Probably within the next year, but certainly within the next 18 months, all the member states of the European Union will address the ratification of the constitution that was drafted during 2002 and 2003 by a 105-member convention, and was then adopted, with some adjustments, by an Inter-Governmental Conference of member governments.
In at least nine cases this ratification process will involve a referendum - France, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, and also Spain, the electorate of which has already voted in favour by a large majority. The parliaments of Lithuania, Hungary and Slovenia have already ratified.
The unanimous adoption of the constitution by all 25 states is far from assured. In France, although the Socialist Party has decided to support it, a minority of Socialist parliamentarians may oppose it - as will the extreme right.
Moreover, in Britain polls have recently shown a majority of almost four to one against ratification, and even if Tony Blair recovers some of his popularity within the next 12 months, he will not find it easy to turn opinion around. Success is also far from assured in the the Czech Republic, where a right-wing president is opposed and the electorate tends to negativity.
From our point of view, the present document, in the drafting of which Irish representatives played a prominent role, and the final version of which was negotiated with skill by the Taoiseach last June, is very acceptable. During the two-stage negotiating process all of the elements with which we would have had real difficulties were modified to our satisfaction, or disappeared completely.
Of course, that does not mean that the constitution's provisions are precisely what we would have drafted. This document is the product of compromises, first between 105 European politicians, and then between 25 governments.
The idea of an EU foreign minister is a good one, which should strengthen Europe in its relationship with unilateralist forces in the US. However, on general principles we would have preferred the foreign affairs council to have an independent chairman rather than leaving the new foreign minister in the awkward position of having to preside over discussions on his own proposals.
There is also some concern about a possible overlap, or even conflict, between this useful new post and that of the other new position - a semi-permanent presidency of the European Council, whose foreign affairs role is described in the following terms: "The president shall at his or her level and in that capacity ensure the representation of the Union on issues concerning the common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the Union minister for foreign affairs".
I also wonder whether, if it had been left to us, we would have abandoned the existing European Council qualified majority voting system in favour of the double majority system which in its final form will require the votes of a minimum of 55 per cent of states, between them containing 65 per cent of the Union's population; a much larger margin being required, however, in a vote on legislation that has not been proposed by the commission, as well as on other sensitive issues.
However, we have to face the fact that in the enlarged Union of 25 member states the present voting system would enable 18 smaller states with less than half the population to impose their will on the six large states, which would hardly be democratic.
The truth is that in a Union in which large states now constitute only 24 per cent of the membership, there was a genuine case for a modification of a voting system that was originally drawn up for a Community in which one-half of the participants were large states.
But none of those issues was of vital importance. There were, however, two sets of proposals which, if agreed, would have been damaging from our point of view. First, several proposals in the justice and human rights area might have impinged on aspects of our sovereignty, or would not have been compatible with our common law system.
Second, a tax harmonisation proposal would have forced us to abandon our low corporate taxation system, which our governments have seen as essential to the attraction of high-tech industry to Ireland. Both of these proposals were successfully resisted.
For the rest, the provisions of the new constitution include many which most Irish people will warmly welcome, and which will make the Union a more attractive environment for a country like Ireland.
The Union will be required to respect the equality and identity of member states and also their linguistic and cultural diversity. Moreover, the values and principles of the Union, which are spelt out in detail in the opening paragraphs of the constitution, include a range of social values such as the rights of minorities and an obligation to eliminate inequalities between women and men and to combat domestic violence.
In relation to international affairs, the constitution for the first time cites the UN Charter and requires "strict observance and development of international law". Member states are to be subject to sanctions for breaches of human rights, while new members have to meet the Union's human rights standards before admission.
National parliaments also acquire a new role in the Union's affairs. The commission, council and European Parliament are required to give national parliaments notice of all new draft laws, and any national parliament may submit a reasoned opinion in respect of any proposal which it believes does not respect the principle of subsidiarity - an opinion which the Union's institutions "must take into account".
Moreover, if one-third of national parliamentary bodies object to a draft law, it must be reviewed, and national parliamentary bodies as well as governments can refer to the Court of Justice any law which is viewed as breaching the principle of subsidiarity. And, if the council decides by unanimity to extend qualified majority voting to new areas, any of the 25 national parliaments will be able to block such a move.
There is also is a provision for a "citizens' initiative": a million citizens from a significant number of member states will be able to invite the commission to introduce a new law. In conjunction with the incorporation in the treaty of a charter of human rights, citizens' rights vis-a-vis the institutions of the Union are also strengthened by the incorporation in the treaty of a provision in relation to the Union's Ombudsman, and also by being given easier access to the European Court.