Clash of cultures – the root of our Brexit difficulties

Can the conflicting opinions on the EU’s intentions in the Brexit negotiations be reconciled? In my hearing, a staunch Brexit supporter recently referred to Michel Barnier as a “reasonable man” whereas  I have read numerous comments from people convinced that the EU wants to punish us and will deliberately be as unreasonable as possible. Who is correct?

It cannot be denied that Brits and Continentals do seem to have a different mindset when it comes to negotiations. Our attention was recently drawn to an interesting article on this subject on the Conservative Home website by James Arnell, a lawyer with some experience of negotiating with people from European countries. He claimed that such people begin with unreasonable demands and only at the last minute does a deal emerge.

Fair enough, but this does not get to the heart of the conundrum. The fundamental problem is that many of us don’t understand the difference in culture between our country and the majority of the other member states.

It goes back centuries, possibly longer. Essentially, our Common Law legal system bequeathed to us a love of liberty and flexibility. We don’t like everything to be rigidly codified and prefer laws to which we can adhere to in spirit rather than obeying to the letter. Such a mindset is as inevitable outworking of Common Law with its insistence on equality and inalienable rights.

Across the water, the two most influential figures in the development of law were the Byzantine emperor Justinian (d.565) and Napoleon. Their legal systems, which form the basis of  most of the law codes in Europe, were very top-down. Freedoms were conditional and the concept of everyone being equal before the law was unknown.

The EU’s approach to lawmaking is very much in that tradition and like all such systems, tends to be very exact and very bureaucratic. It will legislate in great detail in areas where an independent UK would not have been so precise or perhaps, not bothered at all. We may have laughed at the cuddly toy sheep depicted in Regulation 1462/2006, but it graphically illustrates the difference in approach which has been one of the biggest problems facing our politicians and civil servants since 1973 and which lies at the root of the lack of progress with the Brexit talks.

Very few UK politicians have appreciated the difference in mindset between ourselves and the rest of the EU – even those who have supported our membership. On one occasion, Sir John Major was taken to one side by Helmut Kohl, the former German Chancellor, and told to go home and read the treaties as he clearly had never done so.

This mindset manifests itself in various other ways, some mildly amusing, others frustrating. The Civil Service did not always find it easy to convert EU directives into UK law and often ended up “gold-plating”  – in other words, interpreting them in an excessively strict manner. A German motorist was once apprehended by the police for driving his Porsche at well over 100mph on a UK motorway. His excuse was that the 70mph limit did not seem to apply as so many other cars were going faster. In other words, he could not get his head round the concept of obeying the spirit but not the letter of the law – a guideline rather than something always enforced to the letter.

The different legal status of a UK policeman compared with a Continental Gendarme is another aspect of the same clash of mindsets. As Christopher Gill, one of the former “Maastricht Rebel” Conservative MPs explains,

“The tradition of British policing has been to protect individuals and their property from criminal activity and to apprehend those who transgress whereas on the continent police act almost like an army of occupation, responsible for public order enforcement, crowd control and generally buttressing the authority of the civil state as opposed to defending the freedom of the individual citizen”.

On a personal note, I can recall during my time working in Brussels how often colleagues used to moan about Belgian bureaucracy. The amount of form-filling required to register for residence or to let the authorities know that you worked for the EU and were thus covered by different tax arrangements was quite staggering. Yet it didn’t seem to bother the Belgians that their taxes were being used to pay the salaries of some public sector workers whose sole occupation seemed to be to stamp forms!

When we joined the EU, however, whether our politicians understood it or not – and most of them almost certainly didn’t – we agreed to play by their rules and in leaving the EU, it is exactly the same. Under Article 50, we have two options – to come to an agreement or leave without one. As M. Barnier has pointed out, it was our decision to leave. If, therefore, we want to leave by the EU’s approved route, our exit negotiations have to be conducted according to EU rules which limit the scope for flexibility. The EU in other words will not be flexible because it CANNOT be flexible in some areas where our ministers would like a bit of “give and take”.

For instance, Liam Fox’s claim that an EU-UK trade deal would be “the easiest in history” because we are beginning with zero tariffs and maximum regulatory convergence fails to take into account the simple fact that under EU rules, we become a “third country” on independence and the treaties cease to apply. Whatever the levels of convergence, in March 2019 our entire current relationship with the EU will be no more and any new trading arrangements will need to be put together on a totally different basis.  The EU can’t bend the rules for us, whether it wants to or not.

This clash of cultures shows why it was right to vote to leave last year. It also explains why we are likely to prosper once we have left, even though when it comes to international trade, we will still be subject to any regulation originating with global bodies. David Davis’ “sunlit uplands” are therefore not a total fantasy, but we’ve got to get there first! We will only do so if our negotiating team fully get to grips with the nature of the organisation we are trying to leave. It may be boring, tedious stuff, but if we are to leave smoothly, there is an urgent need for Civil Servants and politicians alike to heed the advice which John Major never took – Go and read the treaties!

 

 

Photo by archer10 (Dennis) 100M Views

So we’re all stupid racists?

It’s over a year since the referendum but some remoaners just will not give up their belief that a group of ignorant racists bear the prime responsibilty for our leaving the EU. As stubborn as the most ardent flat earthers, no amount of evidence to the contrary will shake their convictions.

Last August, our Chairman debunked the claims of an alleged increase in racist hate crime, showing how easily the statistics can be manipulated.  Undeterred, Channel 4 thought they had struck gold when featuring Sivalingam Rajan, a Sri Lankan-born shopkeeper from Swindon, who suffered a racist attack after telling a customer that she didn’t have enough money to pay for her purchase. The offending girl was interviewed by the programme and asked about Brexit, no doubt in anticipation that she had voted to leave the EU.  Instead, she replied, “I didn’t watch it, things like that I don’t get involved with – nothing to do with me.”

You would expect better things from the respected Nature journal but sadly not. Last January, we highlighted an article by Colin MacIlwain of Edinburgh who called Leave voters “a loose coalition of dissenters, doubters and right-wing jackals.”  Undeterred by its descent into the levels of the gutter press, Nature subsequently published a piece by a certain Jane Green who claimed that “voters with less education cast ballots consistent with populist waves.” So there you have it. We’re all thickos. Richard North, with a PhD to his name, the trilingual Daniel Hannan MEP with his history degree from Oxford, the multi-millionaire inventor and businessman Sir James Dyson and Cambridge-educated Dame Helena Morrisey, one of the most influential women in the City of London are all complete numbskulls because they supported Brexit.

OK, perhaps on average, a higher percentage of remain voters may have had degrees, but there is a world of difference between having a good brain and actually using it!

 

 

Photo by LauraLewis23

A letter from our Chairman: the white elephant regional fire control centre

Sir, The Origin of the White Elephant Regional Fire Control Centres

Chris Williamson MP seems to have rather a selective memory about this massive waste of money in all regions of England, not just at Castle Donington. It was actually part of John Prescott’s plan to balkanise England into Euro-regions to match the devolution in Scotland and Wales.

The whole of Britain would be divided into bite-sized regions of around 5 million people which would be easier for the EU to digest. The intention was that we should gradually cease to feel British or English and become happy East Midlanders and Europeans. As Nick Clegg was pleased to tell everyone, England did not exist on EU maps.

Scotland and Wales are EU regions. Many EU grants were administered at regional level and could be manipulated through the EU Council of the Regions to remake the country to the EU model. As we always paid more into the EU than we got out, officials and politicians were essentially to be bribed with laundered British money to remodel our country to an alien pattern.

John Prescott had set up unelected regional assemblies and the fire control centres were an attempt to give them something to administer. The project was opposed by the Fire Brigades Union, as the regions were grotesquely oversized for operators to have adequate local knowledge to direct fire engines swiftly. Nonetheless, the money was spent.

The next step was to prove that there was a popular demand for the project which was sold as “bringing government closer to the people”. The fraud was detected by the people of the North East of England. Far from looking enviously to the doings in Edinburgh, they decisively rejected the idea of an elected regional assembly in a referendum, as “A White Elephant”.

In other parts of the country, Church of England bishops were persuaded to chair campaigns called “Constitutional Conventions” to pretend that there was a popular demand for the scheme. They were aided by the political activist Canon Kenyon Wright from Scotland. With vigorous resistance from alert local campaigners, as well as the example set by the electors of the North East, these officially sponsored groups simply faded away to deserved oblivion.

All that is left is the debt and continuing cost and a lesson about allowing insidious foreign forms of government into our country. Perhaps David Davis should demand a rebate from the EU?

Yours faithfully

Edward Spalton

(As a background note:- a number of these centres have been built across the country and continue to be rented but have never been used – ES)

 

 

Avoiding the cliff edge?

Brexit news has come thick and fast this past week. While we don’t see the need to comment on every twist and turn, some recent developments have been quite significant.

In particular, following reports of disagreements within Mrs May’s cabinet over how “hard” Brexit should be, we are now informed that the Cabinet is united over the need for a transitional deal pending full departure from the EU.  There has been considerable pressure from business leaders worried about the relatively short timescale to prepare for departing the EU. According to the Daily Mail, Mrs May told a group of senior figures from industry that she wanted to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ exit from the EU.

The article also said that even David Davis, one of the ministers keenest to leave the EU as soon as possible, is reconciled to a transitional Brexit period lasting until 2022.

Of course, with 2022 is now the new date for the next General Election, this puts a great deal of pressure on the Government to make sure we’re through the transition period before voters go to the polls. A recent survey by YouGov studied the main reasons given by voters for supporting the two big parties in this year’s election. Among Tory voters, Brexit came top of the list with 21% citing it as their top concern. By contrast, Brexit (either supporting or opposing it) did not feature at all in the top 10 reasons why people voted Labour.  Achieving a successful Brexit looks like being essential for the Tories if they are to stand a chance of remaining in power next time round.

One big issue in many voters’ minds was immigration and it is possible from the snippets revealed by a government source that no attempt will be made to restrict migration from the EU during the transition period, although when the BBC reported on this topic, it merely used the term “might be” no restriction. If this is the case, it would confirm Mrs May’s statement earlier this week that whatever the transitional arrangement may be, it is not going to include remaining within the Single Market. If so, what will it include? A safer transitional option, the EEA/EFTA route, would enable us, via the Liechtenstein Solution, to start imposing restrictions  far sooner.

Opposition to housing development in greenfield sites and in small towns is not going to go away either, particularly as an increasing number of people are starting to make the obvious link between housing shortages, concreting over the countryside and immigration. This will only add further pressure on the Tories.

However, if voters may be concerned that the government is kicking its migration target further down  the road, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee thinks otherwise, noting that Brexit will encourage firms to replace cheap labour with robots. In a sense, this is nothing more than the House of Lords playing catch-up. Almost two years ago, Andy Haldane of the Bank of England said that millions of jobs would be replaced by robots in the next twenty years. Even allowing for exaggeration and/or technology not developing as fast as suggested by the headline report, if we start to become a world leader in artificial intelligence, we will be struggling to find work for the current immigrants and with the exception of top professionals, certainly won’t want any more.

As the summer recess begins, the government will not have an easy job to  keep everyone happy, be it the many shades of opinion among leave voters, the Business community or even the Cabinet. We are still woefully thin on detail about even its transitional plans, but at least we have now been told that the important players are not only talking to one another but listening and attempting to find common ground that will keep most leave voters and business people on side. That still leaves a lot of concerns unaddressed, but for this small mercy we must be thankful.

Photo by williamcho

Look who’s talking!

A worthwhile article on rare.us gives us some insight into Brexit by asking “How could so many be furious over a female Doctor Who?”. The answer is, they’re not. The author says “I decided to go in search of this misogynistic outrage mob, only to find that it existed mostly in the imaginations of the people mocking it”. This largely confirms what we already know. No-one really cares. This is the fuel of today’s culture wars. Pre-emptive reaction to and satisfaction in the other’s side’s anticipated reaction.

This is interesting because it extends right across the issue spectrum. I’ve seen this exact dynamic mocking a cardboard cut-out Brexiteer who, as far as the wider populace is concerned, doesn’t exist save for a few high profile loonies they coalesce around and elevate to the status of typical. 

The dynamic creates a hyper self-congratulatory, smug and sanctimonious bubble, personified by Nick Cohen and Matthew Parris, spawning their own little bands of acolytes and fan boys on Twitter. Since other hacks lower down in the pecking order like to be in with the gang so as to appear clever, you get a groupthink unable to see outside the walls of its self-satisfaction. And then they wonder why they lost the referendum.

To a point it’s all fair game in that you have the Leave.EU idiots but they speak only to a sub-sect of what was the Ukip vote – which at last polling was far less than 52%. Closer to 6% one suspects. Still, there is enough low hanging fruit to go after.

As much as anything, though, it betrays the intellectual dishonesty of the remain crowd in that there are perfectly well reasoned arguments for Brexit, encompassing issues where even the FT hacks dare not tread. This all contributes to the mythos of Brexit where the silent leavers are left unrepresented and left patiently to endure the ongoing insults. The stereotype of the stupid Brexiteer is well deserved if Brexit ministers are anything to go by but the people very often show more wisdom than those they elect. The on-going condescension is a stark reminder of why it is necessary to put these people in their place.

There are plenty of leavers who are well aware that Brexit comes with trade-offs, who aren’t obsessed with immigration and recognise the need for a transition. Certainly everyone I campaigned with was aware Brexit would have economic consequences but made the decision on balance.  

In this respect, remainers have a little cult of their own going on, mocking the straw man Brexiteer but dishonestly refusing to engage on a more sophisticated level. Certainly the globalisation of regulation is an issue they will go to any lengths to avoid – not least because it is complex, but also because it opens up a debate about the world beyond Brussels which they cannot admit exists or their entire worldview starts to fall apart. The most we get is a nod from the FT to the “Brussels Effect” which they have only half understood – and as to the ecosystem of private authorities they wouldn’t know where to begin.

Over the next few months we can expect a torrent of gloating articles pointing out how many areas of governance will be locked into the existing régime. We are probably looking at being tied to EU tariff rates for a long time to come, and we will likely have to maintain the status quo in agriculture for ten years at least until we have taken full control of our customs régime. This is all besides the point. The fact is, the separation process will mean we have to keep a high level of conformity but this is about ending EU political integration and engineering the EU out of domestic decision making. Nobody was expecting anything to change overnight. They can gloat all they like, but outside the bubble, it is they who look foolish.

Who will blink first?

Our attention has been drawn to an interesting article which appeared on the Conservative Home website. The author, James Arnell, claims that we in the UK have a different mindset when it comes to negotiations. “In the UK”, he claims, “parties generally start from a position which is more or less reasonable on each side and move together to a deal relatively quickly, seeking to avoid unnecessary escalation up the chain of command.”

The Continental approach is very different:- “Negotiations generally start with almost ridiculously extreme positions on each side….It is not at all unusual for these steps….to be accompanied by walkouts, requiring bosses to get things ‘back on track’. Ultimately, this continental form of negotiation culminates in a relatively rapid final phase of negotiations between the ‘head honchos’, in which, after months or years of painful posturing on both sides, points are traded embarrassingly quickly and a deal is sealed.”

Mr Arnell says that we should really start worrying if the negotiations are going smoothly at this stage as it means that the UK side would have been giving too much away.

The author works for Charterhouse, a private equity firm.  His biographical page on that firm’s website states that he is a barrister who speaks French and German fluently. All things considered, this article on ConHome sounds like it has been written by someone with first-hand experience of the Continental mindset with which David Davis and his team are having to deal during the Brexit negotiations. Maybe this is why not a lot is being given away by the UK government. While such tactics may ultimately turn out to be the best way of getting a favourable deal with the EU, as we have pointed out the lack of the details of any Brexit masterplan is causing concern for a number of business figures who are keen to know in far more detail what the government’s exit plans actually are.

A little extra piece of detail did emerge yesterday morning. According to Open Europe, Theresa May was adamant that even any transitional deal would not involve membership of the Single Market.  “We said we would no longer be members of the single market because we will no longer be members of the European Union.,” she said. Fair enough, but if there is another plan, not only organisations such as the Campaign for an Independent Britain but more importantly, some big names in the business world are straining at the leash for some reassurance.

Some confirmation of Mr Arnell’s analysis of the Continental mindset has surfaced in the shape of a  reference document of the Workshop on “Common Fisheries Policy and BREXIT” held on 21th June 2017, by the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries.  Concern has already been voiced about our denunciation of the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, an agreement which pre-dated our joining the EU allowing limited access to vessels from other Western European nations to certain areas of the waters between 6 and 12 nautical miles from our coastline.

As the wording of the original document was vessel-specific and no boats permitted to access our waters in 1964 are likely still to be active, denouncing this Convention could turn out to have been little more than a precautionary measure. The message it conveyed, however, was that the UK is serious about regaining control of all of our waters right up to the 200 nautical mile/median point limit and it was not well received. The response of Geert Bourgeois, the Flemish Prime Minister, was to wave around an ancient charter signed by Charles II in 1666 allowing fifty herring boats from Bruges “eternal rights” to fish in UK waters.  A bit of research showed this action to be nothing more than sabre-rattling. Even nearby Zeebrugge, a far more important fishing port than Bruges these days, could only muster 43 fishing boats in total four years ago.

So it comes as no surprise that the European Parliament is keen to see EU boats continue to plunder our waters. Although trade and fisheries will be handled separately, the report says, “The fact that these issues will be negotiated in separate legal frameworks should not lead to the fragmentation of fisheries issues, which should be addressed in their entirety and together, so as to ensure that the free movement of fishery products is linked to free access to waters and resources and vice versa”. As John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave commented, “The EU will want to tie the whole package together using blackmail on trade” –  In other words,  let us fish in your waters more or less as before or we’ll make it hard for you to sell fisheries products in the EU.

John has studied the issue of historic rights and has concluded that we can take back control of our waters without being open to a legal challenge over this issue. Nonetheless, the European Parliament document says “These historical fishing rights should be taken into account in the negotiations to facilitate preferential access by Member State fleets.” I shan’t repeat his rather forthright comments about this for fear of offending anyone’s sensitivity, but suffice it to say that he is distinctly unimpressed with the reasoning of the European Parliament! As an aside, it is worth pointing out that the European Parliament has a relatively minor role to play in the Brexit process, but its attitude is unlikely to be different from that of other EU institutions.

The bottom line is that if there is no agreement on fishing, the EU will be the clear loser. We would have full control of our waters right up to the 200 nautical mile/median point on Brexit day and no EU vessel would be able to fish anywhere within it. The loss of access to EU waters by our fishermen would be more than compensated by having exclusive access to our own.

This, or course, assumes that Michael Gove does not blink first and give way. The denunciation of the 1964 Convention was a move in the right direction, but the howls of protest from across the Channel are a warning to him that he will need to hold his nerve.

Indeed, it may not just be Mr Gove who needs to take James Arnell’s advice on board. Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek Finance Minister has written a book called Adults in the Room based on his personal experience of how awkward he found EU officials to be.  On the other hand, while we have the upper hand on fisheries, we certainly don’t when it comes to other important areas of trade. Our negotiators must hold their nerve and not be intimidated, but they know that the mantra “no deal is better than a bad deal” is no more rooted in reality than the prospect of fifty 350-year old herring boats from Bruges suddenly appearing in the Channel demanding their eternal rights to fish in our waters.

Photo by waltercolor