The Amsterdam Treaty is important in putting a "human face" on Europe. Most European treaties up to now have been concerned with material things like coal and steel, free trade in goods, common standards for goods, food prices, and at Maastricht with the setting up of a single currency.
The focus has been on achieving economic efficiency and economic co-operation. The Maastricht Treaty placed a special emphasis on controlling government spending and borrowing, so as to sustain the single currency.
The risk of all this emphasis on money in Europe was that sight might be lost of the human values that the money was being created to sustain - like good and rewarding work, a clean environment, safe and healthy products in the shops, and a structure of peace in Europe.
The Amsterdam Treaty puts that imbalance right. It contains substantial treaty commitments on employment, the environment and consumer protection. These commitments mean that all future policy decisions, including on financial matters, will have to take account of the Amsterdam Treaty commitments on jobs, the environment and the consumer. The Amsterdam Treaty makes "sustainable development" a key requirement in all EU decisions. That will make a big difference, over time.
The Amsterdam Treaty also contains strong commitments on human rights. For the first time, it will be possible to sanction member-states of the Union who fail to respect human rights.
This "humanising" of the European Union is something that Irish people will, I hope, support by voting Yes on referendum day.
But this cannot be taken for granted. As a means of public decision-making, referendums frequently lead to No votes. Caution or conservatism can combine with cynicism to stop decisions being approved in a referendum vote. This is all the more a risk when there is no one big issue to galvanise support and debate.
For this reason, it is important to face up to what might happen if Ireland was to vote No to the Amsterdam Treaty. We should look at what we have achieved in this country, and ask ourselves how much of it could have been achieved without the process of European integration, of which the Amsterdam Treaty is a modest further step. We should ask ourselves if we really want to arrest that process.
One of the big reasons for Ireland's exceptionally rapid economic growth is that the country is seen, at home and abroad, as a central player in European Union affairs, with access not only to Europe's single market, but also to Europe's rule-making structures which maintain that market. Ireland is a rule-maker as well as a rule-taker. This has brought huge amounts of United States investment into Ireland, and tens of thousands of jobs.
Ireland is one of the few countries required to hold a referendum on acceptance of the Amsterdam Treaty. Most other European countries allow their parliaments to ratify the treaty. But if just one country fails to ratify the treaty, the treaty is blocked for everybody. An Irish electorate that blocked the Amsterdam Treaty would be denying the benefits of the treaty to the electorates of all the other European countries as well. This is an enormous power and responsibility to have.
Ireland has opt-outs from the Amsterdam Treaty provisions on freedom of movement, aspects of internal security and on defence. If Ireland votes No, it will veto other countries going ahead with the commitments they have made in the treaty.
This veto would be seen as a "dog-in-the-manger" attitude by some people in other countries. It is a decision which would certainly be unhelpful to Ireland's general position in European negotiations.
It might also force other countries to devise new ways to co-operate with one another, bypassing the European Union and Ireland's potential veto. This would leave Ireland out in the cold, forced either to accept what others decided, or to stay out of the new forms of European co-operation altogether.
If Ireland was to reject the Amsterdam Treaty, the European Union would not, of course, stop in its tracks altogether. The single currency would go ahead. Europe would still go ahead with negotiations to take in new members. The European budget would also have to be rejigged to meet the costs of these new members. Decision-making would be more cumbersome than intended, because of Ireland's referendum blockage of some of the Amsterdam improvements in decision-making. But decisions would still be taken eventually.
The burial of the Amsterdam Treaty would make the Union much more cautious about any new treaties. The Union would also be less confident in negotiating with other world players. This would not be good for world peace and prosperity. Ireland would not be thanked for its role.
Rejection of Amsterdam could lead to inter-governmental deals made behind closed doors between big states taking the place of common Union decisions made through a public process.
This would be much less democratic and transparent than the Union method. Small countries would be faced with having to accept the decisions taken by their bigger neighbours, or opt out altogether.
Democracy at EU level is not perfect. But a strong EU is a much more democratic way of dealing with problems, for a country like Ireland, than letting European decisions drift back to the inter-governmentalism that could result from the rejection of the Amsterdam Treaty.
The approval of the Amsterdam Treaty by the Irish electorate cannot be taken for granted. The repercussions of its potential rejection are far greater than anything that would flow from its acceptance.
The argument is not about detail. It is about whether Ireland wants to play a role in building a more co-operative Europe, or wants to move back to the sidelines. This is a clear strategic choice.
John Bruton is leader of Fine Gael.