Let's get back to a common market in Europe how little they have understood the changes in the rest of the world, they have made "ever closer union" a rigid ideology to be implemented whatever the will of the peoples of Europe and at whatever the cost. The Nobel Peace Prize simply plays in to this otherworldly mindset. Of course, it would be churlish not to acknowledge the way that the EEC, then the EC, and then the EU helped the transition in Spain, Portugal and Greece from military dictatorships to liberal democracies. Or indeed the beacon of hope for political reform that was seen by the former East European nations dominated by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But to credit the European Union with keeping the peace on the European continent since World War II, is an unacceptable distortion of history that should not go uncorrected. If there is one institution that made this happen, it is NATO - not the European Union. It was the NATO military alliance that held together not only the European powers, but vitally, the United States, whose willingness to bankroll under spending European nations, eventually persuaded the Soviet Union that they could not win. It was NATO, whose political creed of liberty, law and democracy, which saw off the wicked ideology of communism. We did it because we believed in our values, that we were better than and not just different from the Soviets; we did it because free markets triumphed over state planning and; we did it because courageous leaders took the necessary risks to ensure a better future. Role of the Foreign Office I believe that a new consensus is beginning to build inside the United Kingdom. Incrementally, but increasingly, politicians are beginning to catch up with the public's attitude which points towards a new looser and largely economic relationship with the European Union. I, for one, hope to see "back to a common market" as the Conservative slogan on Europe at the next general election. Increasingly, debate has centred on need for a defined negotiating period over the EU issue ending in a much needed referendum. I believe that this would be a sensible course to take. We should set out what our relationship ought to be and make clear to our European partners that if a consensus can be reached, our continued membership of the EU could be the recommended course of action. Equally, if we were not given such assurances, then we have to be clear that the British people might well decide to leave. There are those who tell us that renegotiation is not an option or it cannot be done. Their power depends on our belief that we are powerless. It is bad enough when the message comes from the self-interested elites of Brussels but when it comes from their apologists here at home, it is particularly depressing. They are actually telling us that we must accept whatever Europe allows us to have and there is nothing we can do about it. It is a craven surrender of any notion of real national sovereignty. Those who are totally wedded to the concept of ever closer union -including most of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office for whom integration into the EU is virtually an article of faith- are likely to tell us that there is no point in asking for a new relationship because we will not be offered one. What is more, we are becoming less dependent on the EU for trade as we increasingly export to the parts of the world with expanding economies. That puts is in a strong position also. We are better placed than most to take advantage of the parts of the global economy that are still growing, away from the indebted west. Importance of timing Do we need to have this debate now? The answer is yes, because a number of our European partners are pushing for greater integration as part of their perceived solution to the Euro crisis. It is they who are moving the goal posts not us. I do not believe that "more Europe" is the answer to their problems unless they are willing to tackle the fundamental structural imbalances that lie in the economies of individual member states. Nor do I believe that the means of achieving this - what will effectively be perceived as external austerity programmes imposed by Berlin - can happen without a further rise in nationalist or extreme political sentiment. But if we are approaching a new consensus, at least in the Conservative party and amongst our natural supporters- who number many more than our recent voters- then we need to be aware of the dangers and constraints that time places upon us. If Conservatives are to have credibility on the European issue in the eyes of voters, then we must have a settled position that is clear, concise and consistent. We must have a clear position before 2014. The longer we hold a clear position, the more likely we are to be credible and thus to both take advantage of a growing trend amongst the British electorate and to see off parties such as UKIP by supplanting them rather than accommodating them.