................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 15.10.95
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Only one Minister rocked
the boat at the Tory Conference ... and it's still rocking. He was Michael
Portillo and I'll be asking him about that rhetoric ... and the reality of his
vision for Britain. That's after the news read by Moira Stuart.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Kim Catcheside reporting. Well earlier
this morning I spoke to the Defence Secretary Michael Portillo and I asked him
first whether the Conference had supplied a vision of Britain?
MICHAEL PORTILLO: I think it provided principle and vision
and policies to be applied at a moderate pace. You must remember that we're
not a government that's just starting in Office. Now, take something like the
Welfare State. Everybody knows that action has to be taken over a period of
time to make sure that it is affordable and directed to those most in need.
We're not starting that process today. We have encouraged people into
occupational and personal pensions and they have pension funds - private ones -
worth five hundred billion pounds for their own future, which is more than the
total of Pension Funds in the rest of Europe.
So, these policies - you can call them
radical, if you like - but they have to be applied over a long period of time
and we've been about that.
HUMPHRYS: But, didn't it sound a bit more like a
whole series of policy announcements, some more important than others. Rather
than this vision that we were - as I say - we were rather led to expect.
PORTILLO: But, you have to remember that we have
been in power and the policies that we have been pursuing have been proved to
be right. Socialism has collapsed. The reforms that we have brought in, in
Education and Health, have been proved to work, Tony Blair now says that he
accepts many of those reforms. So, we are not having to reinvent ourselves in
the way that other Parties are. What we do need to do, however, is to show the
next step forward. For example, how we can extend the very successful idea of
grant-maintained schools, how now that the recession is over we can return to
the policies that we have always believed in, of reducing the Tax burden on
people. And, how, in particular, we can build an economy and a people who are
going to be competitive in the wide world.
HUMPHRYS: Perhaps, we can pick up some of those
things later but let's look instead, for the moment, at the speech that you
made about Europe, that's caused a considerable stir, I think, it's fair to
say. Was the tone that you used the tone that you believe the Government ought
to be adopting?
PORTILLO: Well, I stripped away all the waffle
and fudge and any Euro-speak and I said very plainly that a Conservative
Government is not going to allow Britain to be drawn into a European super
state, where very important decisions about our daily lives could be taken
by a majority vote of Ministers in the Council of Ministers; or, perhaps, even
by the Commission. What I did was to state Conservative Party policy. I made
clear a distinction between ourselves and the Labour Party. I sought to
inspire my Party, both in the hall and sitting at home watching television and
to show to other people, who, perhaps, had not taken such an interest in
politics, the importance of that issue.
HUMPHRYS: And, you did all that in a particularly
robust way. My question, really, is whether you think the Government ought to
be adopting that robust approach? That more robust approach.
PORTILLO: Well, not every day of the week.
Ministers are very often accused of losing themselves in their Departments,
making decisions that may be very good decisions in themselves, appearing on
the international stage and forgetting that they're politicians. Now,
sometimes, you do have to remember that in order for the sort of Britain that
we want to see to be continued you have to reach out to people who are not
generally aware of politics and touch something in them. And, that is part of
the purpose of the Conservative Party Conference. It is to reach out to the
public.
HUMPHRYS: But, if the speech was appropriate for a
Conservative Party Conference, you're suggesting, are you, that it's
appropriate for other things, an Election rally, perhaps? That, you know, if a
young MP, or would be MP comes to you and says: how ought I to approach this
subject? You would say: do it with a bit of vim an vigour and the kind of
robustness that I showed last week.
PORTILLO: My feeling is that the public hate
humbug and fudge; that they want to know what are the issues, they want to know
what people think. Sometimes, people get confused about what I think but
I don't think I can be accused of failing to express myself robustly and
clearly.
HUMPHRYS: And, you were, clearly, speaking for
yourself. But would it be helpful - this is the point of the question really
- if the Government, as a whole, took this rather firmer approach; this more
robust approach?
PORTILLO: The Prime Minister made his approach
very clear in his speech. The phrases he used, for example: if Europe goes
Federalist, Britain will not follow, I think, is just about as clear cut a
statement of this position as there could possibly be. So, I believe, we were
entirely singing from the same hymn sheet.
HUMPHRYS: Using rather different volumes, though,
weren't you?
PORTILLO: Yes, I would accept that.
HUMPHRYS: It was fortissimo, perhaps?
PORTILLO: I was fortissimo and, I think, that was
right. I wanted to put across to people an impression of the difference
between the Parties and the importance of the issues that lie ahead.
HUMPHRYS: But, there are - you might accept - a
number of risks in employing those sorts of tactics. One of them - and, we've
seen it happening - is that you risk re-opening the split within your own Party
over Europe - a split that many people thought had not been healed - those
things aren't healed - but, at least, patched over.
PORTILLO: Well, I believe, that that split has
been put behind us and I don't think the speech has actually re-opened it. It's
true that I've had my critics but nobody has actually said that the
Conservative Government's policy towards Federalism, or towards the question of
political control over our military. Nobody has said that that is wrong, or
that they disagree with it and I don't think anybody will.
HUMPHRYS: But, lots and lots and lots of people
have said that you were wrong to express yourselves the way you did.
PORTILLO: Yes. But, your question was whether it
had re-opened the issue of Europe and I believe that it has not-
HUMPHRYS: Well but it has.
PORTILLO: - 'cos I don't think that people are
doubting the rightness of the Conservative Government's policy.
HUMPHRYS: Well, are you sure about that?
PORTILLO: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: Listen to what some of your supporters
are saying. You heard Mr Bottomley there. You've heard lots of people, in the
last few days, saying: Michael was quite wrong to adopt this tone, to adopt
this approach.
PORTILLO: But, John, I'm addressing your point.
Has it-
HUMPHRYS: About the tone, as opposed to the
content.
PORTILLO: Has it re-opened the split in the
Conservative Party, absolutely not. There is no division within the
Conservative Party about resisting Federalism and one Minister after another
said it from the platform. One speaker after another said it from the
floor.
HUMPHRYS: I take that point. I take that point
but to the public it looks like a split because as soon as you've got MPs
popping up on television and in the newspapers, slagging off one of their
Ministers, they say: oh, God, here we go again! Don't they? That's the
trouble and that's what you've caused.
PORTILLO: Well, I don't feel I caused it. I
expressed Government policy robustly. I poked fun at the European Commission.
I think, one is entitled to do that. They are a powerful body in our lives.
They should not be above having a little fun poked at them.
HUMPHRYS: Some of them appointed by the
Conservative Government, of course, but anyway.
PORTILLO: All of them appointed and I am an
elected minister in an elected government and that's why I feel that I should
be free to voice my view and to speak on behalf of the government which is what
I do.
HUMPHRYS: But you would accept that you have
stirred up the debate again, you have stirred up the debate, if not about
Europe per se, and I'll come on to the substantive issues in a minute but about
Michael Portillo's role in that.
PORTILLO: Well that is a very different issue, I
mean people can have different views on Michael Portillo and they're entitled
to, but I stick to my point and I feel you now agreeing with it, that it hasn't
actually opened up the question of Europe which is a matter that I think the
Conservative Party...
HUMPHRYS: But that's a bit of a distinction
without a difference in the minds of many people watching the debate who may
not be quite as sophisticated as you are. What they see is a spectacle of
Conservative Members of Parliament shouting at each other, criticising each
other, attacking each other and that you don't want do you, in these last
sixteen/eighteen months before the next election you've got to be seen to be a
united party.
PORTILLO: That is one thing that they may have
seen but the other thing they saw was a very clear expression, not only
from me but from other ministers as well and the Prime Minister, of our
complete determination, the Conservative Government, not to be dragged towards
a United States of Europe, towards federal arrangements, not to surrender vital
powers concerning people's daily lives to institutions in Europe. Now that
message did come over loudly and clearly and that I believe is of great
significance and of electoral advantage because I think it tones in very well
with the majority opinion of the people of this country who have been happy as
I am with the development of the Single European Market, who would be happy, as
I am, to fight alongside our European allies, as we've been doing for example
in Bosnia, but who don't wish to see political control lost from Parliament and
the British Government.
HUMPHRYS: What you have been doing, and this is
perhaps another risk in that speech, and you used fairly moderate language in
that last answer but you certainly didn't use moderate language on the stage in
Blackpool last week, is presenting yourself to the country - the Conservatives
that is - not as the patriotic party necessarily, which is absolutely fine and
acceptable but as xenophobic, jingoism.
PORTILLO: That I fine an extraordinary suggestion.
I am myself from a multi-national background..
HUMPHRYS: Indeed
PORTILLO: I have a good understanding of two
cultures and to histories and two countries and I appreciate how much can be
achieved by those two countries and others, working alongside each other. But,
I also see the impossibility of those countries being merged together into a
single entity in the United States of Europe. Now in making that point,
there's nothing xenophobic, indeed my vision, and I believe the Conservative
Party's too, is a global vision. In other words, we don't want exclusive
arrangements in Europe, we want to see free trade in Europe as a stepping stone
to free trade with the world.
HUMPHRYS: If no jingoism intended, where does Hugh
Dykes get his crude jingoism and xenophobia which he attaches to you, George
Walden "infantile nationalism, demeans his office, his party, his country and
for what it's worth me. Where do they get that from?
PORTILLO: You really must ask them about that..
HUMPHRYS: I can ask you....
PORTILLO: If you look at the speech, much of the
speech is devoted to a eulogy of alliance and partnership, there's a tribute
there to the Americans, to the NATO alliance, to the French and to the Dutch,
who have been fighting alongside us, have superb armed forces who have taken
great risk and suffered casualties in Bosnia. But the essential thing is this,
although we are prepared to fight alongside people, indeed prepared to put our
troops under the control of officers from other countries, as indeed they are
in Bosnia and have been elsewhere, although we are prepared to do all those
things, we're not prepared to surrender the political decision making about
when Britain is going to fight and when not to fight.
HUMPHRYS: Can I return to that in a moment.
PORTILLO: Surely.
HUMPHRYS: But let me just put you another
thought, on this impression that you are making, that you are creating as a
result of what you've been doing. We've got the positive European group,
Conservative members of parliament many of them, going to see Malcolm Rifkind,
the Defence Secretary, this week and apparently their message, so we are told
by them, their message is going to be "Portillo's got to calm down." Are you
prepared to do that?
PORTILLO: I think I'm prefectly calm, but you
can't exclude a Defence Minister from talking about European Defence, it is a
rather important issue.
HUMPHRYS: But it depends on the kind of language
he employs, that's the thing isn't it?
PORTILLO: Yes and I don't regret any of the
language that I've used. I have tried to illustrate vividly to people. You
see you talk about a federal Europe, you talk about losing control over your
decisions, that may not mean very much to the people watching this programme or
reading their newspapers, but when you describe what that really means, what
could ultimately a common defence mean, it could mean having a majority vote in
the European Community as to when we would fight, and when we would not fight.
And indeed, one of the political parties that fought the last election, for the
European elections, put forward a proposal that our defence should come under
majority voting and that is precisely what I was dealing with in my speech.
HUMPHRYS Okay and I do want to deal with that,
but let's look and I said there were risks involved in your speech, and let me
deal with the third of the risks as I see it anyway, and that is that this kind
of rhetoric, overblown according to many people, risks actually eroding
Britain's position in Europe because we are taken less seriously.
PORTILLO: Well there's a great debate about that
and Malcolm Rifkind addressed it in a speech recently, the balance between
interest and influence.
HUMPHRYS: That's slightly different isn't it to
what I'm talking about here.
PORTILLO: No, I don't think it is entirely
different. There is a view that if we always speak very softly and don't make
our positions too clear..
HUMPHRYS: Speak softly, carry a big stick...
PORTILLO: That we can then be in the majority
opinion in Europe and that that will carry more influence. There's also a view
that sometimes if you stand out on a subject, that will increase your
influence. I'll give you an example of the latter. We have stayed out of the
Social Chapter, we have been happy to be aside from what the others have been
doing, but the consequence of that has been that the Social Chapter has not
developed in Europe in the way that many people imagine, they have held off
from developing the Social Chapter because they didn't want to take burdens on
their own industries that Britain wasn't going to take upon hers.
Now that is an example where, actually
remaining to one side increased our influence and it must be for the Prime
Minister and the Foreign Secretary, on each subject, to decide whether being in
the middle and using influences is in the best British interest or whether
standing aside and setting a distinctive position, is in the best British
interest.
HUMPHRYS: But it's your view clearly then that
that sort of robust approach that you adopt helps Britain's interests even
though somebody like Jacques Santer might agree with the critics who say it was
and I quote "grotesque and deplorable".
PORTILLO: Well, I think that when you're holding
a conversation with people it's best that they should know where you're coming
from. I don't think that you make the best agreements where there is
ambiguity. But, to help resolve ambiguity let me make it clear again that I am
delighted to work towards European Defence co-operation, I'm delighted with
the allies that we have in Europe, and who have been very brave allies indeed.
But, what I'm not prepared to do ultimately is to move towards what is hinted
at in the Maastricht Treaty, which is to move towards a common defence.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's talk about the reality
then, rather than the rhetoric. And, you say you're not prepared to move
towards a common defence and let's look at that. But, a general view from you
first about how you want Europe to look in the next millennium. I mean, let's
take an arbitary date, two-thousand-and-two, doesn't matter what it is. How do
you think Europe ought to be seen.
PORTILLO: Well, I think the two fundamental
conditions is that it should remain a Europe of nation states, where very
important decisions are taken by parliaments and governments; and, secondly,
that it should be outward looking. It shouldn't be a cosy club that excludes
the rest of the world because ultimately the rest of the world cannot be
excluded. We're going to have to compete with America and Korea and Japan and
Taiwan and India. And, therefore, all that we do must prepare us for global
competition and not lure us in to a sense that global competition doesn't exist
or can be avoided.
HUMPHRYS: Do you share the view that's been
expressed by a number of people recently that Britain should take a somewhat
less slavish attitude towards the various regulations and directives that come
out of Brussels, that we should be should be just - hold back a little bit from
them, before we rush to implement them?
PORTILLO: I'm very concerned if we ever
over-implement, if we're ever guilty of taking a European directive and adding
to it, and Michael Heseltine has conducted a campaign to make sure that that
doesn't happen. But, there is another consideration here. One of the great
things about Britain is that the rule of Law is absolute. Nobody is above it.
Regulations are actually applied, people obey laws, and many people do business
in Britain because they can be so certain that our laws are applied
even-handedly, and it would be a great mistake to give up Britain's reputation
for being law-abiding and everyone having fairness and equality under the Law.
HUMPHRYS: Even if we're the only one out of the
whole lot that actually does respect that particular bit of the Law, and
however daft that bit of the Law might seem to be, and you think lots of bits
of it are daft.
PORTILLO: Well, I certainly poke fun at things
that I think are daft. The thing is, the lesson I draw from this is we must be
extremely careful about what we sign up to, because when Britain signs a bit of
paper it says what it means and means what it says. We intend to apply that
which we sign up to, and that's why we need to be so cautious. That's why when
people say to me: you know, you're exaggerating, these things aren't going to
happen, nobody's planning this, that or the other, I always say to myself:
well, read what the text says, read what the Maastricht Treaty says. Have a
look at that because that is an indication of direction, and we need to make
sure that we have some firm positions, so that Europe develops in a way that is
acceptable to us, and not in ways that lead us in a direction we don't want.
HUMPHRYS: Well, as it happens, I've been reading
the Maastricht Treaty - not something I always do every weekend, it has to be
said. But, there it is, and what it says quite clearly is, we are moving
towards what we accepted in this treaty, a common defence policy which might in
time lead to a common defence.
PORTILLO: Correct.
HUMPHRYS: Now, nobody listening to you last
Tuesday afternoon, last Tuesday, would have thought that's what you were
talking about.
PORTILLO: I can't imagine why not. I mean that is
what I was talking about, and the expressions that have been made by European
political parties and by other European Ministers. But, the Maastricht Treaty
says precisely that, and of course this might move, might in time lead to a
common defence, was a fudge if you like. It was an arrangement between those
who wanted to move towards that and those who did not and Britain is a country
that will not wish to see defence decision making made by a majority vote of
Ministers in Europe.
HUMPHRYS: It would be absurd to merge our defence
co-operation into the European Community?
PORTILLO: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: Your words.
PORTILLO: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: I don't quite see how they fit with
those other words from that Treaty that says common defence.
PORTILLO: I think we will find at the next
inter-governmental conference that there will be those who will want to say
that the Western European Union, which is a broad body of European countries
who co-operate together on defence matters, should in time be merged into the
European Union. I am sure that that is a proposal that will come forward and
that will be one of the great issues for discussion on the defence side at the
inter-governmental conference.
HUMPHRYS: So that Treaty, that clause was
meaningless, completely meaningless. We signed up to something in the
knowledge that we'd absolutely no intention of going along with it because it
didn't mean anything.
PORTILLO: No, we signed up to something which
included the word "might" and we are making it clear that that is not the way
in which we will proceed.
HUMPHRYS: The word "might" didn't appear in front
of Common Defence Policy, it appeared in front of "might in time lead to a
common defence.."
PORTILLOR: Exactly.
HUMPHRYS: But a Common Defence Policy, suggests
to people common defence. The logic of that is fairly impressive, isn't it?
PORTILLO: Well, read my speech again. What I say
is that the essential element in the defence of Europe will continue to be the
Atlantic alliance. It remains for me unimaginable that we should think about
the defence of Europe without considering the interests of the Canadians and
the Americans in that defence of Europe. I do think though it's very important
that European nations should play their part - another thing that I said in my
speech. And, we will want to build up the practical ways in which European
nations can operate together.
HUMPHRYS: The sort of thing we've been doing for
years and years, in truth.
PORTILLO: Yes but we want to go further because
for the moment it's not clear that European nations, their armed forces, could
even mount peacekeeping operations together. Now, we need to put that right.
If NATO is going to be strong, European Countries need to be able to do their
bit. That's one of the things that the French and the Dutch and the British
have been doing near Sarajevo with the gunfire that we've been directing at the
Bosnian Serbs, proving that European nations are willing to do their bit. But
want I can't conceive of is moving from an alliance which is based on an
Atlantic alliance into an institution which is synonymous with the European
Union and that is what the whole discussion is about.
HUMPHRYS: So, no common defence, you envisage no
common defence in Europe in the terms that it was expressed in the Maastricht
Treaty at all, that's a dead letter.
PORTILLO: What I envisage is co-operation between
European countries..
HUMPHRYS: Which has always been going on.
PORTILLO: The continuance of the Atlantic
alliance but the political decisions remaining with the nation states, with the
governments of the European Community.
HUMPHRYS: In short, what it is now.
PORTILLO: Yes, although I would like to develop
European co-operation from where it is today.
HUMPHRYS: But within that framework, under the
NATO - within a NATO framework.
PORTILLO: Yes, but also developing the defence
co-operation of European nations under the Western European Union, as I say
European nations must be able to demonstrate what they can do together.
HUMPHRYS: But not integrating?
PORTILLO: Correct.
HUMPHRYS: ..the Western European Union.
PORTILLO: .into the European Union - correct.
HUMPHRYS: So to come back to what the Maastricht
Treaty said: anybody reading that Treaty and saying: ah, Britain signed that
Treaty, therefore we now know what Britain's policy is towards common defence
in Europe would be quite wrong because we have no intention of working towards
- to use the words of the Treaty - common defence.
PORTILLO: We would have no intention of allowing
the political decisions about when we were to fight and when we were not to
fight to be taken by a majority vote of the Council of Ministers, which is
precisely the point I made in my speech.
HUMPHRYS: We might as well have had an opt-out on
that, mightn't we? We had an opt-out on other things. Why shouldn't we have
an opt-out on defence?
PORTILLO: Well, there is more to be done on
defence but the more that is to be done is within bounds and limits. And it
cannot be taken with British consent, it cannot be taken to the position of
establishing commond defence, in the way that, today, we have a Common
Agricultural Policy, or in the way that the others have established a social
dimension - a Social Chapter in Europe.
HUMPHRYS: But, you reminded me a minute ago that
Britain means what it says and says what it means.
PORTILLO: Correct.
HUMPHRYS: In this case: We said something. We
didn't mean it!
PORTILLO: I think, you're flogging a dead horse
there. What the Treaty says is: might in time lead to a common defence.
HUMPHRYS: And, we are saying: under no...
PORTILLO: And, we are saying:
HUMPHRYS: ....circumstances would it lead to a
common defence policy.
PORTILLO: We are saying in no circumstances will
we allow the political decisions, about when Britain fights, or doesn't fight
to be taken by a majority vote in the European Community.
HUMPHRYS: Flogging a dead horse it may be but just
to conclude this there is absolutely no question of us going down that route.
We signed a Treaty and we did not intend that Treaty to be observed ultimately.
PORTILLO: No, John. That is just such a
misrepresentation of the position. The Treaty says that it might, in time,
lead to a common defence.
HUMPHRYS: And you have told me categorically this
morning that under no circumstances whatsoever will it lead to common defence,
in your terms.
PORTILLO: If common defence means bringing it
within the main part of the Treaty of Rome of the European Union, where there
is majority voting, the influence of the European Court of Justice, the
influence of the European Parliament that is what a Conservative Government
will stand out against.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. No single European army,
then. Clearly, you're not very keen on a single European army. You're not
very keen on a single European currency either. So, therefore - and I
understate it there - therefore, why do you not rule it out, make a manifesto
commitment to say: there will not be a single European currency. Britain will
not sign up to a single European currency, in the lifetime of the next
Parliament. Then, you'd have real, clear blue water between you and the
Labour Party.
PORTILLO: Back in July, the Prime Minister offered
his leadership for a contest and he won the contest and during the course of
that contest, the issue was put forward: should the Conservaties rule out
joining a Single European currency, or should they continue with the Prime
Minister's formula - which was to say that this was an issue that need only be
addressed at the time that it was put forward? And, by the way, at the time at
which it was put forward seemed to be receding into the distance.
HUMPHRYS: Right, he won a Leadership Election on
that, it's a question of whether you can win a General Election on that
position. That's the point because a lot of people out there say look: if you
don't intend to go into the damn thing, then, say so.
PORTILLO: I believe the issue is completely
settled. The Prime Minister stood on that question, he won on that question and
therefore the policy is as he puts it forward.
HUMPHRYS: Right so there's nothing between you and
the Labour Party is there because Mr Blair's position is: it is Single European
Currency, at the moment, inconsistent with the nation State. If it is
consistent with the nation state, we'll have it; if it isn't, we'll reject it.
So, there is not a cigarette paper between you and Mr Blair on this issue - an
issue where you had hoped to draw some clear, blue water.
PORTILO: Well, Mr Blair has said that he could
never imagine Britain being isolated in Europe.
HUMPHRYS: He's also said: no way to a Single
European Currency, unless...
PORTILLO: And that means to me that he would never
use the veto, never stand up for vital national interests, never be willing to
stand alone. And we know from his policy - he's told us - that on Day One he
would join the Social Chapter. So he's told us that from Day One, he's willing
to take upon British....
HUMPHRYS: That's not the Single European Currency
which is what we're talking about at the moment.
PORTILLO: No but you're talking about there not
being a cigarette paper of difference....
HUMPHRYS: On this particular issue-
PORTILLO: ...between Labour and Conservative and
there is an enormous difference.
HUMPHRYS: On control - of sovereign control - over
Britain's currency, which is the thing that may matter more to many people than
anything else. On that particular issue, there's nothing between you.
PORTILLO: But the Prime Minister has never said -
and I don't believe he ever will say - that you couldn't imagine Britain ever
being isolated in Europe. I mean, the Prime Minister has been willing to take
a stand. For example, on the Social Chapter, he's been willing to take a stand
on having the option to make up his mind about a Single Currency. That is not
an option which is enjoyed by the vast majority of the other Member States of
the European Union. Therefore, the Prime Minister has demonstrated that he is
willing to take a stand as he calculates it. There is no evidence at all that
Mr Blair would be willing to take a stand on anything. He has signed up to
everything and he says, as a matter of principle, he could never imagine
Britain being isolated. Therefore, there is a world of difference. And when
the Prime Minister says that he will make up his mind, at the time, we have
every reason to believe him. And, when Mr Blair says he'll make up his mind,
at the time, we have every reason to look at his record and see that he has
never stood out for a distinctive British position on anything and therefore
his mind is not really open on the question.
HUMPHRYS: But yours is? What you're saying is: it
might be and this is going to surprise some people - bearing in mind the things
you've said in the past - it might be that we could go into this thing because
we're not prepared to rule it out. That's what you're saying.
PORTILLO: Well, what I'm saying is that the
Government is led by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has really made a
point of putting this issue to his Party and the line has been decided and
settled. The Prime Minister won, fairly and squarely.
HUMPHRYS: You've sounded quite moderate this
morning. We've not heard any of the ranting and raving that we're told you
were guilty of last week. But hasn't that damaged you politically within your
own Party. The kind of thing that went on, that you did in Blackpool last
week. Hasn't it...doesn't it worry you a bit, the reaction there's been to it?
PORTILLO: Well the reaction at the time was a very
warm and kind one from the audience. The reaction from people who've written
in to me - people who weren't even necessarily Conservatives - has also been a
very warm one. Now, we're in the business of attracting supporters to our
point of view for the next Election.
HUMPHRYS: I was asking about your own particular
position?
PORTILLO: Well, I'm not in the business simply of
getting good articles by very intelligent people in very expensive newspapers.
HUMPHRYS: Or winning the support of your own
colleagues?
PORTILLO: Well, I would hope to have the support
of my own colleagues, you can't have it all of the time for everything that you
say. But I do believe that putting forward the distinctive Conservative
position, resisting a Federal Europe is something that attracts voters to the
Conservative Party.
HUMPHRYS: Je ne regrette rien?
PORTILLO: It doesn't repel them. That's right and
I'm happy to say it in French.
HUMPHRYS: Do, so.
PORTILLO: Je ne regrette rien.
HUMPHRYS: Michael Portillo, thank you very much,
indeed.
PORTILLO: Thank you.
...oooOooo...
|