The Commissioner for Regional Affairs is treading a line that is close to interfering in the internal affairs of a member-state when she talks about the need for devolved regional institutions in Ireland.
But regional devolution has been a cornerstone of EU regional policy and Ireland's political centralisation has been out of step with what most of its EU partners practise. It is not surprising that as the Government explores the possibility of subdividing the State for structural funds, Ms Monika Wulf-Mathies should demand a quid pro quo.
In her comments yesterday on the need for new regional structures to accompany any case for regionalisation of aid, the Commissioner echoed a line she took a few days before. "So far I see the interest in getting as much money as possible," she said in an Irish Times interview, "but don't yet see this corresponding with changes in regional governance."
At the same time, the Irish Commissioner, Mr Padraig Flynn, took issue with her, arguing that precedents like that of the Belgium province of Hainault did not support that view. "I do not accept that it requires the setting up of a huge new administration," he said, "for the simple reason we already have some regional authorities, which admittedly might have to be beefed up."
While expressing an understanding of the concerns of those making the case for subdividing the State, he was sceptical as to whether regionalisation, effectively ring-fencing money for the west, would actually mean any more money overall for Ireland.
"Would it not simply be," Mr Flynn suggested, "that that amount of money would, in fact, be taken from the totality that would have been there in the overall region of Ireland? And you would not be an ecu better off."
In the realpolitik of EU negotiations, I suggested, leaders will simply agree that Ireland gets X, Germany gets Y. How we divide it up within Ireland is largely a matter for ourselves?
"That's right," he concurred, although he argued that regionalisation was one way of guaranteeing fairness for areas that felt they had been badly treated last time. What was not clear, he said, because of the relatively low population in such counties, was whether Objective One funding would be sufficient to carry out major projects.
The argument for dividing up the State for EU funding purposes is thus more about the internal distribution of power between Dublin and the west than about maximising Irish funding from Brussels. Promises from the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, to skew structural funds towards poorer rural counties miss the point - they would prefer to spend the money themselves.
Mr Flynn is coy about his advice to the Government on which approach to adopt but appears to be suggesting a waiting game. Most believe there is still time to play with ahead of the March target date for the completion of negotiations, although, surprisingly, the head of the Regional Affairs directorate, Mr Eneko Landaburo, suggested to the leader of Fine Gael, Mr John Bruton, last week that time had run out.
The Government's strategy could also be influenced by the possibility that the British government might succeed in getting Objective One status retained for Northern Ireland as a special contribution to the peace process. Then the Government might feel impelled to make a case for the Border counties to get similar treatment, as they have in the EU special programme for peace and reconciliation.
The Commission is anxious to resist the precedent of making an exception for the North to the 75 per cent of EU per capita GDP eligibility ceiling. The North's per capita income in the reference year is 10 points above that ceiling.
Central to Ms Wulf-Mathies's reform of the next structural funds package is her determination not to allow widespread exceptions to eligibility limits which bedevil the current round and which mean, she argues, that funding is spread more thinly and less effectively.
A strong British case for the North might, however, be pitched successfully over the Commission at heads of government level. But, some ask, would the British Prime Minister be willing to make a special case for Northern Ireland when the Highlands and Islands were losing their Objective One status, just months ahead of elections to the Scottish Parliament?