Given sustained coverage, voters are forcefully asking why they should be denied a choice: "People are at last waking up to what has been done in their name" noted the Telegraph¹. Straw & Hain helpfully remind voters that much of what is in the proposed EU Constitution is in place now - such as the supremacy of EC law².

With growing calls for a referendum, the reluctant Blair, who has produced 34 referendums since 1997, is looking increasingly exposed. Although he told BBC News that there would be no vote, he conceded to the Sun that there might be one "as a last resort" but it would mean accepting the Constitution or leaving the EU³.

The influential (and accurate) YouGov opinion polls showed a voter backlash.

While bamboozling Polish audiences that they have "a common history" (!) with Britain, Blair tells them that we can have a referendum on the Euro as a matter of "constitutional significance" but somehow an EU Constitution would not be!!! ⁶. Lord Blackwell hopes to amend the constitutional Bill in the Lords and therefore to force a referendum. He seems likely to win⁷.

But what will the question be?

Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram hypocritically calls for "an honest debate". He misrepresents the issue as "a false choice between surrendering national sovereignty and pulling out of the EU"⁸.

(The only other 'option' is to stay in the EU without the Constitution, but with 75% of our laws 'made in Europe', and at the mercies of the bureaucrats who can find loopholes around our veto).

Meanwhile debate on the content of the Constitution continues. Frederic Forsyth questioned if entering the Euro was a necessary part of signing up to the new Constitution⁹. We checked the official drafts and Britain's opt-out is not to be found¹⁰. The drafts may, of course, be incomplete, but we need to be vigilant.

The Danish PM, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is keen to get rid of Denmark's four opt-outs, and their referendum could effectively be a decision on EU membership¹¹.

Alice Thomson queried if a 'solidarity clause' requiring the EU to mobilise all military assets "to prevent a terrorist threat" could mean EU troops in Britain¹². Quoting Professor Patrick Minford & David Heathcoat Amory MP (but no more), George Pascoe Watson noted that up to 2 million jobs could be lost after ceding economic policy to the EU¹³.

While the ridiculous Peter Hain tries to kid us the Constitution is just a bit of tidying-up, LibDem MEP Andrew Duff accused Blair of trying to disguise its serious implications, calling the Charter of Fundamental Rights "profoundly federalising", feeling it would extend the European Court's reach into everyday life¹⁴.

The Sun also claims that the EU is after "powers to ensure the security of energy supplies in the EU" (which could affect Britain's oil), and plans to "raid Britain's £600Bn pension pot" and prop up failing pension schemes in Europe¹⁶.

Blair has denied that Britain would be forced to give up her seat on the UN Security Council¹⁷ but even under the existing Treaty, our representative would have to support any (non-defence) EU foreign policy made without Britain and avoid any action against the interests of the EU¹⁸. He has said he is against any 'significant' increase in majority voting (i.e. loss of veto) on defence & foreign policy¹⁹.

Rodney Leach of Jardine Matheson & the European Foundation is said to be involved, and the ad agency used by Business For Sterling, M & C Saatchi, will be "advising on advertising". Yet Lord Saatchi, a Shadow Treasury Minister, warns of a "big country called Europe" and says it'll be a watchdog! (We have requested clarification!)²¹.

Date this page compiled: 4 June 2003; updated 22 June 2003.
We acknowledge the contribution of The Sun to encouraging a full public debate and are giving them a free link/ad.