I recognise that certain conditions are objectionable. But the important point to remember is that they were known and accepted in principle by the Labour Government and those who supported them in May, 1967, as the price that we should have to pay in order to allow British industry a crack at the vast tariff-free market on the Con- tinent. It does not convince anyone to turn round subsequently and to attempt to justify it on the grounds of the C.A.P., V.A.T., the financial contribution, or the effect of all three on the level of prices at home and on trade patterns overseas. It was all known, or implied. That is why some of my hon. Friends have been opposed to entry consistently. Those who have since changed their minds cannot cite the terms, unless they are now opposed in principle. But that is not Labour Party policy, despite some of the speeches that we have heard from the Opposition front bench during the debate. All that is left to them seemingly is the plea that the present time is not opportune.

Secondly, let me examine this proposition. It is a familiar objection to change. If only the general conditions surrounding our application were different, if I interpret them correctly, then their attitude would be different. They may be right. It may be possible for a future Labour Government to renew the application. But can anyone imagine economic conditions more favourable than those which obtain at present? After all, unemployment is still rising. Does this not oblige us to look over the widest range of options in search of relief?

Yet, if our economy is distressed, have there not also taken place other, more hopeful, developments which have restored its competitiveness? Our relative costs position, narrowed price differentials, improved terms of trade, a stronger currency, and the liquidation of our international indebtedness, can ease our adaptation to new circumstances and speed the transition. All these factors in combination suggest that we are now poised for entry in a manner which could not have arisen at the times of previous applications or could conceivably apply on future occasions.

Furthermore, the world does not stand still, however disposed some of us may be to marking time. The recent dollar crisis affirms the extent to which trade patterns have changed. It should also serve to warn us that the liberalisation of trade, which characterised the early 1960s, is now giving way to protectionism. The United States has given notice that it intends to buy less and to sell more. The Japanese will suffer most, and they will retaliate in other markets. Their steel imports into the United Kingdom so far this year have trebled on last year. Other British industries, as well as steel, will surely be caught in the crossfire unless they can find a refuge. The Common Market offers the heaven-sent prospect of such a haven. If hon. Members still say not, then they have a clear duty to offer a constructive alternative.

Thirdly, it may be said that I am being too optimistic. I realise that I am vulnerable to that charge. But I am inclined to remind those who will say this—I imagine that they are my hon. Friends—that the British Labour movement is a product of the nineteenth century. Inevitably, it imbibed, in its formative years, a deep draught of Victorian optimism. This optimistic strand in our beliefs has been both a solace in dark days and a spur to creativeness in challenging situations.

The most crucial factor on entry might yet turn on the will power we display in exploiting the opportunities entry will provide. It is likely that we shall shed our nature in the event of entry, operating, as we shall, in the much more natural habitat for Socialists of international conditions, stimulated and reinforced, moreover, by the company of continental Socialists? The plain fact before British Socialists is that they have closer political ties with Europe than the Tories. It saddens me, therefore, that my party, having set out on the journey to Europe in 1967, should now pause on the thresh-hold.

It seems that failure at the polls a year ago has led to the failure of spirit within our own ranks, and our party, so recently united, self-confident and justifiably proud of its leaders, has suddenly and quite unnecessarily lost confidence, with the result that some of us are now more prone to blame others than to take responsibility upon ourselves. It is a mood which we must put behind us at the earliest possible moment.

Finally, it is distressing for me to see Socialist colleagues turn away from Europe and a practical opportunity to further the international brotherhood of man. But when they invite me to join them in the Lobby against entry they distress me even more. For they are not only asking me to vote in defiance of my basic convictions and sense of duty to my constituents, they are also asking me to do two other things. First, they are asking me to act in obedience to pressures which, if my mailbag up to last week is any guide, have been reinforced on this occasion by all the cranks and fanatics in our society. Second, they are asking me to join them in a Lobby that, however fortuitously, is confidently expected to attract representatives of the forces of all that is most narrow, parochial and puritanical in our society. I do not reproach my colleagues for this. I understand their position. I hope that they will understand mine when I say that I cannot join them.