Cheaper food
Sir: Mr Ernest Wistrich's snide suggestion that the anti-Marketeers' lack of funds is "a reflection of the weakness of the anti-Market case, whose supporters are not prepared to back it out of their own pockets" (June 22) cannot be allowed to go by unchallenged. Indeed, it is sheer hyprocrisy for the Director of the European Movement to make such an assertion when a large proportion of his own funds are 'filched' from the pockets of the taxpayer.
Nor, too, should we overlook the contributions that the European Movement has received from industry and commerce. Here directors have often been only too happy to put their hands into their shareholders' pockets rather than their own, and without their shareholders' full-hearted consent!
Even at a personal level Mr Wistrich's remark is unworthy. It is common knowledge that, generally speaking, what little support there is in Britain for EEC membership is largely among the wealthy; while the vast majority of those who are against represent the less affluent members of the community. Yet the pensioner who gives 50p to the anti-Market cause is, in reality, contributing a far greater proportion of his net assets than the millionaire who donates £10,000 to the European Movement.
Moreover, the former donation is far more likely to be without an ulterior motive. After all, how many of those who contributed to the European Movement in their heady days of 1970 and 1971 did so in the hope of picking up a title or some letters to add before or after their name?
What really annoys the anti-Marketeers is the fact that during the last four. years over E100,000 of taxpayers' mon ey has gone to swell the coffers of the European Movement and the European Educational Research Trust to finance the great brainwash campaign. Quite apart from anything else it does not stand up to the standards of British fair play and justice, lorries Tow ler
Previous page
