Many Europhobes, - especially in Britain, but also here and on the Continent, are delighted at the discomfiture, and subsequent resignation, of the European Commission, a body which they regard as a sinister bureaucratic machine with dangerous ambitions of grandeur.
I, too, am happy the members of the Commission have resigned en bloc - but for the opposite reason. I regard the Commission as an enormously valuable element of the EU system. And I fear that its credibility and authority might have been fatally undermined had its members not taken the course of resignation in the face of a report which was presented as being severely critical of the performance of some of them.
The point the Europhobes miss, or more likely deliberately ignore, is that the Commission's unique and exclusive power to propose legislation for enactment by the Union's two legislative bodies, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, is the means by which each individual member-state is protected against being bullied or bossed by large countries, or by ad hoc combinations of other countries the interests of which, on particular issues, may diverge from those of any one state in question.
It is because of the effective way the Commission has almost invariably carried out its duties of legislative initiative that after four decades no member-state has been left with the feeling that it has been seriously disadvantaged through any actions or omissions of this institution.
So far as Ireland is concerned, the only matter of significance on which we could arguably contend we got a raw deal from the Commission - and this would be strongly contested by some other member-states - was in relation to the Common Fishery Policy, adopted by the Community shortly before we joined in 1973.
In 1970 impending British and Irish accession to the Community was about to extend enormously the combined fish stocks of its member-states. At that mom ent the Community of Six, on a proposal of the Commission, "communitised", in a way that was very much to the advantage of these largely fish-less founding members. But I suppose it could be argued that even in that case the Commission proposal did not disadvantage the existing members. For a small State like Ireland this exclusive initiating power of the Commission is, and will remain, an essential safeguard against being exploited or bullied by other, perhaps larger, states. Anything that could weaken the authority of this body is potentially dangerous for us. And it has to be said that in recent times there has been just such a weakening of the Commission's authority.
In part this reflects the circumstances of the appointment of the current President, Jacques Santer. John Major's rejection of the tough Belgian Prime Minister, JeanLuc Dehaene, led to the nomination of the Luxembourg Prime Minister, Jacques Santer - and it has to be said that Santer is not a heavyweight. As Patrick Smith reported yesterday, he is a congenial man - but a lot more than congeniality is required to effectively run a body such as the European Commission.
Moreover, the current Commission contained more than its share of weak links - and less than the normal proportion of first-rank members. And because of the mounting need to tackle abuses that had crept in to the system, these deficiencies were all the more disturbing.
At one level these abuses involved elements of actual corruption - some of them within the Commission structure itself, but mostly, (perhaps to the tune of 80 per cent), in the administration of Community funds by member-states - for all of which, of course, the Commission tends to get the blame in national media throughout the Community.
But there is another factor, of long standing, which has been eating away at morale in the Commission for decades past. That is the filling of senior posts on a basis of formal and informal national quotas, a process that has all too often meant that less competent people have been brought in to fill top positions over the heads of able officials who have been working within the administration for years.
There is nothing wrong with the introduction of new talent into an organisation, as long as this does not block the promotion of able internal candidates, and as long as it does not happen on a scale that undermines the morale of the existing staff. But in the case of the European Commission, both the scale of this "parachutage" and the frequent disparity between the quality of imported and more able internal talent has been disturbing.
I say this from direct experience of the Commission services, gained at two different period of my life: before and since full-time engagement in politics.
For, as well as meeting many senior Commission officials during my periods in Government, in several other capacities (e.g consultant and journalist/lecturer) I have had occasion between 1961 and 1973, and again since 1987, to deal with Commission officials at many other levels, and in a number of Directorates-General.
AND over that stretch of almost 40 years I have consistently been struck by the quality and dedication of so many of the Commission officials I have met, but latterly also by the low level of the morale of some in the Commission services.
Poor leadership, lack of commitment at higher levels, and promotional blockages often due to the introduction of sometimes inadequate outsiders at the instance of national governments, as well as internal promotions based on nationality rather than ability - all these factors have taken a severe toll of self-confidence among Commission personnel.
Of course, there can be no guarantee that the replacement of the present Commission will overnight solve this, or other, problems. But governments will henceforth be on their mettle, more concerned than some have been in the past to ensure their nominees for membership of the Commission will be, and will be seen to be, effective members of the new Commission.
While doubts remain as to the extent to which some of the present Commission membership may be retained during the interim period to the end of this year, it seems clear that in any event a new president will be appointed within a matter of weeks - probably with a view to being continued in office thereafter, to lead the Commission between 2000 and 2003.
This will certainly be a heavyweight appointment: someone who will be in a position to use the new powers conferred on the president by the Amsterdam Treaty with effect from next May to enable him or her to influence governments' choice of nominees to take office in early January 2000.
The fact that weak candidate nominations may now be challenged by a new strong president will give governments a further incentive to put forward capable people. It is thus unlikely that the new Commission will contain figures governments want to dispose of from the domestic scene - as has sometimes happened in the past.
So far as Ireland is concerned, re-appointment of the existing Commissioner for the latter part of this year - as distinct from leaving him in a caretaker position for some weeks ahead - is not an option. And an interim appointment of someone to be replaced next January would be neither easy nor sensible.
That means our Government must in the near future choose an Irish Commissioner to serve until the end of 2003 - and in present circumstances failure to nominate someone of the highest calibre would be unforgivable.
"Of the highest calibre" means someone who would be appointed to a major portfolio and who would carry serious weight within the next Commission - as was the case in the past with Peter Sutherland and Ray McSharry, for example.
Such people exist in Ireland. And the only constraint on the Government's choice that public opinion will accept in present circumstances is an unwillingness to put its life at risk by appointing a serving Minister.
Personal likes or dislikes within the majority party, or party considerations of any other kind, must under no circumstances be allowed to determine the crucial choice. One must presume that these considerations are currently influencing the thinking of the Taoiseach as he prepares to discuss this with his Government. And we can also presume that the Progressive Democrats in Government will use their influence to ensure the best possible outcome on a matter so crucial to the future of our State, and indeed to Europe as a whole.