The Queen has gone too far – it’s not her place to meddle in Brexit

Not even the Queen, with the authority and experience she brings to bear, can create common ground where none exists. Britain is split, and bitterly, in two almost equal halves

It is ironic that, having been almost palpably fearful of the Prince of Wales’s reputation for “interfering” in political matters, the Queen should have made such a frank and powerful intervention in the Brexit debate.

A call for “compromise” usually sounds reasonable, like the appeal she made for the nation to cool it during her Christmas message. However, it is probably the wrong thing to do, if I may be impertinent.

First, there is a broad read-off – plausibly deniable but real enough – between her plea for “common ground” and “no hard Brexit”, or “no no-deal Brexit” or in other words, crashing out in order to trade, easily or not, on World Trade Organisation terms. For that is indeed the only thing there is broad common ground on in the House of Commons at least. However, it is not “common ground” in the country as a whole.

I am terrified by the idea, and fear that my fellow citizens who call for a “clean break” or for us to “just get out” underestimate the economic damage it would cause. However, I respect their rights to such a view and, if they can pressure parliament into acceding to it as their “wish”, or the “will” expressed in the 2016 referendum, then that is something I would have to accept.

I don’t think Her Majesty should be wading in. Unless we get our second referendum, there is little point in her telling the people what she thinks. She needs to tell her government to sort it out.

Alternatively, the Queen’s veiled message could be interpreted as a push away from Labour’s call for a new general election, and towards Theresa May’s plan, as the alternative to hard “no-deal” Brexit, the one which was defeated so dramatically by the Commons the other day – our elected representatives crushing it like they have never crushed a major piece of legislation before. The idea of the May plan as a “compromise” is a dangerous one; it is in fact the worst of all worlds, inferior to its more “extreme” alternates.

The Queen should not, even lightly, be anointing the May plan. That then puts our constitutional monarchy at odds with the Commons, and with the main opposition party, which has no interest in common ground even within the Labour Party itself.

It is interesting to see “the Crown” in parliament, ie the government, allied to “the Crown” as the personal symbol of the nation. Not since the English Civil War have we seen such a divide. We don’t want to go through all that again. Yet a schism that now reaches from the bottom to the top of society is where we are. That is what Brexit has inflicted upon us, just as President Macron, with unseemly glee, is now pointing out. That’s one head of state the British really don’t want to be advising them right now.

And so we find the monarch on the side of one party, or rather of one faction within one party, rather than staying above and beyond the political sphere. With respect, it would have been much better to stay silent and allow the politicians and people – through a Final Say referendum – to resolve things. She may even have made matters worse, God help us, which can hardly have been her intention.

Besides, not even the Queen, with the authority and experience she brings to bear can create common ground where none exists. Britain is split, and bitterly, in two almost equal halves, a cultural divide as deep and ugly as any of the political divisions that have struck her country during her reign. Would that people would listen; but, I am sorry to say, even the super-patriotic, nationalistic, naturally monarchist section of society would resent this intervention if it weakens “their” Brexit.

The Queen cannot allow herself to be painted as some establishment patsy or accomplice in the ”theft” of Brexit. Under previous editorship, the Daily Mail would have her as an “enemy of the people”, out of touch and privileged and in charge of a broken family.

Does the Queen favour being inside the EU customs union, temporarily or permanently? What about “a” customs “arrangement” such as her prime minister’s doomed “facilitated customs arrangement”, murdered at the Salzburg summit; or how about the leader of the opposition’s vague “customs agreement”? What about free movement of people, such as that which enriched our royalty via William the Conqueror, William of Orange, the Hanoverians, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Mary of Teck, Prince Philip of Greece and (albeit outside the EU) Meghan Markle?

It is not the first time she has intervened, and she seems to find it irresistible when the vows she took at her coronation and her wider sense of her protective role are affected. In 1977 and again in 2014, she made remarks that were plainly against Scottish independence – and she “purred” when David Cameron told her that Scotland would be staying in the UK. That was pushing it too.

Before the EU Referendum she reportedly asked “why can’t we just leave?” It was, one would hope, an innocent question about practicalities, rather than a Farageist cri de coeur. Well, now she, and the rest of us, knows why we can’t “just leave”. Her best role is to advise and warn her ministers, about her fears; and for them to listen attentively and not leak them to The Sun. In the end though, even she can’t fix Brexit. Like when she drives her Range Rover, or travels in the back of the state Bentley, she should probably belt up.