Euro treaty is a threat to Britain, warns Labour MP who wrote it

The Prime Minister would be forced to represent the interests of the union rather than the UK under the terms of the deal, said former Labour minister Gisela Stuart.

Her warning came as the Conservatives claimed the agreement would see the biggest sacrifice of Britain's rights to block EU proposals in a single treaty - and could even allow Brussels to seize control of North Sea oil and gas reserves.

In a Parliamentary written answer, the Foreign Office listed 50 different areas where member states will lose their veto if the treaty is agreed. These include transport, energy, tourism, civil protection, space, research and common commercial policy.

Eurosceptic backbencher John Redwood, who tabled the question in the Commons, said the EU was grasping the power to force

the sharing of North Sea oil and gas in the event of a crisis in energy supply.

"It's easy to envisage circumstances of scarcity when the rest of the EU says this ought to be a common resource," he said.

The Foreign Office insisted the UK would be able to opt out of majority decisions in 13 areas, including social security and judicial and police co-operation. But the Tories said the Government's so-called "red lines" were exactly the same as in the failed 2005 version of the constitution, on which it did promise a referendum.

Miss Stuart, the Labour MP for Edgbaston who was a member of the group which drew up the original blueprint, said it was clear from the text of the new version that the European Council would get massivelyincreased powers. The body was originally set up in 1974 as an informal forum for heads of EU member states to meet.

But the treaty will formally incorporate the council into the EU's structure - and oblige EU leaders to "promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests' rather than those of member states.

Miss Stuart, now a fierce critic of the Government's refusal to offer a referendum, said: "It used to be that leaders met in order to co-ordinate the interest of the nation states.

"Under this new structure, that body where heads of state meet will become subordinate to the union's interests.

"They will now have a duty to represent the interests of the union, not the interests of the member state. It's a consolidation of the way the union works into a structure which is much more like a government."

She claims ministers are either being "deliberately disingenuous or ill-informed" when they claim the treaty is not substantial enough to merit a referendum.