
The Thatcher interview that sparked talk of a European referendum – and sealed her fate
This article is published as part of The Telegraph's Greatest Interviews series, which revisits the most significant, informative and entertaining conversations with notable figures over our 170 year history. The below interview is introduced by original interviewer Charles Moore. It appears as it was originally published.
This interview took place on a Friday, a dark and dismal November evening in Downing Street. The following Thursday, Mrs Thatcher announced her resignation. When we met, I could not know this would happen, but I noticed that she was anxious and all over the place. She talked too much, delivering an irrelevant and therefore unpublishable account of European history from the Roman Empire onwards. She needed a whisky afterwards, as did I.
Her published words, though, introduced a clear new element in her thinking – a referendum. Her colleagues hated this idea, and her decision to go public with it probably contributed to her fall; but from then onwards the idea of a vote on Europe was 'out there'. Her boat would come in more than 25 years later, with the result of the Brexit referendum in 2016. – Charles Moore
Owing to the punctilious rules of the British Civil Service, I was not guided to the drawing-room of No 10 Downing Street by the Prime Minister's press secretary, Bernard Ingham. The leadership campaign is a party matter, and so I was accompanied by one of Mrs Thatcher's political staff. As I entered. Mrs Thatcher was complaining about the heat and struggling to open the recently painted sash window. She gave me whisky, resisted it for herself, after a moment's wrestling with temptation, and then spoke for more than an hour. In the House of Commons the day before, she had looked drawn and tired. On Thursday evening, she looked much better – alert and relaxed.
I asked Mrs Thatcher first whether she thought the coming contest was the most important of her life. 'Every contest that I fight is always the most important because it is the most immediate. Life is really just a series of hurdles and you have to take them.'
Did she see this as the last battle? 'No, I don't.'
Did she regret the contest, particularly when there was a possibility of war in the Gulf?
'I cannot complain about there being a contest. … It does obviously have some effect which I could well do without at the moment, but if someone else decides to have one, the rules permit it, so we just get on with it.'
On the credentials of Mr Heseltine, the Prime Minister was succinct: 'I never discuss my opponent, never.' So I asked her instead whether she blamed herself at all that the contest was taking place. There had been several senior resignations: '... Do you think your treatment of senior ministers has brought this contest upon you?'
'No, Mr Heseltine walked out of Cabinet because he would not accept collective responsibility, and with an important decision coming up, he decided not to. And then he decided to walk out. It was not personalities at all. in any way.' About Sir Geoffrev Howe, Mrs Thatcher's tone was more sad and puzzled. She seemed personally hurt by his speech. He had said that she was difficult to work with: 'After eleven and a half years it is a little bit late to make this accusation, it really is. I could complain too. I could complain a lot. Whatever would be the point? ... No-one has ever found it difficult to put a point to me. They know I thrive on argument. They know full well, I have no toes to tread on, I have no resentments to anyone; if I suddenly come up with something and am a bit sharp now and then they know it's over. Over.'
The criticisms had been made, however. The Conservative Party was clearly not united. How could she reunite it?
'Well, exactly in the same way as we have done before. There have always been certain differences of emphasis about Europe. We shall unite because the things that we believe in together are far greater, and far more fundamental, than the things we disagree on. You see, in the end, if you look at Geoffrey's speech, it did not come down to fundamental policy disagreement – I've been through it again and again. He said we do not want a single currency imposed upon us. I agree.'
'But, Prime Minister, he also spoke very strongly about what he described as your 'nightmare vision' of Europe. He said it would be a tragedy for our country if it lived in a 'ghetto of sentimentality about the past'.'
'It's a very, very emotional phrase. It bears no relation to reality, and I would hardly call our history of parliamentary democracy and the common law, the heritage of freedom under the rule of law and what it has done for Europe living in a ghetto of sentimentality. I would say that people who do not learn from the past are perhaps very foolish and will make fundamental mistakes in the future. Our tradition has been of moderate parliaments, based on the financial control of the executive. It has served Europe well. Our tradition has been that things grow and evolve.…Things are stronger when they happen that way.
'So we are naturally suspicious of people who come along and desire to do something quite different from what you've got now and offer a blueprint which says, 'You've got to go to that.' It won't work and, what is more, I would say it is wrong to sign up to anything before you know what its effect will be upon your own people.... That's our tradition, it's right, and it's stood people in very, very good stead, and to dismiss that as a ghetto of sentimentality about the past, well, lots of people have died for that past, died that we might have our present.'
'And do you think that it is almost a matter of life and death for the British nation?'
'No. I have known many things in my life which were alleged to be inevitable. People said that about communism: it was inevitable. And some of us fought it. And that inevitability crumbled. And that inevitability of socialism in this country is crumbling. You never, if you are in politics and you are a leader, accept that things are inevitable. You are here to influence them in the way which you think is fundamentally right and best for your country. That is why I am here. That is why I take the path I do and it hasn't served Britain badly for 11 years.'
Did Mrs Thatcher think that we were at a juncture in Europe where the independence of the United Kingdom was at stake?
'If it came to saying that we agree with a single currency before we've even tried a common currency that would be a very, very important juncture. It would not be a hurdle that I could take and I don't think many of my party could take it. Because people haven't worked out what a single currency means. It means that not only do you give up your present currency, you have no power or control over your interest rate.
'Any difference which emerges between you and 11 very different countries comes out in another way. It comes out in unemployment, and you just have to sit back and take it. It comes out in vast movements of people as they leave the poorer countries and move to the better off ones …. Or, you have countries coming along to the rest of us and saying, 'You cannot do this, we must have enormous grants from you'. So, to give up, not only your own currency, but all the rights that go with it to a non-accountable central bank, where you would only be one of 12, would be quite fundamental. At least it should be discussed again and again, and the full impact put before the people, for this will be a matter for both Parliament and people.'
Here the Prime Minister talked of the British alternative proposal, the hard ECU [European Currency Unit]. I raised Sir Geoffrey's complaint that, on this, she had broken her own Chancellor's bat before he went into the crease. Mrs Thatcher hit back.
'If I may say so, it was a very, very silly thing to say. Because the first thing you do if you've got a broken bat is quite easy, get a proper bat. The Chancellor, who was sitting next to me, is a very good cricketer; he said, 'You just get a different bat.''
'But the point was that you appeared to dismiss the policy which you were about to embark on by saying that you didn't think the hard ECU would be very widely used.'
'But that was not a matter for me. It's a matter of choice. I thought it would be used for commerce, and by people who wanted to travel around Europe. What is it about all of these people who regard themselves as having superb freedom of speech but me having none? What poor wee things if they cannot allow other people the same freedom of speech as they demand before the assembled company for themselves. Poor wee bairns. Poor wee bairns. I venture an opinion that people in this country will probably prefer to keep their own currency. But it's a matter of choice.... I am prepared to put it to the choice of the people. Why are they not?'
I asked about the wider principle involved in questions of Europe. Would she put the constitutional issue to the British people, either at a general election, or a referendum?
'We're certainly not there yet. And frankly, we haven't even started the Intergovernmental Conferences. There is a great deal of argument still to be carried out.' Mrs Thatcher believed that she had a good chance of prevailing: 'It's often left to me, and people in Europe know it's often left to me, to say things which they don't and to make things clear which would otherwise remain cloudy.' But she added: 'I would not rule out a referendum. My views on referendums are really quite simple. I think you should only hold them on constitutional issues. I think they are right for constitutional issues because otherwise you cannot separate out a particular issue in an election…. It is a mechanism which enables you to put a single question to the people.'
She was not saying that there definitely would be a referendum, but at the time of British entry into the EEC, 'we were given certain undertakings then that our national identity would not suffer. I think those undertakings might not be able to be given if we went to a single currency'
Mrs Thatcher pointed out, however, how successful the current European policy had been. She cited better control of the Common Agricultural Policy, a better budget deal for Britain, the single market, and she insisted on the coherence of the policy: 'The policy which we have got now, which John Major and I have worked on together with the City, is a policy which everyone can unite behind. Everyone. And they were united behind it.
'It is a policy which we have deliberately worked out that could unite everyone, which doesn't pre-empt the final result. This is the policy which says that we have a hard ECU of common currency alongside national currencies. You will see how it develops from that…. The fact that some have broken ranks is not due to us.' It was her view of Europe that was positive: 'I do have an ideal of Europe; I don't think we are living up to it. I think that the way ahead that I want to go, which is co-operation between nation states, has done Europe very well, has brought it this far, will do it very well in the future. I think if you try to force things into a mould you will, in fact, succeed in having people rebelling against it, instead of being with it.' Europe's cultural greatness came from the fact that it had 'never been under one domination'.
It was time to turn to domestic issues, and Mr Heseltine's promise that he would institute a 'fundamental review of the poll tax'. How would she reassure worried Conservative MPs in marginal seats about this unpopular tax?
'We have in fact had a fundamental review of the poll tax. Michael was at Environment. He knows what rates were like. He knows they were absolutely appalling. He didn't come forward with anything else, and rates were still hated. It's very easy to say you'll come forward with a fundamental review. We have had one. The recommendations that were made there are being put through in legislation now.'
The Prime Minister criticised Mr Heseltine's suggestion that the poll tax be reduced by transferring education spending to central government.
'It will mean over four pence on the standard rate of income tax, and you have absolutely no way of knowing whether the local authorities will reduce the community charge or spend the extra money they have got. And you will find a quotation from Michael which says that if you judge from the past, you will find that they don't always reduce their rate core, or community charge core: they tend to spend more money. So you would have a very much bigger income tax and you would still have a high community charge.'
I brought the questioning back to the details of the coming contest: 'You have said that you will fight on if you only win on the first ballot by one vote. How could such conduct heal the split in your party?'
'I have not caused the split. It is not I who will cause an election.'
'What if a unifying figure like Mr Hurd is proposed?'
'Are you going to take certain people and say they unify? I have been here nearly 11 and a half years. I have had to fight the policies through. They have done very, very well for Britain. And the policies we have fought through have been the policies of the Cabinet.'
Wasn't there an able younger generation now waiting?
'The younger generation are very much for the things that I am doing. The younger generation is very much for free enterprise, for the rule of law, creating wealth before you distribute it, accepting that we have to have a budget, that we can't spend more freely. The younger generation is realistic, good.'
So wasn't it time to make way for one of their number? Mrs Thatcher's answer was dry. 'It is not being suggested that I hand over to one of the younger generation, with respect.'
Mrs Thatcher denied that the situation was the same as when she challenged Mr Heath in 1975. Then it had been the party that insisted on a leadership challenge. She had only been pressed into standing when Sir Keith Joseph decided not to. Besides, the present situation was '... very, very different from a Leader of the Opposition who had lost an election as Prime Minister. If I had lost an election as Prime Minister I would expect to be challenged.'
The Prime Minister emphasised her readiness to abide by the rules. I asked if, by the same token, she would insist on the rules being followed if she won outright on the first ballot, but by a narrow margin.
'If we win according to the rules, we win, and that's it.'
What if the famous 'men in suits' – the equivalent of the Milk Street mafia in 1974 – were to come to her and tell her that, because her victory was narrow, she should step down?
'The rules were not made by me. I abide by the rules. I expect others to abide by the rules.' That seemed admirably clear. My next question was rather abrupt: 'Five more years?' 'I beg your pardon?' (But I formed the impression that she had heard.)
'Five more years?'
'I'm so glad you think that we will win the vote on Tuesday and that we will win the election. I think that whatever I say you will trap me into saying something else. I am not everlasting.'
A message came that Mr Thatcher was in the private flat above, and wanted his supper. 'I'm sure he does,' said the Prime Minister, and allowed herself (and me) some whisky before leaving to do her domestic duty.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)

The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘It feels good to say I'm Irish': How second passports grant readers post-Brexit travel freedom
As Brits grapple with the post-Brexit reality of restricted EU access, many Independent readers have been sharing why they've pursued second citizenship – and how it's reshaped their identity, freedom, and sense of belonging. Jessica Furseth's article struck a chord with those determined to reclaim their right to freedom of movement through ancestral ties, even if it meant wrestling with red tape. Her piece captured the reality of a growing trend: UK-born citizens pursuing second passports not for novelty, but necessity, reestablishing the rights they feel were stripped away by Brexit. Our readers described frantic searches through family records, cross-border paperwork marathons, and bittersweet awakenings to long-dormant heritage. Irish citizenship was the most popular route, but many also explored their Polish, German and Italian heritage. While a few wrestled with feelings of imposter syndrome, most said the outcome was worth it – not just for smoother holidays or easier work permits, but to feel connected to Europe again. The overarching view was that Brexit took something personal – and that this wave of passport reclamation isn't just administrative – it's emotional: about agency, identity, and quietly defying the walls that went up. Here's what you had to say: Jus sanguinis Husband asserted his right to Italian citizenship on the basis of jus sanguinis, or bloodline, unbroken through his mother's family. Took about two weeks after getting a codicil on his birth certificate, as a result of which my daughter has done the same (found herself frozen out of jobs otherwise) and my son should have got around to it, having studied in Italy for six years. I will be applying on the grounds of marriage, only slightly more complicated. All of this became an issue solely because of Brexit, and I'm so annoyed that the doors have been slammed in the faces of Britons who valued EU membership. Wonderful to still have my European citizenship As someone who, years after his hair became grey, became truly interested in his Irish heritage, I can only say it's wonderful to still have my European citizenship. I can see my daughter in Holland as I please – no 90 days nonsense. I can cross any Schengen border as a true European citizen. This, as we go, for example, as a family to the Christmas fair in Oldenburg (Germany). But as we pass Mr Farage and his German-speaking family doing their Christmas shopping in Germany too, it's good to know that more people have found this loophole! Brad It feels good to say I'm Irish I can relate to Tom Harrison. My father told me many years ago that I could claim Irish citizenship because his father was Irish, but I never saw the need. But post-Brexit, I wanted to remain an EU citizen, so I went for it, and it's a much simpler task now with the advent of the internet. Despite visiting family and friends and having many holidays in Ireland over the years, I do feel a bit of a fraud. That said, I am immensely grateful to the Irish government for allowing it. I sometimes feel a little uncomfortable telling people that I'm British, but it feels good to be able to say that I'm Irish. Bionicpants Travel is what the EU is about These people are pro-EU for the right reasons: the freedom to travel, work and live all over Europe. That is what the EU is about, the Ever Closer Union. You may notice, they don't mention the nice side effects, like frictionless trade, no additional roaming, or certain subsidies. They embrace the Euro and the Schengen area. Should the UK want to join, they have to embrace the principles of the Ever Closer Union as well. It helps if you focus on what that means, instead of repeating the economic benefits. As said, those are just nice side effects. Orval Can we please have Harry Kane, Declan Rice and Grealish back? As an Irish person, it's very satisfying to hear these stories of people with Irish heritage benefiting from getting an Irish passport. Can we please have Harry Kane, Declan Rice and Grealish back as a sign of appreciation? All very pleasant chaps too from what I can see. AnonyMousse Fast lane My mother is an immigrant from an EU country, and I got an EU passport about three years ago, as a result. Interestingly, I went to Spain recently, and when spotted with my EU passport getting off a flight from Britain, they ushered me and my friend (with her British passport) through EU passport control. She went via the EU fast lane because she was with me. Prenst Switch nationality mid-flight After having lived in the UK for 18 years, Brexit made it necessary for me to apply for naturalisation as a British citizen. When I now travel to my native Germany, I have to leave the UK on my British passport and arrive in Frankfurt on my German passport. As per German law, I have to use my German ID to enter/leave Germany. I could, of course, enter any other EU country on my British passport, but this would mean queuing and getting an entry stamp and then an exit stamp. When returning to the UK, I then 'switch' nationality again in mid-flight from being a German in the EU to being a Brit in the UK. On one occasion, I flew from Tenerife to London... as a German from Tenerife to Madrid and as Brit from Madrid to London. Baldrick's Plan Legal technicalities My mother is a French citizen, as is all her side of the family, with French government certificates back to the 14th century, but I am refused citizenship (despite also living and paying taxes in France for eight years). Reason: a legal technicality called desuetude. You may want to do some research before handing over a few grand to the lawyers! Frankx33 You can't complain about being considered a foreigner Britain's approach to the EU always was a "what can I get in return" one... called it cakeism. What matters is being in the slow lane, no longer being able to live and work, etc. Britain would have loved to retain all EU perks without committing. You can't complain about being considered as a foreigner while being one and expecting the same rights as EU citizens.... Europeancitizen I don't know what I would have done with just a UK passport Got my precious Irish passport a couple of years ago, thanks to my grandfather, who was born in Ireland. This has allowed me to move from Italy back to France following retirement without any issues. I don't know what I would have done with just a UK passport, as there is no mechanism for UK passport holders to move from one EU place of residence to another. Farage, Johnson, Gove, etc, should be imprisoned for the lies they told. I cannot believe that Farage is still so popular, says a lot for the intelligence of a good percentage of the UK population. Very sad. YaketyYak Keep the family in one piece with my Irish passport My father was born in Ireland in 1916. I was born in England in 1944. He was an RAF pilot. I ended up marrying a German and lived happily in Solingen (which my father's squadron bombed!) until that swine Farage stirred up his sleazy chauvinism. Thanks to my father, I was able to keep the family in one piece with my Irish passport. I am immensely grateful. And to the Germans, too, who have made me very welcome Kenhubert Heartening It is heartening to read the stories of the people who have been able to reclaim the EU citizenship stripped from them by the disgusting and mendacious Brexiteers, who have yet to apologise to the rest of us for stripping us of our rights. Sturluson Not just the young It's not just young people. Us older folk are also going for dual passports after Brexit cut off our travel freedom. My Irish grandfather has now continued to be very useful after his death! JustMeHere Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day's top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click 'log in' or 'register' in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.


Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Reflections on populism, as Tory political black hole puts democracy at risk
PA Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Putting Nigel Farage back in his box may require more than just exposing the shortcomings of populist leaders now causing electoral upsets and mayhem throughout Western democracies. The Hamilton by-election produced a Labour victory. The SNP identified the wrong opponent and lost. The Tories just collapsed. The Reform Party though, confirmed the danger that they pose to our country courtesy of an electoral system built for another age and a political black hole created by 14 years of a soulless and reckless Tory Government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Hidden from public view until polling day in Scotland, populism, a seemingly innocuous term and very much of English origin, via UKIP and the Brexit party, has now emerged as a frightening reminder of a political idea which is now tearing America apart and overwhelming any idea of democracy and justice. The Scottish by-election and the recent elections in England should be a wake up call for the traditional or progressive parties in the UK who are in need themselves of 'reform' based on a deeper understanding of a changing electorate. The political black hole left by the last Tory Government, reflects their running of Britain into the ground, souring the mood of electors and paving the way for populism to take hold. What is crucial, is not just the austerity, national decline, diminishing expectations, economic stagnation and the savaging of the public realm , but the erosion of trust and respect for politics resulting in a bitter, angry, insecure electorate exhibiting all the signs of low mood, a negative psyche, and a political Zeitgeist requiring a new spirit for a new age refurbishing our beliefs, attitudes, feelings and values, a new driving force reflecting new concerns and aspirations of a different future. This is vital if we are to deal with the much more frightening and damaging legacy. Rachel Reeves successfully used the term, financial black hole to fix in the minds of electors the extent of the financial carnage facing the new Government. Progressives now need to use and understand the term, 'political black hole' if we are to confront the crisis in our politics, and the stress being imposed upon our democracy. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sounds alarmist but there is evidence everywhere of complacency and the familiar refrain of 'it couldn't happen here' despite populism and authoritarianism finding expression today in the form of American troops on the streets of Los Angeles. We need a vision of the future that inspires and offers solutions to our more intractable problems and restores trust in our politics and politicians. Any sense of alienation can find a home in Populist parties. For progressive parties, a period of reflection would make more sense than being tempted to drift to the right and compete with the divisive ideas of the Reform Party. The 'scunner' factor is creating doubts about the relevance of our traditional politics to the daily lives of electors. Entertaining the idea of a cult leader should be deeply offensive to supporters of democracy. Deep seams of discontent could be easily mined, by Farage who is the consummate opportunist, a predator circling for political prey. There are however other issues which may more reliably explain our vulnerable democracy and the ramshackle nature of our electoral system. Evidence abounds of an ancient electoral system not fit for modern day purposes and an electorate weary and dissatisfied with political outcomes. Too often we cast electors in a series of political dramas but they feel sidelined in what should be about them and at times feeling more like the victims of politics not the beneficiaries. Policies often lack stories or messaging or relevance of where people fit in? The discourse at Westminster is often perceived as too complex, technocratic, managerial, London centric, and lost in complex issues such as AI, Growth, Gender and GDP where a lack of inclusive or illustrative narratives are alienating people. Westminster is making few concessions to the idea of four nation politics. And we still live in an over centralised Union. The missteps by the Government in its early stages undoubtedly undermined the Labour Party creed and brand. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There are however deep seated long term issues that must be addressed, in particular the voting system. The 'First past the Post,' method of electing MPs is antiquated and undemocratic and could be a dangerous entry vehicle for populists. In July 2024, the Labour government was elected with a landslide of 412 MPs out of the total number of 650 MPs in the House of Commons. But this was achieved with only 9.7 million votes out of a total of 48 million people in the UK registered and eligible to vote. Labour gained 20 per cent of the total eligible vote and 30 percent of those who did vote: this means that nearly 40 million people didn't vote Labour or didn't bother to vote! Reform won 5 seats, with over 4 million votes the Conservative party with nearly 7 million votes won 121 seats. Our electoral process can deliver a huge majority of seats in the House of Commons on the back of a minority of voters in the country. None of this makes sense and remains a key issue in our weakening democracy. Westminster represents constituencies but doesn't reflect the people. It provides a reminder of what a party like Reform could achieve, with a deeply divided country, the collapse of Tory party and a fragile and less trusting electorate. This is why progressive parties must build consensus politics. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Turnout also matters. The 2024 Westminster election turnout of 59.4 was the second lowest since 1918. A record high of 83.9% was achieved in 1950. The Scottish Parliament by-election in Hamilton had a turnout of 44.2 percent of those eligible to vote. For some this was a decent outcome but surely after an intensely fought campaign, a figure of nearly 60 percent not bothering to vote is an indictment of a failed voting and political system and ultimately our democracy. Our electoral system favours the two main parties. What is happening in Europe requires a wake up call to recognise that populism inevitably leads to authoritarianism, and a threat to

South Wales Argus
6 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Concern over proposed decriminalisation of killing unborn children
How? By removing 'all legal protection' from the unborn child via 'the Crime and Policing Bill' going through Parliament, by tabling extreme amendments to this Bill that would decriminalise the killing of unborn children (up to birth) by removing the little legal protection they still have. We must write and ask our MPs to vote "no" against these extreme amendments to this Bill - New Clause 1 by Tonia Antoiazzi MP and New Clause 20 by Stella Creasy MP if we value human life, especially the unborn child, who has no voice but ours. Write to your MP at House of Commons, London SW1A OAA. Norman Plaisted, Newport