Even before the referendum on cabinet confidentiality was put to the public last Thursday, Mr Bertie Ahern was moving to reassure a disgruntled electorate that the matter would almost certainly not end there.
It wasn't a definitive undertaking; more like a political gesture designed to encourage wavering voters, while allowing the Coalition Government some room for manoeuvre.
A skin-of-the-teeth endorsement of a severely-restrictive Referendum Bill by the electorate has changed all that. In spite of support from the five main party leaders in the Dail, the referendum was carried by a margin of five points, with 52.65 per cent in favour and 47.35 per cent opposed. And even that wasn't the full story.
More than 56,000 people appear to have deliberately spoiled their votes, rather than vote for a constitutional change they either didn't understand or couldn't support. A further 11,625, who went to polling stations and voted in the presidential election, refused to take or to mark their ballot papers. That unprecedented public protest was described as "an utter disgrace" by one returning officer, who blamed complacency on the part of politicians for what happened.
There was certainly complacency that the referendum would be carried. But there was also a reluctance by mainstream politicians to defend a flawed and extremely limited measure that had been endorsed by two successive governments. The only full-blooded opposition to the measure within the Dail came from the Green Party and from Mr Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party.
The Coalition Government is now likely to come under pressure from the left-wing parties to expand on its commitment to revisit the issue at an early date. And the Taoiseach has gone some way to suggest they will be pushing an open door.
At the weekend Mr Ahern reaffirmed the Government's intention to have the all-party Committee on the Constitution report and make recommendations "arising from the operation of the Moriarty and planning tribunals". But that task could take more than a year and there has been no firm indication of the kind of changes he envisaged.
During passage of the Referendum Bill through the Dail in September, the Taoiseach said he personally agreed with the thrust of the Labour Party's approach, which would have allowed the Dail and Seanad to legislate for certain limited circumstances in which strict cabinet confidentiality would be waived.
In spite of that, the Government insisted that the Bill it had inherited would not be changed. The only circumstances in which the rule of absolute confidentiality could be waived, it said, would flow from a High Court decision that this was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice or to facilitate tribunals of inquiry.
The near-defeat of the Referendum Bill should alert all politicians to the deep distrust in which they are held by the electorate. Disclosures by the McCracken tribunal have generated an appetite to put an end to decades of cloying, unnecessary, official secrecy and to generate greater transparency in public life.
In that regard, it is not sufficient for the Government to wash its hands of the matter by referring the problem to an all-party Committee on the Constitution. The issues raised go right to the heart of government. And they have particular relevance for the extent of cabinet record-keeping.
Because the State was born in Civil War, records of early cabinet discussions were largely limited to decisions taken. As the years went by, this convention was eroded and the records kept depended on the initiative of the government secretary involved. In recent years, as coalition governments have become the norm, minutes of cabinet meetings have become more detailed, to deal with the possibility of interparty disputes.
So, when the Government revisits the issue of cabinet confidentiality, it should also address the question of inadequate cabinet records, in the interests of historians and future generations. Cabinet memoranda are totally inadequate to the task of informing the public in 30 years or so of the political judgment and motivations underlying controversial decisions. And where judicial tribunals investigating cabinet decisions are concerned, they are utterly deficient.
Memoranda are drafted by civil servants, reflect a fairly dispassionate view of an issue and are designed to encourage agreement. And when government decisions are at variance with the relevant memoranda, there is no way in which the dynamic behind the cabinet door can be explained, other than through a record of cabinet discussions.
As of now, it is up to Mr Frank Murray, the Government Secretary, to record the minutes of cabinet meetings. And, in spite of precedent, he is said to keep fairly full notes. His diligence may prove to be a blessing for future historians. But this Government should as part of its commitment to greater transparency go further and formalise a proper recording system.
It is the least it could do in advance of another referendum.