Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. The coalition gives Clegg a veto on arming Syria (Independent)

The greatest vindication of the Lib Dem leader's decision to take his party into government may still be to come, says Mary Dejevsky.

2. Borrowing for homes and roads would be popular (Times)

George Osborne is in no position to give lectures on borrowing, writes Mark Ferguson.

3. What's holding Britain down isn't benefits. It's low pay (Guardian)

Our brand of capitalism has become cannibalistic, writes Zoe Williams. The minimum wage isn't enough, and has become a profound drag on our economy.

4. Ashcroft and the Tories should part company (Daily Telegraph)

The Conservative peer's vicious and damaging public criticisms of the PM have gone too far, says Peter Oborne.

5. Stephen Hester's departure is a huge gamble, and one I fear will backfire (Daily Mail)

Changing the captain at this stage could be a huge error and, in the end, actually slow repair and recovery, writes Alex Brummer.

6. Ahmadinejad: we’ll miss him when he’s gone (Daily Telegraph)

Iran’s president was the bogeyman the west loved to hate, writes Richard Spencer. But his successor will be much tougher to deal with.

7. Big data has to show it’s not Big Brother (Financial Times)

We do not know yet what this new technology of data analysis and artificial intelligence means, writes John Gapper.

8. Europe must condemn Erdoğan, but without hubris or illusions (Guardian)

Europe should support those who stand up for our shared values, but don't expect miracles from Turkish democracy, writes Timothy Garton Ash.

9. Do you mind being snooped on? Take a test (Times)

Whatever your view, we all need to trust those who act in our names and the laws governing their activities, says David Aaronovitch.

10. NSA surveillance: who watches the watchers? (Guardian)

It's not the widening of state intrusion that's wrong, but the weakening of the safeguards that should be there to protect us, says Paddy Ashdown.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, William Hague, there's nothing anti-democratic about opposing Brexit

The former Tory leader appears to be suffering from a bout of amnesia. 

William Hague just made an eyecatching claim in the House of Lords during the debate over Article 50. He attacked those Remainers still seeking to restore Britain’s European Union membership in general and Tony Blair in particular, saying that if he had called on voters to “rise up” against New Labour after he lost the election, Blair would have told him to listen to the voters.

To be fair to Hague, it has been sixteen years since he went down to crushing defeat to Blair, so he may have forgotten some of the details. Happily, the full text of his resignation speech the morning after is still online.

Here’s Hague, 2001:

"The people have spoken. And just as it is vital to encourage everyone to participate in our democracy, so it is important to understand and respect the result. The Labour party have won the election and I have already congratulated them on doing so. But they have done so without great public enthusiasm….It is therefore a vital task for the Conservative party in the coming parliament to hold the government to account for the promises they have made and the trust people have placed in it.”

And here’s Blair, 2017:

“I want to be explicit. Yes, the British people voted to leave Europe. And I agree the will of the people should prevail. I accept right now there is no widespread appetite to re-think. But the people voted without knowledge of the terms of Brexit. As these terms become clear, it is their right to change their mind. Our mission is to persuade them to do so.”

And here’s Blair’s last line which has so offended William Hague:

“This is not the time for retreat, indifference or despair; but the time to rise up in defence of what we believe – calmly, patiently, winning the argument by the force of argument; but without fear and with the conviction we act in the true interests of Britain.”

This is funny, because here’s William Hague’s last line in 2001:

"I wish I could have led you to victory but now we must all work for our victories in the future.”

 Here’s what the “you lost, get over it” crowd have to explain: what is the difference between these two speeches? Both acknowledge a defeat, acknowledge the mountain to climb for the defeated side, but resolve to work harder to secure a better result next time.

It’s particularly galling when you remember that taking Britain back in would not require a second referendum but a third: because the Brexiteers, far from losing in 1975 and getting over it, spent four decades gearing up to take Britain out of the European Union.

There’s a more valid criticism to be had of the value of a continuity Remain campaign which appears to hold many of the people who voted to Leave in distaste. Certainly, at present, the various pro-Remain forces look more like the unattractive fringe that lost in 1975 than the well-disciplined machine that won the replay in 2016. But the fact there was a replay in the first place shows that there’s nothing anti-democratic about continuing to hold on to your beliefs after a defeat. What is anti-democratic is trying to claim that the result of any electoral contest, however narrow or how large, means that everyone who disagreed with you has to shut up and pretend you were right all along. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.