Nothing has demonstrated better the distance between the political elite in this State and the general public than the lack of debate on the Amsterdam Treaty. Months after the treaty was actually signed by the Government surveys show that the vast majority of citizens have never even heard of it.
The Government established a Referendum Commission to inform the public, but when the Good Friday document emerged from the multi-party talks it rushed to ensure that the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty and the referendum on Articles 2, 3 and 29 would be held on the same day.
The work of the commission has thus been virtually set at naught. The desired scenario has been created; these two totally separate and distinct issues have been lumped together, compounding confusion in the public mind.
Government and Opposition spokespersons have been quick to portray Amsterdam and Good Friday as two sides of the one coin. Inevitably the outcome of the multi-party talks has eclipsed the Amsterdam Treaty. With fingers crossed, the Yes lobby now attempts to smuggle past a dazzled electorate the huge changes in the very nature of Irish democracy arising from the Amsterdam Treaty.
For this reason alone the people should give the political elite a firm rap across the knuckles for its presumption and Vote No to Amsterdam on May 22nd.
Of course, this is far from the only reason to vote No.
Undemocratic means are being employed to get the people to endorse fundamentally undemocratic measures in the Amsterdam Treaty. It could hardly be otherwise, since the full exposure of what Amsterdam actually means could only result in its rejection by the electorate in this State.
Membership of the EEC was sold initially, and support for it sustained ever since, on the basis of the economic benefits which would result. All policy considerations other than purely economic ones were secondary.
The project of the political integration of the European Union - the creation of One Big State - has never been presented as such for endorsement by the people. The issue has always been fudged and confused.
At the time of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 we were threatened that if we didn't vote Yes we would lose all the EU money. It was simply not true. Then as now a No vote here would have sent the EU members back to the drawing board and the negotiating table on that particular treaty. Existing EU structures would remain. The sky will not fall on our heads.
This time around the Yes lobby can no longer claim that we will lose money if we reject Amsterdam. But now the Taoiseach tells us that if we reject Amsterdam we will be "in limbo". Again it's not true. A No vote here would mean that the treaty would not come into force and the Government could then do three progressive and necessary things:
Start a real debate on whether we want to be part of a giant state in Europe, with all the negative consequences for democracy here.
Return to the negotiating table and seek an insertion in the Amsterdam Treaty of a protocol similar to that obtained by Denmark which would exclude the State from participation in common foreign, security and defence policies and initiatives.
Put forward an amendment to the Constitution to include an article asserting positive neutrality and non-membership of military alliances.
Why won't they do this? The Taoiseach's limbo remark is instructive here.
The Government of this small State is afraid to say No to the big boys who are driving forward the project of full EU integration. What kind of democracy is that? A vote is worthless if there is fear of exercising it fully. And this goes to the heart of what is wrong with this treaty.
On a whole range of issues majority voting by EU member-states is introduced, with this State being pulled along, regardless of any objections we may have. The biggest objection, of course, is the erosion of our neutrality.
Those of us on the No side have been accused of scare-mongering on this issue. It has been described as a red herring. I would like to borrow a phrase from - for me an unlikely source - Dr Conor Cruise O'Brien. If neutrality is a red herring in this referendum, it is a red herring the size of a whale.
Amsterdam represents the most significant step yet towards a common defence - that is military - policy for the European Union. The nuclear-armed Western European Union is being integrated into the European Union structures.
Specific provisions in the treaty actually support the development of the European armaments industry. Here we are attempting to take all the guns out of Irish politics, and at the same time we are urged to put more guns into European politics.
The big question is: defence against whom? The European Union is arguably the second-biggest economic and military power in the world. Who is going to attack it?
The real project is the creation of another World Policeman, an enforcer to keep the poorer, non-EU nations in line. With our proud national tradition as a people which has resisted colonialism and stood in solidarity with oppressed nations the world over, we have no business being part of a domineering super-state.
We should not relinquish our Government's freedom of movement to act independently in matters of foreign policy. We will relinquish it if we vote Yes.
The development of the European Union has been compared to the building of a medieval cathedral, happening slowly and organically over decades. The people are being asked to build a huge new EU structure without being told what it is. Unless we vote No we may find that we have played our part in building not a cathedral but a prison, and we will be on the inside.
Caoimhghin O Caolain is a Sinn Fein TD for Cavan-Monaghan