Learning from history - again!!

So the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party are now down to two, and they are both, apparently but not surprisingly in view of the clout of the "little Britain" wing of the party, eager to present themselves as eurosceptic. And yet, once again, look at the past. If there's one thing that two world wars have taught us (or should have) it is that, however much we may want to, we cannot be self-sufficient - at least if we wish to maintain anything like the lifestyle we aspire to. This was why the Battle of the Atlantic was second only to the Battle of Britain in importance to the eventual outcome of the last war. So, it's clear that we need to have an trading/economic alliance with someone - the only question is, who? There are only three reasonable options - (a) the USA, (b) the Commonwealth, or (c) Europe. The problem with the USA - apart from the fact that many people, myself included, would baulk at any possibility of becoming the de facto 51st state - is distance. Goods from the USA will have to travel around 3,000 miles or more, with all the cost and other implications involved. The same problems arise with the Commonwealth, quite apart from the fact that the Commonwealth is basically an artificial grouping of countries that don't always get on that well with each other, so long-term stability cannot be taken for granted. And that leaves Europe. We may wish that Europe worked better, but the question of whether we should be in or not is really a no-brainer, isn't it?