The Spectator's Notes

10 May 2008

Charles Moore's reflections on the week

The growing power of Islam in Britain has forced the British public to learn more about its component parts — Sunnis and Shiites, Deobandis and Barelwis, and so on. By the same token, I feel it is time for a more thorough understanding of Etonians as they start their reconquista of our country. They divide into two groups — Collegers and Oppidans. At any one time, there are only 70 Collegers and more than 1,200 Oppidans, but Collegers are scholars and represent the original purpose of the foundation, so they have an importance beyond their numbers. Collegers tend to live off their wits, Oppidans off their inheritance. Oppidans are more relaxed and confident, Collegers more twitchy and more original. Collegers make better companions at high table, but you would rather go into the jungle with Oppidans. George Orwell was a Colleger, James Bond was an Oppidan. Just because Collegers and Oppidans are both Etonians, it should not be supposed that there is a natural alliance between the two. David Cameron is a typical Oppidan of the top class. Boris Johnson is a typical Colleger ditto. That, in essence, is all you need to know about them. (I am a Colleger, by the way, so my witness may be considered tainted.)

Eurosceptics will be pleased that the tenacious Stuart Wheeler has managed to embarrass the government. Last week, he was granted judicial review of Gordon Brown’s decision not to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty despite Labour having promised that, when the treaty was known as the European Constitution, it would do so. I long for the court to find against the government when it hears the case on 9 June, just before the House of Lords is supposed to vote on the treaty, because I hope it will reopen the referendum argument. But it is actually a bad thing that judges can now lay down the law about political decisions. The promise to hold a referendum was a manifesto commitment at the last general election. Manifestos are not contractual documents. They are broad statements of attitude and intent, usually containing one or two enticing specific promises. It would be a bad thing if governments were bound by law to implement them: it would damage parliamentary sovereignty and the necessary freedom of governments to change when events change. If you feel that you have been cheated by a government which promised one thing and did another, your remedy, in a parliamentary democracy, is surely the ballot box, not the law courts. One of the strongest strands in Euroscepticism is a rebellion at the idea that unelected and unrepresentative authorities can run our lives. The political power of the judiciary, reinforced by ‘human rights’ and European legislation, is part of the problem. It will be very droll if Stuart Wheeler manages to turn it into part of the solution.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page