Why is there a new EU treaty?
Because the European Union member-states all accepted that the old ones were not working properly. The Union's decision making procedures were overly bureaucratic; efforts to take common action in foreign policy - such as in relation to former Yugoslavia - failed dismally; and the Union's citizens regarded the EU as a remote agglomeration of apparatchiks rather than a dynamic organisation which improved their lives.
That's hardly new. Why change things now?
As the EU's 15 member-states looked at the growing queue of potential new members, they realised quickly that this was a recipe for chaos. At its present size, decision-making is slow and cumbersome as member-states can veto decisions in many areas. They realised that if the dozen or so current applicants actually joined, the decision-making machinery of the Union would grind to a halt.
So I suppose the Amsterdam Treaty contains radical changes?
Well, not exactly. At the end of two years of negotiations, they fudged many of the key decisions and shied away from radical change. Instead, the summit at Amsterdam last June produced a treaty which cleared up many loose ends in the existing EU treaties and made a range of generally modest innovations.
The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 was seen as a major milestone in the evolution of the EU. This new treaty is seen as a tidying-up of Maastricht rather than a great historic step.
What about the single currency, structural funds and CAP reform?
This treaty has nothing whatsoever to do with these subjects. It is about reforming the EU's institutions and rewriting its constitution. Those other issues are at the centre of great debate in the EU, but are entirely separate from the Amsterdam Treaty.
So what does it do?
A lot less than some people hoped for. The member-states intended to simplify decision-making in the EU in advance of the accession of central and east European countries. In the end, however, many of the grand plans were not realised.
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 certain uncontentious areas.
To Ireland's relief, the proposal to limit the size of the EU Commission by removing the automatic right of all states to nominate a Commissioner also failed. A decision on it has been postponed until the first five new members join.
There are some changes in decision-making. The new principle of "flexibility" is introduced. This means that where a group of member-states wants to organise co-operation in a particular area, but does not have unanimous support, it can go ahead so long as it is in line with the EU treaties.
A second and similar principle, "constructive abstention", is introduced in the area of Common Foreign and Security Policy. This allows member-states which do not want to support a certain foreign policy proposal to say that they will permit the proposal to be adopted, but will not be bound by it. This is an attempt to ease the serious problems the EU has in agreeing any strong common foreign policy provision due to the divergent interests of memberstates.
Speaking of Common Foreign and Security Policy, does the Treaty affect Irish neutrality?
Over the next four weeks you will hear fierce debate on this topic. First, some 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 new text contains some alterations, saying 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 that if we pass it, we are giving the European Council (meeting of EU Heads of State and Government) the right to frame a common defence without holding a further referendum in Ireland. 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 that there is a constitutional requirement for this to be put to a referendum.
They will each make these points many, many times between now and May 22nd.
Is the European Union going to turn into a military alliance?
Who knows? But not as a result of this treaty. The text calls for a closer relationship between the EU and the defence organisation, the Western European Union, 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 memberstates consider appropriate".
However, each time the treaty suggests the EU taking on a more military character, it then qualifies the suggestion and makes it aspirational rather than mandatory. The treaty therefore puts forward the idea of the EU taking on a more military character, but does not implement this idea.
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.
Sounds like the EU hasn't much time for neutral states all the same.
There is an acknowledgment that there are member-states, including Ireland, with attitudes to security and defence that are not in accord with the European mainstream. 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."
What about border controls?
They are finally to be abolished, and policies on asylum, immigration, visas and the control of the EU's external borders are to be determined collectively. However, Ireland has opted out of these provisions because Britain has. Britain wants to retain its own border controls, so in order to maintain the passport-free common travel area between Ireland and Britain, Ireland has opted out as well.
Ireland could choose to opt into these measures - contained in what is known as the Schengen Accord (because it was signed in a Netherlands town of the same name) - but is very unlikely to do so unless Britain does.
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.
All that stuff may appeal to politicians, bureaucrats and academics. Is there anything that will make a difference to the lives of ordinary people?
The treaty contains new provisions on employment, crime, public health, consumer protection, immigration and asylum.
So will it make a difference to unemployment levels?
No. There is a new chapter on employment which aims to produce a co-ordinated EU strategy on job creation, set guidelines and monitor compliance with the guidelines. However, cutting through the verbiage, employment policy is still a matter for individual member-states, and while there may now be a greater political will to tackle unemployment, the new chapter in the treaty means little.
Cynics believe the chapter is there simply to reassure the public that employment is on top of the political agenda, rather than to do anything concrete.
Does the same apply to the pro- visions on crime?
The measures on crime are also modest, but real. Europol is to be strengthened and developed, there are new provisions on police co-operation and a number of crimes - including trafficking in persons, offences against children and illegal arms-dealing - will be added to the list of crimes which are the subject of police and judicial co-operation. There is a commitment to gradual convergence of definitions of crimes and sentencing policy in different member-states.
Without the EU, the internationalisation of crime would ensure that such co-operative anticrime measures would be considered by friendly neighbouring states anyway. But because the EU provides a framework for the discussion of such co-operation, it may therefore bring it about more quickly than would happen otherwise.
Is there anything else for the average citizen?
Yes. The new treaty contains a number of measures concerning public health, the environment, consumer protection and even the Irish language. The EU will now be able to set standards for human organs, blood and blood products and take measures against plant and animal diseases.
The treaty obliges the Union to take consumer protection concerns into account in implementing its policies. The concept of "balanced and sustainable development" is written into the treaty, but there are no measures to enforce the implementation of this concept. In addition, from now on you can write to an EU institution in Irish, and receive a reply in Irish, if you want to.
Most of it is very complex. Is there much interest in this?
The research by the Referendum Commission showed that 67 per cent of people hadn't even heard of the treaty, while just 11 per cent knew there was a referendum on it on May 22nd. Politicians and the media have found it hard to get the public interested.
But if you're still reading, things may be looking up.