1. Redistribution of ownership wealth. Firstly, Privatisation shares and secondly sale of council houses to occupiers; policies that are not on the agenda of our political ‘partners in the EEC.
2. Radicalisation of public ownership and a very British protection of its banking sector: Banks to be ‘insured not run’ by a new form of nationalisation to defend private and public finances where global markets in recession are supported to ‘widen’ against the ‘narrowing’ of arteries of banks to lend and invest. This lynch-pin of Capitalism, could be floated onto the markets (sold back into the private sector) when circumstances are more favourable. As safe and as bankable an investment as selling-off council houses when the demand is at its most profitable.
3. Euro-sceptics can claim EEC is a ‘corporate Europe’ that is/has been preparing a political hostile corporate take-over against the UK, the City of London being Europe’s most envied jewel. Or EEC rules will want to tie-down with red-tape the advantages London’s business community has over its European competitors.
4. No incentive for Tories to dis-encourage massive council house construction when they could be quite an asset to any chancellor to sell them. Could only the Tories rely on party support for such a policy or could Labour do such a u-turn that it could be electorally popular and not damaging?
5. New demographic of working people uniting in mass participation to own their own properties. ‘Upstairs downstairs’ was wiped-out by a new generation of converts to new capitalism.
6. Less, not any more or no full-stop participation with the EEC for Britain would include an immigration policy of : ‘better immigration not no immigration or unlimited free passage immigration’. A Litmus test for any immigration policy must be that social or economic immigration must give way to ‘emergency immigration.’ Most British governments would prioritise the welcome Britain could give to Syrian refugees if Britain had control over its borders; more for less would promote Britain as a humanitarian leader coupled with sound practice.
This political ‘hijacking of opponents policy’ is nevertheless more assimulation than outright plagiarism. For political spin read 1980’s political ’deconstruction’; both seem relevant in policy –making today in Britain. It seems that controlling of your opponents strategy, policy and philosophical output is best done by suffocation of their political oxygen and trumping their ‘winning hand’ with intelligent policy flexibility, rather than orthodox doctrine.