Behind the scenes, plans are taking shape for a reversal of the referendum vote on the Nice Treaty, writes Deaglán de Bréadún
It used to be said about Anglo-Irish relations that, "every time England came up with the answer, the Irish changed the question". Could this now be true of Ireland's relationship with the European Union? Everything is happening the wrong way round. We had a referendum on the Nice Treaty with a short lead-in time and many complaints about lack of debate.
After the treaty was rejected in the referendum, the National Forum on Europe was founded and then we had the debate.
The Treaty rejection was of course a major embarrassment for the pro-EU forces. Ireland, hitherto the star pupil in the European class, now wore the dunce's cap and stood with its face to the wall.
The message went out all over the world: the Irish had milked the European cash-cow for all it was worth but they didn't want the poor Eastern Europeans to get the same chance.
Perhaps there was a subliminal selfishness in the vote. But the issues that surfaced on the doorstep were of a different nature. Neutrality, for example, was a recurring concern. We joined a Common Market in 1973, people said, so what's this about a Rapid Reaction Force (RRF)? Will my children be called-up to fight someone else's war?
In the past 100 years, no word has conjured up more demons in the Irish psyche than "conscription" and it was disastrous, from a pro-EU viewpoint, when it surfaced in the debate about Nice.
Slogans are powerful weapons which can only be defused or disabled by sustained argument over a long period of time.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, strove to convince the voters that the RRF was not a European army, that the Nice Treaty did not involve membership of NATO and that any notion of conscription was pure myth.
It was too late. There was a deep-seated insecurity and uncertainty among the public on the neutrality issue.
The failure to hold a referendum on membership of the NATO-linked Partnership for Peace, despite earlier promises, did not help. Accurate or not, honest or dishonest, three slogans torpedoed the treaty: "No to NATO, No to Nice"; "If you Don't Know, Vote No" and "You Will Lose: Money, Power, Influence".
NOW our political class and the "permanent government" of the civil service are trying to solve the major problem posed for themselves and the rest of the EU by the rejection of Nice.
Official Ireland's thinking is still evolving but a snapshot would look something like this: The Forum on Europe got off to a slow start but it has begun to build up momentum. The eight "Mini-Fora" around the country were initially dominated by the "No" people but this was corrected towards the end and the balance started to come right.
There is a "hard" anti-EU element which will never be won over but there is also a sizeable segment of public opinion that supports EU membership but is also genuinely worried about neutrality and loss of sovereignty and control.
Not much is being said in public, because the Government is not keen to see Nice becoming an election issue.
If that happened, it would be used by Sinn Féin and the Greens to increase their vote. For the same reason, holding a referendum on the same day as the general election would be a Bad Idea.
With an election likely in early May, the new Government, whatever its composition, will in all probability take office in time for the European Summit in Seville on June 21st/22nd.
That would be the obvious occasion for the leaders of the EU to issue a joint declaration solemnly reaffirming Ireland's right to decide for itself in matters pertaining to the RRF.
This would be intended to reassure the Irish public that there was no pressure on us to participate in RRF operations - we could decide for ourselves on a case-by-case basis where there was also a UN mandate and majority approval by the Dáil.
ARMED, so to speak, with this undertaking and with other measures such as provision for increased Dáil scrutiny of EU legislation, the next Government could go to the people in late October or early November, say, to ask for a reversal of the Nice result.
Conscious of what was at stake, the three main parties would be expected to campaign with a verve and vigour that was not evident last time round.
It's all very neat and tidy, but will it work? Just as the Irish changed the question in Anglo-Irish relations, next time the question may not necessarily be about neutrality.
Already the No campaigners are focusing on what they regard as an even more basic issue: the rules of the democratic system itself.
The question they are likely to pose is: Why are we having this referendum at all? We rejected this treaty last year, why wasn't that decision respected?
Does the will of the people mean anything or are we just going to keep on voting until we give what Brussels regards as the right answer?
The debate has already begun. Though largely ignored by media chiefs captivated with domestic issues and personality politics, the regional meetings of the Forum have generated sizeable crowds and lively debate.
The recent meeting in Ballymun, Dublin with the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, as guest speaker, was grassroots democracy at its best.
Some 400 people packed the auditorium and there was a very high standard of debate.
The usual No campaigners were there in force but a new ginger-group of young professionals called Ireland for Europe made sure it did not go all one way.
Even Mr Ahern, whose initial remarks were of surpassing blandness, got into the spirit of things by the end with an impassioned plea for wholehearted Irish participation in the EU.
Let's give it all we've got, was his message, and not be "little crawthumpers" constantly voicing our reservations.
Passions were high: some speakers seemed to regard the EU as a panacea for every ill while others saw it as the root of all evil. Both sides could agree on one thing: in Ireland, at least, the EU's "democratic deficit" was finally being addressed.
Deaglán de Bréadún is Foreign Affairs Correspondent of The Irish Times