It was approaching midnight on the third day of the Nice summit when a French diplomat leaned across and tapped my press accreditation badge. "Keep this as a souvenir because you are witnessing history here. This treaty will mark a turning point in the history of Europe," he said.
The rhetoric in the run-up to last December's summit certainly suggested that European Union leaders were planning far-reaching reforms to enable up to 12 new states to join. But when the treaty was finally agreed after hours of wrangling and sometimes sordid horse-trading, it was greeted with disappointment.
Ireland is alone among the 15 member-states in holding a referendum to ratify the treaty and on the face of it, there is little of substance to argue about. The Taoiseach has long suggested he favoured putting the treaty to the people but there are two legal arguments that persuaded the Government a referendum was unavoidable.
The Nice Treaty makes it easier for groups of EU member-states to co-operate more closely and removes the veto each member-state currently holds on the formation of such groups. Article 29 of the Constitution renders immune from constitutional challenge acts by the State "which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union".
But the article limits the circumstances in which Ireland can opt in or out of such groups.
Government lawyers fear that changes to the way EU member-states make decisions could be vulnerable to challenge on the basis of the 1987 Crotty judgment. In that judgment, the High Court ruled the electorate must be consulted on any treaty changes that changed the "scope and character" of the EU.
The Nice Treaty changes the relative voting strengths of member-states, reducing Ireland's representation in the European Parliament and reducing the number of issues on which member-states can exercise a veto. Although lawyers disagree on whether these changes to the EU's institutional landscape alter the scope and character of the Union, the Government has chosen the path of caution.
Elsewhere in Europe, national parliaments will vote on whether to ratify the treaty and all are expected to approve it. The only doubts hang over Belgium and Italy, where some parliamentarians have threatened to block the treaty unless it wins the approval of the European Parliament.
Although most campaigners against the treaty in Ireland are likely to be opponents of further European integration, criticism elsewhere in the EU has come mainly from Euro enthusiasts.
Their main complaint concerns changes to the voting system when member-states meet in council. These were intended to make the EU decision-making process easier when new members join. But the new system is, if anything, more complicated than the old one and it raises the hurdle for a qualified majority from 71 per cent of the votes to 73 per cent. At the same time, changes to the voting strengths of the member-states mean that three large countries will be able to block any decision.
The critics argue these changes will make it more difficult for the EU to make decisions and that too much power has shifted from small to big states. And although national vetoes have been abolished in many less important policy areas, bigger issues such as taxation and asylum policy will still require unanimity.
Despite these quibbles, most of those who favour more European integration hope the treaty will be ratified. This is because the treaty will trigger a process that could truly transform the EU and determine for good the relationship between Brussels and the member-states.
This "post-Nice process" will culminate in a further treaty-making summit in 2004 which will define the decision-making powers of EU institutions, national parliaments and regional assemblies. It will also debate such issues as the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the future election of the Commission president.
Many European policy-makers see this process as an opportunity to make the EU more democratically accountable while deepening integration. Germany is especially enthusiastic and has floated such ideas as replacing the Council of Ministers, where ministers from the member-states meet to agree policy, with a second chamber of the European Parliament made up of national representatives.
For their part, some Euro-sceptics view the post-Nice process as a chance to set a final limit to European integration and to return some powers from Brussels to the member-states. A summit in the Belgian town of Laeken in December will determine how the 2004 agenda will be formulated, possibly by a convention made up of parliamentarians from the member-states and representatives of various interest groups.
Few Irish politicians have shown much enthusiasm for the forthcoming debate about Europe's future and there are signs the Government will take a minimalist approach to the post-Nice process. The details of institutional reform outlined in the Nice Treaty will set few pulses racing, but the referendum campaign could serve as a useful prelude to the bigger debate ahead.
Denis Staunton is Brussels Correspondent of The Irish Times.