THE SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK

The great Common Market Swindle—it is no less—continues apace. The structure of the swindle, which has been perpetrated by Conservative, Labour, and now Con- servative governments in turn, acting in collusion and largely under Treasury influence, has always been extremely clear. Like all successful swindles, that structure is also very simple. The purpose of the swindle has been two fold: to prevent the British electorate from ever having an opportunity to express its views on the issue of joining Europe, and to delay the crucial Parliamen- tary decision until a set of terms were agreed. The general line has been `before we need to make up our minds, we would be wise to discover the terms; then, and only then, can we come to a sensible decision'.

Successful chicanery

The chit-chat which accompanies this appalling piece of subterfuge has a certain bogus logic, like the logic employed by all good con-men. It is impossible, in one way, not to admire the success of the political chicanery which has gone on ever since Macmillan took the first foolish steps, having been convinced against his better judgment that only by entering Europe Auld the pound be saved. The proponents of British entry have throughout sought to ght on their chosen ground of economics, nd have been able, on that ground, to erect raps and thickets and devise stratagems and ruses with which to ensnare and confuse and bewilder their opponents. Given the ground

economics, then of course there is and

be no great objection to the argument we must wait and see what are the terms'— he terms being, naturally, the economic erms. All the negotiations are about these conomic terms; and it is true enough that, f we are to enter, then it is up to our egotiators to secure the best terms possible.

onspiracy to defraud

e essential parts of the swindle were ilus. first, to deceive the British public nto accepting that the decision to be made as economic; and, second, fraudulently to onvince that public that it was right and oper for the decision to be postponed til the economic terms could be negotiated. ny businessmen who had conducted pro- sals for arranging a merger as dishonestly is-a-vis the interested shareholders as our liticians have behaved in their relations uh the public over their dealing on the uropean merger would, quite properly, find emselves accused of conspiracy to defraud, I issuing false prospectuses, of deliberately tending to deceive. The correct order for the questions to aye been put would have been, Do you ish to enter into continental arrangements nder which eventually this country would Come Part of a United States of Europe? d, if so, are you willing that this country ould commence negotiations with the embers of the European Economic Corn-

munity to secure the best possible terms for us to enter into such arrangements? An alternative, less satisfactory order for such questions, but an order altogether less fraudulent than the order chosen by both our main political parties when in power, would be, Will you let us find out what the economic terms will be, if we promise then to let you decide whether or not you want us to enter into the political arrangements necessary? Either way, the public could have had some formal opportunity to be consulted by the Government.

Instead, the questions have been, Will you, the public, please keep your ill-mannered traps shut while we find out what economic terms we can secure? and then, Will you the ignorant public allow us, your expert Government who understand these things far better than you, to recommend acceptance of those terms to Parliament as the best possible terms? And finally, when we have sewn the entire matter up to our satisfaction, Will you, the British people, allow us to take you into Europe so that we, the British politicians, may have the pleasure of telling all the Europeans what to do, instead of only you?

Nine years left

If you think all this is fanciful, you ought to note what Miss Hella Pick reported in the Guardian earlier this week. The Com- mon Market countries set up a committee under M Werner, who is the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, to report on economic and monetary union in the Common Market.

The Werner proposals, which are absolutely in line with the purpose of the Common Market itself—and try, this time, not to be fooled by those who will say the Werner proposals may never come into effect until you, or the European peoples, have been consulted—envisage a full economic and monetary union by 1980—in nine years' time —by when all the main economic decisions, including budgets and taxation, would be taken by the Community, whose policies would be submitted to a European Parlia- ment.

This above all is what the Common Marketeers are about. This is what they want. It is a fair objective for those with great ambitions and little historical sense. They have not, however, set about reaching that objective, and persuading the British people that it is a good and just and proper objective, in a good and just and proper fashion. Present and past Cabinet ministers share a common responsibilitx for gross deception. As for the public, they are fools to have been fooled.

Final solution

Robert Birley's mention of Ribbentrop the sportsman reminds me of a story I heard on a Sussex estate in the summer. Just before the war, Ambassador Ribbentrop was invited to a pheasant shoot and as a senior guest was placed at a good stand on an early drive near the head keeper's yard. Whilst the beaters were still some distance away there was a report and close to his Excellency, his gun still smoking, was a crumpled bird—a golden pheasant—the pet of the keeper. The bird had flown up, Ribbentrop muttered. He had mistaken it against the light. In the manner of an H. M. Bateman cartoon he was perhaps too coldly shown where the flight feathers had been removed from the pinioned bird which had never left the ground during its too short life. The day finished before lunch and a pink Ribbentrop hurried to his London embassy.

Censored gardener

For several years Mr Horace Parsons tended the gardens at Sandringham, where the Royal family go to shoot birds. Having retired, he wrote a book about gardening at Sandringham, with apparently some passing references to his royal employer. Every servant who enters the royal service, it seems. is required to sign a declaration that he will not divulge anything about his work without permission; and I can see that for dressers and valets and upstairs maids and so on, this precaution against the revelation of intimate details may have some use.

Among those who have worked for the Queen and have since written books about it are all our recent Prime Ministers and several senior Royal courtiers and secretaries and advisers. It is all right for them. It is not all right if you are merely a head gardener.

It could easily be that his book, for Mr Parsons, represented the crown of his garden- ing life, and that, for him, gardening was the chief part of life. It is far more important that a man should be able to crown the chief part of his life, than that the Queen should be protected from, at most. the trivial irritation caused by what her own spokesman at Buckingham Palace called a 'perfectly innocent' book. This cruel and faulty and exceedingly ungracious decision should be reversed - forthwith. Every Head Gardener should be able to write his book.