The failure of the political parties to mount a serious campaign on the Nice Treaty, leaving the field open to the extremes of right and left, has created a problem that will be difficult to resolve. The Government bears a particular responsibility for this crisis, for it was the negative attitude of Charlie McCreevy, Sile de Valera and the Tanaiste, Mary Harney, to the European Union, that created a new anti-EU mood in the country, which opponents of the treaty were able to cash in on.
Because the anti-Nice campaign raised and chased so many hares, and because much of its opposition was concentrated on issues not in the treaty or only marginally addressed by it, it is difficult to see how the Government can retrieve the damage done to the process of enlargement and also, critically, to Ireland's position in Europe.
What amendments, or, more likely, protocols, can the Government now seek that could with any confidence be put to an electorate that has been so confused and so alarmed, first by irresponsible Government members and then by the scattergun campaign waged by treaty opponents?
I simply don't know if that question can be answered, and I certainly won't attempt to answer it today.
Instead I want to look ahead to some of the other EU issues that will have to be addressed by our political parties and our electorate - if and when this mess has been unscrambled.
Something like an agenda for the next Intergovernmental Conference in 2004 was set out two weeks ago by the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin. However, the main publicity given in Ireland to his important speech was on his criticism of "unfair tax competition" - a sensitive issue upon which our national interest and that of France diverge. Jospin attempted without justification to link this issue to the co-ordination of economic policy provided for in the Maastricht Treaty. This, however, relates only to the overall budgetary balances of member-states, not to individual taxes or spending items which are solely within the jurisdiction of each state.
In Ireland this irrelevant tiff about corporate tax levels distracted attention from the rest of Jospin's speech. It obscured the fact that many Irish attitudes and interests in the EU - although not all - have been, and remain, close to those of France.
This has been particularly true on agriculture. There should be a warm welcome here for Jospin's rejection of the renationalisation of policies hitherto conducted at EU level, in particular the common agricultural policy, which, he insists, should remain at European level. Many Irish people, including those who have opposed the Nice Treaty, will also share Jospin's concern to protect the diversity of cultures, threatened by "the invasion of cultural products from a single source", and his rejection of some of the more extreme globalisation projects being advanced in the OECD and WTO.
Again, his concern that trade liberalisation should not undermine public services or social progress will echo here, as will his proposal to increase solidarity towards developing countries to reduce poverty, and to lighten their burden of debt.
His proposals for EU institutional reform deserve particular attention. To satisfy some concerns about the role of national parliaments, he proposes a permanent congress of national parliaments, meeting regularly to carry out three functions: monitoring the extent to which legislation at European level is necessary; amending rules of the Union which do not have constitutional implications for any member-state; and holding an annual "State of the Union" debate. Next, Jospin proposes that European Parliament elections take place in large regional constituencies, using proportional representation. Again, between European elections he proposes direct consultation of civil society through dialogue forums, building on the broad spectrum of voluntary associations in our countries. Our Government has already accepted a proposal by Ruairi Quinn that such a forum be established.
NEXT Jospin proposes that the President of the European Commission be appointed from the European political group that wins a European election. However, as no European party is likely to secure an absolute majority, a majority coalition of parties would first have to emerge in the Parliament. And once such a coalition had been brought into existence, it would be difficult for the European Council to impose a candidate of their own from within that majority.
So, in practice, under Jospin's proposal the candidate nominated by the emerging parliamentary majority would be likely to become President. And a Commission led by a President who would be dependent on the prevailing majority in the Parliament would be subject to genuine democratic control in the same way as national governments. And the fact that the President of the Commission is to have some say in the nomination of the members of his Commission offers some assurance against a lightweight politician being appointed to rid him or her from domestic politics.
Finally he proposes that the European Council of Heads of Government meet more often - perhaps every two months - and that, on a proposal of the Commission, it should draw up a multi-annual legislative programme. Some of these proposals would help to make the community more democratic. One way or the other, they constitute a useful agenda for the years ahead before the next Intergovernmental Conference.
After the Nice Treaty imbroglio has been sorted out, these and other related issues will have to be fully debated in the new forum which is to be established here. Such debate should ensure that public opinion will be much better informed before the Intergovernmental Conference than it has felt itself to be in recent weeks.