Analysis: The voters will have the final say, writes Deaglán de Bréadún, Foreign Affairs Correspondent.
The acid test of the draft constitution produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe is whether it will be approved by the people when they are asked to vote on it in the expected referendum, probably in about 18 months.
The way people vote in referendums can be affected by the political climate at the time. In the last Nice Treaty vote, the electorate largely ignored advice from some quarters to vote No as a means of "punishing" the Government for alleged misdeeds which had little or nothing to do with the European Union. But who can say what the state of public feeling will be at the end of next year?
While one or two member-states initially thought the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) would be short and sweet, it is now expected to deliberate on the convention text from October to March next year. Since Ireland holds the European presidency from January to June, 2004, we may end up voting on a "Treaty of Dublin". One can already visualise the slogan, "Back the Dubs, Vote Yes", but not in places like Kerry and Meath, of course.
Government sources last night expressed themselves broadly satisfied with the convention text, adding that, while there were some difficulties and concerns, these could be raised and, it is hoped, dealt with in the IGC.
"In terms of the overall package, we did quite well," insiders said. Ireland had been involved in many of the amendments which were incorporated in the final draft.
The Government was particularly satisfied that the principle of equal rotation among member-states would be applied in allocating nominations to the European Commission and any notion of special status or permanent membership for particular large member-states had, in the Government's view, been rejected.
True, it was proposed to reduce the number of voting members on the Commission to 15 but there would be up to 15 other non-voting members, thus ensuring that each member-state could present nominations. It is envisaged that the Commission president would choose one from a list of three presented by each member-state.
But there is particular unease in Government circles with the proposal that the new European foreign minister would chair meetings of an EU Foreign Affairs Council. "We do not think for reasons of accountability that that is a good idea. That is an issue for the IGC," sources said. But they have no difficulty with the job of foreign minister.
There is satisfaction at Government level that the new president of the European Council will have a "much-reduced" role, compared to what was originally envisaged. He or she would be "effectively a chair of the council", sources said. This was "much, much lower" than the original ambitious scheme, as the individual concerned would not have a bureau or secretariat as back-up. Would he or she have a cabinet? "Whatever he (or she) has, it will be very, very small." As far as Ireland was concerned, the plan for a European counterpart to George Bush was "very much neutered".
The draft provides that the President of the Commission would be elected by the European Parliament but nominated by the member-states through the council. Government sources were satisfied this balanced arrangement averted the possibility that the Commission president could be "in hock" to the Parliament, with resultant loss of independence.
Ireland has long had a keen interest in preserving the unanimity rule - and thereby the national veto - on taxation policy, so that we can retain our low rate of corporation tax. This has been a major incentive to foreign firms to invest in Ireland.
While there was basic satisfaction that the fundamental principle had been preserved, one detected some marginal concern that particular provisions in the draft might be used as a kind of Trojan horse to undermine Ireland's company tax rules.
Thus, it could be decided unanimously to bring in qualified majority voting on issues like fraud and tax administration, on a case-by-case basis. The devil is in the detail and the Irish would like to know what exactly is meant by "tax administration". And weren't the existing provisions on fraud quite sufficient, thank you very much. There was also a reference to "unfair competition". Government sources wondered: "What is the interpretation of that?"
But there is no immediate cause for alarm: "We have not lost our national veto. We are of the view that unanimity should continue in all areas of taxation."
As for the "solidarity clause" where member-states were subjected to terrorist attack and provisions about voluntary mutual defence: "These are issues we will be looking at in the IGC."
There is definitely a problem with the proposal for a European public prosecutor: "We don't see that it is necessary or practical." The difference between the Irish and continental legal systems means that there could be difficulties ahead in the whole area of justice and home affairs.
Overall, then, the Government feels that the results of the convention's deliberations are largely unthreatening and, where concerns do exist, these can be dealt with between the member-states at the IGC.
One cannot help recalling that similar broad satisfaction was expressed after the Nice Treaty was negotiated, but then the people turned around and rejected it in the first referendum.