The weekend meeting of European Union heads of government in the Swedish city of Gothenburg dramatically highlighted the fundamental differences within Cabinet on Ireland's role in the EU.
Two statements illustrate the point:
"Here we had all the political parties, all of the media, both broadcast and print, all of the organisations - IBEC, the ICTU, the IFA and everybody else - yet the plain people of Ireland in their wisdom have decided to vote No. I think that's a very healthy sign." So said the Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, on Friday.
And the Taoiseach the following day? "This is the real world. If you want to be in the European Union there is only one way you are in it in my view, and that's fully. That's it. We've got to get working on it."
As the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, lobbied the accession states intensively to reassure them that Ireland remained as pro-European and pro-enlargement as ever, Mr McCreevy chose to let fly at the political consensus behind the European project.
Mr Ahern's declaration that the only way to be in the EU was fully is seen as highly significant. It comes after several of his Ministers have made clear that their enthusiasm for the European Union is far from full. Sile de Valera has made it clear she wants no more directives which she says impinge negatively on Irish culture.
Mary Harney has said she wants none of Europe's "job-destroying policies" and high-spending social model, although aspects of this social model in terms of the regulation of working conditions and employee rights are being introduced in Ireland at the behest of the EU.
Mr McCreevy, meanwhile, was enraged earlier this year by European censure of his budgetary policy, although the EU is entitled to do this and will continue to do so.
Mr Ahern's strong assertion that Ireland must be fully in the EU came less than a day after Mr McCreevy hit out at the pro-integration establishment. His choice of venue is unlikely to have been accidental. He had just been attending a meeting of Ecofin, the EU council of finance and economic ministers, who have tortured him for months over Ireland's budgetary policy. Just that afternoon, the heads of government had reaffirmed their broad economic policy guidelines, which contained censure of Mr McCreevy for breaching the guidelines.
As the EU leaders were meeting to complete this process, journalists were told Mr McCreevy would have something to say afterwards. Choosing the summit to make his case ensured he would reach not just a domestic audience but that his EU counterparts would hear his comments as well.
The Irish people had not lain down under hundreds of years of British rule, he said, implying that they were now being asked to lie down under Brussels rule, and were resisting it. He said the censure of Ireland by the EU had been a contributory factor to the No vote, and that several of the heads of government had admitted at the weekend that this was the case.
Government figures feigned amusement at Mr McCreevy's outburst. "Sure that's Charlie," they said on Friday night in Gothenburg. He was portrayed as "a gas man" who found it hard to keep quiet when he was worked up about something, but sure he wouldn't be the same if he did.
But the incident suddenly appeared more serious on Saturday when Mr McCreevy's spokeswoman disputed the Taoiseach's statement that Mr McCreevy had since "clarified" his comments. There was no clarification, the spokeswoman said, making it clear the Minister stood by his remarks.
What had been provided to inquiring journalists was simply a "synopsis" of what the Minister had said. "The Minister is fully behind Government policy on the issue," began this synopsis. "People had a democratic right to vote and we had to respect their wishes and analyse the situation carefully and find out the best way to move on from this."
Mr McCreevy's comments therefore reflect his considered view and cannot be dismissed, as some Government sources tried to do, as the colourful ramblings of an impulsive man. His view of Europe is thought out and held with conviction and broadly shared by the Tanaiste and, possibly, by others at the Cabinet table.
Since Ms Harney and Ms de Valera made their speeches last year expressing resistance to being moved further towards, as they put it, Berlin rather than Boston, their representatives denied there was any split on Government policy. This denial has remained through Eamon O Cuiv's announcement that he voted No, Mr McCreevy's stand-up row over the Budget, and finally his remarks on Friday.
There is no split in the sense that all support Ireland's continued membership of the EU and all called for a Yes vote in advance of the Nice Treaty referendum.
But there the unanimity ends. Their views of Ireland's role in the European Union are poles apart. Some of the differences, such as those voiced by Ms de Valera, concern notions of national sovereignty. But the major fault line is the old-fashioned left/right divide over economic and social policy.
Europe generally believes in a low-regulation free market economy, but with relatively high social provision, high-quality public services, and therefore higher taxation. Mr McCreevy and Ms Harney passionately support the American model of free markets, low tax and lower social provision.
It is this firm ideological conviction that has driven the Government's budgetary policy for the last four years. The same ideological drive has brought the Government into dispute with the European Union over budgetary policy.
Mr McCreevy and Ms Harney are happy with the drive for deregulation and competition which comes from Europe - one hears no complaints that Brussels forced Ireland to deregulate the aviation or telecoms sector, thus impinging on national tradition. What they don't want is the drive for harmonisation of taxes or standardisation of social provision - which arises in part from European states wishing to protect social provision levels that are funded by taxation.
The European Commission sees Ireland's recent tax-cutting policy as feeding inflation, and in the era of the euro and economic cohesion, inflationary pressures on one member-state affect the others.
Adding to the discord is the resentment from some other member-states of Ireland's low corporation tax rates, which German and French politicians say are used to attract investment and jobs to Ireland at the expense of our partners.
Mr McCreevy, Ms Harney and their supporters say the others should lower their corporation taxes if they want to compete. Our EU partners, however, see a State they have funded substantially for almost three decades now sucking jobs away through what they see as unfair tax competition.
In short, there is a substantial consensus among our European partners behind a high-spending social model - a consensus that this Government is firmly outside. Indeed, the choice of Gothenburg for the summit - with its gleaming trams and buses and spotless city streets within hours of Europe's biggest riot this year - was a model of the widespread European emphasis on using wealth for improving public services and facilities.
The Taoiseach's success at the summit was to merge Ireland's problem over the rejection of Nice with the broader European recognition that, in most member-states, the political elites are way ahead of the public in their enthusiasm for further EU integration. Mr Ahern and Mr Cowen sought to ensure that Ireland was not reclassified among the less enthusiastic Europeans as a result of the Nice vote.
However, with uncertainty over whether Ireland will ratify Nice to continue for a year or more, it is far from certain that such reclassification can be avoided. While the Taoiseach wants to avoid such reclassification, it may appear to be the preferred outcome of some of his colleagues.
It appears, too, that these divisions will continue to surface as the debate on the future of the EU progresses in the coming months. The National Forum on Europe, due to begin work in the autumn, will be looking at the big issues concerning Europe's future. As other member-states too begin a "future of Europe" debate, politicians will have to start taking positions on the type of EU they want.
Mark Brennock is Political Correspondent of The Irish Times