A Spectator's Notebook

"I can't see how you can have a common Currency without having a common government ", Reggie Maudling said to me the other day, and I couldn't see it either. In the last resort, whoever runs a country's money runs the country. Yet here we have the Heads of Governments in Paris agreeing quite gaily, almost flipDandy, to set up an economic and monetary union in Europe as if all they Were doing were fixing the subscription and general rules of an amalgamation between a bunch of tennis clubs.

The scandal of entry into Europe, Whereby at no time did the British people have an opportunity to express their view or to exercise any democratic control upon their politicians, looks to me as if it is going to be repeated on an even vaster scale. Bit by bit we will lose further Control over our lives, as more and more decisions are taken in European committees and commissions and councils. At no point will we be allowed to say "No." And, come 1980, or whenever, there will be an occasion surpassing in glittering brilliance all that has gone before and the new state of Europe, united and bureaucratic, will be proclaimed.

birect elections

It may not happen this way. There is an !alternative scenario. This envisages a Parliamentary' approach as opposed to the ' bureaucratic ' route suggested above. The parliamentary approach would have the virtue (or vice, as many might think) Of giving some legitimacy to the new Europe. The idea here would be that direct elections would be held in two or three Years' time and the elected European Parliament would then begin to choose a European government of ministers who Would become responsible to it — the European Parliament — rather than to any national assembly.

The alternatives

asked a not unimportant member of the Government whether he thought that the issue would, in fact, lie between the bureaucratic and the parliamentarian approach, and whether, in fact, he would Prefer the parliamentarian approach; and his reply was "Yes, to both questions." It v'ras also clear that, in this minister's view, the Prime Minister would have answered With the same pair of affirmatives. „It is an interesting situation: for both .,41e supporters and the opponents of uropean entry are likely to divide on this ?sue. There are anti-Marketeers who, 'aced with the choice 'between a European government responsible to a !European ritiament and one responsible, in effect, v_° nothing and nobRdy, would side with Parliamentariank and there are skuPPorters of European entry who will not ue able to face the idea of a sovereign directly elected European parliament, and who will prefer the bureaucrats, ostensibly controlled by a council of ministers still responsible to their national parliaments.

Not guilty

Congratulations to Sir Gerald Nabarro on his acquittal and the end of his long ordeal by law. I was one of those who thought, after the ' guilty ' verdict of the initial trial, that, in view of the implications of that verdict, he should have resigned his seat. Sir Gerald has proved me quite wrong. This week's verdict completely vindicated his robust determination to assert his innocence. Long may he prosper as the member for Worcestershire South.

Bankrupt procedure

There are many nasty aspects of the Poulson business, and the way that Yorkshire architect's examination in bankruptcy has threatened to destroy the careers and reputations of high and low is the nastiest. There is something wrong somewhere with a system which allows all manner of allegations and innuendoes to be tossed around in court, without any redress available to those who are so unfortunate as to be mentioned. Such is the way of reputation that simply to be mentioned in the Poulson hearing — however innocently, however irrelevantly — is to incur opprobrium. It would be comforting to think that those lawyers who conduct such examinations were invariably scrupulous in the use they make of their privilege, but some of the snide stuff that has come out of the Poulson hearing offers no such reassurance.

Who wins?

The conclusion of Nora Beloff's two actions against Private Eye would seem to leave her (or the Observer: it is not clear whether David Astor will underwrite the breach of copyright action, which Fleet Street assumes was pursued by Miss Beloff against the Observer's inclination) about £7,000 worse off. She is thought to have had costs of about £10,000 against her in the copyright case; and has been awarded damages of £3,000 in the subsequent, related libel case. As for Private Eye, it is about £5,000 worse off, thanks to those damages and an estimated £2,000 bill for costs.

Who, then, wins? No prizes for the answer. Amongst them, the lawyers are £12,000 better off. Libel actions are becoming increasingly nothing but a subvention for libel solicitors and libel barristers. Neither side wins; only the lawyers. I would declare this to be a racket, were I not nervous of these self-same libel lawyers.

On reflection, I do declare it is a racket; or, if not, it is most certainly a public scandal. The cost of going to law, or of being taken to law, is becoming such that it is rapidly becoming the case that, in civil actions, the richest man (or company) wins. A man, or company, able not only to hire the best lawyers but more to the point — able to sustain a long High Court action and to envisage taking the case further on appeal, will usually manage to overpower by sheer weight of money his opposed plaintiff or defendant. The only exception to this rule is when the plaintiff or defendant is a man of straw, with nothing to lose and everything to gain from a dragged-out action.

Channel Tunnel

I see that the Government is lending the Chanhel people £5 millions for further ex ploration work. At Thames Television earlier this week I heard Lord Harcourt, one of the tunnel company men, argue how profitable a tunnel would be and what an excellent prospect a slice of the equity in such a tunnel would become. It occurred to me that if this is indeed the case, why then should the company want public cash? On this programme I was happy to hear our Patrick Cosgrave roundly declare "There will be no Channel Tunnel, and no Channel bridge either." I hope he is right. I fear he will be proved wrong.

Too late

The Channel Tunnel, I was informed by a young minister the other day, as if I was an absolute fool not to realise it, "is an absolute fact. It is all decided. There's no point in pretending otherwise." I remember hearing , the same thing about Foulness. Also about Concorde. Developing things are held, as it were in the air, for months and for years while the public discusses them vaguely. Until: "it is too late to object now, the decision is taken, you had your chance earlier," one is told. So it has been with all these things, and with metrication, and with decimalised currency; and the Common Market. So it may already be with the new plans for the railways; and for the new steelworks to be in Australia, if not Japan.