In recent history much has been made on the Conservative Party’s stance on the European Union. Here, Graham Brady, Member of Parliament for Altrincham and Sale West, and Shadow Minister for Europe, outlines the Party’s current position.

The Conservative Party believes that the European Union needs profound reform if it is to prosper into the future. The EU has always reformed but historically the problem has been that ‘reform’ has (almost) always been in the wrong direction – more ‘competences’, more regulation, more costs. Until 1965 almost all Council decisions were taken by unanimity. Since then Qualified Majority Voting has been extended by almost every treaty amendment. Maastricht added 30 areas to QMV; Amsterdam another 24; Nice, a further 46, always taking decision making further away from the people.

As this process has gone on, many of the positive benefits that could have been delivered by European states co-operating and trading freely have been lost. Even the Single Market which should have been an engine for growth has delivered disappointing results – with growth and the growth of trade being slower since 1992 than before.

Perhaps even more damaging, the drive to create this excessively integrated bloc is increasingly coming into conflict with the further expansion of the EU – something that has so far produced perhaps the greatest benefit of all by helping to support the development of the fragile new democracies in Eastern and Southern Europe.

The question is, can we turn this around to make sensible reforms that move powers back closer to the people and their democratic structures? Reforms that lift the burdens on business and make it possible for us to compete?

I am optimistic that we can. Why? Firstly, no-one has ever tried before. Our determination to return social and employment laws to national control would mean a Conservative government would be the first ever elected with a mandate not just to stop ceding powers to the EU but to bring them back – to start unwinding the acquis communautaire.

Others have from time to time talked about doing this, but the return of powers to national control has never been brought forward as the policy of a Member State government.

It is also the case that for far too long, those who want to build the EU into a federal state have been given a free run. For new members coming in over the last few years, it has often seemed that the Constitution and the deeper integration it implies are part of an inevitable process.

We are determined to turn this around and create a new body of opinion in the EU which will champion reform to achieve a more flexible EU. In July the Conservative Party and the Czech Civic Democrats announced the establishment of a new Movement for European Reform (www.europeanreform.eu) which will bring together reform-minded politicians and opinion formers from across Europe.

So what levers do we have to make the others agree to changes that would need unanimity? Firstly, the requirement of unanimity works for us as well.

There are those who still want to pursue the 1950s goal of ever closer union, who want new powers to create a federal union along the lines envisaged in the constitution – with its own foreign minister – its own military – its own taxes – and with harmonised economic policies.

The United Kingdom does not want any of those things.

But if others want to proceed they will need our consent. This is where we can make a deal that is mutually beneficial:

• The creation of a genuinely flexible EU that allows for different Member States or groups of Member States to have different types and degrees of integration.

• For the UK that would be less than at present – for others it may be more.

Sometimes it is suggested that the others would just respond by throwing us out?

I don’t think that this is realistic, not only because it would be against their economic interests but for compelling, political reasons:

• on one hand there are those like the German CDU who see the UK as a vital ally in restraining the growth of social and employment costs, fighting for freer markets and against protectionism .

• and on the other hand there are conviction federalists who would see the expulsion of Britain as an even more massive blow to the ‘European Project’ than conceding the principle of flexibility. For them the loss of one of the most important Member States would diminish the stature of the European Union in a way that would be unthinkable.

The success of a Conservative Government in bringing back control over our social and employment laws will have two extremely important implications.

• First, the principle of ever closer union and the one way ratchet of the acquis will have been breached.

• Secondly, once the UK can make more sensible arrangements for lighter regulation and lower costs, other member states will be forced to confront the implications of their own high cost regime much more directly.

Looking at the question ‘can reform happen’ in the longer term; we have to look at the long term economic trends and pressures.

Today, the US represents 25 % of global GDP, the EU accounts for 25% with China on 10%.

In a couple of decades if current trends continue, we will see the US holding its own at 25%, China moving to 25% and the EU at only half its present importance at 12% of global GDP.

In other words, in 20 years time the average European will be half as well-off as the average American.

It is clear from this not only that reform can happen but that reform must happen because the alternative isn’t a prosperous integrated European Union with real weight and influence in the world, it is rather a costly over-regulated backwater of little consequence in the world.

This leads me to the absolute certainty that reform will happen.

But it can happen in one of two ways – the British Conservative way:

• flexibility, lower costs and doing it in the next few years from choice.

Or

• waiting until economic decline and the loss of influence force the EU to confront the folly of its current path and make the necessary changes later from a position of far greater weakness.

Common sense dictates the former option.

Graham Brady is Shadow Minister for Europe and Member of Parliament for Altrincham and Sale West

Over the fast few weeks, there have been a number of polls in the newspapers, all telling us different things, as to the popularity of the three main parties with the general public. Stephen Crabb MP, explains what the polls mean to an MP.

Last week saw a flurry of opinion polls which seem to point in different directions.

Back at the start of last week MORI, bizarrely, were reporting a 2% lead for Labour and the headlines were all about poll gloom for Cameron and the Tories.

Last Tuesday Communicate Research, run by Andrew Hawkins (my old boss from our London Chamber of Commerce days), gave the Conservative Party 38%, six points clear of Labour who were on 32%. Then ICM gave us a bumper 10 point lead (with Lab-29% and Lib Dem-22%).

Friday’s (27th October) YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph also shows a healthy Conservative lead (Con-39%, Lab-32%, Lib Dem-16%).

Even in these volatile times the political mood of the country cannot possibly have swung so much in a few short days. So what is one to make of all these figures?

The real number-crunchers who seem to understand these things hang out on a website called politicalbetting.com. They spend hours scientifically discussing the figures and the research methodology used by each pollster. I claim no such expertise but here is my reading of the current situation:

• The MORI poll seems to be way off and can be disregarded

• David Cameron’s lead in the polls is real and sustained; there has been a definite shift in the mood of the country during 2006

• The shift is not yet big enough to deliver an overall Conservative election victory which means that we have some hard work ahead if we are to avoid a ‘hung’ Parliament at the next General Election

• The proportion of people who care little for the main parties seems to be growing (none of the Big Three gets anywhere near commanding majority support)

Now here’s my main point: none of the above conclusions comes from this week’s opinion polls. A few Saturday mornings spent talking informally to people on their doorsteps, in an area with a reasonable social mix, can provide exactly the same general conclusions as those that come from the various polls. Furthermore, by doing this you can glean huge amounts of information about the issues that really matter to people on a daily basis. Even more crucially, it can demonstrate to people that you care more about THEM than you do about their VOTES.

So, a big lesson for elected politicians and aspiring candidates: Don’t spend more than 10 seconds thinking about the opinion polls. Make time instead to knock on doors and talk to people yourself. And, who knows, you might even make some valuable friends for you and your party…

Stephen Crabb MP, was elected to Parliament in 2005, and is Member of Parliament for Preseli Pembrokeshire. You read more of Stephen’s thoughts and opinions here