Perhaps you have already decided how you are going to vote on the Amsterdam Treaty and nothing I say will alter your decision. But if you are undecided, I would ask you to consider what is at stake and why supporters of the treaty are engaging in a campaign of insult and abuse, and of deliberately keeping voters in the dark about the implications for Ireland.

Experience has shown us that the true significance of EU treaties does not emerge until long after we have voted. The circumstances surrounding the Amsterdam Treaty referendum differ from those involving previous EU referendums.

Then, the debate was about how much money we would get from Brussels. The fact that we were making a decision to give up our own currency and hand over control of our economy to a European Central Bank was not really brought home to people.

With the Amsterdam Treaty the implications are also serious and far-reaching and once again the reality of what is at stake is not being addressed.

If the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified, decision-making powers in all of the major political areas will be transferred from national governments to Brussels and for the first time Irish soldiers could be fighting combat missions alongside a nuclear alliance, the WEU.

Supporters of the treaty are using the McKenna judgment, which prohibits the use of taxpayers' money to promote a one-sided argument, to give the impression that they are taking part in fair and balanced debate. However, instead of dealing with the issues at hand in an open and honest way they are misrepresenting the facts, refusing to quote directly from the text and ensuring that the treaty itself is widely unavailable to the public.

The McKenna judgment, it must be stated, does not prohibit informing the public about what they are voting on.

The Government is making statements that have no factual or legal basis. It would have us believe that unless we agree to push ahead with the treaty as it stands, we'll be left in a dangerous state of limbo.

The same scare-mongering tactics were used back in 1992 when we were voting on Maastricht. The government warned that if we voted No we would be left behind.

But the Danes voted No, and they won important changes. Ireland can, and must, do the same.

Voting on this treaty has nothing whatsoever to do with membership of the EU, nor is it a vote of gratitude for the funding that we have got from the EU.

Supporters of the Amsterdam Treaty try to argue that opponents are "anti-European". Such accusations are completely unfounded. The Green Party is part of, and grew out of, an international movement. Of all the political parties in Ireland, the Green Party is probably the most outward-looking and global in its thinking.

The question we must ask ourselves when voting on the Amsterdam Treaty is, what kind of Europe do we want? What is our vision?

By voting No to the Amsterdam Treaty we could renegotiate for a more democratic Europe - a Europe which cherishes diversity and human rights, a Europe which is committed to disarmament and to fostering a healthy co-operation between all its member-states.

It is because the Amsterdam Treaty is at odds with such a vision that it must be rejected and sent back to the talks table. That rejection would in itself be a democratic statement.

One of the main criticisms of the EU over the years has concerned its undemocratic nature and the fact that non-elected officials are making decisions for the people without any democratic control or accountability.

The Amsterdam Treaty does nothing to rectify this situation. In fact, it will transfer power up along ever more complex EU organisations and away from sovereign governments and local communities, while the workings of the EU institutions remain deeply secretive.

The Amsterdam Treaty edges us closer to abandoning neutrality. Article J.7 commits member-states to "the progressive framing of a common defence policy" in co-operation with the NATO-linked nuclear Western European Union.

This is not, as The Irish Times asserted yesterday, something for never-never land. The framing of a common defence policy can begin immediately upon ratification of the treaty.

How can a neutral country sign up for such a thing? It is nonsensical. Our EU partners are in fact becoming our military allies. The Yes side is quoted as saying that Irish neutrality is not endangered, but Article J7 specifically provides for a common defence policy which, it should be highlighted, will be compatible with NATO.

If the Government truly wanted to safeguard Ireland's neutrality, it could have inserted a protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty similar to the one inserted by Denmark. The Danes have stated that they will not participate in any way in decisions or actions of the EU which have defence implications, and that they will not be obliged to finance any operational expenditure undertaken in the defence area.

In fact, the Government and the other political parties in the Dail were given an opportunity to protect Irish neutrality. When the wording to the amendment was passing through the Dail, the Green Party tabled an amendment which read: "This ratification shall not compromise this State's policy of military neutrality."

Only five TDs supported it. So much for safeguarding neutrality.

When negotiations on the Amsterdam Treaty were taking place, arms companies mounted an intensive lobby to have their concerns taken on board within the treaty. It appears that EU leaders, including our own, agreed to accommodate them.

The treaty points out that "the progressive framing of a common defence policy shall be supported, as member-states consider appropriate, by co-operation between them in the fields of armaments."

THERE are also very alarming developments in the treaty within the area of justice and home affairs. Within five years of ratification Europol - the EU embryonic federal police force that has been condemned by international civil liberties groups - will be given operational powers.

According to the treaty this is required to combat international crime, but its brief will extend far beyond this.

Gigantic computers with acres of memory will be central to the working of Europol. The categories of data collected will not be confined to criminals but will be based on racial origin, sexual orientation and religious and political beliefs. This goes far beyond the information necessary for fighting crime.

Yet individuals will not have the right to inspect files or correct any false data that is held about them.

Meanwhile, Europol staff will enjoy immunity from arrest. In essence Europol officers are being given carte blanche to do virtually anything, without any checks on potential abuses.

With the Amsterdam Treaty, the complex Schengen Agreement is brought into the EU framework. It deals with border control and who we let in and out of Europe. Yet this extensive document is unavailable in Ireland. Even as an MEP I cannot get a copy of it here.

We are in effect being asked to go to the polls and vote on something which we cannot read, something which I doubt even our Minister for Foreign Affairs has studied.

Although the inclusion of an employment chapter in the Amsterdam Treaty has been widely touted as progress, this is unlikely to advance the struggle against unemployment in the EU to any significant degree. Employment is being made subordinate to the needs of the sacred internal market.

If the Amsterdam Treaty is a step forward on the employment front, then why are the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed and the ATGWU not supporting it?

The Green Party is one of the few political parties calling for a No vote in the Amsterdam Treaty referendum. The reason that all of the so-called main parties are in favour is because they all had a hand in negotiating it.

Of course they are going to resent anyone attempting to highlight the many alarming aspects of the treaty.

If we vote No Ireland will still remain an EU member, we will not be isolated or lose any of our rights or entitlements.

Ireland is one of the few EU member-states to push for early ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty. Most countries will not begin that process until autumn.

It is alarming that we are being rushed into agreeing to a treaty that is deeply flawed. A No vote would give EU leaders an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and produce a treaty that is drafted along more democratic lines.