Notebook
Not long ago a man in Cuba woke up in the morning laughing loudly. He had had a.dream, he told his wife, that Castro had died. Reports of this amusing dream were Passed rapidly around the town until finally they reached a member of Mr Castro's secret police. But this is not the stuff of which Cuban dreams are allowed to be made. The dreamer was jailed for three years. This story — a true one, we are assured — was told by Mrs Elena Mederos, a very remarkable Cuban lady who resigned as a Cabinet minister in 1959 because of her distrust of Castro, and emigrated to the United States. She Was recently in England trying to arouse interest in the fate of Cuba's thousands of Political prisoners. It is impossible for anybody to know exactly how many political prisoners there are — estimates range from 3,000 to some 30,000 — but only recently have people in the West become aware that the penalties for political opposition in Cuba are as severe as practically anywhere in the world. The growing pressure of world opinion is having its effect on Castro, who has been trying to negotiate advantageous terms with the United States for the release of at least some of his victims. Now an impressive document has been smuggled out of a Havana jail. It is signed by 148 political prisoners, most of whom have already been in prison for over fifteen years and none for less than eight years, and totally rejects the idea of any dialogue with Castr°'s government. 'Those who have planted sorrow and hatred in Cuban 11°. Ines, who have divided and maintain divided members of the Cuban family lack the moral standing to convene a dialogue,' the prisoners say. 'We are determined to maintain our moral stand la order to remain firm and resolute lagainst tyranny, as we have done for the !'s.i twenty years.' The stubbornness of ,uns position is reminiscent of the late Cardinal Mindszenty, who stayed for hvin entY-three years in confinement in 4:Ludapest rather than compromise with u'e regime. It deserves respect.
911e hundred years ago the Spectator ueclared itself 'utterly tired of arguments ab. out alcohol, which do not carry man kind , one step nearer to a conclusion.' .he arguments continue in the same old inconclusive manner, the only point of a,greement being that drinking is probably 411 right so long as it is done in moderation. But definitions of 'moderate' dnnking, of course, vary. In 1878 the Spectator defined it as two glasses of sherry a day. Now it is the turn of the Royal College of Psychiatrists to pronounce on the question, and they are more generous. Their recommended upper limit is four pints of beer a day, or four doubles of spirits, or one bottle of swine; though they say it would be 'unwise to make a habit of drinking at these levels'. This is all very silly. Each man knows his own drinking limit, even if he chooses to ignore it. If he drinks to subdue panic or depression, he will undoubtedly drink more than if he drinks in a spirit of jollity — which may explain why people seem to drink much more now than they did a hundred years ago. And people certainly drink more and faster if they fear they may be deprived of the opportunity to drink at all. That is why the psychiatrists are so foolish in recommending the continuation of the present licensing laws. Pub hours are merely a convenience for the publicans and a patronising inconvenience for the public. As for my own contribution to seasonal good cheer, I have decided to try to confine myself for the time being to one glass of wine a day. It is very difficult. Like Cassius in Othello, 'I have very poor and unhappy brains for drinking. I could well wish courtesy would invent some other custom of entertainment.'
At least in England one is still allowed to smoke cigarettes. This is becoming. very. difficult abroad. In Paris, where I was recently, ninety per cent of the taxis contain notices inviting the passenger to 'try' to refrain from smoking, and you decline the invitation at your peril. Indeed, smoking is forbidden in almost every public place. Eventually I found a chainsmoking taxi driver to take me to the airport. But it turned out he was also an alcoholic who, until recently, had been drinking an average of thirty glasses of Ricard a day, which was an unusual con fession for a taxi driver. He was, however, the nicest taxi driver I met. Most Paris taxis are even more unwilling to take you to your destination than London ones, and the procedures for enforcing your rights are even less effective than here. Paris, however, is a delight. Despite the appearance on the skyline of the odd tower block and the conversion of the banks of the Seine into racing tracks for motor cars, the city is astonishingly unchanged and much cleaner than it was twenty years ago. When one contemplates London, it seems an impertinence of British conservationists to complain about the destruction of Paris.
Anyone who thought that the huge majority obtained by the pro-marketeers in the 1975 referendum meant that the Common Market was popular in Great Britain was clearly deluded. People were not voting to join the EEC, they were voting for the coalition of 'moderate' politicians who supported it and against the 'extremists', like Mr Benn and Mr Powell, who opposed it The Common Market has never been a very popular idea, and it is probably now more unpopular than it ever has been. This is not at all surprising, as dishonest and unscrupulous politicians have sought to make it the scapegoat for all our troubles even though these are almost entirely self-inflicted. The most unscrupulous of all is Mr Benn. Unobtrusively he misses no opportunity to introduce conflict into our relations with our Common Market partners on however trivial a matter. His aim, it appears, is so to sour these relations that they will finally shatter. He hopes then to rise on a wave of antiEuropean sentiment to the leadership of the Labour Party and lead us all triumphantly into isolation and definitive decline. He might easily succeed. He is opposed in both major parties by frightened politicians who not only have no vision of their own of our future in Europe but fear that an honest defence of our membership of the EEC will lose them votes. But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps not even the Conservatives believe any longer that we can survive in Europe. France has joined the European Monetary System because she believes — rightly or wrongly — that she will eventually equal, if not outstrip, the economic strength of the germans. We have not joined because we believe we cannot.
For all the constitutional argument about whether or not Prince Charles should marry a Catholic, 1 cannot believe the problem will ever arise. How many Catholic girls are there in this secular world who would prefer their Church to the throne of England? If Paris once was worth a Mass, surely Windsor is worth an Evensong.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
