I flew down to Nice at the weekend, hoping to get a new perspective on how the government parties got things so badly wrong in the referendum. Sitting in a garden high over the town - the air perfumed with lavender, the sun shining on the faultless blue of the Mediterranean and (let's be honest) a chilled glass of the local rose to hand - it was easy enough to understand how even a politician as firmly grounded as Bertie Ahern could have lost touch temporarily with the mood back home.
Who in his (or her) right mind could possibly object to a closer association with all this? Much has been made of the "democratic deficit" as a reason why many voters have become increasingly uneasy about the whole European project. Decisions are taken by unelected bureaucrats who live in a world isolated from the concerns of ordinary people.
Turlough O'Sullivan, director of IBEC, made the point well when he spoke of the need for European administrators "to be made aware of how remote they are from most of the 375 million people living in their member-countries".
Even when the political leaders of the member-states do meet, it is always in a setting of the greatest luxury and pomp, effectively isolated from any contact with the hoi polloi. The media covering such summits cannot be immune to this. I read in a British newspaper that journalists at Gothenburg had been grumbling that the gifts they received from the Swedish authorities (tourist boards and so on) did not match the opulent generosity bestowed on them by the French and other host countries at previous summits.
If there has been one good result of the referendum debacle, it is that we may now be able to have a serious public debate on the whole European project, the implications of closer political integration as well as the financial aspects. To some extent it has already begun. Although it remains difficult to understand why some of the speeches that have been made since the referendum could not have been given an airing before the vote. The Government's decision to set up a Forum on Europe is a good first step, but will work only if it is fully open to all groups, opponents of the Nice Treaty as well as its supporters.
The proceedings should be held in public - as happened with the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation - and steps taken to ensure that the debates are given decent coverage in the media. Mary Banotti wrote to this newspaper recently, describing her efforts to persuade successive governments to set up a system which would allow MEPs to explain European legislation to the Dail.
It was, she wrote, "like pulling teeth", and eventually she gave up, defeated by the prevailing apathy. Perhaps the time is ripe to look at the suggestion again.
I voted for the Nice Treaty on June 7th, with some enthusiasm. I'm old enough to remember what Ireland was like before we joined the EEC and believe that our association with Europe has been both progressive and benign. It's not the money, although that has, obviously, been of critical importance to the transformation of our economy. More important has been the fact that membership of the EU has allowed us to develop as a confident, independent State.
I cannot imagine, for example, that we would have been capable of negotiating with Britain as equal partners in dealing with the problems of Northern Ireland but for the self-confidence, the skills, and the contacts that were honed in Europe.
But even with this degree of commitment, I will find it much more difficult to vote Yes, if and when another referendum takes place. This is partly because of the Government's reaction to the result of the poll on June 7th. The spectacle of Bertie Ahern and other senior ministers scurrying off to Europe to apologise for Irish voters and promising that we'll do better next time was not only anti-democratic, it was also deeply offensive. If the Irish electorate voted the wrong way, it was largely because Mr. Ahern and his colleagues had signally failed to provide leadership on Europe.
The more recent interventions by European heavy hitters have been, if anything, even more counter-productive. Perhaps Wim Duisenberg would do well to consider what the effect would be in Britain if he chose to attack Gordon Brown's budgetary strategy, and then give thanks that he only has to deal with Charlie McCreevy.
With the benefit of hindsight, Romano Prodi may have decided that he did not mean it when he told this newspaper that enlargement could go ahead without Nice. But the text of his interview with Denis Staunton, confirmed as accurate by a senior EU official, is quite specific that Irish ratification of the treaty is not necessary for the admission of up to 20 applicant states.
As for the Commission President's comments, made after a jaunt around the Ring of Kerry, that the rejection of Nice was all down to Irish people's worries about "identity", perhaps the Taoiseach should pass on that excellent piece of political advice, "when you're in a hole, stop digging".