Reader TTS

Two very different aspects of British politics were on display yesterday. In Westminster, a bad-tempered meeting of the Cabinet fought over a possible extension to Article 50, the latest

battle in the proxy war over Brexit that has divided parties, Parliament and the country. Over in the West End, an audience of well over 2,000 filled the London Palladium to cheer Jacob

Rees-Mogg as he set out his Conservative vision of a post-Brexit future. The man who is often depicted as the most divisive, reactionary figure in Britain argued that if only we could get

Brexit done, the Tories could get on with reuniting the country. He was actually calling for his own version of one nation Conservatism. And Middle England loved  him for it. Rees-Mogg

explained what was really at stake in the Cabinet conflict over extending Article 50 beyond March 29: “Most people who want a delay want to stop Brexit.” He had in mind the three pro-EU

ministers dubbed “kamikazes” by Liz Truss: Amber Rudd, David Gauke and Greg Clarke. He accepted that Parliament— in which “at least 500 out of 650 MPs never wanted Brexit” — might vote for a

three-month extension of Theresa May loses her vote in a fortnight. That, he thought, would be worth it “to get a good deal out of Brexit”. But any longer extension than June risked playing

into the hands of the far-Right: “If we stay beyond the European elections, there will be only one winner from that, and that would be Tommy Robinson.” Rees-Mogg made it clear that, rather

than risk dividing the country with an indefinite delay or even a second referendum, he would prefer a simpler option: “I would be quite happy to leave without a deal.” The audience roared

its approval. Rees-Mogg is often sneered at as “the honourable member for the 18th century”, but he reminded us why knowing a little history can be useful. “We should be the free trade

party, we should be on the side of consumers, we should be on the side of cheaper prices,” he declared, “even if Michael Gove may be arguing for the reintroduction of the Corn Laws”. He was,

of course, referring to promises made by Gove that farmers would be protected by tariffs after Brexit. Such a protectionist policy would lead to higher food prices — an odd position for the

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to adopt. Another of Rees-Mogg’s barbs was aimed at the Speaker, John Bercow, whom he blamed for the power grab by

Remain-supporting MPs to delay Brexit and perhaps prevent it altogether. By tearing up precedent, Mr Speaker had “gone a little further than I’d have advised. I think the clerks [of the

Commons] take that view as well…If it hadn’t been for [the Speaker] we could be leaving without a deal on 29 March”. Surely a no-deal Brexit would be the most divisive outcome of all? Not in

Rees-Mogg’s view. He repeated the now familiar Brexiteer argument that “hundreds of other countries are not members of the European Union”, yet do perfectly well, and there was no reason to

think Britain would be any different. One may dismiss that as a debating point, but it is harder to dispute his main argument, that 17.4 million people had voted for Brexit in the

referendum and it was therefore imperative that the result should be honoured. Who had paid good money to hear Rees-Mogg? These were not mad “Moggies”, but normal middle-class people, many

of them from “outside the M25”, as he pointedly reminded Londoners in the audience. If the Tories are ever to rebuild their support right across the country, they will need people like this.

Nobody else, except possibly Boris Johnson, could have filled a London theatre to listen to a political discussion chaired by Fraser Nelson, the Editor of the _Spectator. _Whatever the

metropolitan establishment may think of him, Rees-Mogg has a unique charisma that is anything but patronising. “Not one of you is ‘ordinary’. Every one of you has a soul that is loved by

God,” he told them, to the delight of the faithful among his followers. One might be forgiven for supposing that the Almighty was being enlisted for the cause of Brexit, but Rees-Mogg was

having none of it. “Parliament is sovereign,” he insisted, “but it is not above God. He is a non-voting member.” Rather than Oliver Cromwell, “God’s Englishman”, Rees-Mogg admires Charles I.

He believes that politics should above all be polite. And he practises what he preaches. It’s a very Anglo-Saxon attitude, but it’s not a bad basis for bringing the country back together

again.