Mrs May:- a product of the past

The Deeper Malaise behind Mrs May’s Inept Handling of Brexit

The European Union Carried on by Other Means

Mrs May is a product of the past and this shows in her poor political leadership and shambolic handling of the Article 50 negotiations, which are currently going in the direction of a Brexit in name only.  The past to which I refer is the culture of increasing political deference to the European Union (EU) and dependency which goes back to Edward Heath and has been continued by subsequent Conservative and Labour prime ministers up to the present day.  Over a period of years, it has evolved into a paradigm (or conceptual framework of ideas, assumptions and perceived wisdom) which set the direction for many subsequent policies and actions.  The only notable exception to this past paradigm is (perhaps) Mrs Thatcher who claimed to be inspired by free market economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Unfortunately, only at the end of her premiership, for example, in her famous “no, no, no” speech  did she stand up to the EUs centralising control freaks and arrogant ideologues and only after being deposed from office did she advocate leaving the EU.

Escape from (conservative) Reality into the EU

At the heart of any notionally conservative party is a major dilemma for its strategists and leaders:- how to expand its popular base beyond the core support of the conservative minded, the sort of people who make up the majority of party members.  This means, in effect, developing a second unique selling proposition rather than making traditional conservatism popular among many.  Tory strategists believed that they needed to project an image, though not necessarily a reality, of eclectic, inclusive modernity.  At one time, the EU appeared to provide this modernity. It could, therefore, be accepted for political expediency even if it contradicted core values or British national interests.

The EU comfort zone for Politicians and Public Servants

For any prime minister, regardless of political label – and also for the Civil Service – the EU provides a useful comfort zone.  There is the appearance of eclectic modernity, a ‘world stage’ on which to strut, a means of escaping responsibility and the respectful acceptance by equals and their subordinates.  Simple, just follow the EU’s (mainly greater German) social, political, economic, regulatory, monetary and fiscal lead.  Who wouldn’t find this reassuring especially as it offers an escape from political turbulence and the need to be competent while providing a means of avoiding blame should any major mistakes become public?

The EU’s corrupting comfort zone

The uninviting (and courageous) alternative to the EU’s comfort zone requires a Prime Minister who is to be accused by opponents of being insular, parochial, jingoistic, elitist, ‘out in the cold’, ‘out of step’ with the EU and/or ‘behind the times’.  Small wonder Edward Heath’s successors became such EU-centric ‘modernity’ idealists who were prepared to deceive the public whilst selling out British national interests and sovereignty.  Mrs May would need to be a very determined person to escape the strong force of this ingrained political behaviour, going back over forty years.

The EU undermines UK Governmental competence

As ever more activities of government were transferred to the EU over the last forty odd years there has been a hollowing out of competence, though not necessarily of numbers, in the Civil Service. The result is that in many fields the expertise and motivation required by the government of a sovereign country no longer exists within the UK.  As a newly-independent country it will take time to re-establish missing expertise and then achieve positive results in our national interest.

The Referendum Vote for Brexit caused a paradigm shift

Times have changed.  The 17,410,742 voters who backed Brexit in the 2016 Referendum have decided the EU is not the future which they want for our country.  This is a major paradigm shift with wide-ranging long-term implications. The EU is now the past and modernity is being redefined as embracing exciting future possibilities outside its claustrophobic clutches.  The new modernity has not yet solidified into a paradigm and can potentially include anything from re-invigorating democracy with a more collaborative form of government to re-discovering world leading skills based on long standing national strengths, heritage and culture. For more on this, see The National CV .

Mrs May is failing to adapt to the new Brexit inspired modernity

Mrs May is having considerable difficulty elucidating a new post-Brexit vision to accord with the Referendum’s paradigm shift and resulting new modernity.   She is stuck in the obsolete paradigm. Dependence and deference to the EU is so ingrained into the structure of No. 10 Downing Street that Mrs May can’t let go of the past and the old EU-centric view of modernity.  There is little or no evidence of her using Brexit as a great facilitator for tackling the big issues facing our country. Instead, her mindset is  rooted in the spin, language, actions and policies of the past.

Talk of ‘A deep and special relationship with our European partners’ is more a cry for continuing belonging than a confident assertion of independence.  Worse still, the EU has been allowed to make the running with Mrs May, Mr Davis and the Department for (not) Exiting the European Union repeatedly caving in to its increasingly unreasonable demands. At the moment, the worst legacy of these cave-ins is the appalling Transition Deal which would make this country into a temporary then a permanent EU vassal state. There is also, to highlight a few others, the surrendering of UK fisheries, defence and defence procurement to EU bureaucrats and the enthusiasm to allow British citizens to be subject to the worst justice systems in the EU through the retention of the European Arrest Warrant.

The EEA/EFTA Paradox

Whilst obviously being unwilling to leave control by the political EU, Mrs May somewhat enigmatically chose to leave the existing frictionless trading simplicity of membership of the Single Market (and wider European Economic Area, EEA).  She has never explained why this reckless decision was made without a practical plan for leaving the EU which would still allow us to retain near frictionless trade.

However, gullibility and ignorance are hinted at in her Lancaster House speech 17th January 2017 where she appears to have accepted the disingenuous claims of the EU leaders regarding the inviolate nature of the four freedoms.  In reality, the EU is happy to break these principles when convenient so to do. For example, the EU’s proposed Withdrawal Agreement, Article 13 (Protocols NI) allows the EU or the UK, amongst other things, unilaterally to restrict immigration from the other party (to the agreement). In other words the EU can restrict immigration into the remaining Member States from the UK, and the UK can restrict immigration from the remaining Member States into the UK.

Nowhere to hide

A policy of spin and handing over more and more political decisions to the EU no longer cuts it post-Referendum.  Endless vacuous mantras and blaming the EU for failing to deliver a successful, opportunity filled Brexit is sounding increasingly unconvincing outside the Westminster bubble.  With time running out, the country needs to know the truth. Mrs May probably already knows what she must do to save Brexit from being in name only and to prevent trade with the EU facing severe disruption.  The only viable option is to re-join the free nations of Europe in The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) whilst temporarily remaining in the single market under much more flexible and favourable conditions in a bespoke version of the EEA Agreement.  (further information see  The EFTA/EEA Solution to the Current Brexit Impasse, Brexit Reset, Eureferendum.com, various posts on Campaign for an Independent Britain and affiliates)

Moving onto this escape route (from the EU with the least potential disruption to existing trade) in the coming crisis will need effective crisis management and something like a modern day Brexit Operation Dynamo.  Will Mrs May deliver or should the Conservative Party expeditiously choose someone else who can?

A deep and special fantasy world

Following the return of MPs to Parliament after the Easter Recess, their responses to recent Brexit developments will be closely watched. The lack of anger from Tory MPs thus far has been disappointing. The surrender on fishing in the draft transitional agreement has greatly upset the fishing community. It poses the question as to whether it would be right to sacrifice one of our historic industries even if we did end up with an all-singing, all-dancing deal at the end of 21 months. To destroy our fishing industry for a pure illusion is even worse, but this is what our government seems to be doing.

The “deep and special” relationship between the EU and the UK exists only in the minds of a few UK politicians; it is certainly not how the EU views its future links with a departing member state whose decision to leave the bloc was one of the biggest body blows it has ever faced.

Last week, David Davis announced plans to send “hundreds” of civil servants to Brussels to work on the deal. Within days, a senior EU source announced that this wasn’t going to happen. “There will be no negotiation strands, no ‘hundreds’ of British negotiators,” said an un-named diplomat.  “Trade negotiations will not start properly until after 29 March 2019. Before that we must get the fundamentals right,” the source said.

One important, unresolved issue is the status of Gibraltar, with Michel Barnier indicating that Spain will enjoy strong support from the other EU member states. Spain’s demands include the joint control of Gibraltar’s airport, cross-border cooperation on smuggling and ending what it sees as a tax haven with far lower corporation rates.

Yesterday’s Parliamentary written questions laid bare the depths of unreality which still pervade our government. Steve Baker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, was anything but clear when questioned by the Labour MP Paul Blomfield. When discussing the transitional priod, he said “The agreement will be underpinned by a duty of good faith and governed by a Joint Committee to ensure it is faithfully and fully implemented by both sides.” As John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave asked, “Since when have the EU run on good faith?” Mr Baker also went on to say, “As we move towards our future partnership with the EU, we will need to discuss how we manage the relationship once we are two separate legal systems.” The legal divergence begins on 29th March 2019, when “the  treaties will cease to apply” to the UK.  There still seems very little idea, from the UK point of view,  how the UK will relate to the EU in the transitional period from a legal point of view. We may keep our laws in step with Brussels but they will have a different legal basis.

Discussions on Brexit in the House of Lords revealed the same sense of muddle. Questioned by Lord Taylor of Warwick, Lord Callinan said, “During the implementation period the UK will be in a continued close association with the EU Customs Union. This will ensure a smooth exit and minimise disruption for businesses. HMRC are confident that they are on track to deliver the functioning customs, VAT and excise regimes the UK will need once it leaves the EU.” It is hard to share HMRC’s confidence, especially as far as the Irish Border issue is concerned.

It is becoming apparent to anyone following these negotiations that the performance of Mrs May and David Davis has been completely pathetic. The EU has walked all over them.  We can but hope that opposition from Brexit-supporting MPs within their party is merely dormant and that they will make it loud and clear that they will not support the proposed arrangements, including the terms for a transitional deal, nor the surrender on fishing nor, indeed, the proposed close military cooperation.  Sooner or later, it will dawn on them that their party will pay heavily for a botched Brexit. it is in everyone’s interest for that moment to arrive as quickly as possible so that there is time to change tack.

 

Photo by Internet Archive Book Images

The United Kingdom as a third country

Some  people are confused about the meaning of this term with regard to our extrication from the EU and have become needlessly indignant.  It does not mean “third rate” or “Third World”.   In the EU situation  in international law, the phrase means more or less what “third party” does in an ordinary insurance policy or other legal document – but it refers to a country or state which, in this case,  is not a member of the EU or its associated organisations such as the European Economic Area (EEA).

Background

This non-membership is exactly what Mrs. May demanded in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017.  She wishes to replace our EU membership  with a completely new but unspecified “deep and special” relationship which can only come into being after we have left the EU.  The EU does not “give” us third country status.

We acquire it automatically through leaving at our own request.   Yet this seems to have come as a bit of a surprise to David Davis.

I started to take the Daily Express when it was the first national paper to advocate leaving the EU, so I was rather surprised to read this article in its edition of Wednesday 10th January which suggests either that Mr. Davis is ill-informed or that the reporter misunderstood him.

Row over EU giving UK 3rd country status

David Davis has attacked a Brussels threat to punish British business ahead of Brexit trade talks.

The Brexit Secretary has written to Theresa May raising concerns about EU planning for a “no deal” giving Britain “third country status”  in what appears to be an act of bad faith.

Mr. Davis told the Prime Minister he would urge the EU to drop the measures which would require UK firms to relocate to Europe or risk contracts being terminated in the event of no deal.

He said he had sought legal advice but the chances of a successful challenge were “low” and could be “high risk politically and financially”

But he said he would urge the European Commission’s Brexit task force to withdraw the statements in light of the deal reached last month to start trade talks. Mr. Davis said that EU agencies have issued guidance to businesses stating the UK will become a “third country” after March 2019 with no reference to a future Trade deal.

The guidance says “compliance activity” such as quality control of goods “ would need to be based in the EU or European Economic Area.

Other statements on legal services and the transport industry do not take into account a transition period or trade deal, he said.

Mr. Davis called the moves “potential breaches of the UK’s rights as (an EU) member  state” and insisted “we cannot let these actions go unchallenged “. John Longworth of Leave Means Leave added that  the EU’s negotiating team is increasingly out of step with the mood of many of the EU27 national governments who recognise the importance for their own economies  that a free trade deal is reached with the UK…..”

Meaning of Third Country Status

The Department for Exiting the EU employs some 400 highly paid specialists and the expertise of the Foreign Office and our Representation in Brussels are claimed to be world class, so it is surprising that nobody  took the trouble to  look up some elementary rules of international law on the internet and tell Mr. Davis.

oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.0903/01/authority

Pacta tertiis nec nocunt nec prosunt – Treaties neither harm nor benefit third parties. A maxim meaning that non-parties to a treaty cannot claim benefits under it…   And, once we are out of the EU, we are no longer a party to any of its treaties.

 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/res_inter-alios-acta

Res inter alios acta – a thing done between others – to which a given person or entity was not (or is no longer) party .

 From “Third Parties and the law of treaties  – Max Planck UNYB 6 (2002)

Basic Classical Rules

 The relationship between third parties and treaties is defined by a general formula pacta tertiis nec nocunt nec prosunt (see above). This principle has been recognised in states’ practice as fundamental and its existence has never been questioned.. For states non-parties to the treaty, the treaty is res inter alios acta (see above). It has been reflected in numerous cases before the World Court. For example in the German Interests in Polish Silesia case the PCIJ *observed that “ (a) treaty only creates law as between states which are party to it; in case of doubt no rights can be deduced from it in favour of third states.

 Lord McNair, in the Law of Treaties (1961, 309 Harvard Research Article 18) ( a) a treaty may not impose obligations upon a state which is no longer party thereto….”

*Permanent Court of international Justice

The UK as a Vassal State

By  demanding a “Hard Brexit”  from March 29 2019, the government has placed itself in the position of a supplicant to the EU for a “transition” or “implementation” period so that Mrs. May’s unspecified “deep and special” relationship may be agreed without disruption of trade.

If what we have been told is correct, all existing  EU laws will continue to apply during this period and new ones could be sprung on us without our having any say at all – complete vassal status.

Conclusion

There are strong economic reasons for both sides to come  to a mutually beneficial agreement.

However there is no good reason to suppose that the EU will abolish its external frontier procedures with a newly independent UK.  If it did that, not only would it breach its own principal trading rules, but also the World Trade Organisation would be overwhelmed with complaints from other third country states.  Every other country in the world would be demanding that the EU did the same for them.

 

A storm is coming

In the fishing industry, we expect winter storms – they are part and parcel of the job, Is our government, however, aware of the looming storm of its own making?

The best news of 2017 was our Government’s success in moving the Brexit negotiations from phase one to phase two, although in reality we are only moving on to to phase one and a half, because the transition/implementation period was not on the original agenda and this is what will create the storm.

Storms expose weaknesses, and for the Government it will be its entire Brexit strategy, focussed on this supposed “deep and special relationship.” Just to remind ourselves, Mrs May first used this phrase in herLancaster House speech.”The United Kingdom would seek to secure a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union”.

But there has been nothing of any substance to give us any idea of the foundations upon which this new relationship/partnership is to be based. Is it,

  1. like the present  – in other words, almost as good a deal as if we were still a full EU member? or
  2. starting with a clean sheet of paper?

It is fair to say that, given all the hype over this phrase, that the electorate thinks it is going to be the first of these options whereas the truth is that it is more like the second. When the penny drops, there will be immense disappointment and indeed, anger.

So the storm clouds are building over continental Europe, ready to lash the British Isles. We can expect them to arrive around the end of this month – January 2018. At the eye of the storm is the harsh reality that the unity and solidarity of the 27 EU member States comes first. In order that this will not be compromised, the EU’s proposal for a 21 month transition period will see us totally subservient to our continental cousins. No wonder Barnier was delighted when the UK asked for a transitional period. It suits the EU very nicely.

The EU will spare no effort in its battle to save “Le project” which, it must be emphasized, is primarily a political not an economic project. We have been told that as far as access to the Single Market is concerned, there is to be no cherry picking by the UK, yet this is exactly what the EU itself is doing in areas such as defense and security.

The recommendations being issued by the EU institutions for the operation of this proposed 21 month transition are horrific. We will have no representation in the EU institutions, but will have to accept the full EU acquis during this period. We will be back under the Common Fisheries Policy for another 21 months and charged a hefty bill for these “privileges”. Furthermore, who can guarantee that a new trading arrangement will be signed and sealed by the end of the 21 months? The EU has indicated that it is willing to consider an extension to the transitional period in which case, we may never leave in reality, only in name.

It is easy to be cynical about this transitional period. After all, why did we vote to leave? Brexit is about control coming back to our elected representatives, not further subservience to the EU.

Some Westminster MP’s are beginning to grasp that we could end up wasting 21 months under these arrangements and on 1st. January 2021 we could be no further forward – in fact, we would be heavily weakened as these 21 months would give EU companies time to find alternative suppliers within the 27. Other MPs are hiding behind this phrase “deep and special relationship” – as if Brexit is nothing to do with them, The bottom line, however, is that responsibility rests with every MP. There is no mandate to give our country away again, even under the guise of a “transitional arrangement”. Thankfully the plans will be put to the vote, so we will know where each MP stands and how many of them are truly committed to honouring the Prime Minister’s pledge that “Brexit must mean Brexit”.

Cough, cough, but no new insights on Brexit

There were at least two statements about Brexit during the Tory conference which show that some at least within the party appreciate the seismic change that Brexit involves. Firstly, Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, said that Brexit was “one of the most challenging tasks ever faced by a peacetime government in Britain.”  He is quite right there. Secondly, Jacob Rees-Mogg  challenged Theresa May’s assertion that her government would not be “defined by Brexit.” It “is the defining political issue of our time and and to pretend otherwise…is absurd”, he continued, comparing the changes Brexit would bring to the Great Reform Bill or the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Again, all well and good, but we were expecting something more from the Prime Minister in her keynote speech, particularly more detail on what the route to Brexit was going to look like. Sadly, we were to be disappointed.

Mrs May reiterated that we would leave the EU in March 2019. No back-pedalling here or she is toast – and she knows it. She then continued “I know some find the negotiations frustrating, but if we approach them in the right spirit – in a spirit of cooperation and friendship, with our sights set firmly on the future – I am confident we will find a deal that works for Britain and Europe too. And let’s be clear about the agreement we seek.”

Oh no! Next came that awful phrase again “deep and special” – twice, in fact.  Please bury this one, Mrs May. It’s just as bad as “strong and stable” which the voters found so unconvincing in June.  It doesn’t reflect reality and sounds rather soppy. Mind you, what came next as she fleshed out this overworked cliché sounded rather familiar too:- “A partnership that allows us to continue to trade and cooperate with each other, because we see shared challenges and opportunities ahead. But a partnership that ensures the United Kingdom is a sovereign nation once again. A country in which the British people are firmly in control.” Once again, her statement begs the obvious question, “yes, but how are we going to get there?”

What is more, Mrs May ignored the unfortunate reality that negotiations on this partnership are not even going to be started any time soon. Yesterday, the European Parliament passed a resolution which stated that the “absence of any clear proposals has seriously impeded the negotiations”. The Parliament is “of the opinion that in the fourth round of negotiations sufficient progress has not yet been made” in the three key areas. Of course, the resolution is significant but merely a non-binding expression of opinion, not having been introduced by the EU Commission.

Maybe a speech at a party conference is  not the best occasion for announcing a new initiative on Brexit to unblock the talks, but when exactly will the moment come? Her words on Brexit today could have been cut and pasted from the Florence speech, which was received politely by the EU’s leading lights who then pointed out that it gave little idea about the sort of deal Mrs May is seeking, both for the interim and longer term.

To be fair to the Prime Minister, she wasn’t at her best, having to deal with a persistent cough and – as if that was not enough – a moronic intruder who somehow gatecrashed the meeting, handed her a P45 saying “Boris made me do it.” However, the issue goes deeper – and affects not only the Prime Minister but, it seems, a considerable number of Members of Parliament – they still fail to understand what the EU project is all about.

During the German General Election, one politician, when asked about Brexit, said he regretted that the UK always viewed the EU as an economic rather than a political project, this failing to see its value – at least in his eyes. This man, whether by accident or not, has hit the nail on the head. It explains why we are  getting two different pictures from the UK and the EU side whenever they report on the current negotiations.

To put it simply, the UK negotiators (and, I would suspect, Mrs May), are viewing  these negotiations through this same historic mindset. The EU must want a trade deal with us because surely it would be foolish not to. Look at how their businesses would suffer without one. Therefore, if we complete the repatriation of the acquis by Brexit day, there should be no reason why should we not trade as before – well, more or less – as there will still be regulatory convergence.

The EU’s reply, reiterated ad nauseam by Michel Barnier, is that we will be a third country on 29th March 2019. We will be outside the EU’s political bloc, whose ongoing integrity matters far more than trade deals. If the EU was prepared to reduce Greece to poverty – and Greece wasn’t even talking about leaving the EU – why should it put trade before politics in the Brexit negotiations? To repeat, for us, it’s all about trade whereas for the EU, it’s all about politics. Even discussion of any interim arrangement needs to be viewed in that light.  The EU simply will not let us enjoy two years as an honorary member of the club while outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ  and refusing to continue to abide by the EU’s free movement rules. It is another terrible and overused cliché, but only when our politicians can learn to see how the EU project is understood by the likes not just of Barnier, Juncker and Verhofstadt, but also of national leaders such as Merkel, Macron and even Varadkar – and realise that they are all more or less of the same opinion – will we be able to escape the “having cake but eating it” mindset which has so bedevilled the negotiations from the very start.

There are grounds for hope that at least some MPs are belatedly beginning to understand the nature of the EU, so I have been told, but they need to spread the word among their colleagues pretty quickly if we are to have any hope at all of leaving the EU in March 2019 with any sort of deal worthy of the name.

 

Photo by EU2017EE

Government future position paper – cross-border civil and judicial cooperation framework

This Government Position paper, like some others which have been published,  is annoying vague on detail and repeats the silly phrase “deep and special” which has featured in some of the earlier papers.  It is a rather soppy and meaningless phrase which seeks to gloss over the fact that 15 months ago, we voted to leave because we wanted a looser relationship with the EU – it was far too “deep”.

It is self-evident that some form of cooperation with the EU on legal matters will be essential. Civil law (as opposed to criminal) includes, among other things, trade disputes, family issues and cases of insolvency and in today’s world, differing parties may well reside in different countries.

The document reiterates the point which the government has made on a number of previous occasions – we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice as it derives its authority from the EU treaties which will no longer apply after Brexit. Fair enough, but what follows is basically a wish list, which points out that as the UK has signed up to a number of international agreements on civil judicial cooperation but nonetheless reverts to the oft-repeated hope that as we are starting from “an unprecedented position of close integration”, coming up with a deal shouldn’t be too hard. All the same, the authors of the document are sufficiently aware of the complexities of securing a new arrangement to suggest that  the UK “would benefit from an interim period that allowed for a smooth and orderly move from our current relationship to our future partnership.”

One detail worthy of note is the statement in Paragraph 22 that “we will seek to continue to participate in the Lugano Convention that, by virtue of our membership of the EU, forms the basis for the UK’s civil judicial cooperation with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.” The Lugano Convention, however, states that courts from contracting parties to the Convention should take into consideration judgements made by the European Court of Justice. Taking something into consideration isn’t the same as being bound by it, but even so, there does seem to be some ambiguity here given how keen the Government has been to emphasise that Brexit will bring the ECJ’s authority to an end in the country.

What is more, the paper is keen to talk of similarity when it is the differences between UK and continental legal systems which are more of greater significance. The differences are more noteworthy when it comes to criminal justice but even so, the foundations of all UK law are  different from most of those on the Continent. Even as an EU member state, the UK is a popular choice for international civil disputes because of the clarity of its legal system. London is as important a centre for legal services as for financial, as this article makes clear. The Government’s Position Paper cites the Queen Mary  Study which states that:-

  • 30%  of international contracts are governed by English Law – second place Swiss with 9%
  • 40% of international arbitrations are in London – 7% in New York.

The rest of the world believes that English Law is superior to Civil (European, Code Napoleon jurisdictions) Law, but the British Government is not prepared to back English Law (the Common Law: the law of India, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, etc.) which is preferred internationally because English Law provides certainty.

Even some French and German multinationals prefer to make their  contracts subject to English law (even when contacting with parties in their own country) because English Law provides certainty.

If the the British Government allows European Law to override English law, then London will cease  to be the number one destination for international arbitrations, which will also result in ancillary job losses (e.g. , insurance (Lloyds and, P and I Clubs), finance, legal, scientific and expert services).

The British Government needs to realise that it is English Law which is largely responsible for the primacy of the City of London, because the world believes that contracts made in the U.K. will be fairly enforced, and should not allow European Law to subvert English Law.

We can but hope that the significant role played by our capital city will continue after Brexit. Unfortunately, the Govenrment paper has offered us much reassurance on this subject nor offered many clues on how we will cooperate with the EU on cross-border civil issues.