What is often forgotten about Iraq is that although there was broad and fierce resistance to the invasion, opinion polls frequently showed that the public agreed with Blair. It was only when the results of the policy became apparent when people overwhelmingly began to think it was a bad idea. The Euro could well be a similar thing; it might generate huge protest in the country and within his own party, but that is not to say that the silent majority won't side with the PM.
Largely incorrect; see my
post on Chat for a discussion of this. Though it's a nuanced issue, the public was broadly either opposed or highly sceptical until hostilities commenced. The window where the war had majority public support was actually quite small. Though the opposition deepened over time, it is emphatically
not the case that the public were blindly supportive of Blair's position, and then swung. Incidentally, the public attitudes on the issue pre-invasion were in the context of the vast majority of the political class supporting it, and on an issue of national security no less. This has a bearing on this scenario. If the public didn't give a blank cheque on war, they're not going to give it on this.
Talking about 'silent majorities' on this is just wishful thinking; we have a huge amount of polling on the Euro over a sustained period of years when it was a live issue which shows nothing close to that.
I don't doubt that the Tories would be overwhelmingly opposed, but as I said, the number of MPs who are against doesn't really matter all that much if the campaign doesn't have good leadership. And by this time, the only figures on the left of the party that the public really knew about were Clarke, and maybe Heseltine, who are both strong Europhiles. There weren't really any Cameron or Osborne types who were moderates but also mildly Eurosceptic. So whilst it wouldn't only be the right of the Tory Party who come out against it, practically all the best known Conservative figures who were against it would come from that faction.
A referendum at this point in time would have secured the backing of two former Conservative Prime Ministers, John Major, and Margaret Thatcher, as well as endless numbers of former Cabinet ministers, the vast majority of Conservative MPs and office-holders, and many other figures of substance and prominence from the right. The 'No' campaign would very likely have a prominent role for, or possibly even be directed by Dominic Cummings, who ran the Business for Sterling campaign at the time, and would later go on to be the director of Vote Leave. It would have attracted a significant amount of business support. The notion that it would be a fringe, badly-lead campaign by just some nameless MPs stretches credulity.
You seem to be forgetting that a large number of the public are Conservative voters, or former Conservative voters - in a referendum every vote counts, it's not just a question of who can appeal to the centre ground, but to natural party supporters as well; and it's really
they, in the case of the Conservatives, who have to be swung to get entry over the line. Ken would have some bearing as leader, but would not 'deliver' Tory voters any more than Cameron did in 2016, especially when set against the support of the rest of the party for 'No'. The support of Conservative voters would have been 'No's' to lose, which is really all 'No' would have to do to win.
However, it would naturally have attracted a lot of Labour support as well, in almost certainly a more encompassing fashion than Leave did in 2016. Some trade unions would probably come out against, as well as former Chancellor Dennis Healey and quite a number of Labour MPs and lords, including obscure backbencher Jeremy Corbyn. An interesting question is whether a Cabinet minister dives in as well - it's not impossible that David Blunkett or Margaret Beckett come out for 'No', even if Blair imposes a whip on the issue for the government.
Why not? Putting aside the ideological differences here, what is undeniable is that they were right wingers who prominent Leavers tried to keep well away for fear that their cause could be tainted by what they regarded to be xenophobic attitudes. I'm not sure whether they had the profile at the start of the 2000s that they would have by the end of it, but I'm fairly sure they were publicly regarded as the party for racists and neo-fascists, much like the National Front were in the 1970s, and their activities in 1975 did have at least a small bearing on the debate. I see no reason why a similar thing would not happen with the BNP.
They
were regarded as the party of racists and Neo-Fascists; which is why they would have had no bearing. The 'No' campaign would not be seen within a million miles of them; even in 2016 most mainstream Leavers didn't want anything to do with Leave.eu, and that was a UKIP outfit, who by that point had came third in the popular vote at the last election. In an early 2000s referendum UKIP would be seen as the absolute lunatic fringe of 'No', not the BNP.