The European Union should have a permanent "senate" drawn from politicians in the member-states, the Forum on Europe has been told.
The suggestion came from an Oxford academic and author, Dr Larry Siedentop, who said that only such a body, comprising politicians with established national profiles, could "reconnect the national political classes" with the European project.
The existence of the European Parliament had served "almost as an excuse" for national politicians to disengage from Europe, he added. But the creation of an upper house with high-profile representatives would bring much-needed publicity and transparency to the actions of the EU.
Furthermore, it could serve as a "permanent constitutional convention", producing gradual consensus on the way the union is run, something the Convention on the Future of Europe was trying to do "overnight".
Dr Siedentop, author of Democracy in Europe, which was described by the Observer as "a thrilling, readable book about constitutional reform in the European Union", was one of the two main speakers at Monday night's forum session in Lucan, Co Dublin.
He shared the podium with the Labour president and MEP, Mr Proinsias De Rossa, who is also a member of the convention, and said the body would present its report, probably in the form of a draft constitution, next summer.
Mr De Rossa said the decision to establish the convention was one of a number of important departures in the Nice summit which had been largely ignored in Ireland's debate on the treaty.
Other key decisions had included a declaration that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights should be embraced in any EU constitution.
He said: "Some of the groups against Nice are also against the charter of rights, and people should examine the fundamental - in some cases, fundamentalist - argument being made against the treaty by this part of the No campaign."
The thrust of the European Convention's work was to make Europe more democratic, Mr De Rossa said. In this context, the starting point must be the European Parliament, "the only directly elected democratic institution at European level".
Calling for the parliament to elect the president of the European Commission, he said this would be the simplest, most effective and most democratic way to give Europe's executive the legitimacy that national governments enjoyed.
Mr De Rossa also urged that the sharing of legislative power between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers "be taken to its ultimate conclusion".
This would mean that "co-decsion" should become the norm for all EU legislation agreed by qualified majority voting in council, including justice and home affairs issues and all budgetary matters.
"The basic principle should be that no EU legislation is enacted or monies allocated unless they have been approved by the representatives of member-states and by the representatives of the people of Europe," he said.
In answer to a point made from the floor by the Green TD, Mr Paul Gogarty, Mr De Rossa said it was legally uncertain that limited EU enlargement, with up to five new members, could proceed under the terms of the Amsterdam Treaty.
But even if this were possible, there were now 10 countries ready to join. The most important result of another No vote on Nice would be instability in the applicant countries, which were "deeply worried" about Ireland's intentions, he said.
Mr Gogarty suggested that, despite "scaremongering", Ireland would still be a respected member of the EU in the event of a No vote.
Mr De Rossa said he did not "go down the road of suggesting a No vote would be the end of the road for Ireland", but he added: "We will not be respected in the candidate countries."
Rejecting suggestions from the audience that he advocated a "federal superstate", Dr Siedentop said that, properly understood, "federalism is designed to prevent anything like a superstate arising". The whole point of federalism was to protect the smaller states from the larger ones, he added.
He also predicted that Eurosceptics would deplore "even exploratory" moves towards an EU constitution. This was counterproductive to their own interests, he said, because the traditional ad-hoc approach of member-states had not imposed "intelligent or effective" limits to EU powers.
