Question: Will the Conservatives continue with their calls for a referendum following the appointment of a new leader?

John Maples: Yes. It's been party policy for some time but I've been calling for it for longer than that. I just wanted the opportunity to say why I think there should be a referendum.

Question: What do you say to the government's claim that the constitution is simply a tidying up exercise?

John Maples: I simply don't think that's true. Quite a lot of other countries are having referendums. The French prime minister has said there should be one.

Spain, Portugal, Holland, Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg are definitely having one.

The real reason here is that you can argue this is not the final step towards a United States of Europe - or whatever you want to call it - but every step we've taken since the Single European Act, Maastricht and Amsterdam is a step along the road.

I don't think we're there yet but you know this one's got a president, a foreign minister, a supreme court, a bill of rights, a public prosecutor and the Commission's getting authority over foreign affairs.

This is a huge step in the direction of communitising various things and we're losing our veto in a lot of areas. People can't pretend this isn't a big step along the road.

I'm not saying Maastricht and the Single European Act weren't big steps - but at some point my feeling is there ought to be a referendum about these things. It bedevils British politics and it bedevils our policymaking.

You see this with the prime minister. One minute he's pushing for a European defence policy, the next he's rowing back and trying to lock it into NATO.

He's trying to be friends with the US and square the Germans and the French and then the other way round.

I don't mean we have to make a decision between the two but I think we have to decide whether we're really in this European project or not.

I personally would vote 'no' but actually what I'm going to mount is a slightly broader argument.

At some point in this process the British people ought to have a vote about this. It may be that there should have been a vote after Maastricht.

Question: Isn't that one of the government's arguments that the Conservative government didn't have a poll after that treaty?

John Maples: I would only say two things. John Major got opt-outs on the two big things in the treaty - the single currency and the social chapter - so the main things didn't affect us.

But it did open up the idea of a defence policy and created the two pillars where the commission didn't have any authority.

The fact that there wasn't one then seems to add to the argument for having one now, rather than detract from it. Now is as good a time as any to have a referendum.

It could be fully debated in the country, people could vote on it and then people could get on with life.

On that basis we'd have decided either we go down the European route which would mean sooner or later joining the euro, that we'd thrown our lot with them on foreign policy and defence or we'd have to look for a different relationship with the European Union.

That would be to do with the free market and free trade and going our own way or at least agreeing things on an inter-governmental basis.

Question: What about the argument that the public are more interested in schools, hospitals and crime not an obscure treaty?

John Maples: I don't think it is small print in an obscure treaty. It's perfectly true that the public aren't terribly interested in this.

But those who are interested in this are very interested in this.

At general elections people are voting on a raft of issues.

Nobody's suggesting we should have a referendum on health or education policy because they're very complex questions but we are talking here are about pretty serious inroads into our constitutional rights.

More and more powers are going to the European Union. We're losing our veto in a lot of areas and more of our laws will be made in Brussels where we have limited influence.

We certainly can't change the government here and repeal something that's been done in Brussels.

We are going to continue making these kinds of surrenders of sovereignty until we sooner or later end up in something close to a United States of Europe.

In 20 years time after one of these treaties every five years, that's where we'll be.

Question: Do you think the public are 'polled out' given the turnout for regional assembly referendums and the EU parliament elections are dismal?

John Maples: Well the European parliament is a completely useless body on which people are being asked to vote on a party list with proportional representation.

The turnout was higher before this system came in. Admittedly it wasn't much higher but at least when you were voting for an individual there was more point.

It just shows how remote these institutions are and if we are going to given them more power people ought to have a direct say.

The government have held referendums on a whole raft of things; whether Hartlepool should have a mayor, whether London should have a mayor, whether Scotland and Wales should have parliaments and assemblies.

But it's not offering them to people where power will be taken away from them.

Question: How would you sell this to the public?

John Maples: Well you would say whether you were going to have this or not and then both sides would have to put their argument.

It could be over a six-week period or a four-week period - I'm prepared to leave that to a future decision - and the two campaigns under the present arrangements have a limit on the amount of money that they have to spend. Then people could make up their minds.

I think people would get interested. You would be offering them a direct choice on a direct vote on a very important issue.

Yes some of them would say 'I don't care about the issues' but then again a lot of people have very strong issues about the euro.

I'm sure they don't understand all the intricacies of European monetary policy but they have a view on whether it would be good for Britain to join the euro or not.

Question: Who would win a referendum if the prime minister were to change his mind?

John Maples: I think he would lose it. I don't don't know. The opinion polls indicate some hostility towards it but most people haven't paid much attention to it.

You see, in a way, although I would campaign 'no' and vote 'no,' I would accept a 'yes' vote. I think the important thing is to make this decision as a nation.

It will set the tone and direction of British foreign and economic policy for a generation. I don't think we can continue in the current muddle that we are in.

Question: Is part of the government's reluctance to hold a vote is that it could be used by voters to deliver a mid-term kicking?

John Maples: Referendums can be used like that, it's perfectly true, but I think this is sufficiently important issue that, hopefully, the debate could be elevated above that.

I think it would be more likely to happen if the government was in a phase when it was very unpopular. With this government, it's quite unpopular but not very unpopular.

If we could delay signing the constitution until after the general election I wouldn't mind holding it after that. I just think we ought to hold this before we sign the constitution - I think we've got 24 months.