In his address last night on Ireland and the EU after the Nice Treaty referendum, the Attorney General Mr Michael McDowell said "there is a sharp division between the federalist project and what Irish people want".
He said that, while the reasons for the No decision remained to be teased out, he had little doubt that one major factor which influenced the electorate either not to support Nice or else to come out and vote against it was "a widespread perception that developments in Europe were taking a turn, or moving in a direction, that caused deep unease".
Concluding his speech at the Institute of European Affairs in Dublin, which he stressed represented his personal views, Mr McDowell said: "Our priority must be to take an active role in developing and articulating a model of Europe which we want to see." He said: "I personally favour the `Partnership of Member States' model; federalists favour the `European State' model.
"Either model is, of course, the stuff of legitimate political ambition and debate, but in my personal judgement, the `Partnership of Member State' approach is the most likely to win and retain the hearts, minds and loyalties of the peoples of Europe."
Mr McDowell said it had always been apparent that Nice would contain little by way of self-interested "good news" for the Irish voter.
He stressed: "I was personally in favour of ratification of Nice because I believe that it is necessary to separate the issues of enlargement and integration; that the Nice outcome was largely successful in doing so, that the success of the Taoiseach and others at Nice, to a large extent, lay in preventing federalists form `handcuffing' enlargement to their own version of integration; and that once enlargement had been given the green light by ratification it would have been possible to confront the federalist agenda head-on without being accused of being selfish.
Mr McDowell said: "A narrowly based, `hot house' federalist view of the needs and future of the European Union which characterises other views as both morally flawed and intellectually Neanderthal is not pretty to behold.
"In my personal judgement, federalists who favour the creation of a `European State' do themselves little justice and no favours by portraying those who are not in agreement with them as moral and intellectual untermenschen.
"Those citizens who, like me, strongly support Ireland's membership of the EU and its enlargement as a `Partnership of Member States', with partnership institutions, rules, dispute procedures and shared competences feel very alienated when our ambitions for Europe are categorised as less European than those of the `European State' lobby.
"I personally believe that the partnership model is not merely legitimate - I feel it is more practical, more robust, more durable, more historical, more democratic and more in tune with the true spirit of Europe, which is complex, diverse and heterogeneous."
In his speech Mr McDowell said: "It is my personal view that the negotiation of a Constitution for Europe - whether described as such or dressed up as a `treaty of competences' at this point is arguably previous and possibly quite unwise. To impose, or to attempt to impose, on an EU of 27 Member States, a constitutional order devised by 15 of them is to say the least morally and democratically dubious.
"The drive to create a Europe with the attributes of a State is the ambition of what, I think, is only a minority, albeit an important and well placed minority, of Europeans. In recent times we have heard proposals for a great variety of attributes of a sovereign European State:
a Constitution;
a justiciable Bill of Rights;
citizenship (since Maastricht);
the power to prosecute, try and punish citizens (the Corpus Juris proposal);
direct taxation (by Europe);
tax harmonisation for the Member States;
defence capacity;
a two-tier parliament modelled on the German model;
a directly elected president;
a Union Government.
"Few if any of these proposals carry popular significant support. While many of these proposals have been put forward separately, they constitute, in the round, the indiciae of a European State in substance - it matters little whether it is described as a super-state or a federal state.
"I fully accept that these political categorisations and labels cannot be black and white and that in politics there are few exact or scientific terms of art. But, like the elephant, we know a Federal State when we see it, regardless of whether we can define it. "These proposals are not coming forward from the people. They are being devised by a narrow class of activist office-holders, elected and unelected; most of the proposals appear to me to have all the potential for electoral take-off of early experiments in steam powered flight. This has not inhibited their propagation.
Mr McDowell asked: "Is it really realistic to expect voters to put them out of their minds when they ask themselves the fairly basic question: `Do I want to encourage the process of European integration'?"
"The problem of course is that the inner circle of federalism, whether in the corridors of the Commission, or the European Parliament, or the wings of Council meetings, has the upper hand and the initiative in setting the agenda. If this is the agenda articulated variously by the Commission, by the European Parliament and by statesmen such as President Rau, Chancellor Schroder, and Foreign Minister Fischer, should we be completely surprised if voters, when given a rare chance, attempt to pass judgement on it?
"It can well be argued that the Nice outcome was effectively quite neutral on these choices. It can be argued with some considerable force that the outcome of Nice was deliberately tailored to be `without prejudice' to the Partnership/State choice. That was, and is, my view of the outcome of Nice.
"But to expect voters not to have one eye on the `Partnership/State' issue when considering the merits of Nice was perhaps, in retrospect, a little unrealistic. That is why, I believe, the Forum should allow all issues to be addressed.
"My personal regret at the defeat of Nice is that the likely outcome of enlargement will be to tip the balance decisively in favour of the `Partnership of States' approach and that the likelihood of a `European State' emerging would be dramatically reduced by enlargement. That is why I favour enlargement sooner rather than later. I also believe that the democracies which were formerly part of the `Warsaw Pact' have a moral entitlement to secure their liberty and prosperity by joining the EU.
"I personally feel that the enlargement agenda is distinguishable from many aspects of the integration agenda. I certainly feel that it would be wrong to rush our fences on the future nature of the EU, in order to present the applicant countries with a fait accompli.
"I believe that, as far as Irish voters are concerned, it is essential to develop and articulate our own view of Europe's future with which the Irish are generally happy and for which the Irish Government can stand with some degree of confidence."
Mr McDowell said: "I do not accept the notion that the Irish electorate does not want the EU to enlarge or does not want to admit new member states. Perhaps a small proportion of voters holds those views, but the leading spokesmen of the No campaign disavowed any hostility to enlargement per se. I believe that the great majority of Irish voters want the EU to succeed and want to remain part of that success.
"I have mentioned before that it is perfectly natural for Irish voters' attitudes to the EU to vary in accordance with our status as a net recipient or net contributor. EU transfers to Ireland have played, and continue to play, a very significant role in our economic transformation. Suggestions, therefore, that we are a society of ingrates who, having crossed the moat, are attempting to pull up the drawbridge on other applicants are, I think, unjustified.
"I presume that Ireland, like every other member state, predicates its European policies and actions on what is termed `enlightened self interest'. That is not to be equated with cynicism or greed. We have a collective interest in the success of the European project and as Irish per capita income approaches and exceeds the European average, we have all the more reason to re-evaluate where our enlightened self interest really lies.
Mr McDowell added: "If we have a collective interest in the success of the European project, we also have an interest in participating in the future planning of that project. We have as much right as any member state to develop and articulate and advocate our view of the future architecture of the European Union.
"It would, I suggest, be folly to await the worked out proposals of the Commission, or of the various think tanks and sponsored researchers or, for that matter, to await the proposals of the larger players such as Germany or France. If we believe, as I personally do, that a Europe based on the idea of a partnership of member states is the model with which Irish people most identify, we should use the forthcoming Forum to elaborate that view.
"Furthermore, I think we should promote our view with a considerable degree of self confidence. The hand of an Irish Government at any IGC [Inter Govermental Conference]would be unmeasurably strengthened by the emergence of a clear view as to where the Irish people stand - a view understood by other member States.
"Sometimes, enthusiasts for European statehood justify their more ambitious (and perhaps less realistic) projects by reference to the need to maintain a degree of momentum in the development of Europe. There is an unstated assumption that the European project favoured by them is like a bicycle - unless it is driven forward, it will fall sideways.
"This mind set is used to justify a rather tightly knit, highly subsidised activism towards a federal model of Europe. If, they say, the project falters or does not `progress' it will collapse.
"For my part, I concede that there are certain projects in history which need to be sustained by a degree of momentum. But the danger of such momentum-based justifications is that other interests and perspectives and insights are cast aside in enthusiasm or out of fear of letting the project flounder or die. A robust European project needs four wheels - so that it can go forward if, when and at the pace the people of Europe decide.
"Another down side of this mind set is impatience or dismissiveness towards doubters and dissentients. In the context of the EU, it is quite customary to have opponents of federalism dubbed as Eurosceptics. Here I must profess a slight feeling of resentment.
"Those of us who are committed to a Europe based on a partnership among nation states are not sceptical about Europe - we are, on the contrary, strongly committed to our vision of Europe which we regard as legitimate, realistic, historically feasible, politically sustainable and democratically accountable. These ideals are every bit as challenging as the federalists' project of European statehood and, perhaps, they are a good deal more practicable.
"To that I would add that the creation of a European state that is not subtended by a cohesive integrated and largely homogenous society may not simply be an unrealistic ambition, it might also be the recipe for democratic, cultural and, ultimately, economic disaster.
"To create the levers and institutions of great power without a corresponding political, cultural and economic and identity and cohesion might not simply be naive folly; it might easily create a moral and political power vacuum from which something much more lethal might spring. This is not argument based on scepticism; it is argument based on caution. Our collective and individual liberties and rights are not necessarily available for experiment on the test bench of enthusiasts who do not command the confidence, yet alone the imaginations, of the peoples of Europe.
"From an Irish perspective, our sense of identity and independence is an uplifting force; our membership of a partnership-based Europe has also been an uplifting force. It does not follow that the creation of a single European state with twenty or twenty seven or more semi-autonomous regions would prove more successful for us in terms of peace, prosperity, liberty or quality of life. From which premise I argue that we must not allow the forthcoming Irish in Europe debate to become too polarised. We should not allow ourselves to be silenced by a sense of gratitude nor inhibited by a sense of relative size.
"Europe is at the moment a partnership of nation states and has succeeded as such; it is perfectly possible for Ireland and Irish people to make a rational, dispassionate but friendly and committed assessment of the future Europe we want to see.
"We need not take our cue from those who have, perhaps, a head start in the debate. Nor should we necessarily take our inspirations from the European centre. The unspoken assumption by federalist proponents of Europe that `he who is not for their view of Europe is against Europe itself' is, I think, unconvincing, unhistorical and arrogant," said Mr McDowell.
The full text of Mr McDowell's speech is available on The Irish Times website at www.Ireland.com