DIARY
ALAN WATKINS One of the most interesting wheezes thought up by the Conservative Euro- phobes is that the Government should push through a Supremacy of Parliament Act. Some of the poor boobies seem to think that such a measure would be declaratory merely, asserting what we know to be the case. A few of the better-natured ones gen- uinely think the Act would be a unifying force. Indeed, I can just see a threatened Mr John Major taking it up and being allowed to do so by his legal advisers, who have already demonstrated their ineptitude over the Maastricht Bill. But the European Communities Act 1972 lays down that United Kingdom law, including statute law, is subordinate to European legislation. At the time the Europhiles, led by Sir Edward Heath, said that this was gossamer jurispru- dential theory, of no consequence to practi- cal men. Some of us knew differently and said so. Recently the House of Lords decid- ed in the Factortame case that the rights of Spanish fishermen were governed by Euro- pean rather than by UK law. If a Suprema- cy of Parliament Act were passed, the Judges might either comply with it or refuse to do so because the 1972 Act was still in force and constituted fundamental law. The 1972 Act would first have to be repealed. Either way — whether it was repealed or not — a Supremacy of Parliament Act would put us in breach of the Treaty of Rome and remove us from the European Community.
Sitting watching the 'Gay Rights' activists cavorting during the enthronement of the new Bishop of Durham, I asked myself, 'What do these people want?' Here we have a chap who was once convicted of a homosexual offence, even if one of a minor character. Now he is a Prince of the Church! They should surely have joined in the service, giving thanks that one who was formerly of their number had bettered him- self in so satisfactory a manner. No discrim- ination in the C of E! But no: the bishop's offence, in their eyes, was to apologise, ask forgiveness and proclaim repentance rather than to advertise Gay Pride. Though he did tend to lay on the contrition a bit thick for my taste, he nevertheless has my sympathy when he is attacked by people whose self-righteous- ness is certainly greater than his own.
A
t last Mr Neil Hamilton is not the Minister for, among other matters, Busi- ness Probity. He is, as it happens, a former Pupil of my own school, the Amman Valley Grammar School, Ammanford. He was not, however, a native of the district, his father having migrated there as chief engi- neer of the Coal Board (succeeding, I believe, Lord Richard's father). The other product of the school to attain prominence in what the Victorians called Affairs was Dr Roger Thomas, who used to be Labour Member for Carmarthen. Unhappily Dr Thomas, an excellent MP, came to grief doing, if I may so put it, a Bishop of Durham in a public lavatory near Swansea. Despite pressure to resign from within the local party — in the constituency itself there was little or no concern — Dr Thomas bravely remained an MP until the 1987 election. Around this time, Mr Hamil- ton was having his libel contretemps with the BBC. A friend from Cambridge days whom I had not seen for years sent me a postcard saying: 'Every morning I open my newspaper in trepida- tion for fear of reading about you.'
Mr Mohamed Fayed is generous not only to MPs such as Mr Hamilton but to shoplifters from Harrods also — or, at any rate, to certain shoplifters. Suspected thieves are taken to Room 101, or whatever is the Harrods equivalent, where inquiries are made as to their means. If they have enough money to pay for the purloined goods, the cash or its equivalent is taken, and the goods are handed over in return. It is as if they had been bought in the normal manner. If, however, they have no money, they are prosecuted. I believe similar arrangements obtain in certain Middle Eastern countries. At least we should be grateful that Mr Fayed does not cut off shoplifters' hands.
' Leave the sign on, I'm an MP.' Emerging the other day from a rather rough session with my dentist, who hangs out near Sloane Square, I decided to cheer myself up by going to the large W.H Smith's in the square and buying Mr David Gilmour's Curzon. I looked around the var- ious displays of recently published books. Mr Gilmour's was not among them. I then asked a woman behind a desk. She pressed a few buttons, twiddled a bit and came up with the information that Smith's had decided not to stock the work in question. The firm made the same decision over my own book, A Slight Case of Libel, four years ago. I wrote protesting to Sir Simon Horn- by at his home address. He replied emol- liently, promising to look into the matter. Whether he ever did, I do not know. In the meantime I suggest that bookbuyers transfer their custom from W.H. Smith to proper booksellers such as L. Simmonds of Fleet Street, where I acquired Mr Gilmour's Cur- zon without any trouble at all.
The other agreeable feature of Bournemouth which I neglected to men- tion last week was the presence of many grey squirrels. They seem jolly little fellows to me, as they do to others, including the Prime Minister. So inevitably there is a scheme either to eliminate them complete- ly or, I now read, to issue them with free contraceptive pills. Here is a sound general rule: All official attempts to kill off specified birds and animals such as badgers invariably turn out to be mistaken.
Subwatch (3): The reason why. Much objected to by authors of several books on style and usage too numerous to list conve- niently. They write that why should be replaced by that and that anyway the phrase derives from 'The Charge of the Light Brigade': `Their's not to reason why.' There is much confusion here. 'The reason that he went was that . . . ' is plain ugly, though the first that could be omitted without harm. What the stylewriters have done is to mud- dle a correct that with an incorrect because, as in 'The reason is that' and 'The reason is because', where because is elliptical. There is nothing wrong with 'The reason why'. It is used by several 18th-century authors writing long before Tennyson, including Boswell in his Life of Johnson and David Hume in 'Of the Liberty of the Press' in his Political Essays: 'The reason why the laws indulge us in such a liberty seems to be derived from our mixed form of govern- ment . . . ' What was good enough for Hume is good enough for me and should be for you too.
Previous page
