No serious commentator on Europe believes that the Amsterdam Treaty is an adequate response to the challenges which Europe faces on unemployment, poverty or enlargement.
Those who advocate a Yes vote do so out of habit, and the hope that something better will come along in time. The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed advocates a No vote in the belief that this is the best way of ensuring that Europe's political leaders put something better in place. A No vote is not a vote against the EU but a vote for change in EU priorities - a Europe where the right to a decent job for every citizen is paramount.
The INOU's opposition to Amsterdam is based on our experience as an active organisation at European level. The INOU is the secretary of the European Network of the Unemployed, is part of the European Platform of Social NGOs, and is an active participant in many Commission conferences and consultations.
Each Irish referendum on Europe has been polarised between those "against Europe" and those "for Europe". It is time to move on to informed and coherent debate about the type of Europe we want.
The challenge of unemployment in Europe is massive. In 1975, unemployment stood at 3.7 per cent; in 1985 it was 9.9 per cent; in 1995 it was 10.8 per cent. In Europe, only 60 adults in every 100 have jobs. In the US and Japan, the figure is 75 and only 5 per cent are unemployed.
Unsurprisingly, growing joblessness is linked to growing poverty - the 49 million poor in 1990 had risen to 62 million in 1994.
The Amsterdam Treaty gives no adequate answer to these challenges. The "Chapter on Employment" promises only "co-ordination between employment policies of the member-states". The fact that member-states have totally different policies will undermine any attempts to co-ordinate them.
The treaty writes into legal force the deflationary, monetary policies which have deepened European unemployment during the 1990s. Employment generation is seen as entirely about "supply-side measures" - interventions to improve the employability and flexibility of workers. While such policies are appropriate for the current Irish situation, they are wildly inappropriate for the problems of most of Europe - where the problem is loss of jobs. There are 3.5 million fewer jobs in Europe than there were in 1991, at the time of the Maastricht Treaty.
Amsterdam includes no proposals to stimulate job-creation. Extraordinarily, the chapter does not mention unemployment or the unemployed.
The Amsterdam Treaty states that the responsibility for tackling unemployment lies with member-states yet the Maastricht Treaty deprived member-states of the tools they need to do anything to fulfil that responsibility.
Monetary union means we in Ireland cannot change our exchange rate, our interest rates or increase our Government borrowing. These powers have been handed to the European Central Bank, which is concerned only with controlling inflation and must ignore the impact of its policies on employment. To sign up to a legal treaty which says we take responsibility for something over which we have surrendered control is madness.
Prior to Amsterdam, "competitiveness" was, rightly, considered important. However, Amsterdam promotes it to become a "core task" of the EU. Competitiveness is necessary for a healthy economy but its elevation above the provision of secure employment or the eradication of poverty represents a serious defeat for a balanced economic and social policy. The fact that Amsterdam hands this trump-card to business interests is sufficient reason for workers and unemployed people to reject it.
The inadequacies of the treaty in the face of Europe's jobs failure are clear enough but are there better solutions? Yes. And trade union, unemployed and community groups - as well as MEPs - have been advocating them for several years.
Firstly, the treaty should have included a commitment to full employment as a "core task". This is essential if secure, decent jobs are to take precedence over low inflation and high profits.
Much has been made of the decision to include a commitment to "high employment" in Amsterdam. However, such a commitment was already included in the Treaty of Rome and in the Treaty of the European Community. It is hard to believe that copying this inadequate commitment from one document to another is anything more than window-dressing.
Secondly, this commitment to decent jobs should have been made one of the issues which the Central Bank, the Monetary Committee and other European institutions must consider in setting policy.
Thirdly, the treaty should have added "low unemployment" as one of the convergence criteria on which member-states will be judged. And, finally, the treaty should have given a role to voluntary and community organisations in framing and debating policy.
If the Amsterdam Treaty is rejected, Ireland will not be thrown out of the EU. It will not lead to a loss of structural funds. It will not lead to a disintegration of the EU. It will show Europe's leaders that Europe's citizens require more from them. The treaty will be renegotiated.
Ireland has done very well in creating jobs in the last few years. Yet our short-term success should not blind us to the impact which European policies will have on our medium-term future. It is not possible for Ireland to keep generating jobs in a Europe which is helplessly shedding them. The policies enshrined in Amsterdam will put a very abrupt end to our good fortune.
It is both pro-Ireland and pro-European to reject it.