Why do the Dutch always get to name treaties?
Admittedly there was Maastricht, but don't forget the granddaddy of them all - Rome. It just depends on who is holding the rotating Presidency at the time the deal is struck. Hence the Single European Act - signed in the pleasant resort of Single. . .
How many billion pounds does Ireland get?
'Fraid you've really missed the point. This is not about money. Those discussions are happening separately on a Commission document called Agenda 2000.
Incidentally, did we ever get Albert's £8 billion?
In your dreams. Not all the money is in yet but the best guess is around £6.5 billion.
Well then, the treaty is about the single currency?
Nope. That was sorted in Maastricht.
Why do we need another treaty?
The fear is that when we bring in a rake of Central and Eastern European member states into the Union, that its cumbersome decision-making procedures will simply not be able to cope and go into gridlock. Total inertia will set in. There was also a desire to upgrade the Union foreign and security dimension and make the whole Union more citizen-friendly.
So which states does Amsterdam admit to the EU?
None yet. We're only starting the negotiating process which is likely to go on well into the next decade. Initially these involve Cyprus, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Estonia. Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia and Lithuania will follow.
Well does the treaty make decision-making any easier?
Marginally. The Germans balked at the last minute at significantly reducing veto voting. Most believe another go will be needed.
Was there some talk of us losing our automatic right to a commissioner?
Indeed, you have been following the debate. This was Ireland's major institutional preoccupation. But it was successfully fought off, for now, by the small states. Big countries are due to lose their second commissioner.
Who are the winners and losers?
The politically correct answer is that "this is not a zero-sum game and so there are no losers". The winners are MEPs who get greater powers to decide legislation, and the President of the Commission who gets a hand in choosing his team and then in cracking the whip over them. National governments retain the veto in areas of vital national interest.
Is there anything in all this for the man in the street?
There are new sections on jobs, the environment, human rights, consumer rights, equality, public health - but much of it just puts into treaty form what is already EU policy. You may be hearing a lot more talk of EU action on jobs, but that is largely because there is a new political will.
The treaty requires member states to submit regular plans for the restructuring of their labour markets. These are then assessed against guidelines set by the Council of Ministers - the hope is that collective monitoring will help keep pressure on states to reform.
Amsterdam also reinforces the co-operation between EU authorities and police forces in the fight against organised crime, drugs and the trafficking in children.
You also get the right to correspond with the European institutions in Irish.
Doesn't the treaty sell out our neutrality?
What do you mean by "neutrality"?
You know . . . staying out of other people's wars, military alliances, that sort of thing.
I take it you don't mean the Lebanon. Could you be a little more precise?
OK. How about this for a definition: We don't want to have to make any commitment that would mean automatically coming to the defence of other states if they are attacked?
Then the answer is no. Common defence remains the same aspiration in the treaty as it was in Maastricht. Any move to put it into practise would require a unanimous vote of heads of government and the Government has also promised a referendum should it wish to go further down that path. It also says it has no intention of doing so.
Should we not be willing to defend our partners in a club from which we take so much?
You may well ask. But some argue that "defence" is just a pretext for creating a superpower military capability for Europe and that we should not be party to that.
But the treaty does give the Union a military dimension. . .
True. For the first time. But that role is strictly limited to peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks, and the possibility of missions like that being undertaken by NATO in Bosnia, "peace-enforcing". The Union won't have its own army but will ask the Western European Union (WEU) to borrow NATO resources on its behalf. (The WEU is the organisation that brings together EU members of NATO. Ireland has an observer role at its meetings.)
Can I now leave my passport at home if I want to travel around the EU?
If you were a resident of any country apart from Britain or Ireland. The latter two have opted out of the free movement provisions because the British want to maintain frontier controls. If we had wanted to join the majority the rules would have required us to abandon our free travel area with Britain with the result that passport controls would have been back on the Newry Road.
If we change our mind, we can opt in at a later stage, as we can to provisions for collective decisions on asylum, immigration, and visa policy.
Is it true that only Ireland and Denmark are having referenda on the treaty? Why can't the Dail do the job?
Portugal is having a consultative vote too, but most countries do not need referenda to amend their basic laws. Mind you, it is also arguable that the changes involved in this treaty to our own Constitution are marginal if existent at all. A referendum may not be legally required.
What am I not voting about?
Apart from the already mentioned single currency and future memberships of the Union, you are also not voting on farm compensation payments, structural funds, Luas, MEPs' expenses, the permanent exile of Padraig Flynn . . .
The Eurovision Song Contest has also nothing to do with the EU.