Was Sile thinking of EU curbs on Burren changes?

There are Eurosceptics and then there are Europhobes.

And, while Fianna Fail and the PDs could never fairly be described as the latter, the Boston speech last week by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Ms Sile de Valera, and the supportive response to it by the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, do merely confirm a long-running Eurosceptical tendency in the two Government parties.

It is an adjective they say they are uncomfortable with and dispute but, viewed in terms of the spectrum of European politics, it is accurate if qualified as a mild, pragmatic variation of the species. Ireland may be projected in Europe as a team player, but at home and in the US hints are dropped to receptive audiences that suggest a commitment to a more me fein line. That is not to say they are not suitably appreciative of all the EU has done for us in the past. Indeed, both Ministers couched their fears of further integration in the context of strong statements of support for what they see as the European ideal and the Union's past generosity to this State.

But then, enthusiastic support for a limited form of European co-operation, confined largely to the single market, is precisely the defining hallmark of the difference between Europe's Eurosceptics and its Europhobes. And, like Ms Harney, their rhetoric speaks of de Gaulle's Europe des nations

Take the British Tories. Only the furthest flung reaches of the party actually want to see withdrawal from the Union and few dare speak of such. The party's propaganda is based on the idea that it is truer to the essence of the original European idea of the Common Market. Yet few would dispute a description of the party as Eurosceptical.

Fianna Fail's partners in the European Parliament's Union for Europe of the Nations group are little different. Its leader, Mr Charles Pasqua, is unembarrassed by, indeed proud of, the Eurosceptic tag, though it is strongly disputed by his deputy, Mr Gerry Collins. And the group's Danish component, the Danish People's Party, is doing its best for the No side in this week's referendum on accession to the euro. What the Eurosceptics question is not European co-operation but any extension of the supra-national character of that co-operation, the idea that in order to function better we must further pool our sovereignty, that veto voting must be further diluted. That, in the interests of all, we must occasionally allow ourselves to be outvoted.

For many of them that opposition to further supra-national integration is reflected in opposition to the euro, seen as a quintessential erosion of monetary sovereignty. In Ireland's case, however, the euro was never really an issue, largely perhaps because parties understood the pragmatic reality that monetary sovereignty for a small open economy is largely notional.

That the defence of traditional sovereignty, and hence nervousness at future integration, should loom high on Fianna Fail's agenda is not surprising given the party's history, but there is also perhaps a cold political calculation at work. Polls show that although the Irish electorate is the most supportive of the EU of all member-states, there is a significantly lower sense of ownership of the Union among Irish people than among many of our partners.

It is as if we think the EU is a worthy enterprise which we relate to at arm's length, not as shareholders. Fianna Fail clearly understands such alienation and is playing to it - remember the 38 per cent who voted against the Amsterdam Treaty.

But the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, also understands another reality. It is that the discussion at the heart of the EU has gone beyond the traditional British characterisation of a dichotomy counterpoising further integration to further enlargement. It is now widely accepted that unless Europe integrates further, enlargement will lead to decision-making gridlock which could jeopardise common policies. Heads of government are convinced that, as Mr Ahern said in a speech in March, "against the backdrop of the expansion now envisaged, there is a need for increased co-ordinating and integrating (my italics) mechanisms".

He apparently has yet to convince his Cabinet colleagues fully. Ms de Valera speaks of this "push to closer integration" as "a move I would personally not favour" and the Tanaiste told RTE last week the larger the EU gets the looser the arrangements would be. That would be better for all member-states, particularly Ireland, she said. Writing in this paper recently the Tanaiste argued that "we should be enthusiastic about enlargement but cautious about further integration". Ms Harney stressed that her specific opposition was to any concession on the veto on taxation policy.

Meanwhile, I confess to remaining mystified by Ms de Valera's most unspecific reference to Brussels directives that "can often seriously impinge on our identity, culture and traditions". "The bureaucracy of Brussels does not always respect the complexities and sensitivities of member-states," she insisted. "Brussels, Birmingham, the Burren, the same European Union, different worlds."

Surely that reference to the Burren could not imply she is talking about the Habitats Directive? About Brussels' repeated complaint to her Department, now before the European Court, that Ireland has yet to honour its 1995 obligation to list natural sites for special protection? Surely she cannot be referring to Brussels' interference with our traditional right to destroy our natural heritage?