Launching the Ethical Foreign Policy was certainly easier than implementing it and there are many who would say that Labour failed to see this through. I would say that it was a noble but an unrealistic goal.

As far as the Conservative party is concerned, our approach to foreign affairs will be, as David Cameron has put it, both liberal and Conservative.

Liberal – because Britain must be open and engaged with the world, and play our full part in making that world a better place for the rest of humanity. We will support human rights and champion the cause of democracy and the rule of law at every opportunity.

But our policy will also be Conservative – hard-headed and practical, dealing with the world as it is and not as we wish it was.

Foreign policy is one of those areas where we are in agreement on many issues, such as the need to stabilise Afghanistan, not to allow Iran to become a nuclear state and to see the Middle East Peace process succeed.

When our goals are the same and converge we want to ensure that we work together to ensure that they are achieved. On other occasions, like on the future of the EU, where we do not see eye to eye, we make our case strongly and work to persuade the government to take a different approach.

How would voting NO to Lisbon meet my criteria for any political decision, i.e. which choice makes my family 1) safer 2) happier 3) wealthier 4) freer 5) most benefits my small market town 6) benefits most people in the country and 7) cause least hardship to as few people as possible.

The main reason for saying ‘No’ to Lisbon is that it damages democratic accountability across a range of key issues.

The Lisbon Treaty, like its earlier guise as the EU Constitution, would significantly increase the EU’s power over foreign, asylum and immigration policy and criminal justice. It would also make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, whose ultimate effect would be that we would see more judge-made law from the European Court of Justice.

All this would end up meaning that more and more decisions that affect your and your family’s safety and freedom – the issues that you succinctly identify as among the basics for any voter’s rational political choices – would be made not by elected politicians here in Britain but at the EU level, partly by institutions that are not elected, like the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.

So whether voters here thought they were wise or foolish decisions they would be increasingly unable to do anything about it. And those of us who would like to be in a position to do what’s best for the British people, and be held to account for it, would find that our hands were bound by putting the EU in charge in areas where, I believe, action is best left to national governments.

The Treaty would also have an effect which would, over time, make all of us less wealthy: one of the EU’s great successes has been in enforcing free and fair competition across the EU.

That has made all of Europe’s economies more competitive and more productive and thus generate more wealth.

However, Lisbon downgrades the importance of free competition under EU law to allow for more national protectionism. Protectionism never works in the long term and this is a foolish move when globalisation means that we have not only to compete against our neighbours but earn our keep in a worldwide economy.

Do emerging threats such as climate change, global economic depression and terrorism cause you to re-evaluate your position on the EU? Won't we be safer as part of a large bloc and don't we need treaties like Lisbon to bind us together?

I have always believed that Britain benefits from its membership of the European Union, so these new problems haven’t required a change of mind. Climate change is a perfect example of the kind of challenge we need the EU to help solve.

Lisbon wouldn’t help us deal with any of them, though. It would change nothing of substance on climate change, it would damage our economies (see above) and it would constrain national governments’ flexibility to work together to fight the scourge of terrorism. We’d be much better off without it.

Don't you feel that providing the public with a referendum sets a dangerous precedent in British politics for future major decisions? And, if the Conservatives came to power, do you feel you would offer the public a referendum on any other issues? 

If there were a referendum, with the public voting in favour of the treaty, how do you feel this would affect the Conservative party's approach to European policy?

I don’t think holding would set a dangerous precedent at all. In fact, holding a referendum on this Treaty would be an excellent start.

If you are proposing a major, perhaps permanent, change to how decisions are made there is a good case for consulting voters in a referendum. And if you’re proposing to hand significant decision-making powers away from our parliament and our courts to the EU then people should certainly have a say.

That’s why the Conservative Party has said that if the British people choose a Conservative government at the next election we will change the law so that any new EU Treaty that transfers powers (‘competences’ in Euro-jargon) would have to be put to a referendum.

It is quite extraordinarily arrogant and undemocratic that this Government should be forcing through this Treaty without letting the British people have any say on the matter at all, either at a general election or in a referendum, especially when they promised a referendum on the substantially identical EU Constitution in their election manifesto.

It is even more shocking that the Labour Government’s clear preference is for the Irish to be made to vote twice before the British people get a chance to vote once.

Do you ever despair of the EU? Don't lots of people who deal with the Commission and Parliament over time seem to become a bit jaded and disillusioned with the bureaucracy and petty protection of national interests

Do I despair of the EU? I despair of the lack of accountability and transparency and the unwillingness by the political elites to be straight with the public as to where power now lies.

The Treaty debate has not united the Conservatives, but it has lead to a broad agreement that in the interest of gaining power they better not talk about Europe for the time being. The only concrete promise David Cameron ever gave on Europe still remains to be honoured - the Conservative MEPs are still part of the European People's Party block in Brussels, even though during his leadership campaign he promised to leave the grouping.

The public consensus is that there are too many rules and regulations coming from Brussels, and the European Union has too much control over our lives. There is no public support for the Lisbon Treaty. A "yes" vote is a false hypothesis. The Conservative Party will respect the result of any referendum, and thinks the Labour Party is denying us one because it knows it would lose badly

The European Union has done little to keep Britain safe from terrorism. We would be safer if we could control our own borders, make our own laws to keep the British people safe, and defend our historic civil liberties. In many ways it is the EU’s rules and regulations, which are preventing us from doing so.

Saying ‘No’ to Europe would minimise Britain's economic clout, which is based on trade with Europe. Non-EU member states like Switzerland or Norway have to pay hundreds of millions of Euros to the EU for the right to trade. Their laws have to be in conformity with EU norms. The UK outside the EU would be without influence on the world stage and would be lose all the inward investment that comes here because we are in Europe.

I see no loss to the UK from having our ideas, vision and values incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty. The losers are the isolationists, protectionists, UKIP and Conservatives who want to detach the UK from having power and influence in European affairs

In 2004, Tony Blair offered a referendum on the now defunct Constitution. It was killed by the French and Dutch voters in a referendum in 2005.

The Lisbon Treaty is completely different. It is of less significance than the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty, which the Conservative government rightly submitted to Parliament for ratification. The UK has always ratified treaties in Parliament and it would be wrong to betray parliamentary sovereignty on this treaty

It was right to have a referendum on devolution and it would be right to have a referendum if the executive were going to go push for independence.

Is the key motivation behind your campaign a desire to minimise the EU's strangehold over British legislation or simply an effort to give the people a democratic voice, whatever their decision?

The whole question has been blown wide open again by the Irish no vote. We will be fighting to stop the verdict of the Irish people being circumvented by undemocratic means. The whole European political class is involved in an effort to smear the Irish as ignorant, and to carry on as if nothing has happened.

The French Europe Minister says, "I don't think you can say the treaty of Lisbon is dead even if the ratification process will be delayed.” The German Foreign Minister says, “We are sticking with our goal for it to come into force. The ratification process must continue.” What arrogance!

Clearly, people who thought the treaty was dead, just because people had said no to it, were mistaken. The Irish no vote means nothing to the euro elite. We will be working to make sure the verdict of the Irish people is respected.

I would vote no – (a) because the EU does not need more powers (b) to send a message that it needs reform and (c) because the process has been so dishonest.

Cast your mind back - this whole business started when the Irish voted against the Nice treaty in 2001. In response the leaders of the European Union promised they would start to make the EU more democratic, more transparent, and start handing powers back to the member states.

But things quickly went off course. Although the leaders of the EU had signed up to these fine principles, and had even written them down in a grand document called the “Laeken Declaration”, the great majority did not actually believe in them in the slightest. 

Instead, EU leaders appointed the federalist Valery Giscard d’Estaing to draw up an EU Constitution, which gave even more powers to the EU. Under the Constitution, everything from immigration to your electricity bill would become a subject for Brussels to decide on, by majority vote.

When the Constitution was torpedoed by the French and Dutch, EU leaders simply dredged it up, gave it a fresh coat of paint, and had another go. I am not surprised the Treaty has been sunk again.

Both. I would rather have a referendum and lose it than have no referendum at all. But I want people to be consulted. 

More generally I believe in decentralization – power flowing back down from the EU to the local and national level, and an increase in accountability and transparency not just in the EU but also more generally – for example the ever-growing number of quangos.