Ever get the feeling you are being given the hard sell? Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, says Ireland must vote yes to the Lisbon treaty. Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, delivers the very same message. Bertie Ahern suggested that only “lunatics” would vote against the treaty and Garret FitzGerald claims that only “extremists” will be voting no. Various other politicians have talked about the “chaos” that would follow in the wake of a no vote.

Let’s try and get this in perspective. When politicians talk about “chaos”, they make it sound like rejecting the treaty will mean the lights go out all over Europe and people will be queuing for bread in the streets. The reality is that a few people in Brussels would have to organise a meeting to discuss what they’re going to do next.

Let’s try and treat people with a bit of respect too. When Ahern and FitzGerald call the no voters “lunatics” and “extremists” they are insulting quite a significant proportion of the Irish people. According to the most recent opinion poll, at least 33% of the population fall into this category. There could be more “lunatics” and “extremists” out there but they’re currently hiding in the “don’t know” camp.

The last time I saw a hard sell like this Mafia godfather Don Corleone was making Jack Woltz “an offer he couldn’t refuse.”

Politicians don’t really believe for a single second the hysterical nonsense they have started talking about how Ireland will become a “pariah” state if voters say no. They just can’t think of a good argument for the Lisbon treaty, so they have defaulted to scaremongering. But this isn’t necessarily a smart tactic. A poll taken in the wake of the Dutch voters’ decision to reject the EU constitution in 2005 found that one of the reasons people voted against was the Dutch government’s scaremongering campaign.

The justice minister warned that a rejection would raise the chances of war; the economic affairs minister said that “the lights would go off” in the case of a rejection and the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy withdrew a controversial television broadcast which connected rejection with the Holocaust. No wonder 59% of voters said the government’s campaign had put them off.

It seems that politicians just can’t help playing on people’s fears. Before the Danish voted no to Maastricht, their politicians said they would be isolated if they rejected that treaty. They weren’t. Before Sweden said no to the euro, politicians said that Sweden would be isolated if they rejected the currency. They weren’t. And it was the same old story before France and the Netherlands went to the polls.

If anybody is isolated, surely it is the politicians from the people? The truth is that many people all over Europe are against transferring further powers away from democratic control to the European centre. That’s why in so many other countries the politicians are denying people a vote. In France, Britain, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands the politicians are so scared that people would say no, they won’t let them vote at all.

Perhaps politicians may be struggling to find a good argument for the treaty because they have not read it and don’t know what’s in it. Both Brian Cowen and Charlie McCreevy have admitted to not reading the treaty. In fact McCreevy went further, claiming that “no sane sensible person” would read through it all. So not only are they asking us to take the whole thing on trust, but in fact they are taking the whole thing on trust themselves. This is pretty extraordinary.

The closest the yes campaign has come to a real argument for the treaty is the claim that there will be more involvement for national parliaments. But even this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Here’s how it works. Citing “subsidiarity” concerns on precisely the same issue, at least nine parliaments must vote against a proposal already agreed by their governments and are given just eight weeks to do so.

If all these conditions are met, the EU commission will “reconsider” its proposals. After that period of consideration the commission can then decide to override the concerns of national parliaments anyway — which is exactly what happened the first time this mechanism was given a trial run a few years ago. This so-called “orange card” is a joke.

Compare this new power being “granted” to Ireland by Brussels with those that are being transferred from Ireland to Brussels: increased control over the economy, trade policy, criminal justice, human rights and foreign policy. It’s a pretty lopsided exchange.

Times Recommends

• Afghanistan: A country locked in a spiral of doom
• Liberal challenges prohibitionist Islam
• Flying yacht in battle to crack 50-knot barrier