On neutrality, which is it? Are we lying, in two minds, or just a lot smarter than we thought we were?
On the face of it, it's tough to reconcile the fact that only a few weeks ago we witnessed the largest mass public demonstrations in a generation directed against the war in Iraq, but that now, in a recent poll in The Irish Times, more than half of us (51 per cent) think that the Government's offering of Shannon to facilitate the US in that conflict was just fine.
It's also difficult to understand how 68 per cent of us are quite happy for Ireland to join some form of European common defence - precise details to be sorted out later - when anti-EU campaigners saw the threat of an EU "army" and NATO as their strongest cards in both Nice referendums.
And it appears to be impossible to reconcile the (in)famous 1996 Irish Times poll which found that although 70 per cent of us wished to maintain our traditional neutrality, nearly 60 per cent felt that we should commit ourselves to the defence of our EU partners.
It may well be possible, however, to reconcile these " irreconcilables" if we look at the balance between values and interests, at the importance of multilateralism and at the issue of choice.
The Iraq war illustrates a comparatively rare Irish case where long-standing values apparently clashed head-on with immediate interests. For its part, it is clear the Government knew where it saw the balance lying (i.e. with the US and UK) but until the very last moment it expected a UN deal to provide necessary political shelter for that decision. This was also evident on the other side of the debate. On several occasions prior to the final collapse of UN talks, figures in the Irish anti-war coalition insisted the UN Security Council would prove to be a puppet of the US and that no decision of that body could legitimise war.
In the event, no UN fig leaf sprouted and the Government had to reveal its stark analysis. In a series of ad-hoc statements, the Taoiseach and various Ministers argued that Ireland's economic interests and its relationships with the US and UK were too crucial to jeopardise.
There is certainly an argument to be had about how best to balance values and interests - and a powerful case to be made that the Government's rationale was wrong. What's significant is that the electorate clearly knows there is a balance to be struck - that foreign policy ideals come at a cost and self-interest cannot be assumed to be morally justifiable.
There might also be something interesting afoot in our relationship with Europe in these polls. While there was undoubtedly an element of facile anti-Americanism along the fringes of both the anti-war movement and anti-Nice campaign, a more subtle argument does emerge. Ireland's commitment to multilateralism is both principled and practical: principled insofar as it underscores a moral and ethical commitment to law, norms and agreed rules of international behaviour.Practical, since, as a small state, it makes sense to commit yourself to the force of law if you are unable to pursue your values and interests using the laws of force.
However, while we have traditionally looked to the UN as the source of international law and legitimacy, we are also, following Iraq, conscious of its limitations. In the era of a US hyperpower, the finely tuned balances of the Security Council forged in 1946 may not offer the best possible multilateral service. The EU's shared values and interests offers us another focus for this commitment, especially as membership is based even more firmly in law and procedure and it is a forum where small states have permanent votes as well as voice.
Thus, for Ireland - and perhaps also the Minister for Defence in his call for a review of the Defence Acts - the pursuit of multilateral security can justly be pursued through the EU. The Union thus has the capacity to legitimate peacekeeping operations under a broad UN umbrella and might also offer a positive, critical balance to an otherwise unchecked US power.
Finally, what this opinion poll data also underscore is that while we are evidently willing to work with EU partners in difficult and traditionally sensitive areas such as foreign, security and defence policy, we do so out of choice, not compulsion and as the individual situation merits, rather than automatically. Thus, in making their case, governments now have to prove that foreign, security and defence policy choices are made only after serious deliberation and on the merits of the case.
This is no small challenge. The comparatively tiny size of our diplomatic service, the virtual absence of consultative and research structures in Irish foreign policy-making, and the very limited capacity of the Oireachtas all conspire against a broad, pro-active agenda in Irish foreign policy. What we do appear to have, however, based on the evidence of this poll data, is an electorate that appreciates the balances to be struck between values and interests, that wants to see Ireland make a serious contribution to multilateral and EU security structures and which insists upon a thoughtful and distinctively Irish contribution. It's a solid foundation upon which to build.
• Dr Ben Tonra is a director of the Dublin European Institute at UCD