The machinations of political elites in response to their perception of the collective viewpoint of respective electorates have been truly Machiavellian in character but with the benefit of hindsight, what other course of action was open?

The Irish public will still have a chance to express their viewpoint about the Reform Treaty – it will be interesting to analyse the standard of their debate and compare it with others that have taken place elsewhere. I can state from experience that the tone of dialogue in the UK is overwhelmingly negative in terms of public disposition toward political elites in general and the concept of closer European integration in particular.

The UK govt. has no stomach for confronting the issue of “Europe” head-on and so the significant element of the UK press that is viscerally anti-Europe is allowed to propagate their vitriolic message unchallenged.

For me, the origins of this sorry state of affairs can be found in the first few lines of the Union’s founding documents; “The High Contracting Parties” mentioned in Article 1 of the Rome Treaty.

In 1957 the world was a very different place and perhaps the idea of six nation states sharing a common trauma, cooperating, even pooling their sovereignty in limited areas (although that concept came later), seemed entirely logical. The EEC forged in Rome remained at that stage an essentially intergovernmental mechanism and structure. “Ever closer union” may have been mentioned in the Treaty preamble but I am not convinced that the masses inhabiting the original six member states realised the full implications of this grand project.

The “Europe des Patries” geo-political model pursued by De Gaulle and others during this formative period of the Union’s evolution may have been fit for purpose but in a 21st century globalising environment, a twenty-seven (and counting) member state arrangement, fast approaching the point of political paralysis, is now well past its sell by date.

With each additional member being welcomed to the fold (Türkiye, Makedonija, Hrvatska, Bosna i Hercegovina, Srbija are all potential entrants in the next two decades), this axiomatic truth becomes increasingly self evident to those willing to engage with this issue rather than just bury their head in the sand and hope it will go away.

We need another way and that route is not founded upon member (Nation) states. It is founded upon the adoption of real federal principles (not the perverted interpretation invoked in UK tabloids) and a sober, objective assessment of what we want Europe to be and how it is to function.

This will involve some hard decisions for future generations but they are not so difficult to understand if one can set aside subjective (Nationalist) sentiment and consider the benefits of ceding clearly defined but limited competencies to a central (democratically accountable and transparent) administration, whilst simultaneously counterbalancing that trend by devolving/transferring significant powers to more immediate (sub-national/Regional in the larger member states) tiers of democratic governance. In this manner a more flexible geo-political template might emerge to serve the hopes and aspirations of 21st century European citizens, rather than the compartmentalised mindset presented by current orthodoxy.

Your reference to Machiavelli seems ironic to me because I sometimes feel a great affinity with this iconic figure (not that I would dare to compare my feeble utterances to his great intellect) because in keeping with the mainstream vilification of his philosophy, whenever I mention this concept in discussion forums, the silence is deafening. No one seems capable of assimilating the concept of a European Union based upon anything else except member states; that’s just the way it is so we must play with the cards dealt according to the rules.

It is now the smothering effects of this orthodoxy, which presents the single biggest obstacle to constitutional and democratic progress within the Union.

In bemoaning the wreckage of Lisbon, let us recall the initial optimism of Laeken, which began this a six year journey and mark the malign influence of large member state administrations upon the constitutional process, desperate to retain their individual fiefdoms of power and influence within the Union’s institutional architecture.

Yes, the constitutional document provided by VGD and his team was overlong and convoluted but that was in part dictated by the act of accommodating disparate member state (National) self-interests into what should have been an essentially European text.

No, we must now begin again. The progressive elements of European political discourse must now gather themselves for another assault upon the bastions of Nation-State bound orthodoxy. It will be a long and arduous journey but one that is worth the sweat and toil, inevitable self-doubt and repeated set-back, before we reach another point in Europe’s history where the portent for irrevocable change lies before us.

Maastricht in 1992 represented the last true great leap forward; perhaps we will have to wait for another generation before the opportunity presents itself once more?