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.

James Delingpole

I want my Brexit good and strong (and Theresa May seems to agree)

The Prime Minister is right to reject the new distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ Brexit

8 October 2016

9:00 AM

8 October 2016

9:00 AM

What you really should have done if you were in Birmingham on Monday this week was skip the not notably riveting Philip Hammond speech, and head instead for the fringe event run by the Bruges Group starring me, Professor David Myddelton and Charles Moore.

I can’t speak for my performance (modesty forbids me) but my fellow panellists were brilliant: funny, incisive and as optimistic as you’d expect of a pair of ardent Brexiteers addressing the victorious home crowd for probably the first time since that happy day in June.

‘Which of us here could ever have imagined that we’re actually part of the majority: the 52 per cent?’ I asked. And lots of people clapped at the wonderful warm feeling this gave them. But then I introduced a worm into their apple. ‘What we learned on 24 June is that the establishment elite are not representative of the country at large. And what we have learned since is that they are not about to give up any time soon…’

The most obvious example is this new distinction, endlessly promulgated by the BBC, between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ Brexit. No one talked about such a thing in the run-up to the referendum. The only people talking about it now are bitter Remainers trying to frustrate the democratic process. Most of us who voted for Brexit want it good and strong and hard.

This is why I think our ex-Remainer PM Theresa May played such a blinder with her forthright Sunday speech on Brexit. Yes I know there are those — even on the Leave side of the argument — who insist it isn’t possible, that there are all manner of complications which will stop us getting our way on tariff-free trade and freedom of movement. But you don’t go into negotiations conceding the pass before you’ve even begun. Just ask that guy who used to be PM.


One of the things I always loved about being an outspoken Brexiteer was being on the side of the people. It was like that time I served briefly in the Sealed Knot as a Parliamentarian pikeman with Col John Birch’s Regiment of Foot, shouting as we marched off to battle catchy slogans like ‘A pox on the King’ and ‘One King, King Jesus’. Within our ranks we embraced all manner of ideological convictions, from the socialist to the libertarian to the shy monarchist. But one thing we all agreed on: that the rotten establishment needed a proper kick up the arse.

It’s the same I think with the Brexit vote. Since the result, lots of commentators have speculated on what it really meant: was it anti-immigration, was it about a yearning for sovereignty, was it about protest, fish, economics, freedom? And Theresa May has wisely recognised that her legacy will largely depend on how successfully she answers these questions.

I think the solution is more basic than our experts realise: what most of us would really like, for a change, is a state that represents our interests. Let me give you an obvious example of this — one that happily Theresa May has addressed already: the legal harassment of our troops.

Almost every sane, normal person in the country at large has enormous respect for our serving men and women. It’s a brave and selfless thing to trade in your Playstation and Mum’s home cooking for a uniform, military discipline and the real prospect of having your legs blown off in a flyblown land where diarrhoea is a way of life.

What kind of deranged, sadistic, unpatriotic tosser would you have to be to send such people to fight for their country not only with their arms tied behind their backs (in terms of rules of engagement) but, worse, to allow ambulance-chasing lawyers (often representing either lying gold-diggers or murderous terrorists) to pursue them through the courts once they got home?

Whoever created this state of affairs — Tony Blair, presumably — was acting flagrantly against the interests of the British people. Anyone, in any pub or café or hairdresser’s across the land, could tell you that. Yet astonishingly, for years, even with a Conservative government with an ex-foxhunting Old Etonian in charge, this outrageous and inexcusable injustice was allowed to persist. It’s one of the many irritations that I suspect a lot of people would have had in mind on 23 June when they voted to give that remote, smug, complacent establishment one massive boot in the goolies.

Note that it’s not a left or right thing. It’s a plain bloody commonsense thing. Now I’ll give you another example, one this time where Theresa May’s administration has fallen woefully short: the Hinkley Point C nuclear project. If the government really has to get involved with energy infrastructure projects, then it has only one job: make sure the British people get a good deal.

In no wise could this be said of Hinkley. It commits Britain to buying outdated technology, at three times the going wholesale rate for electricity, in what has been described as the ‘worst deal in history’ — to the benefit of almost no one save French and Chinese investors. There may be political reasons behind this but the British people don’t care about political reasons. What they want — and deserve, because it’s their money — is cheap, reliable electricity.

What we can see already is that this administration is going to be a mixed bag of good sense and off-the-scale stupidity. On the latter side, next to Hinkley we can put the all but inevitable HS2 and anything to do with ‘industrial policy’; on the former we can put stuff like grammar schools, the scrapping of the Department for Energy and Climate Change and, with luck, the execution of Brexit. Could be worse, I suppose.

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