Tony Blair's dalliance with Bernie Ecclestone has brought back to centre stage in Britain the difficult issue of whether the taxpayer should fund political parties and campaigns. But the issue is also very much alive considerably closer to home.
The Government's handling of the March referendum on the Amsterdam treaty is going to be fraught with difficulties. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrews, admitted as much when he was in Brussels earlier this week, acknowledging with disarming and unusual candour for a politician that he does not know what the Government should do about funding the protagonists.
Mr Andrews confirmed that the White Paper on the treaty is near completion and should go to Cabinet by the end of the month. It would then be published "immediately".
It is being drafted by one of the treaty's architects, Mr Noel Dorr, the former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
But the White Paper, a hefty tome, will only set out to explain factually the provisions of the treaty and will not make a case for a Yes vote.
The McKenna-Hanafin case requires the Government not to use public money to promote one particular outcome, and Mr Andrews admitted that the handling of the referendum would therefore be "very difficult, but we are bound by the law".
He said that a decision had yet to be taken on state funding of the campaign and admitted that he personally saw a case for funding of those opposed to the treaty.
The dilemma posed by the McKenna case has been seriously exacerbated by the evidence of public confusion and apathy in the Cabinet confidentiality referendum. The decision by the Government to publish full-page adverts in the papers may have honoured the principle of the McKenna decision but was woefully inadequate in engaging the public in an informed debate.
And, as an option for the Amsterdam referendum, it is clearly ruled out by the complexity and variety of the treaty's provisions - even if the Government were to run a series of ads, lawyers would never be able to agree on the formulation of the pro and anti arguments.
It is also arguable that the best test of an argument does not consist in its precise articulation but in how it stands up to the cut and thrust of democratic debate. It is the debate that should be fostered.
The Government has three broad options: to spend no money on either side of the issue, leaving parties and lobby groups to raise cash themselves; to fund campaigns on both sides; or to adopt the formula used in the last referendum.
With the latter almost certainly ruled out, diplomatic sources suggest that the Government will also be strongly advised that the option of funding both sides of the campaign is too problematic.
Apart from the fear that suggesting to the public that their taxes are going to be handed to political parties will be deeply unpopular, there are serious practical questions. Who does one fund? Should funding be 50-50 for the Yes-No campaigns or based on party support? How much money should be spent? What are legitimate uses of such funds?
Ireland will not be alone in putting the treaty to its electorate. Denmark and Portugal will do so too, and although it is not yet clear how the latter will address the problem, deeply divided Denmark has an approach, which has been used successfully, that Mr Andrews and his colleagues should look at closely.
While the Government itself will spend some £500,000 on the printing and distribution of purely factual material, it has set aside a separate fund of £2.8 million for campaigners. Half of this will be distributed to parties and campaign groups by means of a formula that recognises both the need to reflect a party's electoral base and the principle that minorities need special help.
Of this, half of the fund is allocated equally between all registered political parties and the three EU-focused campaign groups, while the balance is distributed between the same groups but in proportion to their electoral support.
THE system is overseen by an independent and widely respected committee which has the right to distribute the other half of the cash to applicants promoting specific projects, whether meetings, pamphlets, or publicity. This allows those outside the mainstream of the political process or in minorities within the parties access to funds.
It means, however, subject to controls on how the money is spent, that state funding does end up supporting some cranks, a horrifying prospect to Irish politicians and certainly part of the hidden agenda of those against all campaign subsidies. So what, say the Danes? That's democracy. The people will see through them.
Yet would such a system, with all its checks and balances, be compatible with the McKenna judgment? Does that decision mean that state funding of any campaign must be distributed exactly 50-50 between the pro and anti cases, no matter what logical absurdities such a formula would produce?
Many politicians and lawyers believe the answer is no, and argue that as long as "fairness" can be demonstrated to the court it will uphold a system of weighted funding.
Ms Patricia McKenna is wary. She says that the Constitution does not recognise political parties, only the will of the people, and she wants political parties to use their own cash for campaigning. That is what they exist for, she argues.
And she warns that the logic of a weighted system of funding would also be used by RTE to discriminate in its coverage against what they see as minority campaigners. Yet there is no majority or minority, she says, until the people have decided. Both sides should be treated equally.
Yet many would argue that the failure of the political system to recognise the role of parties as essential props of the democratic system - mobilisers of opinion and hence legitimisers of the political process - has forced them to rely on funding from vested interests. Far better to provide public funding for elections and referendums, even if the challenge of persuading a sceptical public has to be faced up to. That's called leadership.
The danger is that, left to the depleted coffers of the political parties, a campaign on the Amsterdam treaty will at best be half-hearted and polling correspondingly low.
Who, for example, could seriously expect the new leader of the Labour Party to urge on his general council a referendum campaign budget of, say, £50,000 - barely three fullpage adverts in a national paper - when the party believes the referendum is likely to be carried anyway and the cash would have to be borrowed?
Mr Andrews should go with his instincts and persuade the Government that if we take our Constitution and our democracy seriously, the taxpayer must be asked to fund a proper debate. At the end of the day, the future of our relationship with Europe is too important to be left to chance.