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.