Britain’s big mistake was to treat Nigel Farage as a normal politician

One important consideration should not be lost sight of in the context of the recent controversy about the bank account of Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader. Farage produced evidence that he had been stripped of his account at NatWest’s private banking brand Coutts because – at least in part – his political views went against its values. An internal bank document described his views as “xenophobic and racist”.

It is now widely agreed that Coutts Bank was wrong to factor political considerations into the “debanking” decision. However, that does not mean for a moment that Farage’s views should be treated as normal in a tolerant, democratic society.

Both NatWest Group and Coutts itself have made a dog’s dinner of the issue. The chief executives of both have resigned. In addition to disregarding the principle that everyone should be entitled to a bank account, irrespective of their political views, there was some initial misrepresentation of the facts as well as inappropriate media briefing.

Still we mustn’t lose sight of the wood for the trees. The fact that the banks were wrong to make judgments about Farage’s politics does not mean that the judgments they made were wrong. Nor does it mean that the public and media should hesitate to make such judgments.

Five things we learned from the GAA weekend: Omens looking good for Galway

---

Una Mullally: That They May Face the Rising Sun is a reminder to cherish the natural world

---

Irish students have been protesting over Gaza for months. Why are we only noticing them now?

---

David McWilliams: In today’s Ireland, the rich live in houses that were built for the poor

---

[ Goal-starved Rishi Sunak scores a hat-trick in the NatWest-Farage controversy ]

[ NatWest board criticises chief Alison Rose for ‘serious error’ in ‘de-banking’ of Farage ]

A dangerous downside of the whole affair is that it obfuscates the distinction between the appropriate role of banks and the appropriateness of the criticisms. It allows Farage to play the victimhood card and to parade as just an ordinary guy done down by big business. It suits his long-running narrative about the common man versus “elites”. It is striking how frequently those who decry elites, from the US to Hungary to the UK, are much more part of an elite than those they criticise.

Like many around the world who have great affection for the UK, and in the UK itself, I believe that its recent difficulties can be traced back some years to the British media starting to treat Farage as just another normal politician. Of course, Farage is entitled to his views and to express them, but the media was far too ready to normalise his politics and personality. There can be no doubt about Farage’s malign influence on British public opinion before, during and after the Brexit referendum. The infamous photograph of him, during the referendum campaign, standing in front of a poster depicting a long line of refugees, under the heading “Breaking Point”, was both deliberate and influential. While many of those who argued and voted for Brexit were not xenophobic, there can surely be no doubt that the poster and the political pitch that it epitomised throughout the campaign made the difference in a close-fought referendum. Farage has continued his relentless hostility to migrants and wants Britain to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

Farage has been relentlessly insulting to Britain’s closest friends and neighbours, including the European Union. That his approach in this regard should be considered by many to be somehow normal, or just another point of view, illustrates how abnormal Farage has made aspects of British political discourse.

[ Stocktake: NatWest investors hurt by Farage fallout ]

[ Post-Brexit Northern Ireland trade rules still need work, UK committee hears ]

[ Nigel Farage on GB News: How did this man change the world? ]

Farage has contributed significantly to the growth of dangerous populism. He is best mates with the awful Trump. He has praised the appalling Putin, saying some years ago that he was the politician he most admired. He has also had a negative impact on the Conservative Party, shifting it in the direction of his brand of populism. Fear of Farage, either of his rise or his return, has been one of the factors that made possible the election and behaviour in office of Boris Johnson, under whose leadership many of the most admirable mainstream party members were simply thrown out.

Prime minister Rishi Sunak continues in some respects to represent a return to normality and common sense. However, the threat posed by Farage continues to haunt the Conservatives. Martin Kettle in the Guardian rightly makes the point that Sunak leads a party that is temperamentally and ideologically reluctant to intervene in bank matters, and that he and his chancellor would never normally allow themselves to be drawn into expressing concerns about the NatWest Group, of which they own 38 per cent. However, in the context of the Farage banking debacle, ministers briefed against the group and, when its chief executive resigned, the group’s share price fell sharply. The Sunak government, however important it considers the principle, seems unlikely to have become involved if the person whose bank account had been closed was not posing as the voice of an undiluted Brexit and an unequivocal anti-migrant policy. There was no similar outrage, or even concern, when several Muslim charities had their bank accounts closed.

It’s not Farage’s bank account that matters as much as the political account to which he must still be held.

Bobby McDonagh is a former ambassador to London, Rome and Brussels