The latest Barclay Brothers bombing raid on Prince Andrew is a dud

Obscure diplomat Stephen Day

The letter written by a diplomat who left the service 18 years ago has dominated the Daily Telegraph’s news pages today. The whole thing is a ridiculously thin and vindictive episode – symbolic of an FCO turf war that normally wouldn’t merit more than a footnote in some memoirs. But the Telegraph team will not rest until Prince Andrew is completely discredited. The Slog wants to know why.

The Torygraph’s campaign against the Duke of York gets more shrill with every day. ‘Sack the Duke says former Ambassador’ was today’s effort. The former ambassador is 73 year-old Stephen Day, billed as ‘a former head of the Foreign Office’s Middle East section’.

But this isn’t what his cv says. It mentions only that Day was the Ambassador to Qatar (that huge Sovereign state) from 1981 -84; and then to Tunisia (another emerging giant) from 1987-92. For most of that time, Prince Andrew was flying helicopters for the Royal Navy. For some of it he was fighting for his country to retake the Falklands, a  territory very nearly handed to the Argentinians thanks to the Foreign Office being asleep, again. So it’s pertinent to ask just what the bejasus Stephen Day would know ‘first-hand’ about the Prince’s skills as an envoy.

So eminent is this chap, he doesn’t merit a Wikipedia page. There’s one for deaf stand-up comedian Stephen Day, one for Tory MP Stephen Day, composer Stephen Day and Congressman from Illinois Stephen Day. But nothing for a chap who once allegedly ran the Middle East desk single-handed, or not.

Day’s letter (‘obtained by the Daily Telegraph’ – gosh) is reprinted in full. So we can all make a judgment about whether Stephen knows his onions, or is merely suffering from sour grapes.

There are some corkers in there. Near the start, we get an immediate idea of the turf-war going on here:

‘The suggestion that a Prince is needed to “open doors” is insulting to our Ambassadors. Has that not been their primary job, as representatives of The Queen to foreign Heads of State? And are they not fully competent to support serious business proposals, as welcome to the host country as they will be to Britain?’

So, why have envoys? And the competence thing….hmmm. I’d call for witnesses to refute that one, but I’d hate to be blamed for lives being lost in the rush.

‘Trade promotion is a serious, long-term commitment, in which the embassy can give the best informed guidance and work effectively in partnership with the British enterprise and in step with Whitehall and other agencies to consolidate reputations and build long-term success’.

Is he kidding? It’s at this point you begin to wonder if Day is a double-agent working for the Royals. Working ‘effectively’, ‘building long-term success’…..dear oh dear. We have lost share of almost every market round the world under this God-given system. That’s why we need envoys, you silly old former diplomat.

But this next one is a crackerjack: (My emphasis)

‘As a member of the Service I did my fair share of trade promotion work in the Gulf, Canada, North Africa and Hong Kong. This experience left me in no doubt that corruption presents the greatest threat to Britain’s long-term political and commercial interests. This is especially true of the Arab world, where reputation matters and memories are long.’

Excuse me while I change my underwear. In three out of four of those places, corruption is the only way to get anything done: and the ‘reputation’ one needs is a skill with numbered Swiss bank accounts and hanky-panky doggie-doggie. (See BaE fighter-plane examples passim)

Mr Day gets very uptight that the Prince has dared to talk to his blood-brother the Amir of Qatar, although it’s not clear why. But then this absolute pearler of a doubled standard pops up in the rant:

‘So far as the FIFA bid is concerned, is it conceivable that some responsible people in London thought it better to pass to a member of the Royal Family the risk of making an improper proposal, rather than instruct an official?’

Well of course Steve, I mean, stands to reason dunnit? When it comes to a bung, you gotta go through the proper channels, am I right or am I right? (Of course Day didn’t mean that: but that’s how it reads. And this man is a diplomat?)

Let me explain something to Stephen Day: Qatar didn’t win the bid to stage the 2022 World Cup on the basis of its perfect climate and massive soccer infrastructure: it’s 50 in the shade on most days there, and the goalposts haven’t even got nets yet. It got the bid, Mr Day, because your mate the Amir is filthy stinking rich and coughed up a huge amount of money to the right people in FIFA, so sue me already. (A short aside: the night before the 2018 bid announcement, our chaps at the FO told David Cameron that the decision would go ‘right down to the wire’. We lost by 22 votes 2).

Two ‘acounts’ of nefarious Andrew activities then follow, to do with Tunisia. Both are third-hand gossip: in a court of law they wouldn’t even be admissable as hearsay evidence. Day’s line here is that it was a dashed good job his chaps were on hand to sort it all out. And that must be why, when the Tunisian revolution started, the Foreign Office here and the Embassy out there were utterly gobsmacked.

But by now, Day of the FO is purple with rage that his Middle-Eastern chums (because of Prince Andrew?) have been attacked in the British press. This is a brave stance for him to take, and somewhat akin to telling the world that Fred Goodwin is a misunderstood philanthrope:

‘On Thursday, The Today programme attacked Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi (arguably the greatest of all the Gulf rulers and a true friend of Britain) and yesterday I had to defend Sheikh Hamad of Qatar against the charge that he is a tyrant.’

Great scot – how dare they!

Anyway, I have no doubt that the bombardment of York House by Guy Gallagher and his squadron of York Busters will continue. I have no doubt (if it hasn’t already happened while I’ve been drafting this) that Prince Andrew will get the sack. In the same way as David Laws and Vince Cable had to go too. Because people in island places don’t like them.

So I will close with these questions for the ‘news’ team at the Telegraph this afternoon:

1. Has Stephen Day ever even met Prince Andrew?

2. How did you obtain the letter?

3. What is it about Prince Andrew that you need to tarnish – and why?

Look, as I’ve made clear before – I’m no apologist for Prince Andrew. But I do know a thing or two about the Duke’s anger at having (as he sees it) his family’s phones hacked. And it really, really doesn’t do to get on the wrong side of unelected, foreign or expat moguls, now does it?

Perhaps we could send a few Foreign Office chaps to sort it out.

cc Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II.