Reading a book might not help much

Tweet

There is an old story, probably apocryphal, about the Soviet historian who said, “In my country, only the future is certain.  The past is always changing.”  It was a reflection of the Soviet-era habit of rewriting the past, and even doctoring photographs of events, as and when different members of the Politburo went up – or more usually down – in favour.  It also reflects a more general truth, however: what we know as ‘history’ isn’t just a simple sequential series of events.  Facts and events are selected, importance is assigned to them, and they are interpreted, and all of those things are done from the viewpoint of the particular historian.  And yes, as part of that process, history often is re-written; the importance assigned to events, let alone their interpretation, can and does change over time.  A book on the story of the British Empire written now would not say the same as one written 70 years ago – nor as one written 70 years from now.  And for most of us, the version of ‘history’ which we carry in our heads is probably the version which was mainstream at the time we were in school.  It is hard to avoid that ‘remembered’ history colouring our judgement when we look at alternative views.

Yesterday, a spokesperson for the EU Commission reacted to some of the Foreign Secretary’s comments in his party’s conference by suggesting that Hunt could benefit “from opening a history book from time-to-time”.  My instinctive inclination to agree was tempered by the caveat that it depends which book, when it was written, and by whom.  The issue of different interpretations of history goes right to the heart of the problems which the Anglo-British not-nationalists-at-all are having in their negotiations with the EU.  The two sides have completely different views of European history; even when they agree on the basic facts, the importance which each assigns to those facts and the way in which they should be interpreted leaves them talking past each other with a complete lack of comprehension.  I doubt that getting him to read a history book would help at all – even if the book were chosen for him, he (like most of us) would be unable to read it without his judgement being coloured by his ‘remembered’ version of history.

I can’t really blame him for that; like all of us, he is a product of a particular era and culture, and it is always hard to escape that.  What it is entirely reasonable to blame him for, however, is his apparent complete lack of understanding that not everyone will share his particular historical perspective.  And not just him either – all the Brexiteers seem to be guilty of the same belief that theirs is the only valid historical perspective.  One of the keys to success in any process of negotiation is to understand the perspective of the ‘other side’, and especially to understand that what drives them may not be what drives you.  Even if you think they’re just plain wrong, you still need to understand their perspective and try and work with it.  The problem with the world view of the Anglo-British not-nationalists-at-all is that they ‘know’ that they are right and that everyone else is wrong.  As a starting point for a negotiation, it doesn’t get past first base. 

A question of trust

Tweet

The Brexiteers are getting increasingly vocal in their demands that the UK should be preparing to walk away from the EU talks with no deal, keeping the £39 billion (or whatever the final figure is) that the UK has already agreed to pay in settlement of existing contractual commitments.  They are seriously arguing that the UK’s hand in negotiations will be strengthened if the EU believe that the UK government is really serious about being willing to walk away with nothing at all in March next year.

It’s an ‘interesting’ idea (Sir Humphrey would probably call it ‘brave’) that threatening to renege on commitments already made and to walk away from treaty agreements will make the EU27 more willing to offer a super-duper deal to the UK which surpasses anything offered to any other non-member of the club.  Because that’s what they’re actually suggesting – under the EU treaties, the UK and the EU are obliged to negotiate terms for withdrawal and settlement of agreed obligations; there is absolutely no requirement for the EU27 to offer any sort of trade deal in exchange for the UK meeting its existing treaty obligations.

In those circumstances, it’s not at all clear to me that making such a threat will encourage the EU27 to be more flexible in order to secure an agreement – it seems much more likely that it will serve only to convince them that the UK’s word cannot be trusted, and that no promise or agreement is worth the paper on which it is written.  To be blunt – who on earth would want to negotiate with someone who sees going back on their word as a legitimate tactic?  They could never be certain that any agreement would be honoured.

Of promises and slaps

Tweet

The Brexit rebels within the Tory Party are more than a little upset that the wording of an agreement that they thought that they had reached with the Prime Minister was subsequently changed to make it meaningless and worthless.  At first sight, their anger seems entirely reasonable – what’s the point of negotiating with someone who later denies having ever agreed anything and arbitrarily demands agreement to something totally different?

But, hold on a minute – isn’t that exactly what the whole government has been doing with Michel Barnier and the EU27?  Every time they think they’ve got something agreed with the UK Government, that government denies everything and claims that they could never and would never have agreed to any such thing.  A few rebel MPs are being wholly unrealistic in expecting more honesty and integrity than anyone else gets – especially when it appears that the government can rely on most of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to help them achieve their aim anyway.

Debating the tax bill

Tweet

There is nothing at all unreasonable about a departing member of any organization arguing about the legal basis on which outstanding debts should be settled.  Money is either owed or it isn’t, and there is little doubt in my mind that the EU27 have a reasonable basis for demanding that the UK meet the obligations to which the country has committed.  I’m equally clear that the UK can, if it wishes – and this is what the extreme Brexiteers are saying, simply renege on previously-made commitments and walk away, although I don’t share their optimism that those left with a hole in their budgets will simply shrug their shoulders and place their trust in any commitments that the UK Government makes in the future.

I doubt, though, that many of us would find our banks terribly understanding if we went to them and said, in effect, “We’ll offer to pay you part of what we previously committed to pay you, but only on condition that you allow us to dictate the terms under which we’ll bank with you in future”.  That, though, seems to be roughly the position of the UK Government in relation to settling debts with the EU.  In fairness, it is an approach that most of the extremely wealthy individuals and the biggest multinational companies would recognise, because it is precisely the approach which the UK Government adopts when it comes to taxing the rich and powerful.  They are allowed to pluck a figure out of the air, negotiate around it and arrive at a settlement under which they pay as much as they agree to pay, regardless of their actual tax liability, basically because that makes things easier for HMRC than having to go through all the bother of making a proper assessment.  So I can see why ministers might believe that it can work, although I’m far from certain that the EU27 will roll over as easily as HM Treasury does.

Underlying all this is that, instead of trying to debate and agree what the UK actually owes by considering the elements of the ‘bill’ carefully and reasonably, the UK government – egged on by a media which has little interest in facts or details – is obsessing over the total sum, and trying to create a spurious link between meeting agreed obligations on the one hand and demanding favourable future treatment on the other.  And they wonder why the EU27 are losing patience with them.

Overlooking the simple solution

Tweet

In an attempt to move things along in the Brexit talks, the UK Government has been hinting that it is ready to make new ‘concessions’ in relation to the rights of EU citizens.  The problem the government face is that, all these so-called ‘concessions’ still involve taking rights away from EU citizens legally resident in the UK.  And anything which reduces their rights is still going to be a hard sell to the EU27.  What would move things along, of course, would be a simple and clear guarantee that all rights which exist in respect of EU citizens living in the UK on exit day will be fully protected.

It’s simple and straightforward, and would undoubtedly satisfy the EU 27 on that aspect of negotiations.  So why can’t they do it?  One simple reason – because EU citizens currently enjoy more rights in some areas than UK citizens, and we can’t have that can we?  Now I’m a simple soul, and prone to an over-mathematical perspective on issues, but it strikes me that if you have two groups of people with unequal rights, taking rights away from one group isn’t the only way of achieving equality.  To put it another way, all that the government has to do is to give UK citizens the same rights as EU citizens currently enjoy, and one third of the problems with the current stage of negotiations would disappear overnight.

It tells us a great deal about those who govern us, and their attitude towards the rights of individuals and families, that they would sooner let the whole process collapse than do that.  And it’s not only in relation to Brexit that people and their families come pretty near the bottom of their list of priorities.