The Europe Debate

I have to confess that the current question about a referendum on the new European Treaty leaves me incandescent with rage. I shall ignore the fact that Labour's Election manifesto promised us a referendum, because I think there is a deeper issue here. When Ted heath took us into Europe in the 70s, it was to join the 'common market'. A place where trade was free and the movement of goods was not restricted. Quite clearly this has never been the case as Customs will stop and seize booze and fags above a certain quantity because it cannot be for 'own use'. Since when did the free movement of goods and free trade imply that it had to be for own use. Surely the backbone of capitalism is obtaining goods or services at the cheapest possible price and making a healthy profit on the market when these are resold.

Now, if we cannot even do what was originally implied by the name why should we accept fedarlism in the form of the latest treaty. I don't believe we gain anything economically from being in the European Union as it is now called that we could not get from outside. Do we really believe that what trade we currently have with our closest neighbours would cease if we left the union? I don't think so.

Give us our referendum now Mr. Brown. We want out!

Who says we can learn nothing from History?

Those who think there is nothing we can learn from history have a lot to think about. We have recently passed from the reign of King Canute who believed he could hold back the tides to the reign of Ethlread the Unready. Canute believed that no matter what nature ruled he could overrule it. so he sat on the beach and ordered the waves to recede. if only he had picked a moment when the tide was actually ebbing. Sound a bit like Phony Tony who thought he was always right even when most of us knew he was wrong? Always happy to take a decision even if he was wrong more often than he was right. Now we get Ethelread the Unready who might call an election, but might not call an election. Apparently not because he thought he might lose, but because he wants to show us how he might govern before we vote on him. Seems a bit of spin to me. If he thought he would win he would have the election to give himself the 5 years to put his vision to us. If he thinks he might not win then he thinks we might reject his vision. So no matter how he spins it, he backed off because he was unready.

Hard to tell which of the two is more preferable. The one who thinks he is always right or the one who thinks we think he is always wrong. Clearly Brown has some more tax ideas he would like to try to squeeze yet more of our hard earned cash from us and he is scared we might be wising up to his grab for our money. Canute thought he was right about everything and Ethelread thinks he knows best how to spend our money. Doesn't know much about anything else mind you. I wonder who will be next to remind us of our historic past?