The people find themselves in a preposterous, and unprecedented, position in the two referendum campaigns because politics, as they know it, has been emasculated.
This is due, in part, to the McKenna judgment, which has led to the establishment of the Referendum Commission, and the Coughlan judgment which is obliging RTE to give equal debating time to the Yes and No lobbies.
It has been contributed to by the fact that every one of the 166 TDs in the Dail, in all parties and none, see the Belfast Agreement as the most historic advance in Ireland since the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921. The main Dail parties, with the exception of the Greens, Sinn Fein and Mr Joe Higgins, the Independent Socialist, are also supporting the Amsterdam referendum.
But the willingness of politicians, from the Taoiseach down to the most junior TD, to allow their status as elected representatives to be devalued and diminished is the main reason why there is no political debate in these two important referendums. By acquiescing, without a whimper, to the McKenna and Coghlan judgments, they are demeaning their own democratic mandate.
The Northern Ireland and Amsterdam Treaty referendum campaigns need not be the sterile, hands-off, emasculated affairs that they are if politicians asserted their right to be politicians, democratically elected.
It has been the contention of this correspondent, supported by very senior judicial sources, that the McKenna judgment has been interpreted in an unduly restrictive manner by successive governments since it was delivered in the final days of the divorce referendum campaign in November 1995.
The Green MEP, Ms Patricia McKenna, took a case against the Taoiseach, Tanaiste and others, claiming that the Government, by spending public money in the promotion of a Yes vote, was acting in breach of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled: "The use by the government of public funds to fund a campaign designed to influence the voters in favour of a Yes vote is an interference with the democratic process and the constitutional process for the amendment of the Constitution and infringes the concept of equality which is fundamental to the democratic nature of the State."
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Liam Hamilton, declared that "the government, in expending public monies in the promotion of a particular result in the referendum, is acting in breach of the Constitution".
It is worth putting a marker here to stress that the Supreme Court decided that the government could not spend taxpayers' money advocating a Yes vote in a referendum. A government would be unlikely to be promulgating a constitutional proposal if it did not support it.
This decision does not preclude the Taoiseach or his Ministers from advocating a Yes vote in a referendum. It does not preclude political parties from spending their money seeking a Yes vote. And it does not preclude political leaders from answering voters' questions and indulging in old-fashioned advocacy on television.
After the disastrous referendum on Cabinet confidentiality, the Government's response to the McKenna judgment has been the setting up of the Referendum Commission, as an independent statutory body, earlier this year. It is chaired by former Chief Justice, Mr Justice Thomas Finlay, and comprises the Ombudsman, the clerks of the Dail and Seanad, and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The commission sees its functions as twofold: to do its very best to inform the electorate of the proposals in the Belfast Agreement and the Amsterdam Treaty; and to inform voters of the arguments for and against the referendums in a manner fair to everybody. It has been provided with £5.5 million to carry out these tasks.
Leaflets outlining the contents of the Amsterdam Treaty and the Belfast Agreement, which are very fair and balanced, have already been posted to many households. The arguments for and against will be discussed. Advertisements from the commission are also running on RTE.
The commission itself would be the first to admit, however, that it cannot compel voters to read leaflets nor view advertisements as normal politics.
The recent victory by Mr Anthony Coghlan, the well-known anti-EU and pro-neutrality campaigner, in the High Court has further emasculated the debate in the two referendum campaigns. RTE was obliged, up until now, to be fair and balanced in its coverage. Now, it is compelled to divide its time 50:50 between the Yes and No sides of the debate. It has decided, wisely, to have no political broadcasts in these campaigns.
The net effect of all of these developments is that public debate is being stifled.
Take the Belfast Agreement as an example. It is simply preposterous that the Taoiseach, ail, who negotiated the most historic advance in 77 years, earns equal debating time, by the laws of this State, with Mr Ruairi O Bradaigh, of Republican Sinn Fein.
It is unprecedented for voters to be served "news bites", set-piece statements, party rallies, church gate and back-of-lorry speeches in this age when the medium of television carries the message most effectively into every home. ail leader, comfortable with the deletion of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution? Is he confident that the Agreement can work? Why? The whole Dail is so demeaned by the conduct of these two referendums that it is incumbent on the Government to find a means of going back to the Supreme Court to right a clear travesty of democracy. It should seek to join RTE as a notice party to appeal the Coghlan judgment.