Page 16 Daily Mail, Friday, August 30, 2019COMMENT
Women need full facts
on HRT cancer risk
FOR millions of women in Britain, HRT
has been nothing short of a blessing.
Introduced in the 1960s, it proved a simple
medication that relieved debilitating
symptoms of the menopause. The drug has
transformed the lives of middle-aged
women enduring discomfort and misery.
Using patches, tablets or gels to replace
hormones the body had stopped producing,
grateful women could avoid depression,
mood swings, night sweats and joint pain.
Preventing these crippling anchors meant
they could enjoy fulfilling lives.
However, 17 years ago a dark cloud
appeared. Scientists cast doubt on HRT’s
safety, suggesting a link to cancer.
Quickly, though, questions were raised
about whether the research was flawed –
failing to take into account lifestyle factors
such as diet and alcohol consumption.
But today, a profoundly disturbing Oxford
University study raises those fears all over
again. Academics have found HRT increases
the risk of breast cancer by a third.
Alarmingly, for one woman in 50 the
treatment causes cancer. In Britain, the
study indicates 3,000 lives are blighted
every year. And the danger persists for up
to 15 years after ditching the drug. Even
more worryingly, researchers suggest some
GPs have wrongly told patients not to fret.
There is no question this new research
will trigger a huge debate. Indeed, a
renowned expert explains in the Daily Mail
today that he still considers it a preferable
option to having no treatment at all.
For most, the untold mental and physical
health benefits easily outweigh the very
small risk of cancer. But women deserve to
be appraised of all the facts – especially
when the decision can end in tragedy.
The spotlight now falls on Health Secretary
Matt Hancock. It is his urgent duty to make
sure guidelines are updated – and fast.
Put the country f irst!
RUTH Davidson’s decision to quit as
Conservative leader in Scotland is a
painful blow.
Her remarkable dynamism drove the
party’s revival north of the border, seizing
traditional Labour strongholds and
winning over Lib Dem supporters.
For pro-Unionists sick of SNP leader
Nicola Sturgeon’s triumphalist separatism,
she raised a banner around which to rally.
Charismatic, courageous and possessing
a common touch, Ms Davidson put to bed
perceptions that the Tories were nasty,
hard-hearted and homophobic.
Crucially, she propelled the Conservatives
to win 13 Scottish seats at Westminster – a
godsend in a hung parliament.
There is no doubt she will be an enormous
loss. But it’s perfectly understandable she
longs for time away from the political hurly-
burly to spend with her baby son.
Of course, it’s no secret she didn’t always
see eye-to-eye with Boris Johnson. And
yes, she was fearful of a No Deal Brexit.
Frankly, who isn’t? But backing him to
secure an agreement with the EU, yesterday
she astutely hit the nail on the head.
Hadn’t many of the opposition MPs
wailing like banshees about the spectre of
No Deal repeatedly – and cynically – rejected
Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement?
Or as Ms Davidson exquisitely put it: ‘They
had a goal gaping in front of them three
times and they hit the ball over the bar.’
Now the Remain ‘ultras’ are having a fit of
the vapours because Mr Johnson, by
proroguing Parliament, has reduced their
opportunity to sabotage Brexit.
Really, how can these political pygmies
lecture the Prime Minister on democracy
and what’s best for Britain when they so
pathetically put party before country in
their frenzied lust for power?
If they truly want to avert No Deal (rather
than disingenuously scuppering Brexit),
maybe they should stop using every trick
in the book to hobble him. And if he returns
from Brussels with a deal, maybe back it?
TOM UTLEY IS AWAY
To the anti-Brexit
rabble who despise
our Queen: would
you really prefer a
President Blair?
T
HE Queen adores
her annual sum-
mer sojourn at
Balmoral, but
this has, surely,
been one of the most
stressful in years.
Unsavoury reports about her
second son continue to fill the
papers, along with disobliging
headlines about younger
members of the Royal Family.
Now comes a political crisis
which not only presents a grave
threat to her beloved Union
but which is being used to
question her very existence.
‘The Queen should look at
what happened to her cousin,
Tino ex-King of Greece, when
you enable a Right-wing coup!’
tweeted Kate Osamor, Labour
MP for Edmonton, after the
Queen approved the proroga-
tion of Parliament on Wednes-
day. ‘Monarchy abolished!’
A little earlier, she had voiced
similar sentiments: ‘The.
Queen. Did. Not. Save. Us.’
Given that Ms Osamor has a
mother in the House of Lords
(thanks to a peerage from
Jeremy Corbyn) and a son
employed as her parliamentary
assistant (despite a conviction
for drug offences), we might
expect her to have a rudimen-
tary grasp of politics. Yet she
likens the prorogation of
Parliament to a coup — and
thinks it is the Queen’s fault.Protests
This, sadly, is a view held by
many people, judging by a
cursory study of the airwaves,
social media and the protests
around Westminster over the
last couple of days.
According to this hysterical
narrative, Britain is ruled by
a ‘tin pot’ dictator with a
puppet monarch.
To which one can only point
out that the last time a real
coup d’etat confronted a
modern European democracy,
it was a cousin of the Queen —
a hereditary monarch — who
squashed it.
There was no fiddly stuff with
prorogation in Spain in 1981.
More than 200 armed guards
stormed parliament in Madrid,
while 2,000 troops tried to seize
control of Valencia.
Yet the moment King Juan
Carlos appeared on television
ordering the authorities ‘to
take any and all necessary
measures to uphold
constitutional order’, the whole
thing collapsed. It is a reminderof why we are extremely
lucky to have our constitu-
tional monarchy.
At a time of political turmoil,
I have no doubt that a vast
majority of the British people
are thankful we have a head of
state who is not a politician.
I also have no doubt our small
but vocal republican move-
ment will use the present crisis
to press their claims for an
elected ‘neutral’ head of state.
But if there is one thing which
underpins stability, continuity
and what remains of unity right
now, it is the Queen.
If you wonder how a ‘neutral’
President Blair, Branson or
Beckham would be behaving in
the current crisis, look at the
conduct of our ‘neutral’
Speaker of the Commons this
week as he fires off belligerent
broadsides against the Prime
Minister from his sun lounger.
The Queen stands above all
this, which is why she commands
a very different authority simply
by being there.
The Armed Forces, the
judiciary and so on serve in her
name. Even the most arrogant
politician cannot take her
for granted.
She did not refuse Boris
Johnson’s request for a proro-
gation because she is weak.
She did so because no mon-
arch in modern times has
refused such a request.
Her conduct in these matters
is governed by precedent, and
that was crystal clear. It would
only have been a ‘constitu-
tional outrage’ — to coin a
phrase — if she had refused to
accede to such a request.
For that matter, it would also
have been a ‘constitutional
outrage’ if she had agreed to
this week’s requests from
Jeremy Corbyn and Lib Dem
leader Jo Swinson, for royal
audiences. The monarch takes
formal advice from the Prime
Minister alone. She’s not a
Westminster agony aunt.
Yes, Boris Johnson is guilty
(depending on your view of
Brexit) of either deplorable
political chicanery or else of
the same devious parliamen-
tary guerrilla tactics usually
deployed by Remainers.
As long as he is acting withinthe law and according to
precedent, there is nothing the
Queen can do about it. If he
strays outside the law, however,
then she will act.
For when she herself was
caught up in a genuine coup,
she acted swiftly and emphati-
cally — by abdicating. In 1987,
there was a military coup in
Fiji, then one of her realms.
After the chief plotter, Colonel
Rabuka, ignored her plea for
the restoration of democracy
and proclaimed himself head
of state, the Queen instructed
her Governor-General — her
Fijian self — to resign.Duty
Fiji was kicked out of the
Commonwealth and became a
pariah republic (it later apolo-
gised and still retains the
Union flag within its own flag).
Boris Johnson’s opponents
accuse him of ‘dragging the
Queen into politics’, which is
true — though all sides are
guilty. It may be the last place
a 93-year-old great-grand-
mother wants to be on her sum-
mer break.
But she won’t shirk from it
because it is her duty. Indeed,
it is the point of her.
She will not have been
remotely put out to come back
from walking the dogs on the
Balmoral estate on Wednesday
to find Jacob Rees-Mogg and
two other ministers waiting in
the drawing room to convene a
meeting of the Privy Council.
She had already talked it
through with the Prime
Minister over the phone.
In 2000, the Government
needed to authorise emergency
measures to ration petrol
during a fuel strike, so Labour
ministers sped to Balmoral for
formal approval. There was also
a surreal moment in 1956 as she
sat in the Duke of Richmond’s
box at Goodwood and an official
turned up with a Proclamation.
An urgent signature was needed
to mobilise troops for the
invasion of Suez.
Indeed, for the Queen the
‘dragging in’ has only justbegun. As things stand, she is
due to attend the State
Opening of Parliament on
October 14. Come the day, she
must process through Parlia-
ment, sit on the Throne in the
Lords and wait while Black
Rod, the senior Lords officer,
summons MPs to the Upper
House to listen to her Speech.
Only then can she proceed.
Usually, it is a glorious
pageant, though an arduous
one for the Queen. This time, it
could be very unpleasant.
Will Labour boycott her
speech? Quite possibly.
Might MPs try to tell Black
Rod to clear off? Who knows?
And what sort of protests will
be going on outside?
On Wednesday, Corbynite
activist and ex-BBC presenter
Paul Mason brazenly called for
widespread civil unrest. It’s not
the minutiae of Article 50
which will concern the Queen.
It is the damage which all this
is doing to the fabric of the
country which is her gravest
concern. No one plays a more
crucial role in keeping the ‘U’
in UK than she does.
The ‘Stop The Coup’ mob
should also ponder this.
We do not know the contents
of her discussions with Boris
Johnson. We do know, however,
that the Queen will stand her
ground in private, usually by
asking a lot of questions.Questions
Might Mr Johnson have origi-
nally attempted a longer
prorogation than the one he
ended up with?
Did the Queen press for
Parliament to reconvene before
— and not after — the October
31 Brexit deadline?
We do not know, but when
the Canadian Prime Minister
requested a very controversial
prorogation in 2008, the
Queen’s Governor-General is
known to have attached
pre-conditions.
Mr Johnson and his consort,
Carrie Symonds, will be look-
ing forward to their weekend
at Balmoral eight days hence.
There will be bracing walks,
tea with the Prince of Wales
and some caber-tossing at the
Braemar Gathering.
But there will also be the
moment when the PM is
summoned to the Queen’s
sitting room for his formal
audience. There will be more
very big questions. He will need
to have done his homework.by Robert
Hardman