The European Union seems headed towards a defence union which might engage in "humanitarian" interventions such as that undertaken by NATO in Yugoslavia over the last 12 weeks. There is a push on within the EU for the harmonisation of aspects of our criminal justice systems. There may well be some co-ordinated policy initiatives on the "drugs war". There is pressure to achieve greater harmonisation of taxes.
This is on top of the single currency and cohesive monetary policy, the implementation of a single market and the whole plethora of measures to enable a single market to be realised. And there is the joint foreign and security policy.
Power has shifted and is likely to continue to shift to the institutions of the EU. The European Parliament has a role in only some of these areas, but a voice on all. If democracy is to prevail within the Union, crucially it has to involve the huge enlargement of its powers. The European Parliament, therefore, has some relevance to our lives, and elections to it are of no little consequence.
But you wouldn't think that from the campaign that has taken place for the election to the European Parliament on Friday, or from the calibre of many of the candidates offered by the major parties.
By far the most important issue concerning the EU is democracy. By far the most important institution of the Union is the Council of Ministers, and it is entirely unacceptable to any democratically-elected body, either at European or national level. It conducts its deliberations in secret, it enacts legislation in secret, it takes decisions in secret, and not a single member of it can be held to account for what the Council does.
Successive governments here prate on about transparency and accountability. But when it comes to the single most important institution in the EU and, arguably, the single most important institution at European or national level, all governments are in favour of no transparency and no accountability. All other European issues fade into insignificance in the shadow of the undemocratic nature of the Union's most powerful institution.
But there are a few other issues of consequence.
THE looming defence union is one. There was an absurdity about the insistence that Ireland should never join a defence union the sole purpose of which would be to oblige EU members to go to the defence of another member which was attacked by an outside country. Why should Ireland be neutral about an attack on a European partner, especially given the benefits that Ireland has obtained from membership of the Union?
But the question is no longer that simple. NATO was purely a defence pact but we have recently witnessed it mounting a devastating attack on a country that attacked no other country. And it did so in defiance of international law, in the face of opposition to the other major power in Europe, Russia, and on the basis of a refusal by the country concerned to sign an agreement which would have given NATO carte blanche to do what it liked within that country.
The latter is a reference to the Rambouillet Draft Agreement, which excluded the Russians from the implementation force in Kosovo and which, in Appendix B, would have given NATO personnel the right to "enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft and equipment, free and unrestricted and unimpeded access throughout the Federal republic of Yugoslavia, including associated airspace and territorial waters - this include but not be limited to the right of bivouac, manoeuvre, billet and utilisation of any areas or facilities as required for support, training and operations".
So it is not unreasonable to assume that a European defence union would deem itself to have similar freedom of action: to murder hundreds (if not thousands) of civilians, to devastate virtually the entire civilian infrastructure of a state, to bomb hospitals, bridges, old people's homes and television stations. And, incidentally, at the same time to protest that the European Union had no quarrel with the people afflicted. In a speech to the Serbian people on March 25th last, President Clinton said: "I cannot emphasise too strongly that the United States and our European allies have no quarrel with the Serbian people." And to do all this in the name of a humanitarian cause.
If the structures of the existing European Union were to extend to the defence union, it would not be possible to hold a single person to account for what was being done.
Now this is a big issue. So too are the others mentioned earlier - the drugs, criminal justice and taxation issues. So too is the issue of the enlargement of the EU to take in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the other applicants, plus the structural reform to accommodate a vastly enlarged Union.
FINE GAEL seems in favour of the defence union and the justice and drugs co-ordination, plus lots and lots more law and order stuff. It is not possible to determine what Fianna Fail is in favour of on any of the issues that arise. The Labour Party seems deeply divided on most of these issues - Proinsias De Rossa is against the defence thing whereas Ruairi Quinn is all in favour. Actually Ruairi seems to want three defence things.
The Greens are against most of this but then so was the Green Party in Germany against NATO, nuclear power stations and sin. Sinn Fein is interested only in consolidating its electoral base in various parts of the country, while protesting that it is against the illegal use of force anywhere in the world. The Progressive Democrats - where are the Progressive Democrats?
Our politics is too obsessed with trivia to be bothered with these issues. The heavy hitters of the political parties, with one exception, are preoccupied with the main chance.
If the parties were serious about Europe the likes of Alan Dukes, Michael Noonan, Ivan Yates, Dick Spring, Pat Rabbitte, Liz McManus, Noel Dempsey, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, Micheal Martin, Des O'Malley and Liz O'Donnell would be contesting - not all of them perhaps, but some of them. In the event, there are only two candidates of top calibre contesting anywhere in the country: Pat Cox in Munster and Proinsias De Rossa in Dublin.
It is a further manifestation of the dumbing-down of politics that we offer for election to the forum that could best bring democracy to the European Union, for the most part, candidates who would hardly rate elevation to the status of Minister for State.
What this means, most probably, is that huge changes affecting the very essence of our democracy and public values will take place without our involvement or permission (except perhaps in a take it or leave it referendum at the end of the process).
Whatever happened the Sheedy affair?