It has been a difficult few weeks for Ireland's EU enthusiasts as they attempt to defend the European Commission's recommendation that Dublin should be censured over last December's Budget.

Many citizens are, as the Minister for Finance put it, "amazed and amused" that Europe's most successful economy should be the first to receive a formal rebuke.

The Commission's criticism of popular economic measures that seemed necessary to preserve social partnership may have reinforced popular suspicions that Brussels is out of touch with reality in the member-states. And the fact that Ireland's economy is too small to have a direct impact on the rest of the euro zone has made the Commission's action all the more bewildering to the public.

With a referendum on the Nice Treaty likely to be held before the summer, some pro-Europeans fear that a popular backlash against the Commission could increase the No vote substantially.

The reprimand will take on new force next Monday if, as expected, it is formally endorsed by EU finance ministers. It will then become clear that, rather than being a diktat from Brussels, the censure expresses the conviction of Ireland's EU partners that our economic policy is their business too.

In fact, the distinction between domestic and European politics has long been blurred and the number of policy areas that involve co-operation with our EU partners is growing all the time.

By highlighting this fact, the reprimand may serve to enliven the debate about our place in the EU, a debate that has hitherto been inhibited. In an article in the Financial Times this week, the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, prefaced her remarks about the proposed reprimand with a loud declaration of Ireland's commitment to Europe. She then told the Commission politely to get lost.

This Janus-like approach, of wishing to be seen as model Europeans while resisting any EU measure that does not coincide with our narrow, national interests, increasingly characterises Ireland's policy towards Europe. There are serious arguments to be made against a more integrated EU but the Government is not making them.

To be fair, integration by stealth has been the method employed by most member-states since the birth of the European project almost half a century ago. In Germany, where the constitution discourages referendums, opinion polls suggest that almost every step towards European integration was taken against the will of the people at the time. British Eurosceptics can argue persuasively that voters agreed to join a Common Market, not an economic and political union.

The stealthy approach proved successful as long as integration mainly concerned economic and trade issues. In Ireland's case, the fact that EU membership brought such indisputable economic benefits meant that criticising Europe appeared ungrateful and foolish.

But as the European project enters its next phase, the issues are more political than economic and the question we must answer is not whether we want to be part of Europe but what kind of Europe do we want.

The EU will next month launch a massive consultative process aimed at setting the agenda for its next treaty-making summit in 2004. Citizens, interest groups, political parties and governments will be asked to consider the future shape of Europe and to suggest how power should be shared between Brussels and the member-states.

Germany wants a federal Europe, with an elected president, a written constitution and a clear division of responsibilities between national governments and the EU. This could mean returning some policy areas to member-states as well as giving new responsibilities to Brussels.

France is likely to press for a retention of the present system whereby all EU decisions are ultimately made by the member-state governments meeting in council. But the French President, Mr Jacques Chirac, indicated this week that he saw some merit in the idea of a European constitution.

Ireland's friends in Brussels fear that the Government will be tempted to join such states as Britain and Sweden in a minimalist approach to the reform process that will involve as little change as possible. They argue that Ireland's long-term interest lies in a federal Europe that would prevent the bigger states from agreeing major decisions among themselves, without reference to smaller countries.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, shows signs of developing a distinctive, Irish approach to the debate on Europe's future. But the issues involved, which concern nothing less than how we wish to be governed in the future, demand the engagement of society as a whole.

By alerting the Irish public to the extent of the commitment we have already made to our European partners and by highlighting the fact that EU membership involves duties as well as rights, next week's reprimand could serve to enhance that process.