Which Planet?

We expect Guardian writers to concoct ideas based on falsehoods but this is a classic.

Of course, you can have doubts about the whole idea of Turkish entry. Of course - like the French and German parliamentarians I heard at a Lisbon seminar the other day - you can lament the fate of that ever closer union between the founding states and see Turkey's coming (not to mention a wretchedly Anglo-Saxon constitutional treaty) as a stake driven through its heart.

We Eurosceptics have of course seen the Turkey cause as a way of destroying the dream of ever closer union. But an Anglo Saxon Constitution, surely you jest. An Anglo Saxon constitution would not have relegated us to the role of Serf to our lords and masters. It would have been based on the concept that we were free people. This constitution is French down to its last full stop. How a former president of the French Republic could have produced an Anglo Saxon document is not explained. It is of course possible that supporters of this wretched treaty are complaining that it is too Anglo Saxon so as to mislead the voters. In this way our side’s arguments will sound like scare tactics. This assumes a great deal of intelligence on the part of socialists, whereas the other possibility is that Peter Preston is an ignoramus. I’m not sure which I believe. In another showing of his intelligence he talks of the benefits of Turkish membership to the current members.

The union of 25 needs Turkey for its youth, zeal and commitment to development, a tiger in our tank.

Apart from the shock at seeing a Guardian writer advertise the worlds largest oil company, has he not thought of the possibility that the EU way of doing business might kill Turkey’s youth, zeal and commitment? Europe does not need a tiger in its tank, it needs to take the regulatory foot off the brake another issue completely. Whether a large country with an aversion to rules and regulations can make a difference here is another matter entirely.