that to scrap sterling will be the most important political and constitutional decision taken in peacetime. Labour will not win the argument by pretending otherwise.
Euro-sceptics certainly have been quick to say Mr Mandelson is right: Britain needs an open, honest and protracted debate. As evidenced by the sound of Thatcherite fury over the new "European army", the debate - or rather, battle - has been joined.