The Brussels Love Boat, or stretching a metaphor to breaking point

Heseltine, the federastic patrician of the Tory Party treason faction. It's almost worth watching Question Time (almost) to hear his strange opinions, such as right at the end of the show, when he justifies millions of pounds of foreign aid to India on the grounds that it was once part of the British Empire, so we have 'responsibilities', nothwithstanding the country's space programme. Earlier the subject of Britain's lost sovereignty is raised (@ 16:44):

"The whole issue of Europe (sic - he means the EU) is whether the nation state enhances its power by sharing sovereignty or tries to maintain a national posture whilst the rest of the world is sharing power, well the rest of Europe (sic - he means the EU) in our case, and the whole view of the last fifty years of British policy has been that Britain gained by being a leading influence in Europe, and that meant that you shared a whole range of decisions.

The verb 'to share' is chosen with care. It sounds so much better than 'giving away' or 'handing over'. It makes me search for examples of other things, like sovereignty, which are unwise to share. Let's go with wife-swapping.

Here's Heseltine, fallen in with a new crowd of swingers. In order to make friends and influence people he persuades his spouse to loosen up and go with the flow. Into the bargain, he gets to screw other women. But will his marriage be stronger? What if he doesn't actually tell his wife, until they're already at the boat party, it's cast-off and she's half-drunk?

Heseltine represents the federast political class. His wife; the British nation. In following his swinger plan, he breaks his marriage vows, as the political class has broken its oath to us. By keeping us in the dark until we were 'on the boat', he loses all legitimacy or claim of consent.

He, the political class, has benefited, through all his contacts and pig-troughing. His wife, the nation state, despises his treachery. Continuing:

If one takes it at its most extreme, and this is not about paedophilia, it's about industry, Europe is our biggest trading partner, there are going to be common standards, the same specifications, the same harmonisations, all through the industrial manufacturing process, if we are not part of that decision-making, the French and the Germans will fix the rules to help French and German industry.

Here, as usual, the federast picks up a seemingly reasonable point. After all, we must have standardisation, right? But, accepting this on face value for the moment, it does not follow that the British Parliament has to give over sovereignty to a foreign organisation for the good of industry standardisation. Such matters can be carried out between trading nations without any such surrender. In any case, if standardisation has such clear benefits, then surely industry would get on and standardise by itself? Is it not the case that British manufacturers who seek foreign markets will produce for those markets, whether or not they are impelled by legislation?

Lastly Heseltine tries, ironically enough, to use a nationalistic argument for our continued subservience to Brussels. It strikes me as a bit rich, after parading the worthiness of the EU love boat, he now reveals we're only on it to keep an eye on the Frogs and the Square-heads.