Britain's economy is 10 times the size of the Danish economy. The Danish economy is worth 139.9 billion US dollars. The British economy is worth 1,324.4 billion US dollars (OECD data for 1999 based on US $ purchasing power parity) The Danish krone is pegged to the euro; the UK pound fluctuates wildly against the euro. Denmark, unlike Britain, has not experienced the damaging effects on jobs and investment of currency volatility with its major trading partner.

Denmark receives far less inward investment than Britain Denmark attracted inward investment worth 7,450 million US dollars last year Britain attracted inward investment worth 82,176 million US dollars. (OECD, Recent Trends in Foreign Direct Investment 2000).

This result is irrelevant to British exporters in Britain.Companies have to face the cost of currency volatility when trying to sell their goods abroad. The euro-zone is by far Britain's major trading partner. Over half of UK goods exports go to the euro-zone. British exports of goods and services to the euro-zone are worth £109 billion to the British economy. 750,000 companies large and small depend for their prosperity on exports to the EU.

Three million jobs in Britain depend on the ability to export to the European Union. Currency volatility puts these British jobs at risk, regardless of whether Denmark is in or out of the euro. Many of the 250,000 British manufacturing jobs lost in Britain in the last three years are due to the over-valuation of the pound against the euro. At the same time, manufacturing employment in the euro-zone has risen.

The Danish result is irrelevant to UK inward investors deciding whether to come to Britain. UK inward investors - including Nissan, Ford, Toyota, Matsushita and Honda - have all sounded warnings about the long-term effect on their investments of closing the door on the single currency. One million jobs in Britain are supported by inward investors.

These jobs will remain at risk regardless of whether Denmark is in or out of the euro. Research by Ernst & Young in May showed that:

1. Britain's share of new inward investor projects in 1999 fell from 28% to 24% of the European total. France's rose in the same time, from 12% to 18% of the total.

2. Eurozone countries also received a net increase in projects of 11% and non-euro countries a reduction in investment of 18%.

The Democracy Movement held its "Keep The Pound...Stop The Treaty" march in London October 28th 2000. The European Movement is not organising a formal presence at this event; however, the following briefing has been prepared to help with letters to the local press in response:

1. The Democracy Movement claims it has around 200,000 supporters. However, latest indications are that they are only expecting 10,000 people. When over 250,000 people turned up to the Countryside Alliance march it shows the true strength of active support for the Democracy Movement.

2. Although the march is billed as a "Keep the pound...Stop the Treaty" demonstration, if you look behind the soundbite they are really against Britain's membership of the EU. After all the Movement itself is the successor to the Referendum Movement and the Referendum Party.

The Democracy Movement's recent publication "EU cannot be serious" exposes the organisation's hardline anti-EU agenda and their lack of evidence to support their claims. Below are rebuttals of some of the points they make:

1. "It was understandable that Britain wanted to join the Single market. However, there was no need to join the EU." This is fantasy. The Single Market would not have been created had Britain not been a member of the EU.

It was Britain, which in the 1980s took the initiative in creating Single Market to replace the complex national regulations of individual EU countries with common EU standards, making it easier for British firms to do business in Europe.

2. "We also have to fight the bureaucrats who...are committed to building a single government for Europe." This is fantasy. There is no agenda to build a European superstate. Dutch EU Commissioner Frits Bolkestein has said: "There will never be a federal centralised European superstate, not now and not in the future. Any thought that (the EU) might be extended into some kind of superstate is pure fantasy."

In June 1998, the French President and German Chancellor wrote a joint letter to Tony Blair saying: "The objective of European policy has never been and cannot be to build a central European State."

3. "There is no need to worry about future trade with the EU if we withdraw from it." This is fantasy. The share of Britain's exports to Europe has doubled since we joined the EU, and we are currently the most popular location for foreign firms looking for a base in the EU. An independent National Institute of Economic and Social Research report of February 2000 estimates withdrawal could mean tariff barriers of 8.7 per cent on UK exports to the EU.

4. "We should not let the mangy EU tail go on wagging our healthy UK dog." This is fantasy. Few EU countries are mangy by British standards. On GDP per capita, the universally accepted measure of wealth, Britain is only the tenth richest country in Europe (OECD 2000, $ ppp basis) and ranks behind most of Europe on the United Nations global human poverty index.

5. "Can Britain go it alone? Of course we can...we would not miss the EU Single Market." This is fantasy. The three million British jobs that depend on our exports to Europe would be put at risk were we to withdraw from the EU.

As Willard A. Workman, Vice-President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington DC, has said: "If the UK pulled out of the EU, US investment in the UK would become less attractive because companies would not have preferential access to the European market." A National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) study concluded that if Britain left the EU, US inward investment would fall by two-thirds.

The Inter-Governmental Conference is primarily concerned with enlargement. With the planned expansion to the states of Central and Eastern Europe changes to the institutions will have to occur. The institutions were established for six states and with enlargement the EU could have over twenty-five members.

The European Council will meet in Nice between 7 - 9 December 2000 to discuss the Nice Treaty. This will conclude the Inter-Governmental Conference between the governments of the 15 Member States of the European Union.

The agenda of the Nice Summit will concentrate on the main areas affected by enlargement:

· Voting: In the Council of Ministers each country has a number of votes ranging from two to ten. The UK currently has ten. The votes are determined by the size of the country's population. Enlargement could upset this balance. It could lead to countries representing the minority of citizens being able to outvote the majority. The IGC is trying to find a fairer distribution of votes.

· Commissioners: There are currently twenty EU Commissioners, with the larger countries like the UK having two each and the smaller states one each. If the Commission grows at the same rate for new members it will become too large. The UK government says it is willing to give up one Commissioner along with the other larger states if a deal can be reached on the reweighting of voting. However, they also want the Commission reformed and streamlined to make it more effective.

· Majority voting: Most decisions in the EU are taken by majority voting. This is to ensure that one country cannot block agreement on issues of national interest among the other sates, such as encouraging free trade or on consumer protection. Enlargement could lead to majority voting being extended. In some areas this could be beneficial to the country's national interest. However, the UK government has a veto on any moves to extend it and has said it will keep unanimity on issues of key importance, such as tax.

· Nice will lead to the creation of a common EU army answerable to the EU institutions:

The European Security and Defence Policy - a British initiative - has been welcomed by the US government as well as the European partners as the means to handle crisis management better. It is intergovernmental, so the new structures will be answerable to the EU's member states. The proposals are designed to strengthen the co-operation of member states at EU level in military and non-military spheres.

· The right to set our taxes: The UK government has stated it will veto any plans to allow the EU to set our taxes.

· A European police force: What is being proposed at Nice is co-operation between police and judicial forces to combat organised crime and not a EU police force.

· There will be a new EU criminal code and public prosecutor: This is untrue. The European Commission has sponsored much research into combating fraud against the EU Budget. A resultant research paper, "Corpus Juris", has generated considerable attention in anti-European circles, who claim that this research paper could overthrow British laws dating from 1215. Such allegations are totally without grounds.

· A constitution for a United States of Europe that will override our own laws:

The Charter of Fundamental Rights summarises the rights already laid down in the EU's treaties that makes points regarding the rights of the citizens. It contains little or nothing new in terms of rights. The European Commission would like it to have a legal status, however, the UK government has the right to veto this and it says it will do to any such moves.

· The scrapping of national vetoes meaning we will not be able to block laws we do not like:

Over 80% of decisions are already subject to QMV. There may be a few extensions at Nice to improve the efficiency of the institutions and extend the benefits of the single market. The UK government has made clear that unanimity must be maintained for tax and social security, defence, border controls, Treaty change and the EU's resources. Others take the same view.

France, for example, is determined to maintain unanimity for border controls. The UK would like to see the extension of QMV to some environmental issues.