One last heave and the 1950’s designed European Project could be decisively derailed. That prospect is now open to the British electorate when it comes to vote on the European constitution. Waiting in the wings are the European Union’s most recent members who are set to break the old mould of post-war European politics.

In those early post-war years practically all of us would have signed up to the dream of the EU’s founding fathers. How could Europe be prevented from setting the world alight once again by war? The nineteenth century view that free trade was a bulwark against nations warring against themselves was rolled out into service. But this old idea was packaged in new wrapping bearing the logo of a super state. The wrapping paper all too soon took on a life of its own. The European constitution is the culmination of establishing a central state with member states taking on over time the character of mere regions.

An important move in fulfilling that plan comes with Britain surrendering sovereignty in over forty topics, ranging from areas of criminal law to social security to ensure the free movement of workers. In each of these areas British policy will now be determined by a majority decision whereas before unanimity was required.

But at least the loss of sovereignty in these areas is clearly listed. Much more menacing is the role of the European Court of Justice. This is a body charged with what has become known as Euro crawl; a dynamic body extending the dominance of European over domestic law. The court determines how treaties and regulations should be interpreted. Its decisions are final.

The ECJ will over time make short shift of each and every one of Mr Blair’s famous red lines as it continues to grind along its path to European integration. Even the sacred area of taxation will not be immune from its dominating influence. Changes, at first, may appear small. One of the Court’s recent five hundred yearly decisions concerned Bosal Holdings in the Netherlands. The company’s lawyers successfully argued that Dutch law effectively restricted Bosal’s right to locate operations wherever it wanted inside the EU. The court ruled in favour of Bosal.

On the surface the case might not seem important. But experts have noted that the Dutch Treasury is likely to lose up to $1.5m in annual tax revenue as dozens of other Dutch companies take advantage of the ruling that a company has the right to deduct interest payments made on money borrowed to invest in non-Dutch European subsidiaries. The primacy of the ECJ has been hotly disputed particularly in France and Germany. Not any more. Part I, Article 10 of the new constitution subjects all member states to the power of the ECJ.

So what are the grounds for my optimism? And why do I see UKIP as holding open a promise only for yester-year? In saying this I have no wish to underestimate UKIP’s challenge to Labour. If a survey of Labour members and activists could be arranged with total confidentiality on how individuals voted in the European elections, I have little doubt that the result would shock the Labour leadership out of its strange complacency that UKIP is causing the Tories most trouble.

Of course the Tories were severely damaged by the haemorrhage of their vote to UKIP in the European elections. But UKIP is able to touch the raw nerve of Europe which runs right through British politics. And it does so because all too many voters believe that the old political class has dissembled too many times about what they had agreed with Europe over this country’s future.

The very large part of Labour’s vote is deeply suspicious of British politicians’ ability to defend their country’s interest in Europe. That is why it is so extraordinary of the Prime Minister to open his campaign on the European constitution by declaring that now was the time to distinguish between fact and fiction. Most voters are only too able and eager to do precisely this.

Most British voters will bring up to 30 years’ experience of European reality to their consideration of the constitution. And it is this knowledge which will shape their cross on the referendum ballot paper. They are not political innocents waiting for the Prime Minister to impress upon them his latest ideas. They are foot soldiers grown tired of a political leadership who at every turn promises a strong defence only to retreat by redrawing the map of where British interests lie.

This is why it is in Labour’s interest to hold the referendum quickly. The bill on the constitution should not take that long to go through Parliament. There should be no trench warfare in holding the measure up now that a referendum is promised. I believe the Prime Minister is mistaken in thinking that the more he explains the constitution the more voters will agree with his interpretation. We are no longer in 1997 when most of us would have walked on water if that is what the Prime Minister asked. Most voters still see Mr Blair as having that crucial quality of looking like a prime minister. No-one else comes near to touching him in this respect. But trust is no longer, I am afraid, Mr Blair’s strongest card. A long campaign led by the Prime Minister on the constitution could just as well increase opposition than win around a deeply sceptical electorate.

[We are told that Mr Blair’s kitchen cabinet’s advice is to delay the referendum until after the election. These are, of course, the very same people who, until recently, pressurised the Prime Minister not to hold a referendum in the first place. Their line is that it will be impossible to win an election after losing a referendum – a revealing comment in itself. But letting the people veto the constitution could, ironically, be Labour’s best launching pad for a third election victory. It would see Mr Blair not only in his teaching role, but in listening mode as well. And then, when the votes are counted, doing what the electorate wants.]

But there is an equally important reason for getting the referendum out of the way. Once the British people have vetoed it, as I believe they will, a new European dawn begins. When the Prime Minister spoke to the House last week about the countries who have recently become EU members his whole body language changed. He was relaxed. He stopped nervously holding his glasses onto his face as though without this help they would simply drop off. He ceased looking at his notes.

He knows that at least he has a band of allies around the European top table. And he is right. The new countries haven’t thrown off a 50 year communist yoke only to allow themselves to become serfs to an ever powerful Brussels bureaucracy. Once the constitution is defeated with its entrenched powers for Brussels these countries, with British leadership, will begin rebuilding Europe.

The principles of rebuilding will reflect today’s values and will be in stark contrast to those of the early drab post-war years. Anueran Bevan summed up that era as like a walk around a Woolworth store, seeing everything in place, with nothing priced over sixpence.

A defeat of the constitution will be a defeat for the old politics where power resided at the centre and people’s lives were made to conform to an ever-expending centralised programme. How the new Europe will look five years’ hence is anyone’s guess. But that is part of the excitement. What we do know is that once the new countries ally themselves with the kindred spirits of Britain, Sweden and Denmark, for example, the cardinal value will be diversity. Differences will be valued because they will be seen as strengths, and the new Europe will play to each of these individual strengths rather than break national spirits into some form of pan-Europeanism.

It will be a Europe run by a lighter touch. It will be a Europe which joins sovereignty to fight the threats of the environment and the threats of terrorism, rather than loose sovereignty to fulfil a 50 year old abstract dream. It will be a Europe which is strong because its strengths will be built on diversity and that diversity will reflect accurately the wishes of voters.