According to the press, political circles in Europe were rocked by reports that Lord Chalfont had threatened that Britain, faced by another French Common Market vet, was going to pull out of Europe and completely re-orient her foreign policy. It is difficult to sort out the denials and conflicting stories, so we do not know what Chalfont actually said. However, we can say that this affair does reflect an underlying reality: that because of the failure of capitalist "solutions" to Britain's ecoyomic and political problems a complete reappraisal is on the order of the day, In the event of a Government coming to power in Britain which was determined to carry out socialist domestic policies it would be met with the utmost hostility by capitalist America and capitalist Europe. A country like Britain which is so dependent on trade would have many problems in the event of pressure being put on her by the U.S. and the E.E.C. However, there is no excuse for any socialist today to be overawed by the strength of world capitalism, The communist countries and the third world countries are in great need of the products Britain traditionally exports. However, two preconditions would be necessary before this v:'. * market could be tapped: (1) there would have to be the granting of long-term credits; and (2) the gigantic changeover could not be achievedwithmt real planning of the economy, The granting of lon;-term credits is impossible to envisage unless a completely new order of priorities was installed in Britain's spending. The expensive armaments' programme would have to be scrapped, for instance, Real planning of the economy would be impossible without large-scale nationalisation and ruthless direction of the remaining private sector. Such a policy could not be implemented without a fierce struggle: despite tieir avowed "patriotism" British big businessmen would squeal like stuck pigs if told to transfer their exporting activites from the fat and profitable American and European markets, An end to the expensive armaments! pragramme would mean the ending of Britain's participation in all the capitalist alliances, But Britain could not be neutral: a Govennment in Britain committed to socialist policies would have to take the side of the oppressed. This is what Chalfont should have said: capitalist Britain is in an impasse. A complete change of policy is necessary, Domestically this means an aggressive anti-capitalist policy, In the field of foreign affairs, Britain is going to enter into friendly trade relations with those countries which have destroyed capitalism. Moreover, she will grant long term credits to those countries which are attempting to overcome the legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialsim, Militarily, Britain rejects all alliances designed to hold back social progress but she will actively assist national liberation struggles, Such a policy will never be carried out by the Chalfonts and Wilsons; we need now to build an alternative leadership that both kick out Wilson and carry out a complete change of policy,
Th? FEET ES
ee