................................................................................ 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...