During the debate on the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty my party has been arguing that it represents an important next stage of Ireland's involvement in one of the great movements of our time: the development of the European Union.
The Single European Act (1987) and Maastricht (1992) represented major extensions to the EU. The Irish people overwhelmingly supported both of these treaties and demonstrated their strong commitment to a place at the heart of Europe. As a development of them, the Amsterdam Treaty represents what can be described as a renovation of the institutions of the Union. Central to this is the idea that the Union should always be focused on the concerns of the citizens of Europe.
If I were to summarise what I think its benefits are, I would say that Amsterdam will make the EU better at doing the things it does well.
The European movement has been this country's most successful force for peace. In the place of an ever-escalating conflict, it has created a culture of co-operation. The Amsterdam Treaty includes a number of provisions designed to ensure the Union will continue to be founded on and respect core principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Crucially, the treaty establishes that no state can be admitted unless it fully abides by these principles and that member-states can be suspended for serious and persistent breaches of these principles. This has a particular importance as the Union examines the admittance of states from central and eastern Europe.
The treaty addresses the concerns of the citizens of Europe through using the Union to help member-states in creating employment, protecting the environment, strengthening workers' rights, promoting consumer protection, and making EU institutions more democratic and effective.
The rights of citizens to obtain information are expanded and, in an important measure for recognising the status of our first official language, the right to communicate with the EU institutions using Irish is established. It is unfortunately the case that one of the inevitable aspects of every European vote is that opponents throw up a smokescreen of whatever issues they can find or invent. They will generally use any argument, however wild or unfounded, and can especially be relied upon to say that the end is nigh for our neutrality.
In 1992 the Green Party said: "Maastricht spells out the end of what is left of Irish neutrality". This time they say that Amsterdam "represents a significant erosion of our neutrality". The Amsterdam Treaty explicitly recognises our right to decide on our own neutrality through a vote of the people. Its key provisions were influenced by the neutral group of member-states and it represents a clear setback for the military integrationist group. Just like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland ("When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean, no more and no less"), opponents of the treaty have persisted in their misrepresentation of its impact on our neutrality.
Their track record on Europe aptly demonstrates how seriously we can take their claims on Amsterdam. In 1992, for example, they told us that Maastricht would lead to our economic ruin and that our people would have to emigrate in even larger numbers; one opponent even said it was "as significant as the Act of Union which, as we know, was followed by a famine".
Six years later we have unprecedented economic growth and our people are returning home in the largest numbers in our history. The basic point we have been making throughout this campaign still stands: Europe's opponents have been wrong on every substantive point they have raised during every European vote.
Going beyond the transparent bluster of many of their arguments, it is quite clear that the basic agenda which they are following is that they do not agree with any of the core elements of our involvement in the EU. The language which many use is highly reminiscent of Euro-sceptic Tories. Anthony Coghlan talks of "chicanery and national surrender" and Patricia McKenna talks of our "subordination" to the will of the EU and of its making the Oireachtas redundant.
I can warmly recommend Ms McKenna's newly-published pamphlet The Amsterdam Treaty: The Road to an Undemocratic and Military Superstate (available from her office in the European Parliament's Dublin building) to anybody who wants to get a detailed insight into the thinking of those against the treaty.
The list of charges against the treaty and the Union are formidable. According to her, the EU is "deeply secretive", is busily accumulating power and attempting to undermine the United Nations, abolish habeas corpus and erect a "Big Brother" policing system which uses computers and ID cards to control people throughout Europe.
In a remarkably curious argument, she seamlessly moves from claiming that the EU already has too much power to attacking the treaty's employment provisions for not giving the EU enough additional powers. Overall, with her references to "rumours" and "ulterior motives", the reader gets a sense that she has never met a conspiracy theory about Europe which she hasn't indulged.
The response to this has to be to keep pointing out that Europe is working for Ireland and that Amsterdam will help ensure that it continues to do so. This referendum is fundamentally a debate between people who have a positive view of our place in Europe and those who refuse to admit that we have gained anything from our membership.
I firmly believe that the Irish people value our European experience as developing us not only economically, but also in our sense of ourselves and our place in the world.
A Yes on Friday will be a yes to building further on what has been our European success story.
Micheal Martin is Minister for Education and has been director of the Fianna Fail Amsterdam campaign