The pity is he can't stay. The public debate on the Treaty of Nice would be a great deal livelier if the German Foreign Minister, Green Party "realist" and conservatively dressed former street-fighting radical Joschka Fischer, were to be present for the entire campaign.
As it was he could only do a "one-day stand" but his puckish individualistic style and iconoclastic approach to many preconceptions made for an entertaining two hours at the Institute of European Affairs in North Great George's Street, Dublin, yesterday.
The assembled "suits" had never heard anything quite like it. Mr Fischer speaks near-perfect English which, he said, he acquired as a small boy cadging chewing gum and Hershey bars from American GIs in post-war Germany. Instead of the usual "Listen-to-this-because-I-will-be-asking questions-afterwards" type of propagandist, he seemed to be genuinely turning things over in his mind and there were even some issues on which he had not made his final judgment. It was a refreshing change from the heavily scripted "karaoke politics" which have become the norm in Irish politics in recent years.
The highlight of the occasion was his exchange with local Green TDs, John Gormley and Trevor Sargent. One got the impression this kind of debate takes place a lot inside the Greens but this was a chance to hear it out in the open. Admittedly, the local Green representatives were a little like Daniel in the lion's den, with Europhiles to the left, right and centre of them in the crowded room.
The two TDs lobbed a few questions at the visitor. The first was about Mary Harney's famous statement that Ireland was spiritually closer to Boston than Berlin. Mr Fischer defused that one with roguish wit and charm: "The Irish community in Berlin is very small." Sure, Ireland had cultural links with the US but in political and economic terms it was a "very important" member-state of the European Union.
He went on to deliver a mini-lecture on what he saw as the consequences of victory for the No side in the referendum. The Treaty was "unfortunately" not about preparing for a federal Europe, it was the key step in reforming the institutions before enlargement and the doubling in size of the EU. Speaking directly across the table to Mr Gormley, who was sitting only a few feet away, Mr Fischer said that a No to Nice would mean no enlargement, since every member-state must ratify the Treaty. Mr Gormley responded that a No to Nice simply meant another referendum.
The German Foreign Minister is - pardon the pun - big on enlargement, which he sees as a historic task and a "moral and political obligation". He went on to describe the struggle of Solidarnosc in Poland to liberate their country after 50 years of oppression. Now Poland, the loss of whose freedom was the immediate cause of the second World War, was knocking on the EU's door, "We cannot say to them, `stay outside'."
Like his Dail colleague, Mr Sargent was keen to press the visitor on what he saw as the curious fact that Finns and Swedes were telling him they were no longer neutral but Ireland still officially claimed neutral status. Didn't all three countries have the same obligations in military terms?
His answer indicated that Mr Fischer had not been briefed on the intriguing concept of "military neutrality" but he took the view that "crisis management", the series of tasks agreed by EU member-states, had more to do with restoring the shattered civil structure of a place such as Kosovo than with old-style warmongering.
Nevertheless, as one would expect from his support for the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, he added that he was not afraid of militarisation, because the EU had to play a stronger role in ensuring peace and security.
In his remarks, Mr Fischer was flattering about the Irish economic performance and he repeatedly emphasised the weight that the smaller member-states carry in the councils of the EU. But he is clearly concerned about the alienation of the ordinary citizen from current EU structures.
ALTHOUGH he was not keen to be pinned down even under cross-examination by the formidable Alan Dukes, Mr Fischer appears to favour a kind of halfway house between total integration and traditional national sovereignty.
He floats ideas such as a two-chamber European Parliament, one directly elected by the citizens, the other consisting of representatives from the various assemblies throughout the Continent.
He has clearly spent a great deal of time thinking about the US constitutional model, still functioning fairly successfully after 200 years, although he believes the cultural and historical diversity of Europe will ensure that people never lose their national identity in some European melting-pot. A typical Fischer question: "How much diversity do we want and how much unity do we need?"
Responding, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, stressed the need for a "structured debate" about the future of Europe, although he made little direct comment on his German counterpart's proposals.
He won praise from Proinsias De Rossa, possibly Labour's leading Euro-enthusiast these days, for his favourable response to a suggestion from Ruairi Quinn for the establishment of a forum with a secretariat and proper funding to sponsor and supervise such a debate, as the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation had done in the past on Northern Ireland.
Some of Mr Fischer's critics see the fine hand of German national self-interest in his more ambitious constitutional proposals, but he makes a plausible case for the principle of institutional reform in the EU. Few could argue with his contention that it is better to start planning in advance with a view to averting a crisis than trying to pick up the pieces after the worst has already taken place.