Two for Tomorrow
TRE most satisfying thing about the past week's reports on a Channel link and a decimal currency is that neither doubts the value of these innovations. The real arguments are about method, and important though these are, they take second place to the major principles involved. The two principles are really one: that Britain should physically, and financially, accept that it is no longer an island. This is more fact than principle, and it is widely accepted in theory. The logical extensions of it are projects like the Channel tunnel or bridge, and a decimal currency. The question is no longer 'should they be introduced?' but 'how .soon?' The simple answer should be 'as quickly as possible.'
Both Britain's island state and s. d. lie deep in the sentimental filamework of the nation. Both helped to make Britain what we know it to have been from history books. but neither will help it to be what Britain will inevitably become—a country whose destiny is closely tied to Europe in the short run, and to the North Atlantic Com- munity, plus parts of the Commonwealth, in the long run. In the short run it is important that there be a close and efficient physical link with Europe. In both the short and the long run it is important that the currency should bear some distinct relation to its neighbours' currencies— and for better reasons than simply to ease the tourist's lot.
The real trouble with the report on the Chan- nel link is that it does not go far enough. It sug- gests that a railway tunnel be built, and financed by private capital (though the promoters want some government guarantees which would be in the nature of subsidies). The result would be much like the present ferry crossing, made quicker and slightly easier. Unfortunately, the report's conclusions lack some of the imagination the project needs. There is no reason to believe that traffic estimates, for instance, which have been consistently low in the past, are likely to be much more correct.in this case; no reason to be- lieve that by the middle of the 1970s the 'cattle boats' now crossing the Channel will not be replaced by 'cattle trains.' .
The concept of a Channel bridge, or a bridge- and-tunnel, seems . to have been dismissed too glibly, mainly on grounds of cost. The assump- tion that a Channel link should be run at a simple profit is false. The closest analogy is with motorways, and no one brings simple questions of profitability to bear on the cost of their con- _ struction. So why to the Channel link? And why should a bridge or a tunnel not be a government project, financed at low interest rates, of a kind which will not suffer from the limitations im- posed by the demands of commercial profit- ability?
No similar complications enter into the dispute over currency. Whether to have a decimal coin- age based on the pound or a ten shilling unit is a tricky but relatively unimportant question. The arguments for both seem to be reasonably well balanced, with the scales tilting slightly in favour of the pound for justifiable reasons of familiarity and sentiment.
Reports of this kind have been appearing, and disappearing, for more than a hundred years. It would be inexcusable if they were allowed to disappear this time. Both are now in the hands of the Government. it has been given the basic facts and arguments it needs to make decisions on both matters. So it is now up to the Govern- ment, by making some fast, and final decisions. to see that the initiative is not lost.
Previous page
