As 31 January looms, I’ve been thinking about how to bring the country back together again after we’ve left the EU. How can those who’ve spent the past three-and-a-half years fighting Brexit tooth and nail be persuaded to accept Britain’s new status? Bear in mind that many of them occupy highly influential positions — as Supreme Court judges, for instance. The last thing we want is for them to sabotage our post-Brexit future in an attempt to prove they were right all along.
However, I had an encounter at a Christmas party with Lionel Barber, the outgoing editor of the Financial Times, that made me think a Truth and Reconciliation Commission may not be necessary. I was getting my coat as he was arriving and I suggested it would be a good idea for the leading figures on both sides to meet after 31 January to discuss how to put their differences behind them.
‘Why me?’ he asked.
How dare they pretend to be on the winning side when they were among Brexit’s most dogged opponents?
‘Because you’ve been such a passionate opponent of Brexit,’ I said.
‘Nonsense,’ he replied. ‘I’ve always felt a bit ambivalent about it, but I’ve never denied there are huge opportunities for Britain outside the EU.’
I was dumbfounded. A bit ambivalent?! That’s like the leader of the Spanish Inquisition claiming he only had a few qualms about the heliocentric theory. Not only did the FT campaign relentlessly against a Leave vote in 2016, but it refused to accept the result, publishing editorial after editorial attacking the idea that Britain’s economy could thrive outside the single market and the customs union. Its columnists, with the exception of Merryn Somerset-Webb, wrote the script that was then followed in the Senior Common Rooms of Oxbridge and the boardrooms of the City.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in