Sweden vacates the chair of the EU presidency at the end of this month. Less than six months ago, the Prime Minister, Mr Goran Persson, spelled out his vision. Enlargement, Employment and Environment dominated the agenda.
These three E's were distinctly apt. Under the Swedish presidency the most important objective of all was a united Europe. Mr Persson pursued a tenacious policy on securing a breakthrough on the enlargement issue.
The European Commission President, Romano Prodi, lamented the absence of a fourth E - EU monetary union.
Transparency, solidarity and a sense of community, key words in the Swedish vocabulary, came to represent a socialist vision and a way of defining Sweden as the successful post-industrialised country it is.
The sense of Sweden as the benign benefactor wanting the same system for everyone as Swedes imagine they have for themselves resulted in the government pursuing an aggressive policy when it came to enlargement.
Mr Persson's vigorous foreign policy, which put Sweden back on the world stage, rekindled for many the days of Olaf Palme and to a lesser extent Carl Bildt. The Swedish presidency has been applauded for enticing Presidents Bush and Putin into the EU arena.
This feel-good factor has not been lost on the public.
However, having sacrificed internal politics for international diplomacy, it may turn out that Mr Persson lost a valuable opportunity to engage the Swedish public in a debate on the EU. Ongoing critical debate is vital, argued critics, who feel more could have been done on the home front.
While the Swedish media as well as most of the opposition hailed the presidency, the acid test will be the election in September 2002.
Since the referendum in 1994, Swedish anti-EU sentiment has been growing. Resistance to the EU is very much alive, as evidenced by the 16,000 to 20,000 people who marched against the EU on Friday evening. This was one of the biggest demonstrations in Sweden in over 50 years, a fact little noted by the media and the government.
The presidency has perhaps affected public opinion in an even more profound manner.
Prof Verkar Gustaffsson, a political scientist specialising in European affairs, says it is surprising the government has been able to pacify the opposition.
"Parties, media, big business, groups normally critical have been more patriotic than political. But a debate on where the EU is heading has been lacking," he said.
"The European Union is seen as so much ideology, that this is the definite route we should proceed upon and that those who disagree are discarded. That is another sort of political logic at work than that surrounding national politics. Why is EU governance better? Shouldn't that be an open question? Why should we proceed along the route to Europe? Because it is feasible, reasonable! That is the question that has to be answered and that Swedes must be convinced of."
Sweden remains unconvinced of the value of EMU. But critics like Prof Gustaffssson see it more as a matter of how the question is styled.
He says Sweden will most likely join but "we will not rush into it for ideological reasons".
Similarly, the manner in which the Irish rejection of the treaty was handled is resented by many Swedes, who have an abiding respect for the democratic will and who at the same time have been following the debate on democratising the EU. Mr Persson will have difficulty explaining to Swedes why the Irish "No" should be a "Yes".
Although the presidency has been a tremendous confidence booster for Mr Persson on the international stage, back home he is still regarded as the politician he was and not as the statesman he believes he has become.
While striving to make the world a better place Mr Persson and his government, in stepping out of the limelight, may not over the coming months enjoy the Swedish traveller's mantra: "Away is Good but Home is Best."