{"id":386094,"date":"2025-08-31T00:49:15","date_gmt":"2025-08-31T00:49:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/386094\/"},"modified":"2025-08-31T00:49:15","modified_gmt":"2025-08-31T00:49:15","slug":"sarah-vine-this-tawdry-bid-to-drag-the-queen-into-brexit-brings-back-unpleasant-memories-for-me","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/386094\/","title":{"rendered":"SARAH VINE: This tawdry bid to drag the Queen into Brexit brings back unpleasant memories for\u00a0 me…"},"content":{"rendered":"

There weren\u2019t many lines of attack that were out of bounds during the 2016 Referendum campaign, but one area that neither side ever deliberately sought to weaponise was the monarchy, and specifically the late Queen.<\/p>\n

Everyone knew that Prince Charles<\/a>, now our King, was a Europhile, but Elizabeth II never openly expressed a firm opinion either way.<\/p>\n

And for good reason. Given the degree of respect and affection in which she was held by the British people, to have voiced a preference would have inevitably swayed public opinion.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s certainly the case that even her most carefully chosen words could have an effect. Arguably, when just four days before the Scottish referendum she remarked to a well-wisher, \u2018I hope people will think very carefully about the future,\u2019 she helped ensure Scotland remained within the Union. She knew her power and she used it wisely, which is why she always erred on the side of discretion.<\/p>\n

But now a new book, Power And The Palace, by Times journalist Valentine Low, confidently asserts that the Queen was a Remainer, citing a senior minister at the time recalling her say: \u2018We shouldn\u2019t leave the EU. It\u2019s better to stick with the devil you know.\u2019<\/p>\n

By way of strengthening his assertion, he also points out that when The Sun newspaper ran a front-page headline claiming, \u2018Queen Backs Brexit<\/a>\u2019, the Palace issued a formal complaint \u2013 but stopped short of issuing a denial.<\/p>\n

This, he claims, was most likely to avoid fuelling speculation that she privately favoured remaining within the EU. Calling the EU \u2018better the devil you know\u2019 is not exactly a ringing endorsement. But the truth is we have no real way of knowing, especially since, very sadly, her late Majesty is no longer around to speak for herself.<\/p>\n

To my mind, the most likely truth is that, like many of us, she was rather conflicted on the matter.<\/p>\n

\"'To <\/p>\n

‘To my mind, the most likely truth is that, like many of us, she was rather conflicted on the matter,’ writes Sarah Vine<\/p>\n

\"David <\/p>\n

David Cameron \u2013 who after all was PM at the time and therefore had regular access to her \u2013 probably puts it best when he notes that \u2018she thought that European cooperation was necessary and important’<\/p>\n

As a woman whose life and realm were shaped by post-war reconstruction, she would have appreciated the importance of collaboration with Europe. Then again, she was queen of a sovereign nation whose independence was frequently undermined by Brussels. There were advantages and disadvantages \u2013 and she appreciated both.<\/p>\n

David Cameron \u2013 who after all was PM at the time and therefore had regular access to her \u2013 probably puts it best when he notes that \u2018she thought that European cooperation was necessary and important, but the institutions of the EU sometimes can be infuriating\u2019.<\/p>\n

Certainly, the Queen\u2019s staunch commitment to the Commonwealth would tend to support the idea that she favoured the \u2018better together approach\u2019.<\/p>\n

Even so, I can\u2019t help feeling that there is something a little distasteful about the Remain campaign \u2013 of which The Times was always an important part \u2013 trying to \u2018own\u2019 the late Queen, even at a distance of almost a decade.<\/p>\n

We know they\u2019ve never truly accepted the result of the referendum, and this feels like just another attempt to undermine it.<\/p>\n

For me personally, it\u2019s also an unpleasant reminder of the toxicity of the debate \u2013 and how even the slightest comment, however light-hearted or trivial, could be picked up, wilfully misinterpreted and twisted out of all sense of proportion.<\/p>\n

Of how both sides, frankly, would stop at nothing to tear the other apart. I know this because I was at the heart of it all. I know the lies that were told, the deals that were broken, the lines that were crossed.<\/p>\n

Some of it I\u2019ve written about; some of it is still far too inflammatory to reveal; some of it is not my story to tell.<\/p>\n

But believe me: whatever unpleasantness was visible on the surface, what lay beneath was much worse.<\/p>\n

Her late Majesty\u2019s studious neutrality was an important part of why things didn\u2019t get much uglier. Not just on this issue but on others, too.<\/p>\n

Always, her strength of character and clarity of vision had a stabilising effect, even in the most tumultuous of times. She was an important part of why Britain remained for so long such a fundamentally civilised country and why, as we approach the third anniversary of her death on September 8, it feels like so much of what she built and stood for is slipping away.<\/p>\n

In life, she went out of her way to remain neutral on matters of high political drama. In death, it\u2019s only fair we respect her wishes.<\/p>\n