If this thing is so important, why is no one talking about it in my local?
Your local is not unique. The recent Irish Times/MRBI opinion poll showed that 30 per cent of respondents still had no opinion on the subject, with a further 13 per cent saying they might not even vote. Many of these people drink in your local.
Is it important?
It contains no Big Idea on which people can easily take sides. The Single European Act established a date for completion of the single market, Maastricht had the single European currency. Amsterdam has a mixture of various amendments to the EU treaties that falls well short of the initial ambitions of some member-states. In other words, many of the important issues were fudged.
What is important is that it is part of the process of bringing about closer union between the EU member-states. It's a small step rather than a giant leap.
But doesn't it sell out our neutrality?
Can't win on this one. Say No and you're a cheerleader for the military-industrial complex. Say Yes and you're a wild-eyed Neanderthal Europhobe. Let's have a few facts. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 already says the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) "shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy which might in time lead to a common defence".
The main alteration in the Amsterdam Treaty is that it commits the Union to the "progressive" framing of a common defence policy rather than an "eventual" framing. The new text says the CFSP "shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy . . . which might lead to a common defence should the European Council so decide. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
Opponents of the treaty argue this would allow the European Council (the meeting of EU heads of state and government) to frame a common defence without holding a further referendum. Supporters, however, say that any common defence would emerge from an Inter-Governmental Council of the EU as an amendment to the EU treaties, and there is a constitutional requirement for this to be put to a referendum.
Is this what all the shouting about neutrality has been about?
There's more in the treaty on defence. The text calls for a closer relationship between the EU and the defence organisation, the Western European Union (comprising EU member-states which are also in NATO), which it describes as "an integral part of the development of the Union".
It refers to the "possibility" of the integration of the WEU into the EU and says the EU and WEU should agree "arrangements for enhanced co-operation" within a year of the treaty's enforcement.
The tone clearly implies an ambition to move the two bodies closer together, and this alarms opponents of the treaty. The treaty further talks of co-operation between members in the field of armaments, but only "as member-states consider appropriate".
The tortuous language on defence arose from negotiations which saw a Franco-German proposal for a phased merger of the EU and the WEU, that would ultimately turn the Union into a full military alliance, watered down into its present vague wording. So while the tone of the treaty implies a closer EU/WEU relationship, proposals to actually bring the two bodies together were defeated during the negotiations.
So is Irish neutrality protected in the treaty?
Here's what the treaty says: "The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework."
This wording is largely inherited from the Maastricht Treaty. Officials involved in those negotiations say that the first part of the sentence above was inserted to placate France and Ireland, which wanted the "specific character" of their security and defence policies recognised. In Ireland's case that "specific character" involves military neutrality.
These officials say the rest of the sentence is there to placate NATO members, which do not want any future common defence policy to undermine their obligations to NATO.
But opponents of the treaty - most recently Mr John Gormley TD - dismiss this explanation of this tortuous sentence. They say what it actually does is make EU foreign and defence policy compatible with NATO, and that it therefore undermines neutrality.
That's all a bit confusing really.
Try reading it again.
So what else does it cover?
It has a chapter on employment. Although this is long on aspiration and short on compulsion, it does oblige member-states to draw up an action plan on employment, and it provides for regular monitoring of the implementation of this plan. Failure to implement these plans will leave member-states open to public odium.
On the environment it mentions "sustainable development" but this is only an aim in the context of the single market. In other words, say the environmentalists, economic progress comes before protecting the environment.
There are also public health and consumer rights measures and modest proposals for improved police co-operation against crime.
Any chance the EU will become more democratic and accountable?
The powers of the European Parliament, the only directly elected EU institution, are enhanced by Amsterdam. The parliament must now be consulted about some justice and home affairs matters, and its complex decision-making procedures have been simplified.
MEPs will now be co-legislators in areas such as employment policy, freedom of information, freedom of movement, certain internal market regulations, transport and development policy.
What didn't they agree at Amsterdam?
The proposal to remove the national veto from a wide range of decisions was itself vetoed by Germany's Chancellor Kohl at Amsterdam last June. Instead, there is a very modest extension of qualified majority voting. To Ireland's relief, the proposal to limit the size of the EU Commission by removing the right of all states to nominate a commissioner also failed. A decision was postponed until the first five new members join.