Question: As foreign secretary you would be sitting alongside Iain Duncan Smith at the forthcoming IGC. What specifically would you do in relation to a final document you did not agree with. Would you be prepared to veto the whole thing?

Michael Ancram: Yes. We are not going to accept a document which is going to move Europe from being a Europe of nations - a sort of partnership of sovereign nations - to being something which is a political entity. Almost everything coming out of the constitution is moving in that direction.

They key things are: the creation of a legal personality, which is the prerequisite of a state; the setting up of a full-blown constitution. It isn't a golf club constitution as Jack Straw said because it includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is legally enforceable. The third areas are all those areas in which control is being taken over foreign policy, over defence policy, over home policy, including asylum.

All of these are crucial areas which define a sovereign nation and the moment they are taken away that nation's sovereignty is gone.

So those along with the creation of a president - who is not a member of a government, someone who is brought in from outside for five years - and therefore creating another centralised institution and the creation of a single foreign secretary. All of these are the movement from a Europe of nations to a superstate or a supranational democracy.

All of these things are fundamental movements and the moment you go past that you are irrevocably into a political entity which Giscard d'Estaing called a United Europe. And we are saying we will not go down that road.

So I am looking for an outcome of the convention that retains the structure of a Europe of nations or we will veto it.

Question: And what impact would that have on Britain's future in Europe?

Michael Ancram: Well if you use the veto it wouldn't go through, so that would be a very powerful position. I do think we underplay our hand in Europe, we are able to exercise that veto, we are a major contributor to Europe and therefore they need us financially.

I don't think we use our strength. We saw Tony Blair say 'no constitution' and we've now got a constitution. We were told 'no legally enforceable charter of fundamental rights' and we have given way on that. He doesn't seem to stick to the 'red lines' that he keeps talking about. He knows he is in the process of serial surrendering.

Question: Are there any areas where you would support the extension of QMV?

Michael Ancram: No, I think it has gone too far anyway. QMV is part of the concept of a European political entity. Whereas if you are talking about a Europe of sovereign nations then those sovereign nations must have the right to say 'no'.

That is why the whole concept of the veto was built in at the beginning. The original European concept was power flowing from national governments up towards the centre with the national governments able to say 'we will veto anything we don't want to do'.

Now we have a Europe which has been reversed, where power flows from the top downwards and removing the ability of the members to actually prevent that happening.

Question: On the convention, John Major didn't give us a referendum on Maastricht, Margaret Thatcher didn't give us a referendum on the Single European Act, why do you believe this is so different?

Michael Ancram: I think that is, if I may say so, the wrong way round to ask the question. Over the last six years we have had referendums on almost everything. We now live in an age of referendums - we didn't before.

Question: But your party is supposedly against the use of referendums - parliament should decide?

Michael Ancram: We didn't have that referendum culture. Referendums were very rare. We had one under Harold Wilson on Europe. Because of the pressures we said we would have one on the single currency. They were not commonplace. Now they are. We have had 34 referendums of one sort or another since 1997.

Question: That does not mean the practice is good though?

Michael Ancram: Well no. But what it does do is allow us to ask the question: 'if you have it on Scotland and Wales and London and the mayor of Hartlepool - and they are going to have it on regional assemblies - then why not have it?'. What is different about this? Is it because it is so fundamental that they don't trust the British people?

Or is it because, as Peter Hain says, it's really just a tidying up operation? I have heard both arguments from them. It can't be both. And I just think that whatever view you have taken on the way Europe should go, when you make a fundamental change of this sort you should ask the British people before to consent before you do it.

Question: Do you accept the argument that reform of this magnitude is essential given the scale of the enlargement?

Michael Ancram: I take the opposite view. I think reform is essential, but what the reform should be doing is putting Europe close to its people. You don't do that by centralising upwards.

You do it by returning power to the national parliaments. You do it by creating a stronger form of accountability within the national parliaments. You do it by ensuring that national parliaments have a major role in the initiation of European legislation. That's how you reconnect Europe with its people.

You don't do it by creating more centralised institutions which take Europe further away from its people.

Reform is necessary but the way that they are reforming Europe is the wrong one. And if you want to have reform that is going to encompass 25 as opposed to 15 you don't do it by making those 25 conform more, you do it by giving more flexibility for the 25 to act according to their national interest.

Question: You said you still want to play a constructive role in Europe, but given your party's rhetoric and your leader's past how is that possible? The words bats and team captains come to mind when thinking about what your party thinks of the project.

Michael Ancram: You don't have to go with the project to be constructive. I think in many ways the project is destructive. The more you integrate Europe, the more you force the members of Europe to conform, the greater the tensions you create and is more likely to make Europe break apart.

If you want to strengthen Europe constructively you do create a more flexible approach. You have framework directives - so the purpose of the directive may be there but the way the directive is applied differs from country to country according to the way it is best suited to. That seems to me to be a constructive approach. That is the approach that we would take.

We have always said we believe in Europe, we want to remain in Europe, but it has to be a Europe that is going to allow for the national strength and a variety of views to flourish rather than to be condemned and that is the direction in which we are going.

Question: On the issue of the single currency the party line is now clear. But if we went in would you seek to bring us out?

Michael Ancram: We have said the terrible thing about the way in which this Europe has developed is than once a certain number of lines are crossed you can't come back from [them] however damaging they may be.

If we were in I think there would be considerable difficulty in coming out. But I don't believe that that is what we should be looking to. We should be looking to tell the British people not to go in in the first place.

Because we have at least been promised a referendum there is a very good chance the British people will say no. We are opposed to it because we don't think it's just an economic measure and therefore be determined on economic advantage or disadvantage at a given time.

We think it is a major political and constitutional issue as well because it transfers sovereignty away. The sovereignty, for instance, over interest rates, which is a crucial, central sovereignty.

Even on the economic grounds, one of the fallacies of Europe is the way they talk about convergence. Everything they are doing depends on the economies of Europe being in line with each other.

But if you look at how Europe operates, it isn't the convergence of the slipways, it is the convergence often of the crossroads. So you converge at a given moment, and everyone says 'this is the moment to join the single currency' and then you diverge.

Then you have the sorts of problems that Germany's got at the moment where you have to change the rules because the rules are too rigid that they are causing immense damage. This is the economic short-sightedness about the way Europe is progressing at the moment.

Question: Given the current strength of the euro, do you now accept it is a successful currency?

Michael Ancram: We don't want to be part of the euro, but we are not against other people being part of the euro. We don't want to be part of the euro because we believe it constrains us in a way we don't need. We have a prosperous economy alongside the euro.

To those who say you can't be alongside the euro without being damaged I say look at Switzerland which has a very successful economy outside the euro.

The strength of the euro is a mixed blessing for them. When the euro was weak you had people saying we must join it because otherwise our export trade is going to get hit. Now that it has strengthened those people have gone quiet about whether we should join. It works both ways.

Question: What conclusions would the British people be entitled to draw if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq?

Michael Ancram: I think first of all I do believe that Tony Blair had the information that the weapons were there - certainly he gave every indication that this was the information he had received. We were also told that it might take a long time to find them. These weapons, if they are still there, are very well hidden.

Question: If we never found them could you still publicly make a case that the war was justified?

Michael Ancram: If you don't find it, it doesn't mean it's not there. I spent a long time in Northern Ireland knowing there were caches of arms about.

Question: John Major warned about winning the peace. Do you believe the peace is now being won?

Michael Ancram: I think there was a faltering start. I was surprised, maybe because it was the speed of the military campaign, that there wasn't more preparation to deal with the policing aspects, that there wasn't better provision made to get the basic services started again and basic levels of security imposed. But I think now that is beginning to happen.

What I think is important, and what I continue to emphasise, is that it's not the British or the Americans in the end who are going to rebuild Iraq, it is the people of Iraq themselves. What we must do is to create an environment where they can be encouraged to do so.

Question: The Middle East road map appears to have sparked the latest violence and tension in the region. As British foreign secretary what would your message be to Palestinians at this time?

Michael Ancram: First of all I don't think that we should be surprised by what has happened. I said two weeks ago in parliament that we would need to expect to see extremists seeking to try to derail the process.

What we are seeing is very predictable and I think we will see more of it. We mustn't allow that to succeed. I think this is now a matter of reciprocal simultaneous actions - this is what the roadmap is about. I don't think that it is wise to sit back and hope the roadmap is going to operate because one or other of the Palestinians or the Israeli government is going to move.

I would like to see a much more structured beginning where there is an agreement between both sides that they will make the first concessions simultaneously and visibly so that both sides can see that the other is moving.

Question: As in Northern Ireland you have to create an atmosphere where that can happen. What needs to be done specifically to bring that about?

Michael Ancram: It's chicken and egg. You are talking about talking about confidence building and momentum. And sometimes the momentum creates the confidence and the confidence creates the environment.

The two have to go together and I think the way you do it in terms of Israel and Palestine is you choose significant totemic concessions on both sides. Phase one of the roadmap is not very deep - not as deep as phase two.

You choose totemic items and you agree on both sides that they are going to happen at the same time. So each side sees each other is prepared to move - that is the beginning of creating confidence. If one of them is the closure of Hamas offices on the West Bank and the other was to stop activity in the settlements, I think the two would be significant enough movements to create a good deal more confidence than there is at the moment.

Question: In Zimbabwe there is a feeling that the end may be nigh for the Mugabe regime. What do you think the British government could do to accelerate this demise?

Michael Ancram: My fear about Zimbabwe is that the end may be nigh for Mugabe - for reasons of nature as much as of politics - but that doesn't mean he won't be succeeded by someone as bad.

There are a number of lieutenants who are every bit as bad as he is. Unless there is a deliberate international attempt to ensure that the elections that follow the departure of Mugabe are properly supervised and monitored you could get another rigged election and another Mugabe-style dictator coming in.

Question: Does that imply that he is not master of his own fortune?

Michael Ancram: Mugabe? No it means he's getting very old. Some of his lieutenants are every bit as evil as he is. And he has created a corruption in that country where there are a large number of people who have a vested interest in keeping that corruption going because they are benefiting from it.

Whether or not Mugabe is coming towards the end there is still the need for an international effort to ensure there are free and fair presidential elections, properly monitored from the moment of voter registration onwards to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe will not re-elect Mugabe, or someone like Mugabe.

The danger at the moment is that the world is turning it's back on Zimbabwe. We have had the story that Blair has been persuaded that "quiet diplomacy" is the way forward.

Well, quiet diplomacy basically allowed Mugabe to get to where he is now, the ethnic cleansing, the death by starvation, the rape camps, the torture and murder of opposition members. We need to keep reminding the world that all of these things are happening in Zimbabwe.

Question: Michael Howard and yourself are the two senior frontbenchers who made the transition from the Major years to the current leadership's team. There are still many senior Tories sitting on the backbenches who could still play a constructive role. What would your message be to them?

Michael Ancram: I don't think it's for me to have a message. If you're saying Michael Howard and I are the oldest members of the shadow cabinet then that's a generational thing. Remember many of those people were members of the shadow cabinet under William Hague.

It is the nature of politics that these things move on. What has happened now is that the shadow cabinet is much younger than the original shadow cabinet under William Hague.

Some people moved over from the John Major cabinet to that and are now doing other things - many of them by their own volition. A younger generation has come in and I think that's healthy. If you're saying 'should I be there' then that's not a question for me.

Question: Finally, on the issue of the leadership, is it now completely settled?

Michael Ancram: I always believed that the party members voted for Iain Duncan Smith to lead us into the next election. That was the whole point about having a democratic election for the leader of our party.

Although there have been certain ripples and problems, the basic message that is still coming through from the party on the ground is that this is the man they voted to lead us into the next election and we must give him every bit of support to lead us into it and lead us victoriously out of it.

Question: So he will win?

Michael Ancram: I'm a great optimist in politics. I believe that if you put forward clear policies and clear leadership and show people that you can be trusted to go about it, then at a time when Labour is moving in the opposite direction we have every chance of winning the next election and I believe we will do so.