The Tourism Minister nailed his colours firmly to the mast for the first time in the raging controversy.

The Hon. C.V. (Jim) Woolridge told the House of Assembly: "I am opposed to the move we are taking at this particular time.

"I hope somewhere along the way we will see the light.'' Mr. Woolridge added he hoped a referendum would be decided on a two-thirds majority. "I don't think 51 percent is a sizable majority.'' Education Minister the Hon. Clarence Terceira said it was "idiocy'' for any move towards Independence. And he predicted a resounding "no'' vote in the referendum.

Former deputy premier the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto, who resigned her Cabinet post over the issue, also hammered out her stance.

Speaking from the back benches, she declared Government was acting prematurely. "It was a recipe for disaster,'' she said.

She added: "I don't believe this is the time for this country to be engaging in such an emotive issue. It will produce a volatility in this country that will have serious economic ramifications.'' The three MPs spoke out during the House of Assembly's second reading of the Independence Referendum Act 1994.

But they did not say which way they would vote on the bill.

Last night's marathon -- sometimes heated -- debate was still going on at Press time at 2.00 a.m.

It was set to be followed by a motion by Opposition leader Mr. Frederick Wade.

The motion calls for the rejection of a Government plan to call on the Governor to set up a Commission of Inquiry into Independence.

The debate on the Referendum Act gave MPs on both sides a chance to reassert their positions.

Opposition MPs stressed they were historically in favour of Independence. But they said the issue was too complex to be decided by a "yes'' or "no'' vote at a referendum. The correct route, they said, was a general election.

The PLP also said countries in the Commonwealth had not achieved Independence through a referendum.

But Government MPs emphasised they were not rushing towards Independence.

The Commission of Inquiry was merely a fact-finding exercised aimed at educating people.

Premier the Hon. Sir John Swan said the British had used a referendum to take them into the European Economic Community. He said an election should not decide something as irreversible as Independence.

Finance Minister the Hon. David Saul asked: "What difference did it make if the country was taken to Independence via election or referendum? The same group of people will vote.'' Dr. Saul scoffed at Opposition comparisons between Bermuda and the Caribbean's struggle for Independence. He said Australia was a better model. It had achieved Independence following a referendum.

Dr. Saul also attacked the Opposition for accusing Government of springing Independence on Bermuda.

The Blueprint -- Government's election manifesto -- was just that a blueprint, he said. Other bills not in the Blueprint would also come before Parliament.

Opposition leader Mr. Frederick Wade said turn-outs at referendums were traditionally low. And he declared it would be "repulsive'' for non-Bermudians on the electoral register to have a referendum vote.

The PLP's Ottiwell Simmons challenged Government to show a united front on Independence. If it did so -- and declared support for Independence -- it would remove the need for any debate. Both parties could link up to decide which was the best way forward.

Debate report -- Page.