When the EU Commission President, Mr Romano Prodi, rose to speak at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris last week, he probably had a few things on his mind. A day earlier, the French Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Jospin, had outlined a detailed vision of Europe's future as a federation of nation states.
Other EU leaders have presented their blueprints for the future in recent weeks and Mr Prodi was keen to make his voice heard before next week's EU summit at Gothenberg. It is unlikely, however, that this week's referendum in Ireland on the Nice Treaty was in the forefront of his thoughts.
It is not that the Commission is unaware of the referendum or of the serious consequences for the EU if the treaty is rejected. Officials in Brussels have been scrupulous in staying out of the debate, not least because they know that anything they say is likely to be unhelpful to the protreaty side.
But Mr Prodi may have been surprised by the Irish reaction to his speech - not from the treaty's opponents but from government ministers, who issued angry but unattributable condemnations of his decision to say anything at all.
"Could he not just have waited? Does he have no idea that there's a referendum campaign going on here? Or does he not care?" one member of the cabinet wailed.
In his speech, Mr Prodi said it was time to reclaim the initiative within the EU from businessmen and to involve all levels of society in building a political Europe. Before addressing questions about "institutional architecture", Europeans ought to work out what exactly they want the EU to do - and what is best left to national governments.
He spoke with refreshing candour about the issues at stake as the EU develops a common foreign and security policy, which he summed up in a simple question - what are we all willing to die for?
Among the most justifiable complaints about the process of European integration is that it has been conducted by stealth, with the public being kept in the dark about the ultimate aim. Mr Prodi, along with many other EU leaders, wants to abandon the old, stealthy route in favour of an open debate about Europe's future.
But Irish politicians - and some Dublin-based EU enthusiasts - appear unwilling to give up the old ways and to engage in a frank discussion about how to make the EU more democratic.
Mr Jospin's speech was, if anything, more potentially controversial than Mr Prodi's. But the government expects no favours from the French Prime Minister, who enjoys the status of a European bogeyman in Government Buildings. Relations between Mr Jospin and the Taoiseach are frosty.
Urging a broadening of the European endeavour, Mr Jospin declared that Europe is more than a market and bears within it a distinctive societal model.
"There is such a thing as a European art de vivre, a specific way of doing things, of defending freedoms, of fighting inequality and discrimination, of organising and handling labour relations, of ensuring access to education and healthcare, a European pace. Each of our countries has its own traditions and rules but together these make up a common whole," he said.
Mr Jospin's call for the harmonisation of corporate tax received much attention in Ireland. Elsewhere, reaction focused on his support for the creation of a "federation of nation states" and his apparent rejection of the more federalist model of the German Chancellor, Mr Gerhard Schroder.
The differences between Paris and Berlin may be less significant than they appear and Germany's Foreign Minister, Mr Joschka Fischer, has already expressed support for a federation of nation states.
There is support on both sides of the Rhine for transforming the EU's almost indecipherable treaties into a written constitution and for a clear division of responsibilities between the EU and nation states. Although Mr Jospin does not support the direct election of the Commission President, he believes that he or she should be appointed by the European political group that wins the European Parliament elections.
In other EU capitals, the process of formulating positions on Europe's future is well under way in advance of December's summit in the Belgian royal palace at Laeken. At that meeting, EU leaders will set a broad agenda for a debate that will culminate in a new, treaty-making summit in 2004.
The Government is considering the establishment of a forum to discuss ideas about Europe's future. If the debate is to be fruitful, Government Ministers should learn to be less lilylivered about hearing frank thoughts about the future from the likes of Mr Prodi and Mr Jospin.
