The Amsterdam Treaty will be approved in next Friday's referendum, according to the Irish Times/ MRBI opinion poll published today, but it has signally failed to catch the public imagination. This is probably because it is indeed, in the words of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrews, "less than an emotional experience", but rather a work in progress consolidating several significant elements of European integration such as employment and social policy and which will require a return visit in several years time. On the evidence of this poll, it must also be said that the lacklustre campaign conducted so far by its supporters has not much enthused the electorate, nor have the warnings issued by its opponents galvanised voters out of their comparative apathy.
The decision to hold the two referendums together has not produced a great debate on the treaty. But there has been a valuable opportunity to alert people to its contents and, as important, to the continuing process involved. It is clear from this poll that the question of whether or not to be involved in integration is largely resolved in favour of Irish participation. But against the benchmark explicitly identified in the treaty's opening words of bringing matters closer to the citizens, neither the campaign nor the document measure up.
This may have a good deal to do with the complexity, perceived remoteness or sheer modesty of most of its contents. But it has also surely a lot to do with how the debate has been conducted. It is striking that when concrete propositions are put in this poll on monetary union or participation in peacekeeping and peacemaking tasks, the numbers having no opinion go right down. There is a decisive two to one majority in favour of taking part in such operations, an opinion profile one would not have expected from the fevered, and often quite misleading debate about neutrality, that has been a feature of the campaign so far. The definition of this policy after the end of the Cold War and in the light of changing European security requirements, badly needs more public discussion than it has received from political leaders. The public clearly supports a much more engaged Irish policy, value the contribution Ireland can make and seem aware of the political and principled need to be more involved. To say this is not to advocate joining a military alliance but to recognise changing realities, as well as the safeguards built into the Amsterdam Treaty about taking such decisions by stealth. It is to be hoped this finding will stimulate a more courageous debate in the closing days of the campaign. This treaty has much that merits close attention, whether in the sphere of foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs or institutional change, in addition to the new effectiveness it can bring to employment, environmental and equality provisions. Counterposing national and European policies in these spheres is increasingly unrealistic and misconceived, given the interpenetration of governing methods in a more integrated Europe. What really matters is whether the balance achieved is going in more or less the right direction. This treaty deserves support according to this criterion.