National dailies in this country are predominantly (70%) owned by three large corporations. Given a free run during the referendum, they will campaign for whatever outcome they perceive to be in the interests of large media corporations. There are no examples of large private-sector media corporations which give higher priority to the democratic value of enabling equal access to the media by all sides in political debates than to maximizing shareholder value and promoting their proprietors\x92 political prejudices. Company law, in fact, precludes any such prioritization of the public interest.

There is also no guarantee that, left to its own devices, the media will divide equally between Yes and No camps. Even if it did, there could be no guarantee that its presentation of either camp\x92s position would do justice to the various strands of opinion within it. The EU constitution is opposed not just by vociferous, well-funded Little Englanders, but also by people who want far more democracy within the EU, and want social rights and community interests to be given precedence over the business interests which the draft constitution would further empower.

Consequently, in the period leading up to the referendum, the national press and media generally must be placed under a binding obligation to facilitate equal exposure for the arguments of either side, and fairly to present the full range of views on each side. But it\x92s highly doubtful that Tony Blair, who flew off to give secret reassurances to Rupert Murdoch before the 1997 election, will place the interests of democracy above the \x93freedom\x94 of right-wing media mega-corporations to undermine it.