Following the debate in the run-up to the Danish referendum on the Treaty is a bit like watching Eastenders or Dynasty. After the first couple of episodes you know all the characters, what they stand for, and how they are going to react to every new development.
On May 28th Danish voters will give their verdict on Denmark's involvement in the EU for the fifth time in 25 years. It started with the referendum on membership in 1972, then one on the Single European Act in 1986, one on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and another on the same issue in 1993 since the latter resulted in a "no" majority. Officially the question on the ballot paper has been different each time. But in a democracy there is no way of ensuring that voters actually answer exactly the question put to them. Every voter is absolutely free to let anything decide whether the vote will be "yes" or "no", a reality freely availed of by the campaigns on either side.
And so many of the arguments deployed in the current debate have little or nothing to do with the actual contents of the Amsterdam Treaty.
The campaign posters of the so-called "June Movement", named after the "no" vote of June 1992, feature, among other things, slogans like: "How would you like a private pension?" and "Should fishing hit the bottom?" They are references to the supposed threat of globalisation and monetary union to the Danish state pension system and the latest Danish defeat at an EU Fisheries Council allowing the French access to Danish waters for new species.
Other posters like one headed "Welcome to 40 million Poles in the EU" are fishing for votes among those afraid that Denmark will see long lines of foreigners queuing up for its social security benefits as a result of the abolition of frontier controls in the Union.
On the other side, the "yes" campaign has especially its own past to struggle with. It has used the same arguments in every campaign to date - while the "nos" appeal to voters hearts, the "yes" campaign has their wallets in its sights. Much of the argument consists of assertions like "a no vote would be a disaster for business and create more unemployment".
And when the "nos" argue that the treaty contains another large transfer of sovereignty to Brussels, the response is the 25-year-old assurance that the EU is nothing more than a means of economic and trade co-operation.
Danes - with the backing of polls from Eurostat - love to boast that they are the EU citizens with the best knowledge of EU affairs. After all, if the polls say it, it must be true! But to look at the campaigns planned by politicians, ostensibly the best informed of the best informed, it appears the Danes may have knowledge, but little understanding.
There's certainly no shortage of information. The government has earmarked substantial funds for a major campaign by both sides. On top of the annual budget for explaining the EU, £1.3 million has been set aside for the treaty referendum.
Half the cash is distributed to political parties and the three European movements (one in favour and two against) - each of the latter receive grants to spend pretty much as they please. The cash for parties is distributed according to a formula related to their size.
The other half goes to specific projects related to informing people about the treaty - anyone can apply for some of it to an independent committee of respected worthies with no party connections.
The system has worked surprisingly well, and one of the few things that the "yes" and "no" campaigns do not argue about is the distribution of government money which all accept is fair.
But the substantial public funding of information campaigns has only ensured that there is no shortage of information. The quality of that information is another matter.
Ole Ryborg is the Brussels correspondent of the Danish newspaper Information and the author of a book on the Amsterdam Treaty
Copenhagen : substantial public funding of information campaigns on the Danish referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam has only ensured that there is no shortage of information. The quality of that information is another matter.