THERE ARE two strands to the re-opening of the rift in the Tory Party over the way ahead with Europe.

Today the party's grandees, headed by former Prime Minister Edward Heath and former deputy premier Lord Whitelaw, warned John Major not to surrender to the virulence of his Euro-sceptics.

The warning was clearly timed with the party's pre-election conference in mind and with preventing the "antis" from hi-jacking policy.

Similarly, the coolness shown by Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind towards plans for a single European currency - ironically, in a speech in the same hall in Zurich where, 50 years ago, Sir Winston Churchill spoke of a future United States of Europe - was designed to placate the boisterous Europhobes with which the politically-weak government has to contend.

But far more important than this strategic scheming for the sake of pre-election party unity and, in fact, the opposite being highlighted once more, is the big issue of where next with Europe?

The trouble is that both outlooks - the Heath-led view that Britain cannot afford to be outside of the EU and the Rifkind warning that ill-devised monetary union could split the EU and smash the single market - have much to commend them.

It may be that ordinary people in this country are more struck by instances of Euro-bureaucracy and rattled whenever European legislation is seen to sap the UK's sovereignty.

But, as the timetable towards monetary union proceeds, they and the government of the day will have to consider the greater issues highlighted by the Heath-Rifkind debate.

For the fact is that, as the grandees would point out, for all the numerous negatives and nonsenses, Britain has clearly benefited from EU membership.

Much of the inward foreign investment and the jobs it has created here stem from our belonging to the Union and from the needs of multi-national companies to have access to the European market.

Similarly, Europe itself is the principal market-place for British goods and services.

Denied free access to it, by being outside the single market, Britain's economy would nosedive.

But, though a single currency may seem a logical consequence of a single market, it is vital that it is not commenced at half-cock.

There is also the separate question of whether the "Euro" that is scheduled to replace the diverse currencies of member states is a device not just for monetary union, but eventual political union too.

Yet what is afoot, largely through dominant Franco-German pressure within the EU, is something less than unity on monetary union.

What is envisaged is a Europe with an inner core of states on board a single currency, an outer core of those not committed to it or unable to meet the convergence criteria in time and a further fringe of contender EU members with weak economies seeking access to the market.

That is no recipe for a stable single market.

It could, as Malcolm Rifkind warns, shatter.

The way ahead, then?

Surely, instead of blowing cool towards Europe, Britain should be shaping its future, not having it shaped for it by the inner core.

It should recognise the Health-expressed truth of the dangers of being outside Europe and removed from the single market.

We should be working for the preservation of that market by leading the outer core countries into becoming the influence on the future of a single currency - one that is soundly based, carefully scheduled and of agreed benefit to all EU partners.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.