1974–1979 In a sudden
general election in October 1974, Powell returned to Parliament as
Ulster Unionist (UUP) MP for
South Down, having rejected an offer to stand as a candidate for the far-right
National Front, formed seven years earlier and fiercely opposed to non-white immigration. He repeated his call to vote Labour because of their policy on the EEC. Since 1968 Powell had been an increasingly frequent visitor to Northern Ireland and, in keeping with his general
British nationalist viewpoint, sided strongly with the Ulster Unionists in their desire to remain a constituent part of the United Kingdom. From early 1971 he opposed, with increasing vehemence, Heath's approach to Northern Ireland, the greatest breach with his party coming over the imposition of
direct rule in 1972. He strongly believed that it would survive only if the
Unionists strove to integrate completely with the United Kingdom by abandoning devolved rule in Northern Ireland. He refused to join the
Orange Order, the first Ulster Unionist MP at
Westminster never to be a member (and, to date, one of only four, the others being
Ken Maginnis,
Danny Kinahan and
Lady Hermon), and he was an outspoken opponent of the more extremist
loyalism espoused by
Ian Paisley and his supporters. In the aftermath of the
Birmingham pub bombings by the
Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) on 21 November 1974, the government passed the
Prevention of Terrorism Act. During its second reading, Powell warned of passing legislation "in haste and under the immediate pressure of indignation on matters which touch the fundamental liberties of the subject; for both haste and anger are ill counsellors, especially when one is legislating for the rights of the subject". He said terrorism was a form of warfare that could not be prevented by laws and punishments but by the aggressor's certainty that the war was impossible to win. When Heath called a
leadership election at the end of 1974, Powell claimed they would have to find someone who was not a member of the Cabinet that "without a single resignation or public dissent, not merely swallowed but advocated every single reversal of election pledge or party principle". During February 1975, after winning the leadership election,
Margaret Thatcher refused to offer Powell a Shadow Cabinet place because "he turned his back on his own people" by leaving the Conservative Party exactly 12 months earlier and telling the public to vote Labour. Powell replied she was correct to exclude him: "In the first place I am not a member of the Conservative Party and secondly, until the Conservative Party has worked its passage a very long way it will not be rejoining me". Powell also attributed Thatcher's success to luck, saying that she was faced with "supremely unattractive opponents at the time". During the
1975 referendum on British membership of the EEC, Powell campaigned for a 'No' vote. Powell was one of the few prominent supporters of the 'No' camp, with
Michael Foot,
Tony Benn,
Peter Shore and
Barbara Castle. The electorate voted 'Yes' by a margin of more than two to one. On 23 March 1977, in a
vote of confidence against the minority Labour government, Powell, along with a few other Ulster Unionists, abstained. The government won by 322 votes to 298 and remained in power for another two years. Powell said that the only way to stop the
Provisional Irish Republican Army was for Northern Ireland to be an integral part of Britain, treated the same as any other of its constituent parts. He said the ambiguous nature of the region's status, with its own
parliament and
prime minister, gave hope to the IRA that it could be detached from the rest of Britain: Nonetheless, in the
1987 general election that he lost, Powell campaigned in
Bangor for
Jim Kilfedder, the devolutionist North Down
Ulster Popular Unionist Party MP, and against
Bob McCartney, who was standing as a
Real Unionist on a policy of integration and equal citizenship for Northern Ireland. In Powell's later career as an Ulster Unionist MP, he continued to criticise the United States and stated that the Americans were trying to persuade the British to surrender Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland state because the condition for the
Republic of Ireland's membership of
NATO, Powell said, was Northern Ireland. The Americans wanted to close the 'yawning gap' in NATO defence that was the Republic of Ireland's coast to northern Spain. Powell had a copy of a
US State Department Policy Statement from 15 August 1950, in which the American federal government said that the "agitation" caused by partition in Ireland "lessens the usefulness of Ireland in international organisations and complicates strategic planning for Europe". "It is desirable", the document continued, "that Ireland should be integrated into the defence planning of the North Atlantic area, for its strategic position and present lack of defensive capacity are matters of significance." Though he voted with the Conservatives in a vote of confidence that brought down the Labour government on 28 March, Powell did not welcome Thatcher's victory in the
1979 general election. "Grim" was Powell's response when he was asked what he thought of it, because he believed she would renege like Heath did in 1972. During the election campaign Thatcher, when questioned, again repeated her vow that there would be no position for Powell in her Cabinet if the Conservatives won. In the days following the election Powell wrote to
James Callaghan to commiserate on his defeat, pay tribute to his premiership and to wish him well.
1979–1982 Following a
riot in Bristol in 1980, Powell stated that the media were ignoring similar events in
south London and Birmingham: "Far less than the foreseeable New Commonwealth and Pakistan ethnic proportion would be sufficient to constitute a dominant political force in the United Kingdom able to extract from a government and the main parties terms calculated to render its influence still more impregnable. Far less than this proportion would provide the bases and citadels for urban terrorism, which would in turn reinforce the overt political leverage of simple numbers". He criticised "the false nostrums and promises of those who apparently monopolise the channels of communication. Who then is likely to listen, let alone to respond, to the proof that nothing short of major movements of population can shift the lines along which we are being carried towards disaster?" In the 1980s Powell began espousing the policy of
unilateral nuclear disarmament. In a debate on the nuclear deterrent on 3 March 1981 Powell claimed that the debate was now more political than military; that Britain did not possess an independent deterrent and that through NATO, Britain was tied to the nuclear deterrence theory of the US. In the debate on the address shortly after the general election of 1983, Powell picked up on Thatcher's willingness, when asked, to use nuclear weapons as a "last resort". Powell presented a scenario of what he thought the last resort would be, namely that the
Soviet Union would be ready to invade Britain and had used a nuclear weapon on somewhere such as
Rockall to demonstrate their willingness to use it: Powell went on to say that if the Soviet invasion had already begun and Britain resorted to a retaliatory strike, the results would be the same: "We should be condemning, not merely to death, but as near as may be the non-existence of our population". To Powell, an invasion would take place with or without Britain's nuclear weapons and therefore there was no point in retaining them. He said that after years of consideration, he had come to the conclusion that there were no "rational grounds on which the deformation of our defence preparations in the United Kingdom by our determination to maintain a current independent nuclear deterrent can be justified".
John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the
Conservative Philosophy Group: On 28 March 1981 Powell gave a speech to
Ashton-under-Lyne Young Conservatives where he criticised the "conspiracy of silence" between the government and the opposition over the prospective growth through births of the immigration population: We have seen nothing yet' is a phrase that we could with advantage repeat to ourselves whenever we try to form a picture of that future". He also criticised those who believed it was "too late to do anything" and that "there lies the certainty of violence on a scale which can only adequately be described as civil war". He also said that the solution was "a reduction in prospective numbers as would represent re-emigration hardly less massive than the immigration which occurred in the first place". The Shadow Home Secretary, Labour MP
Roy Hattersley, criticised Powell for using "Munich beer-hall language". On 11 April there was a
riot in Brixton, and when on 13 April an interviewer quoted to Thatcher Powell's remark that "We have seen nothing yet", she replied: "I heard him say that and I thought it was a very very alarming remark. And I hope with all my heart that it isn't true". In July a
riot took place in
Toxteth, Liverpool. On 16 July 1981 Powell gave a speech in the Commons in which he said the riots could not be understood unless one takes into consideration the fact that in some large cities, between a quarter and a half of those under 25 were immigrants or descended from immigrants. He read out a letter he had received from a member of the public about immigration that included the line: "As they continue to multiply and as we can't retreat further there must be conflict". The Labour MP
Martin Flannery intervened, saying Powell was making "a National Front speech". Powell predicted "inner London becoming ungovernable or violence which could only effectively be described as
civil war", and Flannery intervened again to ask what he knew about
inner cities. Powell replied: "I was a Member for Wolverhampton for a quarter of a century. What I saw in those early years of the development of this problem in Wolverhampton has made it impossible for me ever to dissociate myself from this gigantic and tragic problem". He also criticised the view that the causes of the riots were economic: "Are we seriously saying that so long as there is poverty, unemployment and deprivation our cities will be torn to pieces, that the police in them will be the objects of attack and that we shall destroy our own environment? Of course not".
Dame Judith Hart attacked his speech as "an evil incitement to riot". Powell replied: "I am within the judgment of the House, as I am within the judgment of the people of this country, and I am content to stand before either tribunal". After the
Scarman Report on the riots was published, Powell gave a speech on 10 December in the Commons. Powell disagreed with Scarman, as the report stated that the black community was alienated because it was economically disadvantaged. Powell instead argued that the black community was alienated because it was alien. He said tensions would worsen because the non-white population was growing: whereas in
Lambeth it was 25 per cent, of those of secondary school age it was 40 per cent. Powell said that the government should be honest to the people by telling them that in thirty years' time, the black population of Lambeth would have doubled in size.
Falklands conflict When the
Falkland Islands were
invaded by
Argentina in April 1982, Powell was given secret briefings on
Privy Counsellor terms on behalf of his party. On 3 April Powell said in the Commons that the time for inquests on the government's failure to protect the Falklands would come later and that although it was right to put the issue before the United Nations, Britain should not wait upon that organisation to deliberate but use forceful action now. He then turned to face Thatcher: "The Prime Minister, shortly after she came into office, received a soubriquet as the "Iron Lady". It arose in the context of remarks which she made about defence against the Soviet Union and its allies; but there was no reason to suppose that the right hon. Lady did not welcome and, indeed, take pride in that description. In the next week or two this House, the nation and the right hon. Lady herself will learn of what metal she is made." According to Thatcher's friends this had a "devastating impact" on her and encouraged her resolve. On 14 April, in the Commons, Powell said: "it is difficult to fault the military and especially the naval measures which the Government have taken". He added: "We are in some danger of resting our position too exclusively upon the existence, the nature and the wishes of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands ... if the population of the Falkland Islands did not desire to be British, the principle that the Queen wishes no unwilling subjects would long ago have prevailed; but we should create great difficulties for ourselves in other contexts, as well as in this context, if we rested our action purely and exclusively on the notion of restoring tolerable, acceptable conditions and self-determination to our fellow Britons on the Falkland Islands. ... I do not think that we need be too nice about saying that we defend our territory as well as our people. There is nothing irrational, nothing to be ashamed of, in doing that. Indeed, it is impossible in the last resort to distinguish between the defence of territory and the defence of people". Powell also criticised the United Nations Security Council's resolution calling for a "peaceful solution". He said that while he wanted a peaceful solution, the resolution's meaning "seems to be of a negotiated settlement or compromise between two incompatible positions—between the position which exists in international law, that the Falkland Islands and their dependencies are British sovereign territory and some other position altogether ... It cannot be meant that one country has only to seize the territory of another country for the nations of the world to say that some middle position must be found. ... If that were the meaning of the resolution of the Security Council, the charter of the United Nations would not be a charter of peace; it would be a pirates' charter. It would mean that any claim anywhere in the world had only to be pursued by force and points would immediately be gained and a bargaining position established by the aggressor". On 28 April Powell spoke in the Commons against the Northern Ireland Secretary's (
Jim Prior) plans for devolution to a power-sharing assembly in Northern Ireland: "We assured the people of the Falkland Islands that there should be no change in their status without their agreement. Yet at the very same time that those assurances were being repeated, the actions of the Government and their representatives elsewhere were belying or contradicting those assurances and showing that part at any rate of the Government was looking to a very different outcome that could not be approved by the people of the islands. Essentially, exactly the same has happened over the years to Northern Ireland". He further said that power-sharing was a negation of democracy. The next day Powell disagreed with the Labour Party leader
Michael Foot's claim that the British government was acting under the authority of the United Nations: "The right of self-defence—to repel aggression and to expel an invader from one's territory and one's people whom he has occupied and taken captive—is, as the Government have said, an inherent right. It is one which existed before the United Nations was dreamt of". On 13 May Powell said the task force was sent "to repossess the Falkland Islands, to restore British administration of the islands and to ensure that the decisive factor in the future of the islands should be the wishes of the inhabitants" but the Foreign Secretary (
Francis Pym) desired an "interim agreement": "So far as I understand that interim agreement, it is in breach, if not in contradiction, of each of the three objects with which the task force was dispatched to the South Atlantic. There was to be a complete and supervised withdrawal of Argentine forces ... matched by corresponding withdrawal of British forces. There is no withdrawal of British force that 'corresponds' to the withdrawal from the territory of the islands of those who have unlawfully occupied them. We have a right to be there; those are our waters, the territory is ours and we have the right to sail the oceans with our fleets whenever we think fit. So the whole notion of a 'corresponding withdrawal', a withdrawal of the only force which can possibly restore the position, which can possibly ensure any of the objectives which have been talked about on either side of the House, is in contradiction of the determination to repossess the Falklands". After British forces successfully recaptured the Falklands, Powell asked Thatcher in the Commons on 17 June, recalling his statement to her of 3 April: "Is the right hon. Lady aware that the report has now been received from the public analyst on a certain substance recently subjected to analysis and that I have obtained a copy of the report? It shows that the substance under test consisted of ferrous matter of the highest quality, that it is of exceptional tensile strength, is highly resistant to wear and tear and to stress, and may be used with advantage for all national purposes?" She replied, "I think that I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with every word that he said". Their mutual friend
Ian Gow printed and framed this and the original question and presented it to Thatcher, who hung it in her office. Powell wrote an article for
The Times on 29 June in which he said: "The Falklands have brought to the surface of the British mind our latent perception of ourselves as a sea animal. ... No assault on a landward possession would have evoked the same automatic defiance, tinged with a touch of that self sufficiency which belongs to all nations". The United States' response was "very different but just as deep an instinctual reaction ... the United States have an almost neurotic sense of vulnerability ... its two coastlines, its two theatres, its two navies are separated by the entire length of the New World ... she lives with ... the nightmare of having one day to fight a decisive sea battle without the benefit of concentration, the perpetual spectre of naval 'war on two fronts'." Powell added: "The
Panama Canal from 1914 onwards could never quite exorcise the spectre. ... It was the position of the Falkland Islands in relation to that route which gave and gives them their significance—for the United States above all. The British people have become uneasily aware that their American allies would prefer the Falkland Islands to pass out of Britain's possession into hands which, if not wholly American, might be amenable to American control. In fact, the American struggle to wrest the islands from Britain has only commenced in earnest now that the fighting is over". Powell then said there was "the Hispanic factor": "If we could gather together all the anxieties for the future which in Britain cluster around race relations ... and then attribute them, translated into Hispanic terms, to the Americans, we would have something of the phobias which haunt the United States and addressed itself to the aftermath of the Falklands campaign". Writing in
The Guardian on 18 October, Powell said that due to the Falklands War, "Britain no longer looked upon itself and the world through American spectacles" and the view was "more rational; and it was more congenial; for, after all, it was our own view". He quoted an observation that Americans thought their country was "a unique society ... where God has put together all nationalities, races and interests of the globe for one purpose—to show the rest of the world how to live". He denounced the "manic exaltation of the American illusion" and compared it to the "American nightmare". Powell also disliked the American belief that "they are authorised, possibly by the deity, to intervene, openly or covertly, in the internal affairs of other countries anywhere in the world". The UK should dissociate herself from American intervention in the Lebanon: "It is not in Britain's self-interest alone that Britain should once again assert her own position. A world in which the American myth and the American nightmare go unchallenged by question or by contradiction is not a world as safe or as peaceable as human reason, prudence and realism can make it". Speaking to the Aldershot and North Hants Conservative Association on 4 February 1983, Powell blamed the United Nations for the Falklands War by the General Assembly resolution of December 1967 that stated "its gratitude for the continuous efforts made by the Government of Argentina to facilitate the process of decolonisation" and further called on the UK and Argentina to negotiate. Powell said that "it would be difficult to imagine a more cynically wicked or criminally absurd or insultingly provocative action". As 102 had voted for this resolution, with only the UK voting against it (with 32 abstentions), he said it was not surprising that Argentina had continually threatened the UK until this threatening turned into aggression: "It is with the United Nations that the guilt lies for the breach of the peace and the bloodshed". The UN knew that no international forum had ruled against British possession of the Falklands but had voted its gratitude to Argentina who wanted to
annexe the Islands from their rightful owners. It was therefore "disgraceful" for Britain to belong to such a body that engaged in "pure spite for spite's sake against the United Kingdom": "We were, and are, the victims of our own insincerity. For over thirty years we have sanctimoniously and dishonestly pretended respect, if not awe, for an organisation which all the time we knew was a monstrous and farcical humbug. ... The moral is to cease to engage in humbug, which almost all have happily and self-righteously engaged in for a generation".
1983 general election In an article for the
Sunday Telegraph on 3 April, Powell expressed his opposition to the Labour Party's manifesto pledge to outlaw
fox hunting. He claimed that angling was much crueller and that it was just as logical to ban the boiling of live lobsters or eating live oysters. The ceremonial part of fox hunting was "a side of our national character which is deeply antipathetic to the Labour party". At the
1983 general election Powell had to face a
DUP candidate in his constituency and
Ian Paisley denounced Powell as "a foreigner and an
Anglo-Catholic". On 31 May Powell gave a speech at
Downpatrick against nuclear weapons. Powell said that war could not be banished because "War is implicit in the human condition". The "true case against the nuclear weapon is the nightmarish unreality and criminal levity of the grounds upon which its acquisition and multiplication are advocated and defended". Thatcher had claimed nuclear weapons were our defence "of last resort". Powell said he supposed this to mean "that the
Soviet Union, which seems always to be assumed to be the enemy in question, proved so victorious in a war of aggression in Europe as to stand upon the verge of invading these islands. ... Suppose further, because this is necessary to the alleged case for our nuclear weapon as the defence of last resort, that, as in 1940, the United States was standing aloof from the contest but that, in contrast with 1940, Britain and the
Warsaw Pact respectively possessed the nuclear weaponry which they do today. Such must surely be the sort of scene in which the Prime Minister is asserting that Britain would be saved by possession of her present nuclear armament. I can only say: 'One must be mad to think it'." Powell pointed out that the UK's nuclear weaponry "is negligible in comparison with that of Russia: if we could destroy 16 Russian cities she could destroy practically every vestige of life on these islands several times over. For us to use the weapon would, therefore, be equivalent to more than suicide: it would be genocide—the extinction of our race—in the literal and precise meaning of that much abused expression. Would anybody in their senses contemplate that this ought to be our choice or would be our choice?" Powell further stated that the continental nations held the nuclear weapon in such esteem that they had conventional forces "manifestly inadequate to impose more than brief delay upon an assault from the East. The theory of nuclear deterrence states that, should Warsaw Pact forces score substantial military successes or make substantial advances this side of the
Iron Curtain, the United States would initiate the suicidal duel of strategic nuclear exchanges with the Soviet Union. One can only greet this idea with an even more emphatic 'One must be mad to think of it'. That a nation staring ultimate military defeat in the face would choose self-extermination is unbelievable enough; but that the United States, separated from Europe by the Atlantic Ocean, would regard the loss of the first pawn in the long game as necessitating
harakiri is not describable by the ordinary resources of language". The reason why governments, including in the US, supported nuclear weapons was that "enormous economic and financial interests are vested in the continuation and elaboration of nuclear armaments. I believe, however, that the crucial explanation lies in another direction: the nuclear hypothesis provides governments with an excuse for not doing what they have no intention of doing anyhow, but for reasons which they find it inconvenient to specify". On 2 June Powell spoke against the stationing of American cruise missiles in Britain and asserted that the US had an obsessive sense of mission and a hallucinatory view of international relations: "The American nation, as we have watched their proceedings during these last 25 years, will not, when another Atlantic crisis, another Middle East crisis or another European crisis comes, wait upon the deliberations of the British Cabinet, whose point of view and appreciation of the situation will be so different from their own". In 1983 his local agent was
Jeffrey Donaldson, later an Ulster Unionist MP before defecting to the DUP.
1983–1987 In 1984 Powell alleged that the American
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had murdered Lord Mountbatten and that the assassinations of the MPs
Airey Neave and
Robert Bradford were carried out at the direction of elements of the US federal government with the strategic objective of preventing Neave's policy of integration of Northern Ireland fully into the United Kingdom. In 1986 Powell stated that the
Irish National Liberation Army had not killed Neave but that "
MI6 and their friends" were responsible: Powell cited as his sources information that had been disclosed to him from within the
Royal Ulster Constabulary. In 1985 race riots between the black community and the police broke out
in London and
in Birmingham, leading Powell to repeat his warning that ethnic civil conflict would be the ultimate outcome of mass immigration into the Great Britain and re-issue his call for a government-sponsored programme of
repatriation. Powell later came into conflict with Thatcher in November 1985 over her support for the
Anglo-Irish Agreement. On the day it was signed, 14 November, Powell asked her in the Commons: "Does the Right Hon. Lady understand — if she does not yet understand she soon will — that the penalty for treachery is to fall into public contempt?", the prime minister replying that she found his remarks "deeply offensive".
Along with other Unionist MPs, Powell resigned his seat in protest and then narrowly regained it at the
ensuing by-election. In 1986 the former Irish schoolteacher
Seamus Mallon was a new entrant to the Commons. During his maiden speech Mallon quoted the Dutch philosopher
Baruch Spinoza, saying, "Peace is not an absence of war. It is … a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." Powell, sitting close to Mallon, hissed an objection. When Mallon enquired why, Powell said that he had misquoted Spinoza. Mallon stated he had not and, to reconcile the standoff between them, they both proceeded to the library to verify the quote. Mallon was found to have been correct. In 1987 Thatcher visited the Soviet Union, which signified to Powell a "radical transformation which is in progress in both the foreign policy and the defence policy of the United Kingdom". In a speech in the Commons on 7 April Powell said the nuclear hypothesis had been shaken by two events. The first was the
Strategic Defense Initiative or "Star Wars": "Star wars raised the terrible prospect that there might be an effective means of neutralising the
inter-continental ballistic missile, whereby the two great giants who held what had become to be seen as the balance of terror would contract out of the game altogether: the deterrent would be switched off by the invulnerability of the two providers of the mutual terror". America's "European allies were brought along to acquiesce in the United States engaging in the rational activity of discovering whether there was after all some defence against nuclear attack ... by the apparent assurance obtained from the United States that it was only engaged in experiment and research, and that, if there were any danger of effective protection being devised, of course the United States would not avail itself of that protection without the agreement of its European allies. That was the first recent event which shook to its foundations the nuclear deterrent with which we had lived these last 30 years". The second event was
Mikhail Gorbachev's offer of both the Soviet Union and the United States agreeing to abolish intermediate-range
ballistic missiles. Powell said that Thatcher's "most significant point was when she went on to say that we must aim at a conventional forces balance. So, after all our journeys of the last 30 or 40 years, the disappearance of the intermediate range ballistic missile revived the old question of the supposed conventional imbalance between the Russian alliance and the North Atlantic Alliance". Powell further said that even if nuclear weapons had not existed, the Russians would still not have invaded Western Europe: "What has prevented that from happening was ... the fact that the Soviet Union knew ... that such an action on its part would have led to a third world war—a long war, bitterly fought, a war which in the end the Soviet Union would have been likely to lose on the same basis and in the same way as the corresponding war was lost by
Napoleon, by the Emperor
Wilhelm and by
Adolf Hitler. It was that fear, that caution, that understanding, that perception on the part of Russia and its leaders that was the real deterrent against Russia committing the utterly irrational and suicidal act of plunging into a third world war in which the Soviet Union would be likely to find itself confronting a combination of the greatest industrial and economic powers in the world". Powell said, "In the minds of the Russians the inevitable commitment of the United States in such a war would have come not directly or necessarily from the stationing of American marines in Germany, but, as it came in the previous two struggles, from the ultimate involvement of the United States in any war determining the future of Europe". Thatcher's belief in the nuclear hypothesis "in the context of the use of American bases in Britain to launch an aggressive attack on Libya, that it was 'inconceivable' that we could have refused a demand placed upon this country by the United States. The Prime Minister supplied the reason why: she said it was because we depend for our liberty and freedom upon the United States. Once let the nuclear hypothesis be questioned or destroyed, once allow it to break down, and from that moment the American imperative in this country's policies disappears with it". At the start of the 1987 general election Powell claimed the Conservatives' prospects did not look good: "I have the feeling of 1945". During the final weekend of the election campaign Powell gave a speech in London reiterating his opposition to the nuclear hypothesis, calling it "barmy", and advocating a vote for the Labour Party, which had unilateral nuclear disarmament as a policy. He claimed that
Chernobyl had strengthened "a growing impulse to escape from the nightmare of peace being dependent upon the contemplation of horrific and mutual carnage. Events have now so developed that this aspiration can at last be rationally, logically and—I dare to add—patriotically seized by the people of the United Kingdom if they will use their votes to do so". However, Powell lost his seat in the election by 731 votes to the
SDLP's
Eddie McGrady, mainly because of demographic and boundary changes that resulted in there being many more Irish Nationalists in the constituency than before. The boundary changes had arisen due to his own campaign for the number of MPs representing Northern Ireland to be increased to the equivalent proportion for the rest of the United Kingdom, as part of the steps towards greater integration. McGrady paid tribute to Powell, recognising the respect he was held in by both Unionists and Nationalists in the constituency. Powell said, "For the rest of my life when I look back on the 13 years I shall be filled with affection for the Province and its people, and their fortunes will never be out of my heart". He received a warm ovation from the mostly Nationalist audience and as he walked off the platform, he said the words
Edmund Burke used on the death of the candidate Richard Coombe: "What shadows we are, what shadows we pursue". When a BBC reporter asked Powell to explain his defeat, he replied: "My opponent polled more votes than me". He was offered a
life peerage, which was regarded as his right as a former Cabinet minister, but he declined it. He argued that as he had opposed the
Life Peerages Act 1958, it would be hypocritical for him to take one. == Post-parliamentary life ==