S Pe ct ato r 's N o teb o ok CDA / as it worth it? Mr Wilson

must now be asking himself this question. No sensible Person will challenge Britain's right to defend her national interests within the European Community. As the Prime Minister is said to have Pointed out during the Rome summit, France has been just as wicked — if not Wickeder —

difference. than we have. But there is a great

Everybody could understand up to a Point what De Gaulle was trying to do. Nobody at all can understand the policy of the British trOvernment. During the Referendum camPalgo, Mr Wilson endlessly repeated a phrase to the effect that Common Market membership Would be good for Britain, good for Europe, good for the Commonwealth and generally L°0d for everybody, including the Samoans. "at he meant remains his own secret. To quote Mr Bernard Levin: "Are we in the EC because we believe in it and what it stands for and in what it can do for Europe in general akod Britain in particular? Or are we in it 7ause we couldn't think of anywhere else to 613, On a rainy afternoon so we thought we might as well?" With a three-headed monster of 4,,("overnment divided among those who hate all foreigners (Mr Shore and Mr Benn), those Who love them rather too much (Mr Jenkins uond Mrs Williams), and those who don't give a katori for anyone (Mr Wilson and Mr Callag,!ao), the question is not really answerable. But this much is true: our Government has made a ,•°°1 of itself and of us. By taking such a boorish !.tand on the question of separate representa°°h at the Paris energy conference, Mr u Ilaghan was guaranteeing national hurrulia0,,": He must have known from the start that :r Partners in Europe could never accept this: 7 Would have dealt too great a blow to an ideal 41 Which (oddly enough) they actually believe the ideal of European political unity.

ElY brag— g.ing so tactlessly about how, in a few g.ing so tactlessly about how, in a few

/rears, Britain could be a member of OPEC ..v`110, even among the most insular of us, would 'ther be identified with OPEC than with the uEC?), Mr Wilson piled further humiliation ,13`011 us by courting a justified rebuke from hLieltriut Schmidt, who pointed out that Britain eat, virtually no oil as yet and, if she wants to Common Mil continue to need the help of her richer s-_,°Mtnon Market partners. Mr Wilson now ,o,ernes that he ever wanted a separate seat at the P. ads conference. "If you aim for the moon. YOU ll probably end up hitting Snowdon," he salt But it is probably true that, if he had not 411ned for the moon, he would have gently -",aled Mount Everest. While in Rome, Mr t7Ilso0 agreed to the introduction of a common ku'llroPean passport in three years' time. Unless tYko then our Government is able to answer Mr vIn's question, many will feel embarrassed to "old it.

gA letter in last Saturday's Times complains asbout a recent decision made 'arbitrarily' by the CI' cretarY of State for the Environment. Mr Josland has overridden the advice of one of Lis Pepartment's Inspectors and refused PerMission to demolish a building in London — in

Queen's Gate — where it was proposed to 'redevelop' the site.

The nine signatories of this letter do not declare an interest, but some, if not all, are architects. They quote approvingly — and indeed poignantly — the Inspector's view that to 'reject, the new design would portray a sad lack of confidence in our current cultural standards'. The writers are evidently unaware that such a sad lack of confidence is just what many people do feel about current or recent standards in architecture. Whatever one's general views about modern architecture there can be no doubt that this country has been ill-served by its architects since the war. Is it unfair to judge contemporary British architecture by, say, Centre Point, the Post Office Tower and the Shell Building?

There is now a widespread prejudice among people of taste that any building standing should be preserved, on the grounds that however undistinguished it is almost certainly more attractive — or less horrible — than anything likely to replace it. This prejudice may be 'sad', but our architects have only them-. selves to blame.

fl Although there is no need for headlong hustle, Mrs Thatcher and her colleagues would nevertheless do well to settle without undue delay the procedure that is to govern future leadership elections in the Conservative Party, and agree among themselves on subsequent protocol. Elected in mid-session, Mrs Thatcher is now obliged, at the outset of a new parliamentary session, to 'resubmit' her self to the 1922 Committee for confirmation as leader. Not that there will be an election, of course, since no one but a lunatic would think of challenging her at present. The process is thus an empty formality — and to many minds a

shade undignified.

There are two essential considerations. First, the composition of the electoral college, now limited — no doubt wisely — to Conservative MPs. Officers of the National Union, embracing constituency associations, are consulted, but they have no vote. Should a proportion be allowed to vote, as many of them maintain? Tory peers are sometimes mentioned as another desirable constituent, but the demand is very slight and a majority of the peers would rather leave the arrangements as they are.

The second thing to be determined is post-election practice. Should the chosen leader be subject to annual re-election? Or should election be for a complete Parliament, nominally five years? Or perhaps there should be no term at all?

These are the most interesting of various aspects of the leadership code that Mrs Thatcher will be examining with Mr Edward du Cann, who has just been returned unopposed as chairman of the 1922 Committee, and Lord Thorneycroft, the party chairman. For the moment, they may seem academic. But if a party's internal affairs (with all their external consequences) are to be conducted sensibly — that is to say to the best advantage — then the rules should be clearly established. What is academic today may be something of great practical importance tomorrow.

The Conservatives were probably wrong in introducing such a system in 1965. There was much to be said for the old 'magic circle', which usually — but not always — found the right leader. Having made the change, they had better improve on its actual workings.

The Great Public Expenditure Race continues, local authorities vying with each other as to which of them can create the most preposterous new function. This week, we learn, Mr George Lanaghan has become Director of Alcoholism with Nottinghamshire County Council, "the first such to be appointed by a local authority." Mr Lanaghan's salary is not reported, which is perhaps as well: it would probably drive the rest of us to drink.

One of the most passionate of abolitionists is the Liberal MP for the Isle of Ely, Mr Clement Freud, who on Tuesday was the guest speaker at the Christmas lunch of the International Advertising Association. These worthy people clearly intended that he should make them laugh, and they were not disappointed, but it was greatly to Mr Freud's credit that he risked ruining the effect of his speech by dwelling at length and with great sincerity upon the moral objections to capital punishment.

While doing so, he struck a pathetic note. He complained bitterly that politicians are never taken seriously by the public, whereas "admen", when they promote some disgusting breakfast cereal, are taken very seriously indeed. This, he claimed, was because people are suspicious of any cause which does not involve financial profit for somebody. The truth, I fear, is different. Even nowadays, many politicians are taken seriously by the public. Mr Freud is not. And the reason for this, above ,all, is that Mr Freud is a professional television performer. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a television star to command public respect for his views. As a politician with sincere convictions, Mr Freud must sometimes regret having ever signed that contract with a dog food company.

fl The murder — the political assassination — of Ross McWhirter has shocked the country. The death of this fine bold spirit is mourned not only by his friends but in a much wider sphere. It was not necessary to agree with all his views to recognise that he was among the best of his generation. We can all salute his memory.

Only a few days earlier he had been present at the inaugural dinner of a new club — the 1985 Club, formed by contributors to a book of political essays called /985: an escape from Orwell's 1984. Patrick Cosgrave was there too. "Ross," he writes, "was in exceptionally good fettle. Individualist that he was, he was almost uneasy at having twenty people around the table who agreed with him on almost all his major premises; for he suspected conformity of any kind. Naturally those present imagined that for many years the club dinners would have the benefit of Ross's quirky, independent and indomitable presence. Though that, alas, is not to be the case, the friends of Ross McWhirter will continue to meet, and continue to fight for the causes he believed in: their will has been strengthened, not weakened, by the thuggish act of the enemies who struck him down." .