Agreed. Why just pull out when you can wreck it for everyone for ever? We should stay in, act as bloody awkward as we possibly can, foment discontent among the new free-enterprise-minded eastern members, stir up differences among the dirigiste Franco-German axis on how to combat our troublemaking... and then step delicately to one side, whistling and looking in the opposite direction as the whole rotten structure comes crashing down under the weight of its own contradictions. "What, me guv? Never touched it."

Then on to super-EFTA, which is all the EU should ever have been in the first place.

Firstly, grow out of using the term 'Europhobe' which is just a silly term of abuse designed to avoid thought. You really mustn't confuse the EU, a politico-economic construct with Europe, a cultural and geographical entity. (are people on the contintent who despise the E.U europhobic?)

Secondly, Blair is right. If you don't want to be ruled from Brussels, the only thing to do is leave the European Union. If you aren't ready to do that, then you might as well vote 'Yes' when the referendum comes.

Assuming the vote is ever held, here's what I predict will follow: the Government will use every nasty trick in its arsenal to panic us into voting 'Yes', with the help of the BBC. I expect there will be a largely postal ballot, to make rigging easier. Yet even so, the British people will vote 'No' by a margin smaller than expected.

Thirdly, the Tories will then be caught in a trap so obvious that it is amazing they cannot see it. Mr Blair will go all statesmanlike-and travel stern-faced to a special melodramatic Euro-summit, where he will plead with the Germans and the French for changes to the document. Just as happened to the poor Irish when they rejected the Nice treaty, he won't get any concessions worth his air fare to Brussels.

But while this is going on, he will begin to raise the possibility that Britain will be 'left behind' if we don't fall into line. He will say, truthfully, that we cannot remain in the EU unless we accept its rules. He will lie - as he did about old-age pensions in 1997 - that millions of jobs will be lost if we leave.

And he will hold a second referendum in which the choice will be between accepting the Constitution and quitting the EU altogether. As happened in 1975, when one of the most unfair and dishonest political campaigns in modern history persuaded us to vote to stay in the Common Market, it will work.

And it will work because people like you Stephen refuse to grasp that Britain would be better off outside the EU, that membership costs us far more than any benefits (what are they, anyway?) we may get in return, and that we can have free trade with Europe - as Norway does - while keeping our own laws and Parliament.

Faced with what, to me, is the welcome choice between getting out and accepting a 'revised constitution', opposition will crumble and Mr Blair will get his victory the second time round.

What do NOT need is another sterile argument about the EU's latest move in its long march towards a Superstate. We know that's what it has always wanted. It's because we have allowed ourselves to take part in this defeatist process for far too long that we are now such a dump. We need an argument, factual, sober and responsible, about why on earth this unique and valuable country should now be so lacking in self-confidence and courage that it is afraid to go out on its own.

The main point that splits within the No Side are a big danger is correct. Even those of us that wish to leave should moderate our tone in respect to that and focus on inefficiencies and absurdities in the EU structure. The most critical thing is that the document does not become law. We can fight amongst ourselves afterwards.

Liberty: Firstly, the term 'Europhobe' is simply a form of shorthand; by its context, it clearly relates to the EU and its various constructs, not the geographical entity; and, yes, Germans who oppose the EU are Europhobes.
Secondly, Blair claims that being in Europe does not necessarily mean being ruled by Europe. In this context, as in many others, he is, of course, lying through his teeth, and to this extent you are correct to say that he is right, though incorrect about the reason.
Beyond these points, we are in total agreement.

EU-Serf: The distinction between a direct vote in a pro / anti referendum and a vote to elect a pro / anti Government is that in the latter case the danger of splitting the No vote exists. In respect of the referendum, I care not at all what reasons the No camp may have for voting No, or what their alternatives may be, just so long as they do indeed vote No.

I think EUserf has a point. I think it is important to lower certain withdrawal tones initially to avoid a split and get a no vote in the constitutional vote.

I am not yet convinced that withdrawal is the way forward for our country, but I know the constitution in its current form is not. But I also accept that Blair et al is a master at getting an eventual goal through incredibly clever and long term planning.

But we must accept that most people do not want withdrawal yet - this will not change quickly and we must avoid putting them off.

But I am not totally convinced with the argument that Blair will get a second chance at a referendum. He is hardly the most secure leaders and we all know Mr Brown is far from as enthusiastic about the European project as Blair. There is a real chance a lost referendum, may finish Blair off.

Finally this whole debate shows to me that the NO camp, and by that I mean those who are anti-constitution but still pro-EU must outline an alternate vision for us. Perhaps Stephen's article may address this, I would be interested in seeing it.

But we need to show people just how we could change things from within, give examples and maybe show and set out a vision for a multi-track EU with people going at different paces, as well as rejecting the CAP AND CFP if possible.

James