Arriving in Boston late on Tuesday, I was invited to speak the next afternoon at Boston College on the subject of Ireland and Europe. The invitation was provoked by Sile de Valera's speech at that university nine days earlier.
While visiting the West Coast a few days earlier, I had heard that her remarks had provoked reactions at home. As I did not then know exactly what she had said, I contented myself with offering my own analysis of possible problems we might face in reconciling our European and Northern Ireland policies.
If Ms de Valera's recent speech - together with some comments on the EU by the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, whose US-oriented free enterprise stance sometimes deludes her into criticising EU social policies - was to give rise to a serious debate on our European policy, that would be a very welcome development.
However, the issues these two ministers have raised are not the EU policy issues which we need to be concerned about.
Ms de Valera started off by asserting, correctly, that "fears that membership would make us less Irish, would damage our unique identity, culture and traditions" all proved groundless.
However, she went on to say the opposite. I quote: "We have found that the directives and regulations agreed in Brussels can often seriously impinge on our identity, culture and traditions."
Yet, as a member of the Cabinet, Ms de Valera knows that with very few exceptions, notably in relation to competition and mergers and with regard to detailed management decisions about agriculture, the "bureaucrats" of the European Commission have no power to take any decisions to impose obligations on member-states.
Apart from some specific areas, the only role of the "bureaucrats" in the European Commission is to put forward proposals for European legislation, and to ensure its satisfactory implementation by each member-state.
And I believe I am right in saying that more than 90 per cent of these proposals emanate from ideas advanced by one or other EU government, rather than being thought up by some interfering official in the Brussels hierarchy.
All decisions to adopt Commission proposals by way of regulations and directives are decisions of the Council of Ministers, in most cases jointly with the European Parliament.
So, as Ms de Valera knows perfectly well, with the single exception of the public broadcasting issue, all the decisions which she alleges "seriously impinge upon our identity, culture and traditions" are decisions which have been taken by Irish Ministers in conjunction with their EU partners.
The question which has to be asked is why Ms de Valera felt moved to criticise so strongly past decisions by Irish governments to vote for certain EU policies?
Part of her problem may be that she has found herself landed with the implementation by her Department of the Habitats Directive agreed by the Fianna Fail-led government in 1992. Her Department, which is small and is not well equipped to handle such matters, is now between three and five years behind with this task.
I understand the Commission has provided financial assistance of almost €9 million to help the Irish authorities with the necessary preparatory work.
There is reason to believe that several months ago, aggrieved by the Government's failure to carry out its obligations, the Commission was reluctant to sign the community support framework for structural funds unless immediate action was taken. It appears that, faced with this difficulty, the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, promised Commissioner Barnier that the Habitats Directive would be implemented within six months by Ms de Valera's Department.
ALTHOUGH the fault lay with her Department for being in arrears, it is understandable that she should be upset about "directives and regulations agreed in Brussels" as Mr McCreevy's promise has put her on the spot.
Ms de Valera may also face constituency problems in Co Clare arising from EU legislation agreed by other ministers. In addition to the Mullaghmore debacle - when plans for an interpretative centre had to be abandoned humiliatingly because of a failure to adhere to EU environmental rules - she is also obliged by another EU directive to designate for environmental purposes some land needed for a golf course at Doonbeg.
Yet ministerial frustrations with the actions of a past Fianna Fail government, or with the actions of a Minister for Finance under pressure from the European Commission, do not provide a sound basis for launching a national debate on EU policies.
These frustrations have led a minister to undermine the most fundamental principle of Irish EU policy - an unstinting support for the European Commission's exclusive role in the initiation of proposals for Community legislation, a crucial task which de facto makes it the guardian of the rights of small countries vis-a-vis larger member-states.
When this key role of the Commission was under threat in 1975, I had the task, as minister for foreign affairs, of rallying other small states to protect this element of the Community system. Together we succeeded in blocking a French proposal, which had German and British assent, to create what would effectively have become a directoire of larger states.
I am not close enough to what is happening to judge whether the time has come to rally pro-Community and pro-Commission forces in support of preserving the Commission's key role, or whether this issue will be postponed from the present IGC to the next one three or four years hence, making it preferable for smaller countries to now hold their fire.
But what I know for certain is this is not a good time for Irish ministers, however frustrated by past or current decisions of their party on EU legislation, to appear to launch a phoney war against the European Commission, and it the guardian of our rights and those of all small member-states.