Fair comment
Sir: In The Spectator of 1 November, I wrote that Robert Jackson had 'made an extraordinary intervention' in the Com- mons in inviting Gordon Brown to repudi- ate his pledge on a referendum on EMU and to regard a general election victory as a sufficient mandate. Mr Jackson now claims (Letters, 22 November) that I misrepre- sented him and ought to apologise. He would have us believe that when question- ing Gordon Brown in the Commons he `wanted to get it on record that Labour does not consider that a general election mandate could be substituted for . . [a] ref- erendum [on EMU]'.
It would indeed have been easy to put a question along those lines, but Mr Jackson did not do so. Instead, he asked the Chan-
LETTERS
cellor, 'Is the government's commitment to a referendum as the device for securing . popular consent [to EMU] absolute; or is it possible, in the government's view, that that requirement could be met by getting a mandate in a general election?' Mr Jack- son's words cannot bear the construction that he would now like to place upon them. He is being misrepresented, but not by me.
He also states that I ought to have spo- ken to him before writing my piece. But my observations were based solely on his remarks in the House. Is he really insisting that no one should comment on his ques- tions or speeches without first asking him whether he meant what he said?
Bruce Anderson
The Spectator,
London WC1
Previous page
