Writing recently of his experiences negotiating the Amsterdam Treaty, the Irish diplomat Bobby McDonagh described what he called "original sin in a brave new world".
The drive to create a new form of supranational political entity in the form of the EU may well often be justified in idealistic terms, he argued, but at its core the Union remains a collection of nation-states whose governments resolutely defend national interests.
That reality is, as usual, exposed in its most naked form in the budget debate. For while 13 of the EU's governments may be led by or contain social democrats, advocates at home of a redistributive policy that might transfer some of the wealth of the rich to the poor, on the European stage the policy is definitely me fein.
And, irony of ironies, Spain, a substantial net beneficiary of EU cash, led by one of the few conservative governments left in Europe, is the champion of a radical, dare one say, socialistic approach to the budget, a contribution system based on a progressive, redistributive income tax.
This week, with the German elections out of the way, the starting-gun of the real Agenda 2000 debate has been fired by the Commission with a document that looks at the system for calculating member-states' contributions. The phoney war is over.
The news for Ireland is not good. On current calculations and assuming unchanged EU spending plans, because of the exceptional growth in the economy, the Department of Finance has estimated that Ireland's annual dues will go up from some £670 million this year to £1,075 million in 2006.
That's before the Germans get the rebate they're demanding to reduce the burden of the 60 per cent share they make up of the EU's net contributions. Also standing in line behind them as net contributors with a grievance, the Austrians, Dutch and Swedes.
Diplomats believe the most likely runner of the Commission's options for reform of the contribution system is the proposal to cut the expenditure side of the equation, notably the co-financing by national governments of CAP direct income payments to farmers. The cost to Ireland of the proposal in its current form would be £160 million a year by 2006, and yet more if CAP reforms continue.
Yet what is at stake is not just Irish cash, but an important principle. Trying hard not to offend the Germans, the Commission last Wednesday repeatedly made the point that it is not equitable to assess the benefits of membership simply in terms of net cash contribution. The insistence of member-states on trying to balance their EU income and contributions to get what they are calling a "fair return" is deeply subversive of Union common policies.
It's a bit like the problem a national government might have with a taxpayer who insists that he wants a rebate on his taxes because he is young, healthy and childless, and therefore does not have to avail of health or education spending. A national tax system based on a "fair return" would simply not work.
And the Budget Commissioner, Erkki Liikanen, told journalists "the Commission does not accept the principle of the `fair return'. Being a member has a value which cannot be counted". German access to the single market, for example, is worth many billions a year, but simply not part of the equation.
If the contributions side looks grim for Ireland, the expenditure side, as we have been aware for a while, is hardly much better. And a decision next week by the Cabinet on the subdivision of the country for structural-funds purposes is not expected here to make any significant difference to the overall cash take by Ireland. When it comes to the crunch, the Realpolitik of the negotiations is that an overall envelope will be agreed for Ireland, however it is divided.
Regionalisation may, however, have the effect of making the glide path from structural-fund dependency less steep by spreading spending more evenly over the seven years of the budget. The Commission is planning to front-load funding to regions in transition from Objective 1status into the first two years of the programme.
It is also worth noting that the real difference to the 13 counties that retain Objective 1 may be slight in practice. Figures obtained from the Commission by the Fine Gael MEP, Joe McCartin, show that structural fund spending by the EU per capita over the 1994-99 period in the Border counties was already running more than 50 per cent higher than in Dublin (£3,262 to £2,035 per head respectively). A rough calculation of the overall effect of the next budget on Ireland's net beneficiary status is inevitably still extremely tentative, but here we go:
Receipts: assuming that regional and social funding is running at a third of current levels by the end of 2006 - say £220 million; And farm receipts are cut by £160 million by the German rebate - say £1,450 million; Cohesion funding, worth £137 million last year, is gone at the mid-term review in 2003; Miscellaneous other receipts total, say £30 million. Total receipts in 2006: £1,700 million.
Contributions - roughly £1,075 million.
Balance in Ireland's favour in 2006 - £625 million.
The result is that Ireland is likely to remain a net beneficiary of EU funds, but at something less than half the current level. Hardly, as Joe Rea used to say in his inimitable way, "bonzano" time! Mitigating the damage will be a real challenge to Irish diplomats in the months ahead.
Yet by late March a deal will have to be done. Some concession will have to be made to the Germans, some promise to Spain that cohesion policies will continue, some recognition to Ireland that the glide path to becoming a net contributor cannot be too steep.
To a great extent, as everyone here understands, the shapes being thrown by member-states today must be seen as starting opening negotiating positions, but it's a circle that's going to be difficult to square.
