vereignty and EEC
Sir. r am sure I am among a majority
?f. Your readers who have been pray'rig for the first constructive move to save Parliament being reported in Your columns. It was rather dis-. aPPointing to see this seemingly identified in your editorial of July 14 as an "'Party 'Cheap Food League.' Whate, ver the connection is between our loss of sovereignty and cheaper food, stirely it must be tactically weak to the the case for taking Britain out of "le EEC on yet another promise of the sort on which we were inveigled in: Such as that there will be plenty more ifThDrieY in the people's pockets to pay or dearer food. It is difficult to envisage the chances t7 disengaging ourselves from Europe tough the existing political system the issue is in fact constitutional. We have already seen the confusion flcl chaos which bursts forth when leaders of our political parties take Positions contrary to the wishes of an apparent majority of their party, if not of the people as a whole. Would it be possible to organise a set of candidates for the next general election who will ask for the people's vote on the sole promise of taking Britain out of the EEC? The organisa
tion and ground rules might be as follows: 1 The organisers would be a few leading politicians wedded to their party but who believe the British public should be given an opportunity to express themselves once on the issue that the choice before the people is whether they put the sovereignty of Parliament before mortgage rates, housing, unemployment, etc.
2 The candidates for election, apart from the organisers. would be ordinary citizens who would not necessarily be required to argue the case before the electorate. This should be undertaken on their behalf by the organisers and I should think one document from Mr Powell would suffice.
3 If the organisers fail to achieve an overall majority they, along with all other candidates who were elected on the same platform, would forthwith resign, and Britain stays in the EEC forever. This risk would of course force the organisers to put their future where their mouths are.
4 If the organisers achieve an overall majority, then they take us out of Europe and resign along with all their fellow members as soon as this has been done. They would presumbly stand again for their own parties. The closing speeches might usefully give notice to the incoming members that it will be a matter for their conscience as to whether they feel they can serve in a sovereign Parliament.
5 It would be a matter for the British press to decide whether a sufficient case exists for them to play their part in raising the necessary funds. This need not necessarily involve them in taking sides.
The last sitting of the pro-tern Parliament might conclude its business with 'Auld Lang Syne.'
N. D. Holt 31 Victoria Park, Singapore 10
Previous page
