Brexit and a royal mistake
“Twinkle twinkle little star We by-and-large know what you are Though it may sound a little crass You’re just a bunch of nucleating gas Twinkle twinkle little star
The Collected Works of L. Fell
(Ed. By
Bachchoo
)
No sooner had news of the suicide bombings in Brussels hit the world than the vile opportunists of British politics began using the slaughter to further the ends of their political argument. In this case, it’s the argument of whether to stay in European Union or to leave it. The proponents of British exit from the EU (“Brexit”), even before the blood in the Brussels Metro was dry, issued scare-mongering statements claiming that the acts of terror which murdered 35 people and injured 150 was a direct consequence of membership of the European Union. The corollary: British voters should vote to leave.
Of course, the opponents of Brexit, those who want Britain to remain in the EU, which includes British Prime Minister David Cameron, argue that the bombings prove that cooperation between European nations is the only guarantee of future security.
Mr Cameron and his finance minister George Osborne, who is also against leaving the EU, are in trouble.
Mr Cameron wisely or unwisely allowed his ministers to dissent and the Tories are now at war with themselves. Their antagonisms bear comparison to a Mughal war of succession in which sons will imprison fathers and blind or kill their brothers. As in the internecine wars of the Mughals, the ultimate prize is the top job. One or two Cabinet members, serving in Mr Cameron’s government are shamelessly positioning themselves to succeed him as Prime Minister.
One of the Brexit advocates, Michael Gove, who is serving at present as justice minister is suspected of using what the unwritten British constitution considers a dirty tactic.
According to this constitution, ever since Cromwell and his Republicans (not to be confused with Donald Trump’s lot) cut off Charles I’s head in the 17th century, the monarchs of England have haemorrhaged power. Royalty are now figureheads and they are not so much “above” politics and policies, as forbidden to participate in them. The voters of England rule, okay The Queen and her household are expected to venture no political opinion and Elizabeth II is reputed to have staunchly avoided any interference in government or public policy.
The Queen, and indeed the members of the Royal family, are permitted to pilot helicopters, join the armed forces, head up charities and international commissions to get rid of landmines, to ride in carriages and wave at the public, to throw garden parties for their subjects, speak on behalf of British business on forums abroad, launch ships, cut ribbons to open fetes and many other duties. They are not permitted to say what they think of cutting taxes or increasing them, of going to war in Iraq or for that matter to say whether they think Britain is better off outside the EU or inside it.
The Queen is now accused by the Sun newspaper of breaking the golden rule of silence and expressing an opinion on Brexit to politicians and ministers who were her guests at Windsor Palace. The Queen’s spokespeople have challenged the Sun story, which was that at a gathering of some ministers of the Privy Council, traditionally advisers to the monarch, she expressed strong opinions in favour of Brexit. The Queen’s people, backed by one of the then ministers present, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democratic Party who is now out of government and is strongly opposed to Brexit, said no such conversation took place.
The editor of the Sun, Tony Gallagher, says he won’t disclose the identity of his highly reliable sources but will back up his paper’s scoop with more information.
When the Privy Councillors met the Queen, Michael Gove was education minister and was present when the Sun says the Queen expressed such an opinion.
The issue is the hottest potato in British politics today and promises to be so for at least the duration of this year and perhaps this Parliament, whose term expires in 2020. On June 23, British voters will be summoned to a referendum which will determine the issue by a majority vote. The Sun and its sources certainly calculate that the Queen’s opinion will influence a significant number of voters.
Mr Gove is the justice minister in the present government and a very vociferous and influential voice on the Brexit ticket. When asked to confirm or deny the Sun’s story, he merely said, “have a nice day” or “how’s your uncle” or some such deeply meaningful denial to the reporters hounding him.
Neither Mr Clegg nor Mr Gove have categorically said that the Queen said no such thing. Mr Clegg merely said he could recall nothing. Mr Gove told Mr Cameron, his boss and personal friend, who is on the opposite side, that it was not he who leaked the story to the Sun and Mr Cameron told the world that he believed his pal.
The Sun now says it has very many more details which it hasn’t yet published and that it is ready to face an investigation into the scoop as it stands by the two impeccable sources who gave the paper the story.
An enquiry by the regulators of the British press has been initiated. It will enquire into whether the Queen did breach the convention of strict political neutrality. In all probability it will not force the Sun to reveal its sources because if the revelation does implicate Mr Gove, it will put him in a very awkward constitutional position as violating the privacy of the Privy Council and the Queen.
The Queen can’t very well now say that the story is a lie and that she wholeheartedly supports being in the EU. Her job depends on remaining neutral, even though this job is defined by an unwritten constitution and relies on precedent, on tradition and to a certain degree on common sense.