The Congress for Democracy, representing a wide range of groups and individuals, resolves:

**********

She said that the Institute of Directors was in favour of Britain’s membership of the Single Market both for trade (nearly 50% of British trade was with EU countries) and for attracting inward investment.

The two main requirements which government must satisfy for business to thrive were:

• a stable, low-inflation macroeconomic environment;
• the introduction of taxes and regulations in a business-friendly way and only when necessary.

She argued that membership of the Euro would affect both these requirements because British institutions would lose control over the economy, and the policies which suit the economies of the other European countries would not suit the British economy, which behaved quite differently.

The Institute of Directors could see no meaningful convergence in the foreseeable future and felt that it was vital for economic stability and business prosperity that Britain should keep the pound for the foreseeable future. She said that it was unacceptable both that businesses should be expected to prepare for UK entry and that taxpayers’ money should be spent on the changeover plan when the referendum might say "No".

She listed briefly the disadvantages for business of Britain staying out of the single currency:

• transaction costs, the annual savings from which would be very modest;
• transparency in pricing: British traders in the EU would still be dealing in at least two currencies;
• exchange rate volatility with non-Euro countries;
• threat to the City of London as the financial centre of Europe: 1999 had been a bumper year;
• discouragement of inward investment;
• protectionist policies by Euro members against those remaining outside: contrary to the laws of the Single Market.

In her view membership of the Euro could bring in more tax and regulatory burdens and she highlighted three particular areas.

In Germany, France and Italy pensions were underfunded in comparison with the UK. Joining the Euro would probably accelerate moves to further economic integration and an enlarged EU federal budget. On current projections, the UK, whether individuals or businesses, would end up subsidising Continental Europe’s pensioners. The tax burden on business would probably rise.

Quoting the withholding tax and VAT on the art market, she argued that British membership of the Euro was all too likely to accelerate tax harmonisation, with all its potentially damaging implications for business.

Business in Britain was still relatively lightly regulated but because of the need to avoid "unfair labour competition" joining the Euro would accelerate integration.

Full text of Ruth Lea's speech

Thanking Ruth Lea, Austin Mitchell commented that the Institute of Director's survey of business attitudes to the Euro had been considerably more democratic than that conducted by the CBI, and he also observed that if the pound had been devalued at the rate at which the Euro had decreased in value since the beginning of 1999, the UK government would have been censured by its European partners; he maintained that there was one rule for those in the single currency and another for those outside it.

He said that he found the Congresses very welcome as a forum for people with different points of view united in the major cause, which was partly about the economy, but mainly concerned politics and the independence and democracy of our own country.

He had noted a remarkable shift in sentiment in the country and there had been criticism of the single currency arrangements, yet despite the devaluation of the Euro and the recent comments by Eddie George and the Lord Mayor of London, the Government still hoped to join the single currency as soon as the criteria had been met and did not consider that there were any serious constitutional matters involved.

He expressed the hope that at the European Council meeting in Helsinki currently taking place, the Government would learn the reality of dealing with the EU. Britain was isolated and marginalised, in dispute with both Germany and France. He argued that the idea that we had a special relationship with the EU and that there was a deep core of understanding and sympathy was a nonsense; if Britain had a strong special relationship it was with the nations of the English-speaking world. He hoped that in the light of the Helsinki conference there would be on both sides of the Channel a realisation that we were pursuing different agendas: their agenda was to create a European Union which in all respects is virtually a European state, while we pursue a different agenda of wishing to co-operate with our continental neighbours but we are determined to retain our independence and our democracy.

Quoting the Vodafone bid for Mannesmann as an example, he maintained that the Single Market still did not exist, despite Britain having given up powers, and described it as an example of Britain having to relinquish control over her own destiny for something which had not materialised.

On convergence, he considered it perfectly possible that the British economy might converge briefly with the other European economies but felt that this should not be accepted as a valid reason for going into the single currency; he argued that the economies could just as easily diverge again.

He remembered being taught at university that a variable exchange rate mechanism between trading economies was a valuable method of controlling both inflation and employment levels and argued that the policy was still valid today.

He questioned the position of the Institute of Directors which did not want to join the Euro but supported the Single Market. Ruth Lea had listed a number of measures: droit de suite, withholding tax, the takeover directive and other taxation measures which she considered unacceptable, but he argued that the Single Market would be used as an instrument of further integration and could not see how the two positions - in favour of the Single Market but against joining the Euro - could be reconciled.

He congratulated Ruth Lea on her speech, and picked up two points she had made:

• Tax Harmonisation: he said that tax competition was described in Europe as harmful, but in his view tax competition was a good thing and a cartel on taxation policy would be against the interests of the taxpayer.
• Harmonisation of Labour Markets: one of his Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament maintained that the only European employment policy was a European unemployment policy and he urged that Britain should prevent it getting into its market.

After six months in the European Parliament he was convinced that the aim of the European Parliament and the other European institutions was to create a single European state; it was no longer a matter for debate or discussion and anyone who challenged it was marginalised. He supported the policy of the Conservative Party to re-negotiate the treaties to secure flexible arrangements for Britain within the European Union, but he acknowledged that it was possible that the negotiations might fail. If the negotiations did fail he felt that withdrawal from the European Union was the only option left. He stressed that he was not calling for withdrawal, but for the option of withdrawal to be available if a future Conservative Government failed to negotiate a satisfactory flexible long-term relationship between Britain and the European institutions.

He commented that he could understand the importance to the Institute of Directors of the Single Market because 50% of British trade was with EU countries and eleven nation states had signed up to the Euro. However, there were 200 other nation states who had not; 90% of the world's population was outside the EU and 80% of the world's trade had nothing to do with the EU. He felt that it might not prove possible for Britain to choose to comply with only some elements of European Union policy and asked what plans the Institute of Directors had to develop trade in the developing markets outside the European Union.

He commented that Ruth Lea had not mentioned the takeover directive, nor corpus juris (the fledgling European legal system) in her remarks. She had said that 50% of trade was with the EU, but Global Britain had been conducting research recently which showed that only 10% of GDP was involved in the EU. He maintained that the average businessman was too busy running his business to appreciate the difference between the Single Market and a free trade area and he argued that Britain could keep all the advantages of the Single Market by negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement.

He recommended that people should change the way they talked about trade with Europe, pointing out that Britain's trade with Europe only accounted for 12% of GDP. On that basis the proposal was that Britain should change the currency for the benefit of 12% of economic activity, a change which would be of no benefit at all for the remaining 88% and urged that this point should be made clear.

She stressed that the membership of the Institute of Directors remained supportive of the Single Market. The Institute of Directors also supported the idea of flexible membership, but if there was a chance of re-negotiating the treaties, that would be a job for the politicians, not the Institute of Directors.

**********

Austin Mitchell then introduced Senator Gordon Smith, Republican Senator for Oregon and Chairman of the European Affairs Committee in the US Senate.

Although all Americans were united in respect of the choices of free people, he described the issue before the Congress as a very solemn one and urged maximum caution and care. He claimed that the view presented by President Clinton that it was inevitable that Britain would adopt the Euro did not represent the unanimous American position; Americans were equally as wary of Britain’s ceding power to Brussels as Britons themselves. He saw the drive towards monetary union as being about politics, not economics. He also pointed out that there were over fifty nations in Europe and only sixteen in the European Union.

He stressed that monetary policy, taxation and spending were vital areas of national sovereignty, affecting the well-being and security of a people as much as foreign policy. He warned that the drag towards monetary union had also spilled over into the politics of European security. Referring to the proposals for an EU rapid reaction force of upwards of 60,000 troops, he said that although he strongly supported greater definition of Europe’s defence identity he would hate to see it done at the cost of the Atlantic Alliance. European military dependence on the US was borne out of an ever-declining European defence budget. NATO’s purpose and success rested on collective strengths and shared responsibilities and he feared that the creation of new military institutions would prove fateful. He had recently sponsored a resolution in the US Senate emphasising that a vibrant European defence identity need not be at the expense of NATO and he urged that the existing framework be incorporated to facilitate the emergence of a stronger pillar within the Alliance for Europe, including recent NATO members Poland and Hungary and neutral nations Sweden and Finland.

He warned that the US perception of a diminishing role for itself in Europe might be accelerated by European military manoeuvres outside the Atlantic Alliance, in which Britain had played a vital role as the lynchpin.

He feared that without greater assurance from Britain, America could withdraw from interest in European security and that the building of a European force separate from NATO in order to counter US influence and check American power could create an enormous security vacuum.

Full text of Gordon Smith's speech

He said it had been an immense privilege to hear Senator Smith's speech because for so long we in Britain had heard that the United States were in favour of political union in Europe, and it now appeared that the sleeping giant was awakening. He asked whether the views expressed by the Senator were widely held in America.

Senator Smith replied that whereas foreign policy was not a major issue the American people did value their role in the world and had taken it for granted that Europe and America were allies, a situation which had recently been called into question by remarks made by a French leader. He felt this was not a good development and that there was no need for there to be a breach between Europe and America.

He thanked Sir Michael for inviting him to the Congress for Democracy which provided a forum to which people from countries applying to join the EU could come and at which they could see many of the people they wished to meet. He outlined the objectives of his magazine, These Tides, to advance a policy of co-operation between nation states in Europe, rather than the creation of a single European state.

He suggested that the US Senate ought perhaps to conduct an enquiry into what was going on in Europe, particularly in respect of defence policy, where things were moving in Europe at breathtaking speed. He felt that people in America should find out what was going on and make their views known as soon as possible.

Senator Smith assured him that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would hold hearings in public.

He asked how long, in the light of the move towards a common European foreign policy, the Senator expected Britain to be able to retain her position as a member of the UN Security Council, the G7 and the Commonwealth, to which the Senator replied that he expected Britain to retain her seat on those bodies for as long as America did.

Austin Mitchell commented that it was marvellous to hear expressed the antidote to the views which for so long had been heard from the US.

**********

Austin Mitchell then introduced Mrs Pia Kjærsgaard MP, Leader of the Danish People's Party.

She referred initially to the strong friendship which had evolved during and since World War II between the peoples of Denmark and Britain; both countries had joined the EEC under the impression that it was only a trade agreement. However, it had become clear that the objective was a federal state, unacceptable to the peoples of Europe. The next phase was to be the abolition of national currencies. The Danish Minister of Economy had recently described the EMU as "a fantastic success"; in her view it had proved to be a "thundering fiasco". She argued that the rate of unemployment had increased in the 11 Euro nations and the rate of economic growth had declined and that there was therefore no logical reason for joining EMU on economic grounds.

Monetary union had never succeeded in the past without political union, which she believed would be impossible to achieve in Europe as the individual countries’ economies were quite different. The Convergence Demands in the Maastricht Treaty were inadequate and many of the EMU countries did not comply with them. She predicted that the Danish Social Democratic Government would continue to deny the consequences of EMU but in her view it would be impossible to maintain the Danish tax-financed social policy; the Danish welfare state would have to change fundamentally.

In 2000 or early 2001 there would be a general election in Denmark and the Prime Minister had promised a vote on joining EMU. She hoped and expected that the Danish people would vote "No". She assured Congress of the loyal support of the Danish People’s Party and expressed the hope that the campaign to keep thepound would succeed.

Full text of Pia Kjaersgaard's speech

He said that the British Prime Minister had recently written to congratulate the Prime Minister of Malta on his government’s insistence that Malta join the EU as soon as possible. This was not the policy of the Maltese Labour Party.

He listed four main points which he felt should be considered in connection with the single currency debate:

• Did Britain wish further integration into one superstate, the European Union?
• Did Britain wish to lose control of her monetary policy?
• Was there any alternative for Britain? What about the Commonwealth and the Anglo-American Alliance?
• Would it be in Britain’s interest to give up her currency while there were future prospects in relation to the emerging African countries and the Far East?

As a foreigner who did not wish to interfere, he felt that the British people should consider these questions, and he felt that there would be no advantage in giving up the pound.

With respect to Malta, contrary to the Government argument that Malta would be isolated if she did not join the EU, he believed that as members of the Commonwealth Britain and Malta should work together to strengthen the influence of the Commonwealth.

Resuming after the break, the conference passed the following resolution, which stemmed from the speech by Ruth Lea:

The UK should resist any moves to increase the federal budget, especially as the European pensions time bomb could lead to the British taxpayer paying the bill for Europeans' pensions.

 

Sir Michael introduced Doug Nicholls, General Secretary of the Community and Youth Workers' Union, and author of the booklet The Euro: Bad for Trade Unions (available from the Congress for Democracy, price £5), published by the Congress for Democracy the previous day.

He said that the recognition that trade unions had a pivotal role to play on the question of the single currency had led to his being commissioned to write a booklet on the trade union case against the single currency. The Congress for Democracy sought to focus a concerted understanding that the Single European Currency would be a disaster for Britain; it was a single issue campaign group and as such deserved the support of all those who, for whatever reason, opposed the single currency. He was speaking on behalf of his union against the single currency, and only on that issue.

He anticipated that when it came to the referendum the forces in favour of the single currency would be formidable and urged that the organisations involved in the Congress suppress their differences and unite.

The trade union movement, seen by the supporters of the Euro as the key to around 8 million "Yes" votes, was the main battleground for the issue and he encouraged people to give his pamphlet the widest possible circulation. The TUC did not have a mandate to argue for early entry into the Euro, nor were trade unionists generally in favour of the single currency. Many in the trade union movement had been encouraged in 1988 when Jacques Delors had indicated that Brussels would listen where Westminster would not. However, he cited three areas of concern to trade unions where joining the single currency would make no difference:

• jobs: unemployment of 18 million in the Eurozone;
• peace: the trade unions wanted peaceful co-operation between independent nations, not a single foreign and security policy;
• land: the Common Agricultural Policy and the multinationals operating the Central Bank showed no respect for the environment.

He could hardly believe that the trade union movement could simultaneously criticise the policy of the Bank of England and contemplate handing over the levers of the British economy to the unelected bankers of the European Central Bank..

He was worried about the impact of the changeover plan, which almost assumed that the referendum had been held. He saw membership of the Euro as a threat to Britain’s staple and traditional industries, as he understood the Commission’s plans to be that Britain should focus on pharmaceuticals and financial services. He urged wariness of the EU’s expansion plans, which would lead to British taxes being used to rebuild new member countries at the expense of the Commonwealth and developing countries; they would also be used to pay the huge pensions debt in Europe and Britain would lose control of her financial reserves, controls on taxation, exchange rates, interest rates and capital flows.

In conclusion he said:

"It is not enough, of course, to be against the single currency. We need to be for the realisable aspiration of a strong industrially pioneering, high tech, high wage, full employment economy, mindful of its ecology, the quality of its health and education, trading on a world market and eradicating the scourge of poverty as one united nation governed at all levels by those its own people elect. We must have high ambitions."

 

Full text of Doug Nicholls' Speech

Thanking Doug Nicholls, Sir Michael described him as a tower of strength in winning round members at the TUC for the cause which the Congress collectively represented.

He said he had really enjoyed Doug Nicholls' speech and felt that it ought to be circulated widely among trade unions. The Euro was a threat to the political independence and sovereignty of Britain. He also felt the Euro was bad for the European nations and for American interests, which he hoped Britain's friends in America realised.

He said that he would like to point out to friends in the Conservative Party and in the business community the positive and negative aspects of the EU. The European Commission was insisting on demolishing what the individual states had in the way of welfare, enforcing low wages and privatising everything in sight, but members of his union would now get four weeks' pay when they went on holiday. Many had thought that when the Labour Government was elected there would be no need for intervention by Brussels to improve employment conditions, but new Labour had proved to be as hostile to trade unions as their predecessors. He urged that both the Conservative Party and the trade unions should not put forward arguments which were repellent to each other when making the case against the Euro.

He commented that Congress owed a real debt of gratitude to Doug Nicholls; there were not many trade union leaders who would be prepared to put their heads above the parapet as he had.

He felt there was a danger that the case against the single currency might be based on calls for free enterprise and more free trade, the other side of which were unemployment, insecurity and poverty for some. He stressed the importance of not alienating a very important section of the community which would have to be carried if the campaign were to succeed. The record of the EU in growth terms was very bad and it was in everybody's interest to have a higher rate of economic growth. Although there may be disagreements about the policies to be followed, the important objective shared by all those involved in the campaign was that they wished to decide for themselves what the country's economic policy would be.

Sir Michael Spicer again thanked Doug Nicholls and invited Congress to consider the following resolutions:

• A single European currency would mean a single interest rate structure, leaving wage cuts and unemployment as the only contra-inflationary economic tools available to government.

The resolutions were passed by Congress.

**********

Sir Michael then introduced two speakers from Slovenia and Estonia, who had travelled to London specially for the Congress:

Having said that he wished to talk about political rather than economic issues, he likened many aspects of the current situation in Europe to events in the thirties. He urged the Congress for Democracy to support democracy in those countries in Eastern Europe whose Governments wanted to join the European Union, arguing that if they joined the EU their sovereignty would be undermined.

He said the European Union, with its many common policies, reminded him of the Soviet Union. He saw it as a new empire built from Brussels. He found it hard to see any advantage for his country in joining the EU, though many politicians in Estonia were in favour of joining. He appealed for help and support from those involved in the Congress; his organisation planned to open an office in Tallinn and needed to be kept informed of developments in the eurosceptic movement.

**********

Sir Michael Spicer then reminded Congress that at the previous meeting it had been agreed that the question of the conduct of referendums should be pursued. A sub-committee had been set up under the chairmanship of Frederick Forsyth to produce a response to the Government's consultation paper on referendums. The members of the Committee were:

Frederick Forsyth CBE (Chairman)
John Beveridge QC
Professor Trevor Hartley
John Hopkins
The Rt Hon Michael Howard QC MP
Martin Howe QC
David Kleeman
Sir Ivan Lawrence QC
Anthony Ogilvie
Leolin Price CBE QC
Andrew Robathan MP
Michael Shrimpton

 

He then introduced Frederick Forsyth to report to Congress on the work of the Sub-Committee.

Frederick Forsyth explained that the Constitutional Sub-Committee had been set up to look at the question of referendums because at the Second Congress it had been generally felt that if the referendum was going to be used to decide questions of great national importance it should be regulated in much the same way as a general election in order to guarantee fairness. The Sub-Committee had also decided to examine the proposals of Lord Neill, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, who had been charged by the Government with the task of setting up a small committee to look at the funding of political parties in this country, but had included in that committee's report twenty-two paragraphs on the matter of referendums.

At the first meeting of the Sub-Committee it had been agreed that they should consider referendums as a generic form of consultation, and not merely restrict themselves to the referendum on the question of joining the Euro. They had also agreed among themselves that a referendum ought to be used to consult people before a decision was taken, and not as a means of endorsement of the status quo, as had been the case in 1975; the Committee's third decision was that a referendum should only be used for matters of grave constitutional importance with considerable future ramifications.

They had then begun to look at the recommendations in the report of Lord Neill's Committee and the concessions made by the Government in the White Paper. They had also considered the Scottish and Welsh referendums and had found both unsatisfactory on several counts: the inclusion of two questions and the introduction of proportional representation in Scotland and the lack of decision in both as to whether there should be a threshold for the validation of the decision taken. They considered the most important point made in the Neill Committee report, which was not reflected in the White Paper, was the following:

"We believe it is perfectly appropriate for the Government of the day to state its views and for members of the Government to campaign vigorously during referendum campaigns just as they do during General Election campaigns but we also believe that just as in General Election campaigns neither taxpayers' money nor the permanent Government machine (the civil service, official cars, the Government information service and so forth) should be used to promote the Government's side of the argument. In other words referendum campaigns should be treated for these purposes in every way as though they were General Election campaigns."

The Neill Report had been quite clear on one thing; there should be an Electoral Commission. This had been conceded by the Government but the Committee took the view that the Electoral Commission should have more authority and should run the campaign, should oversee it and should be permitted to have jurisdiction over what was and was not allowed.

On the question of funding, the Government White Paper had proposed that any political party represented in the House of Commons by two or more MPs should be entitled to spend up to £5 million, which the Committee felt to be very inequitable.

The Committee also felt that the 28-day limit before the referendum on the Government’s promotion of its case was too short; they felt it should be 3 months.

Finally, he summarised the submission of the Constitutional Sub-Committee in response to the White Paper as follows:

The decision whether an issue requires a referendum should be left to Parliament, but all other matters relating to the conduct, funding, spending, broadcasting, role of Government etc should be subject to the remit of a much strengthened and independent Electoral Commission, whose powers should be extended as follows:

(i) The Electoral Commission's advice and approval should be invited in the framing of the referendum question.

(ii) The Electoral Commission should advise whether it is appropriate to include supplementary questions.

(iii) The Electoral Commission should be given regulatory powers to determine voting thresholds.

A regulatory system on the funding of referendums must be supervised by the Electoral Commission. Large donations must be registered and published both during and prior to the referendum period.

The draft Bill leaves determination of the commencement of this period to the Secretary of State. The Constitutional Committee recommends that the Electoral Commission shall, after consultation with Government, determine the date when the period shall begin.

The Neill Report rejected imposing spending limits on political parties and other campaigners but the draft Bill provides that each political party with two or more Members in the Commons may spend up to £5 million. The Constitutional Committee considers that this would result in a serious imbalance and recommends that the Electoral Commission should be given the authority to set appropriate limitations.

The draft Bill provides for the Electoral Commission to designate one organisation from each side of the issue to receive public funding of £600,000. The Constitutional Committee considers this sum to be low and recommends that the Commission should consider whether this maximum limit is appropriate to the overall needs of each group.

The Constitutional Committee agrees with Neill that neither taxpayers' money nor the permanent government machine should be used to promote the Government's side of the argument during the campaign period. However, the draft Bill defines the campaign period as 28 days before the poll. The Constitutional Committee considers this limitation to be inadequate and that it should be extended upon recommendation of the Electoral Commission to a period they consider to be appropriate. Additionally, the period of constraints on the Government should be no shorter than the period of restriction applied to other groups.

The Constitutional Committee also recommends that the Electoral Commission should monitor every aspect of the campaign from its official declaration, and present its findings to Parliament.

Turning to the future, he felt there was little more to be done until the Bill came before Parliament, which should be monitored as it progressed through both Houses. The Constitutional Committee should present some advice and the intention was to put forward many amendments. With its enormous majority the Government was likely to have its way, but it would be necessary to keep the issue in the public eye so that the Bill on referendums should be as fair as possible.

Sir Michael thanked Frederick Forsyth for so willingly taking on the task of chairing the Sub-Committee, and invited Anthony Ogilvie, Secretary of the Constitutional Sub-Committee, to speak on how the Sub-Committee planned to monitor the progress of the Bill and what help they might need.

He said that it would be necessary to inform the Government, Opposition parties, trade unions, the media and the public of the legal and constitutional aspects of holding this referendum. The referendum was essential, as it would be the last chance for the British public to say whether they wished to keep their own currency.

Secondly, he saw it as their technical role to inform the Opposition parties on every aspect through the passage of the Bill of the consequences of some of the clauses the Government had included. In the draft Bill, expected any day, there were many clauses through which the Government would try to rig the outcome of the referendum, and it would be the role of the Sub-Committee to ensure that the public were aware of what was happening.

Sir Michael commented that any help from the collective wisdom and expertise in the room would be very gratefully received.

He said that he had been particularly impressed with the comments of Mr Babic of Slovenia who had said we should be concerned with democracy, not just in the UK but everywhere. He felt that the UK had not to date been concerned with democracy in Northern Ireland. He endorsed entirely the criteria advanced on behalf of the Constitutional Committee, almost all of which had been violated in Northern Ireland during the referendum over the Belfast agreement. Unlimited government funds had been used, together with every propaganda technique. Speaking from experience of the Government's abuse of democracy, he urged that every effort be made to have the proposals of the Constitutional Committee included in the Bill.

He asked whether the Constitutional Committee had said anything in its submission about possible unfairness in the allocation of broadcasting time in the campaign. He argued that in a referendum campaign, unlike a General Election campaign, each side ("No" and "Yes") should receive an equal amount of time.

Frederick Forsyth replied that in the submission the Constitutional Committee had asked that all matters, including broadcasting, be decided by the Electoral Commission.

He commented that the proposals would be worthless unless the members of the Electoral Commission were people of gravitas and independence and asked how they would be selected.

Frederick Forsyth replied that the selection of members of the Commission had not been resolved.

She said that she had been asking for a referendum for twenty years, and felt that the decision should not be left to politicians in view of the way in which they had been handing over power to Brussels.

Sir Michael Spicer commented that the Committee felt that the sovereignty of Parliament was at stake and that they could not do better than to leave it to Parliament (and of course the Government) to decide when the referendum should be held.

Congratulating Frederick Forsyth on producing the document, he made the following points:

• It was imperative that the civil service should not be allowed to be involved in the referendum.
• Finance must be available to the "No" campaign.
• The referendum should be held before Parliament took the decision as the "Yes" campaign would receive a fillip if Parliament had already voted on the issue.
• It would be vital to put forward a single and co-ordinated message from the "No" campaign and ensure that those interviewed were from the campaign, not those selected by BBC and ITV.
• A simple majority should not be enough to abandon the pound and change the constitution.

He pointed out that he was not speaking for the Alliance, which had not yet formulated a view on this issue. The Neill Report had said that no foreign organisations should be allowed to contribute to the referendum campaign in this country, and he hoped it would be made clear that the European Commission was a foreign organisation.

He also urged that every effort be made to make the campaigning period as long as possible for the single currency referendum, and also to make the period on which there were limits on expenditure the same as the period during which the Government should not campaign. On a technical point he said it would be in the hands of the Electoral Commission not to make a decision as to who should get Government funding and access to broadcasts as umbrella organisations until six weeks after the campaigning period had started, which was why it was important to make the campaigning period as long as possible.

He urged that a determined effort be made to ensure that there should be a referendum on the issue of the single currency and on every proposed new European treaty in the future and that the decision taken in the referendum should only come into force if there were a two-thirds majority.

Frederick Forsyth commented that, in view of the recent experiences of abstention at a very high level the question of a minimum threshold of people who turn out to vote to trigger legitimacy must arise. Should it be possible to change the constitution on a 20% turnout - if not, should voting in referendums be made compulsory? It was not a question which his Committee had addressed.

He urged caution on a minimum threshold for going into EMU on the basis that one day there might be a referendum on leaving EMU and he would not like to see a two-thirds majority needed to get us out. He argued that a referendum on the Euro would be treason.

He asked whether all four constituent parts of the UK would be required to vote for a single currency and if the referendum would fail if any part of the UK (Ulster or Scotland, say) voted against.

Sir Michael Spicer reminded those present that the response of the sub-committee to the Government consultation paper could be found on the Congress's website www.congressfordemocracy.org.uk.

Congress then passed the following resolutions:

• The role of the Government of the day in any referendum must not distort the outcome of the debate between the two opposing sides. The Government and any European Union institution should be restricted from publishing material relating to the referendum issue for a far greater period than the 28 days envisaged in the Home Secretary's White Paper.
• A strengthened, independent Electoral Commission should oversee all matters relating to the conduct, funding, framing of the question, spending, voting thresholds and broadcasting during the referendum process. Its task would be to ensure that future referendums are fair and seen to be fair and balanced to both sides of the argument.

At the beginning of the afternoon session, a closed session to discuss administration and publicity, Sir Michael Spicer called two speakers who had points to make relating to the morning's discussions.

In view of the concern expressed during the earlier sessions that the Government was going cool on the question of holding a referendum, he reminded Congress that there were two referendums coming up on EMU within the next year - one in Sweden and one in Denmark, in which campaigns he argued that those organisations represented at Congress might usefully lend their support to counteract the tactics which would be used by Brussels. He urged that Congress take a lead and try to deploy its financial and human resources, placing them at the disposal of its allies in Sweden and Denmark.

He said that in Ireland there had been a referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty the previous year, held under the aegis of the Referendum Commission, which had conducted the referendum very fairly, with the result that nearly 40% of the voters in the Republic had voted "No" although virtually all the parties were in favour of that treaty. In Ireland the Referendum Commission, set up under a Referendum Act, consisted of the Speakers of the two Houses of the Irish Parliament, the Controller and Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and a former Judge of the Supreme Court. He said that governments would only hold referendums if they were confident of winning them, which was why he considered the fair referendum issue crucial.

Sir Michael then reported to Congress on administrative progress since the previous meeting, when it had been decided to establish an agenda-setting group. The members of the group, which had met once, were:

Henry Angest Chairman, Secure Trust Banking Group plc
Lord Beaumont Liberal Democrat (now Green Party)
Lord Bell Chairman, Conservative Keep the £ Campaign
Frederick Forsyth Chairman, Constitutional Sub-Committee
John Hoerner Chief Executive, Arcadia Group
Jacqui Johnson Trade Unions against a Single Currency
Ruth Lea Head of Policy Unit, Institute of Directors
Austin Mitchell MP Vice-Chairman, Labour Euro Safeguards Campaign
Doug Nicholls General Secretary, Community and Youth Workers' Union
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Chairman, Global Britain
Brian Prime Policy Director, Federation of Small Businesses
Lord Shore of Stepney Chairman, Labour Euro Safeguards Campaign
Sir Michael Spicer MP Chairman, European Research Group
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Campaign for an Independent Britain
Mike Woodin Principal Speaker, Green Party

He described the composition as roughly 50-50 left and right, but invited comments from the floor.

Derek Bennett asked whether the UK Independence Party should be represented on the group.

Mrs Shirley Marler, Democracy Movement, remarked that there was no representative from that organisation, to which Sir Michael replied that a proposal for a representative of the Democracy Movement, who should be a chief spokesperson or equivalent, would be welcome.

In reply to a question from Betty Hunt about the members of the Constitutional Sub-Committee being on the agenda group, Sir Michael replied that the Sub-Committee was represented on the group by its Chairman, Frederick Forsyth. He again listed the members of the Constitutional Sub-Committee. They had met twice and would be taking a close interest in the passage of the Bill; they would be tabling amendments to the Bill and would pay a pro-active part in the passage of the Bill through Parliament.

Sir Michael said that many comments had been received urging that Congress be more pro-active about publicity; it was widely felt that the meetings were good and attracted good speakers but they were not covered in the media. It had been proposed that they should set up a media sub-committee of experts, along the lines of the Constitutional Sub-Committee.

Mr Stephen Prendergast said that from his experience in public relations he knew how difficult it was to translate enthusiasm into messages which the public would understand; he argued that planning and timing were very important. He urged that a small group of media professionals be formed to look at the question of publicity and the use of new media, such as the Internet.

Peter Todd, Enigma Ventures Limited, commented that the ideal person to lead that group would be Lord Bell, who was on the agenda-setting committee. Sir Michael replied that it was very important that no political slant should be put on publicity, one of the main difficulties in forming a media group and in responding to stories on behalf of the Congress. He said he would approach Lord Bell to see if he would be prepared to be a member of the media group.

John Courouble, Youth for a Free Europe thought it a good proposal but saw an urgent need to knock on doors and find out how people were going to vote in order to have a national database of people's views when the campaign started, rather leave canvassing until the campaign was under way.

Lord Pearson commented that the Britain in Europe campaign had thrown down a challenge and he thought we should challenge them more publicly, both collectively and individually.

Sir Richard Storey expressed his disappointment at the lack of coverage the speeches made at Congress had received; he doubted that speeches made that morning would be reported. He stressed the need for professional expertise in this area and expressed the view that Lord Bell would be a great help.

David Green, Liberal Party, said he felt that the day the Government called a referendum the cause would be lost and therefore urged that the media and publicity sub-committee be set up as soon as possible as it was necessary to run a campaign to ensure the referendum was never held. He felt the Internet was no substitute for door-to-door campaigning with leaflets, and suggested that it should be decided whether the Congress was to become the umbrella organisation for the "No" campaign and change its name in order to attract publicity.

Rodney Atkinson, Campaign for UK Conservatism, said that, although several of the organisations involved wanted to withdraw from the constitutional structures of the EU, they were prepared for the Congress for Democracy to restrict itself to resisting abolition of the pound. However, Business for Sterling, which had repeatedly said that it would not rule out the abolition of the pound, would be an embarrassment in any campaign.

Stuart Jackson, independent market researcher, recommended that the advice of journalists be sought when preparing material for the press.

Sir Michael Spicer pointed out that one of the difficulties for a collective of different-minded organisations was that journalists often wanted a reaction to a story, which was going to be very difficult to manage on behalf of a very wide range of organisations. He felt the proposed committee would have to come back to Congress with guidelines.

Eric Deakins urged that the report of proceedings be circulated as soon as possible to all constituent organisations so that they could disseminate it to their members. He also urged that the very important speech by Senator Smith be distributed to the press. Sir Michael replied that it had been sent to the newspapers the previous day, and that a report of the resolutions passed at Congress had been sent to the press during the lunch break.

Idris Francis commented that while Congress was planning a referendum campaign which would never happen, the country was descending into a whirlpool of European control, from which it would never recover.

John Coleman recommended working with journals such as Prospect, which he edited, Saga and International Minds. They had quite high circulation figures and were looking for articles.

Sir Michael Spicer invited Congress to approve the proposal to set up a committee on publicity which would include public relations experts but would be as representative as possible of the spectrum of views.

Lord Stoddart stressed that it should be exploratory and should report back to a future Congress before making decisions.

Lord Pearson supported Lord Stoddart's view. He asked whether the public relations committee could do any better than Business for Sterling on the EMU argument and wondered whether it might deal with issues such as the takeover directive, corpus juris and other elements of the Treaty of Rome.

Ros Hill, member of Federation of Small Businesses, felt that publicity was a good idea. The organisations involved were united on keeping the pound and trading with Europe.

Peter Todd suggested that a small committee of media professionals be set up to report to the agenda committee. He also suggested that individuals could speak to their local radio stations on behalf of the Congress for Democracy.

Captain Clive Easton, Chairman of Herefordshire Keep the Pound Campaign, considered it very important that "foot soldiers" should have credibility with the local media, which they would gain from being associated with the Congress for Democracy. He also thought it a good idea to seek the assistance of journalists.

He suggested that the Privy Council might be an appropriate body to select members of the Electoral Commission.

• Congress agreed that a specialist publicity group be set up to report back to its next meeting.

Sir Michael Spicer then invited Richard Weatherill, the organiser, to report on a rally which he had chaired in Malvern the previous month - the Heart of England Rally for the Pound.

Richard Weatherill said that they had had a nil advertising budget and stressed the importance of having some funding. He had learned that it was also important to get the editors and the press on your side; he had found the local radio station very helpful but newspapers varied. He stressed the need to get the message out to as many as possible otherwise such meetings would be preaching to the converted.

Sir Michael said they had also learned that they needed to get the message to young people, especially to sixth-formers. He felt that the public relations committee should look at publicity for regional activities.

A lady who did not give her name commented that it would be easy to slip political indoctrination into the citizenship lessons proposed by David Blunkett.

Sir Michael then asked whether Congress agreed that it should try to form links with other countries and lend assistance to Denmark and Sweden in their referendum campaigns, as suggested by Daniel Hannan.

Lord Nunburnholme, Democratic Party, suggested that we should go for membership of the North Atlantic Free Trade Association as America was more influential than Scandinavia. He also said he had done several media interviews on the reform of the House of Lords prior to the prorogation of Parliament and intended to support the Congress for Democracy in future interviews. He recommended the use of strong and controversial language.

Pam Barden, Save our Sovereignty, felt strongly that the Congress should fight for liberty and freedom in small countries like Denmark and Slovenia.

Chris Sewell, Labour Euro Safeguards Campaign, suggested that television programmes exposing the corruption in Brussels should be shown in Sweden and Finland.

David Green, Liberal Party, urged caution about interfering in referendum campaigns in other countries; Congress had earlier made clear that it did not want interference from abroad in this country on behalf of the "Yes" campaign. He also thought all available resources would be needed in the campaign at home.

Kristian Thulesen Dahl MP, Danish People's Party, whom Sir Michael invited to comment, said he would like to have support from Britain in Denmark. The "Yes" campaign would be getting help from people abroad, and he did not see why the "No" campaign should not also have support.

Lord Stoddart commented that within the Anti-Maastricht Alliance doubts had been expressed as to whether Congress should meet more than once a year.

Sir Michael said he would investigate the possibility of another meeting on 17th March; he would like to get a senior trade union leader to speak and warned that the date would have to suit a major speaker.

Mr Babic said he had come to the Congress for intellectual and financial support. In Slovenia he could organise a good conference for as little as DM2,500-DM5,000.

Rodney Atkinson spoke briefly on EU propaganda in schools, which he described as a truly evil process, illegal under British law. He warned of a cultural invasion of British institutions promoted by the European Commission, including the making of television programmes, even sitcoms, as part of the insidious process.

Darryl Godbold, Leigh and Southend Fishermen's Association, commented that other countries would be looking to see what was happening to the British nation and would see that the British Parliament was losing its influence to a consortium of satellite states not elected by the British people.

Norman Smith, Federation of Small Businesses, urged that efforts be made to get the message to the young.

Sir Michael (in response to an unnamed questioner who asked whether Congress was an umbrella group or a talking shop) replied that this put the dilemma in a nutshell; the Congress was a forum where people with similar common objectives so far as the single currency was concerned met. It was therefore extremely difficult for a common statement to be formulated on some matters, though specific areas, additional to the single currency, were being found where it might be possible to establish certain common positions. Congress had agreed to set up a small committee of experts to report back on what could be done to disseminate its views more widely. There was a growing common purpose between very widely diverging groups and people but the precise future direction had not been resolved.

Finally, he thanked all those present for attending the Third Congress for Democracy, and invited them to join him in thanking Margaret Bottomley for all the time and effort she put into the organisation of the Congress.

**********

CONGRESS FOR DEMOCRACY, 58 KESWICK ROAD, GREAT BOOKHAM, SURREY, KT23 4BH

Tel: 01372 453678 Fax: 01372 453741

Website: www.congressfordemocracy.org.uk