LABOUR'S Gordon Brown said it. And although his face was inscrutable as ever, Mr John Major knew the truth of it. A day is now a hellishly long time in the politics of the Tory party.
The Shadow Chancellor was taunting Mr Kenneth Clarke, who was obliged to report to the Commons on the outcome of Monday's meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels. That he had to do so at all was a measure of the suspicion and division rampant in Conservative ranks. The bullish Chancellor exacted some revenge on his Eurosceptic critics, dismissing fears that disciplinary procedures under the planned "stability pact" could lead to sanctions against Britain - whether or not it eventually joins the proposed single currency.
There were no implications for Britain's "opt out", crooned Mr Clarke. His "parliamentary, reserve" would be etched on any documents presented for agreement at next week's Dublin summit. Binding agreements in any event, he suggested, were unlikely before the EU summit in Amsterdam next June.
Mr Norman Lamont and other sceptics answered Mr Clarke in kind - contenting themselves" with highly technical questions seemingly resigned to having lost last week's battle. That erupted over Mr Major's refusal to grant a Commons debate on key documents before Monday's Ecofin, meeting.
The Tory right feared the Euroenthusiastic Chancellor was about to sell the pass, somehow committing Britain down the single currency path behind parliament's back. They never laid a glove on him last week, or on Tuesday as he reported back from Brussels. But by then Mr Brown and the Labour front bench were hot on the trail of this week's Tory row. And by the time Mr Tony Blair rose to put the boot in to Mr Major, it was fairly clear that Mr Clarke was again the victor.
That it should be so is in many ways quite extraordinary. Mr Clarke, who everyone understands favours the single currency, is in a minority within cabinet, within the Conservative parliamentary party, and in his party in the country. Whether or not it could win him the election, there is no doubt Mr Major would recharge his party were he to rule out British participation for the lifetime of the next parliament. And this week's bout of in fighting was triggered by reports that he was about to do so.
Ministers were quick to dismiss Daily Telegraph reports that Mr Major was seeking to persuade Mr Clarke to dump their await and see" policy as so much "wishful thinking". But the Financial Times waded in on the same day, claiming that Mr Major was preparing to give the clearest signal that sterling would not join in the first wave of a single currency should the Tories win the election. The predicted U turn was similarly headlined elsewhere. And the guessing game started as to who had done the briefing.
Just days after reports of ministerial complaints against Dry Brian Mawhinney, the party chairman, some pointed the finger of suspicion at Conservative Central Office. But 10 Downing Street played its own part in the confusion, taking 24 hours to issue a convincing denial. At one point it released a previous statement by the Chancellor indicating that no decision on EMU would be taken during the lifetime of the present parliament.
But those schooled in decoding Downing Street statements knew this did not close the option of allowing Mr Major to make a fresh commitment during an election campaign. Damagingly for the Prime Minister, he only finally closed that option after Mr Michael Heseltine had already done so.
Whereas on Monday it had been cheerful, by yesterday the Tory press was twisting the knife. "Major yields to Clarke over Europe ... A Major Mistake" groaned the headlines. The Sun said Mr Major had been "skewered" by the Clarke/Heseltine axis, forced to abandon his election trump card 100,000 of its readers had voiced their concern about the currency issue, but the Prime Minister had been boxed into a corner by the cabinet's "Euro bully boys." Of the resulting farce only one thing was clear: "Major's indecision is final. And the voters' verdict could be, too."
It is arguable whether the voters would have been impressed by a sudden U turn. Mr Major has argued convincingly that the single currency will impinge on British interests whether it joins or not - and that those interests require it maintaining a seat at the negotiating table.
But voters would not have been impressed by a fresh split prompting the resignation of the Chancellor just months before a general election. Common sense says it would, surely, have been the final nail in the government's coffin.
Sound party management, then, would point to the wisdom of last April's cabinet compromise - to judge when the time is right, and submit any decision to join to a referendum. The compromise was as painful for Mr Clarke as Mr Michael Portillo. Moreover, Labour felt obliged to follow suit.
And even some Euro sceptics admit to finding this comfortable, "ground confident that they have won the internal argument, certain that a new Conservative government would not join.
But, yet again, the Conservative Party has shown itself unwilling to be led consumed by internal divisions that again evoke memories of the Labour Party of the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The perception continues to hold that too many Tories are fixated on the fall out of a general election defeat. And as they continue their battle for the Tory soul, the latest polls suggest Labour's lead once more widening.
The cabinet's chosen ground - albeit an unhappy compromise - was born of the knowledge that a lurch in any other direction would see the party finally tear itself apart. The refusal of the Conservatives to pitch firmly on it can only increase the likelihood that the decision on whether to join the single currency will not ultimately be theirs to make. And if they believe all they say about New Labour, so the greater the likelihood that, when it comes, the answer will be "Yes".