MANY of the changes proposed for a new EU treaty will please Ireland, but there are still some to worry about.
Drugs and crime: The longest single section in the Irish presidency document is on justice and home affairs issues, and it consists mainly of amendments drafted by the Irish.
At the start of its presidency the Government stated that tackling international drug trafficking and crime would be its main priority, and the section that covers these issues is seen as very ambitious.
The document lists areas in which member states would cooperate and develop common action. They include all forms of police co operation; the combating of drug trafficking; preventing the trafficking of persons and offences against children; preventing racism and xenophobia and judicial co operation.
The presidency also suggests that the IGC should consider setting January 1st 2001 as a target date for the completion of the development of the EU as "an area of freedom, security and justice".
This would involve setting target dates for new rules governing the crossing of the EU's external borders; drawing up common visa rules; setting out common asylum and immigration rules and providing for more coherent action against illegal drugs.
Employment and social policy: The inclusion of a chapter on employment is regarded as a success by the Government, in light of the sustained and strenuous opposition from Britain.
The wording of it however will disappoint those who sought the imposition of a meaningful obligation on member states to seek full employment. It specifies the promotion of "a high level of employment" but does not define what this "high level" is.
The draft also includes a proposal, made by the Minister for Finance, Mr Quinn, for an advisory committee to monitor employment in the EU, and express opinions on how the aim of "a high level of employment" can be achieved.
Ireland also supports strongly the development of the social policy provisions of the Union. However due to the strong opposition of "one delegation" - Britain - the Irish document recommends that discussion on integrating the EU's Social Protocol into the EU treaty be postponed until the end of the IGC.
Under the present arrangement, the Social Protocol is not part of the treaty, and Britain, which opposes many of its provisions on social and workers' rights, does not have to abide by it.
Neutrality and Defence: The final wording of the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy could have important implications for Irish military neutrality.
There is some support for inserting as an EU objective the "safeguarding to the territorial integrity of the Union and the inviolability of its external borders".
This could be seen as a significant movement towards a commitment to defending another EU member state if attacked.
A commitment to mutual defence would run contrary to Irish neutrality as it is currently formulated.
It is understood, however, that the commitment to safeguarding the inviolability of borders is being pushed mainly by the Greek government. Turkey has long disputed Greek sovereignty over islands in the Aegean, and the Greeks are keen for the EU treaty to back the status quo.
The Irish presidency's draft of this amended article states this objective as "to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the Union in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter".
This watering down of the proposal could help avoid conflict with Irish neutrality, but the stronger version is still under consideration.
Another proposal - enthusiastically supported by Germany and a number of other states - that would create difficulties for Irish neutrality is for a merger of the EU with the defence organisation the Western European Union (WEU). There is enough opposition to the idea to ensure that it will not be agreed at this IGC.
But the draft treaty does provide for "developing the relationship" between the EU and WEU. "The Western European Union is an integral part of the development of the Union and the Union shall accordingly foster closer institutional relations with it," the draft says.
This wording was proposed by the Irish presidency as a compromise between those who want the treaty to state explicitly that the EU has authority over the WEU, and those who want no change.
The draft also incorporates WEU so called Petersberg tasks - humanitarian, peacekeeping and peace making activities using military means - into the treaty.
The issue of the rights of non WEU members - such as Ireland which has observer status at the organisation's meetings involved in WEU decision making on the Petersberg tasks has yet to be resolved. The draft states, that all EU decisions with military or defence implications would have to be, taken unanimously.
It contains a subtle amendment to the commitment in the Maastricht Treaty to working towards a common EU defence.
The amendment states: "The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive [present wording "eventual"] framing of a common defence policy in the perspective of present wording: "which might in time lead to a common defence".
This rather esoteric change stops far short of the wish of some member states to move directly to a common EU defence policy.
The Institutions: Will Ireland lose its automatic right to nominate an EU Commissioner? Will we no longer have a six month EU presidency to ourselves? Will we lose our veto on some issues regarded as of vital national interest?
We don't know yet. Member states are too far apart on these issues to allow for the production of any draft treaty changes in these areas.
These key issues will now be considered with the Dutch presidency.