Why is the Daily Telegraph sitting on the EU referendum fence?
|
Version 0 of 1. The Daily Telegraph has been acting rather strangely in the past couple of weeks, making it unclear exactly where it stands on the European Union referendum. For years, it has been the natural home of Eurosceptic thought and its readers could be forgiven for thinking it will opt for Brexit. But there has been a disconnect of late between the choice of news content, which appears to have favoured the Brexit cause, and its wavering leading articles. Rather than full-throated support for Brexiteers, urging people to vote to leave the EU, it has chosen to talk about the need for a debate On 22 February, it acclaimed Boris Johnson’s decision to back Brexit with a poster-style front page and a big show for his Telegraph column, with a giant headline, “Vote Go.” Its editorial was more measured, arguing that the leave campaign now had a leader. The following day, it called for the debate “to be conducted amicably to avoid the Tory party ripping itself apart” and welcomed David Cameron’s call for “a gigantic democratic exercise in accountability.” On 24 February, a leading article headlined “Voters need the full facts for EU debate”, expanded on what has since become a Telegraph theme. In pleading for Cameron to allow the civil service to provide data to the anti-EU side, it reiterated the importance of the debate without saying where it stood. Similarly, today’s (Thursday’s) issue was odd. A large front page headline, “Wages to rise if we quit EU”, based on a claim by Lord (Stuart) Rose, contrasted with a leading article, taking Rose to task for “ambiguity” and accused “both sides” in the debate of indulging “in a barrage of hints, threats, obfuscations and obstreperous confrontations that have proved occasionally explosive but rarely enlightening.” What the voters deserve, said the editorial, is “a great deal less heat, and a good deal more light” because “the public is hungry for serious debate.” Some people may think that the Telegraph itself has spent years publishing a barrage of hints, threats and obfuscations that was anything but enlightening. The Telegraph has been consistently hostile to the EU and all its works. Why then is it being so reticent now? Have the owners, the Barclay brothers, changed their minds? Has the chairman, Aidan Barclay, had second thoughts? Or is it a case of the editor, Chris Evans, striving to be impartial despite the paper’s historical stance? If the Telegraph’s letters page is any guide, then it is abundantly clear where the readers stand. My survey shows that the overwhelming majority are for Brexit. Since 22 February (Boris day), the referendum has been the main topic on every day’s letters page. In that period, the paper has published 78 letters about the EU. Of those, 49 favoured Brexit with only seven arguing that Britain should remain in the EU. The other 22 were either neutral or made comments that did not reveal the writers’ viewpoints. I also noted that at least 18 letters made references that were specifically ill-disposed to Cameron. Almost every lead letter was from a Brexiteer, as the headlines illustrate: “Cameron’s approach to the EU puts the political elite before his party”... “Having gambled all to stay in the EU, Cameron could never bring us out”... “To help its nearest allies, Britain would be better placed outside the EU”... “Voting to remain in a European Union set on further expansion is the real ‘leap in the dark’”. Only one headline favoured the opposite point of view: “In an unstable world, Britain can’t afford to lose the military security provided by the EU”. That was over a letter written by a collective of assorted generals. I am sure the choice of letters by the page’s meticulous editor, Christopher Howse, is a pretty accurate reflection of the overall daily postbag, so we can be sure that the bulk of Telegraph’s more activist readers want Britain to quit the EU. In such circumstances, dare the Telegraph do other than support Brexit, the logical outcome of its historic antagonism towards Brussels? If it should do otherwise, or even maintain its new fence-sitting line (you decide, rather than us), then it could well face a readership backlash. |