X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Tony Blair is right about Brexit

17 February 2017

3:16 PM

17 February 2017

3:16 PM

I don’t know about you but if I were to make a speech arguing that democracy should be abandoned, I probably wouldn’t begin by saying ‘I want to be explicit. Yes, the British people voted to leave Europe. And I agree the will of the people should prevail.’

That’s just me, however. When Tony Blair says this, he apparently means to encourage an anti-democratic insurrection. Which, I suppose, makes sense if you still suffer from an acute case of Blair Derangement Syndrome. Plenty of people evidently do.

If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.

Evidently, that’s impossible. Special marks, by the way, are awarded to the foreign secretary who, despite being an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War, responded to Blair’s speech by suggesting it could and should be ignored because Blair took the UK to war in Iraq.

Be that as it may, hear this: some things can be true even when they are said by Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. For instance:’How hideously, in this debate, is the mantle of patriotism abused’. How, seriously, can anyone sensibly disagree with this? Brexiteer rhetoric condemns 48 percent of the electorate as nothing more than lickspittle sell-outs. Craven souls who lack the courage to ‘take back control’ and instead prefer to ‘talk Britain down’ whenever the opportunity arises. These people, fat on their messes of Brussels pottage, never miss an opportunity to observe that Britain is too small, too stupid and probably too poor to make a fist of things without the comforting cushion of EU membership.


What nonsense. And outrageous nonsense at that. Since when did questioning the government become inappropriate? At what point, and by whom, was it decreed that dissent is unconscionable? Brexit means Brexit, so pipe down at the back there. Don’t you realise you lost? So shut-up, you, you, you Remoaner you.

When Blair observes that ‘the ideologues are the ones driving this bus’ he is, again, correct. If this were not the case, Nigel Farage, a man previously considered toxic by even the official Leave campaign, would be in no position to declare himself wholly satisfied by the approach the government is taking. It was Dan Hannan, apparently Brexit’s greatest intellectual, who says his mission in life was to persuade Britain to ‘get out of the European Union, at whatever cost’. Is it really unreasonable to ask if the cost is likely to prove eye-wateringly expensive? Apparently so and yet the official line of Brexit patriotism – as swaggering as it is oafish – declares such questioning tantamount to treason.

The arrogance of this! The sheer effrontery of claiming one side – a side that only narrowly prevailed, by the way – has a monopoly on patriotism! That only one side can be allowed to make an argument in favour of its own definition of the national interest. Some of us endured quite enough of this at the hands of Alex Salmond and his colleagues in 2014 and we’ve little appetite for hearing the same things, couched in the same bullying rhetoric, from the likes of Boris, Michael, Liam, David and Theresa. Saying ‘we’re going to make a success of this’ is all very well and good but does not actually make making a success of it any more likely.

Perhaps Brexit really will offer a path to the sunlit uplands of greater prosperity. Let us hope so. But what if it doesn’t? What if the present trend of encouraging economic data peters out as Brexit actually happens? All Blair has done today is suggest that those who think Brexit sub-optimal should continue to make their case so that, should public opinion change, a new course could be contemplated. There should be nothing terribly controversial about this, not even when its suggested by someone like Tony Blair.

The chutzpah of the Leavers knows no bounds, however. Before the referendum Farage made it clear that a narrow defeat – by, say, four points – would not end the matter. It would just be a staging post on the road to another referendum. Does anyone think Farage was the only Brexiteer to think this? Come on. If your life’s work were dedicated to removing Britain from the EU why should anything as minor as a referendum defeat cause you to fold your tent and retire? In like fashion, the SNP’s commitment to another Scottish referendum might be tiresome but it’s hardly disreputable. They have their right to make their argument.

But so, in this instance, do those who think Brexit might yet prove an alarming mistake. At the very least they are utterly entitled to note there are many kinds of Brexit and the one to which we are currently hurtling is one condemned by the Prime Minister and her Chancellor less than a year ago. What was folly then is now rebranded as wisdom and the settled will of the British people. Again, come on.

Meanwhile, nothing else happens. Everything is seen through the Brexit lens. The government is consumed by Brexit but has yet to offer the barest hint it knows how it can actually achieve what it says it wants to accomplish. The people, bless them, are fobbed off with the suggestion they should simply trust their government because it will all be alright on the night.

Let us hope that proves the case. Let us hope the government does know what it is doing. If that be the case, however, they have done a damn fine job of disguising it. Instead, however, we must endure shrieking about how Britain is now, once again, a free country that has slipped the chains of its Belgian bondage and, far from laughing at such twaddle, we must treat it with some measure of awed reverence. What nonsense.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close