Main Edition
US
FR
Main Edition
US
FR"Après le Brexit, le Bregret" Bertrand Guay/POOL/AFP/Getty Images
Now that Boris Johnson is back to what he does best — writing and being usefully jovial in countries where he can’t run for PM — the Franco-British relationship is back on an even keel. Mutual respect has been restored between Emmanuel Macron and Rishi Sunak, the two 40-something technocrats in charge of our respective countries, those well-schooled, well-dressed former investment bankers, battling strikes, inflation, an economic slump, quiet and not-so-quiet quitting, social inequalities, and a dangerous international situation…
Just kidding. What we French are mostly up to these days — when we’ve managed to jam ourselves onto a Métro train that’s neither on strike nor been literally de-platformed by the hapless Paris Region President Valérie Pécresse’s recent cuts (or a bus replacing those provincial lines SNCF finds too expensive to run) — is bask in unholy glee over Bregret. “C’est la Gueule de bois!” (It’s the worst hangover!), the headlines popped after the latest UnHerd polling showed that more than half of Britons felt Brexit was a mistake. “L’Anniversaire morose” (Gloomy Brexitversary), they went; “Étrange Bregret” (That strange regret); “Après le Brexit, le Bregret” (After Brexit, Bregret — an elegant riff on the Comtesse de Ségur classic books). On and on and on.
For the past seven years, I have been trying not so much to defend the Brexit vote, which I’ve always thought is a bit of an own goal, as to explain the issues of sovereignty involved. This has always gone down like un ballon en plomb here: after something like 50 of those debates, I am still considered a rabid Brexiteer, because Brexit, obviously, is such a mad decision in French eyes that even trying to explain it means you’ve gulped down the Kool Aid and begged for seconds.
Our own ambassador during the Brexit campaign, Sylvie Bermann, wrote a rather undiplomatic book about it called “Goodbye Britannia”, which was amusingly translated into English as “Au Revoir Britannia”. What her book mostly showed was that even when she invited the likes of Boris and the Spectator staff to Embassy dos, it was mostly as entertainment: her heart was firmly in N1 Remainer territory, the only ones quoted as “reliable sources”.
The National Assembly held dozens of committee meetings over Brexit, all coming to the same pre-ordained conclusion. The French Upper House, Le Sénat, sent half a dozen official missions to the strange land of the Britons, tasked to understand La Catastrophe du Brexit: their invariable, self-reinforcing verdicts over the years were variations on the “Tous Perdants” (Everyone’s a loser) theme. To give an idea of the method favoured by the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Senator Jean Bizet for his 111-page 2019 report, the first subheading of which was “Un bilan perdant-perdant” (A Lose-Lose Balance Sheet), the only British stakeholder he and his small group managed to interview during their fact-finding trip to London was Remainer activist Gina Miller. She is quoted at length in four different places of the final document. (“She is so sympathique, and it was very difficult to get to meet the others”, Bizet told me in the green room of the parliamentary channel talk show where we discussed his report.)
Is this payback for decades of “Up Yours, Delors” and sundry other French-bashing British tabloid headlines over the years? Well, partly. But we’ve always been less conscious of Britain than you’ve been of France. Part of this is geography (ours is usually the country you first cross when venturing abroad), part of it is our universaliste doctrine as well as centuries of soft power when all of Europe wrote its correspondence and waged its diplomacy en Français. (Hence our fury when small dollops of English learned in our better schools are introduced into the public discourse. This has been one of Emmanuel Macron’s blunders: his fluent technocratese includes a lot of not-always-relevant English words that mostly underline his firm place on the bourgeois side of the class divide.)
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA very well written and amusing article made more impressive by the fact the author’s first language is French not English (I took French through high school, even passed my exams, and promptly forgot it all).
I suppose the Unherd poll triggered the talk of Brexit this week. Isn’t it time to move on, dear Europeans? Aren’t there bigger things afoot in the world today? What’s that you say? Oh, it’s easier to rehash Brexit than tackle current problems. Yup. Got it.
Bigger things afoot in the world than perfidious Albion finally seeing the error of its ways (apparently, if you don’t look too closely at the data) in having been rude to la belle France? Incroyable!
UK ”rude to la belle France” you say – and what about that clown Hollande to UK? – Please, do think of soemthing more intelligent to say – you sound like a 5 year old in a play-ground tiff.
And you can’t spell ‘something.’ Or detect sarcasm from the sort of range at which even my blind grandma could hit a barn door. With her fists.
I am severely dyslexic. Please stick to the point I made and stop mocking a problem I have with reading and writing.
I do my best and my opinion is as valid as anyones. You should be ashamed. (But I dont suppose you are)
Shame on the people that gave you a thumbs up. I dont believe you ever saw your grandparent even trying to hit a barn door.
Thank you.
I am severely dyslexic. Please stick to the point I made and stop mocking a problem I have with reading and writing.
I do my best and my opinion is as valid as anyones. You should be ashamed. (But I dont suppose you are)
Shame on the people that gave you a thumbs up. I dont believe you ever saw your grandparent even trying to hit a barn door.
Thank you.
You really need to grow a healthy sense of humour. Mrs Mouttet with her usual talent is taking the Mickey out of us…..French !!
The very vast majority of French people do not give a hoot about Brexit, if only to see that the Brits, according to the press, have it a lot worst than them.
All of what Mrs Mouttet says is true…..our Parisian subway is a disgrace, our regional trains are replaced by busses and our health services in bad shape……
On the French media part this is Schadenfreunde at its best. Not to worry or get that upset. This being said, I don’t think Brexit solved the core issue of immigration, have a look at Boston…..and the boats crossing the channel in droves….but that’s another story because on this subject, we are not one bit doing better.
And the overwhelming majority of UK does not give a hoot about France. In fact quite the opposite.
Since when has France been famous for a sense of humour? Arh yea. Only when Napoleon thought Waterloo – Trafalgar and Russia was a great idea.
On the other hand its quite understood that so many people want to flee The EU to England.
And the overwhelming majority of UK does not give a hoot about France. In fact quite the opposite.
Since when has France been famous for a sense of humour? Arh yea. Only when Napoleon thought Waterloo – Trafalgar and Russia was a great idea.
On the other hand its quite understood that so many people want to flee The EU to England.
And you can’t spell ‘something.’ Or detect sarcasm from the sort of range at which even my blind grandma could hit a barn door. With her fists.
You really need to grow a healthy sense of humour. Mrs Mouttet with her usual talent is taking the Mickey out of us…..French !!
The very vast majority of French people do not give a hoot about Brexit, if only to see that the Brits, according to the press, have it a lot worst than them.
All of what Mrs Mouttet says is true…..our Parisian subway is a disgrace, our regional trains are replaced by busses and our health services in bad shape……
On the French media part this is Schadenfreunde at its best. Not to worry or get that upset. This being said, I don’t think Brexit solved the core issue of immigration, have a look at Boston…..and the boats crossing the channel in droves….but that’s another story because on this subject, we are not one bit doing better.
UK ”rude to la belle France” you say – and what about that clown Hollande to UK? – Please, do think of soemthing more intelligent to say – you sound like a 5 year old in a play-ground tiff.
No. There’s nothing new or particularly insightful here. She still doesn’t really understand why Brexit happened. I’ve yet to hear from any French person who does.
I’ve yet to hear from any remainer who does, I believe it’s one of the main reasons why they lost the vote.
There is a big difference between having some understanding why a majority voted for it, and agreeing that it was the best decision. Don’t mix the two issues up. They are different debating points.
That said it’s seems self evident that many Brexiteers struggle to reconcile the different reasons folks voted Leave – the Red wall vs Small state dichotomy being an obvious contradiction they are struggling to square.
Clearly folks voted Leave for different reasons. IMO the biggest being immigration concern, followed by a sense we were paying more than we got back. Nuances about how Single Market trading rules worked were lost on most on all sides.
We left to avoid becoming a state in a United Europe
This was never proposed or accepted by any vote of the British people despite promises by Tony Blair
Some things money can’t buy, sovereignty being one of them
Now we need to get rid of Blair’s blob to restore self government
In your opinion that was the main driver and you are entitled to that view. Many though would suggest that wasn’t the thing that tipped it.
Still banging on about Blair 16yrs after he left office always seems a bit silly. Tories been in power for last 13 years.
Margaret Thatcher left office around 30 years ago, yet plenty on the left still blame her.
The irony of course is she helped construct the Single Market and a huge advocate. I reckon, but can’t prove obviously, she’d have got relaxed with a pragmatic Norway type arrangement with ‘consultation’ rights on new SM rules. She was more pragmatic on many occasions than the mythology often suggests.
We will never know her thoughts on the current set up of the SM, however I suspect she would be against outsourcing the UKs global trade policy to a 3rd party.
I think a reading of her Bruges speech should clear things up about what she thought and how she saw the EU from what she viewed as the correct path for the UK. Her opinion in 1988 (when she was also free as the PM to say whatever she liked) is probably a better guide than he opinion in 1973. Certainly, few commentators at the time took her Bruges speech to be anything other than firmly Eurosceptic. Were they mistaken ?
Yes, she advocated the SM, and I understand that, but if the UK had remained within the SM in 2020, it would have been in the stupid situation of having its trade rules decided by others, and who can doubt but that the EC would have thoroughly screwed us, just have they have always done since 1973, despite or because of our representatives?
I expect some would then say that we should have remained in the EU so as to stay within the SM; for me, that would have been too high a price, besides which, I fully expected that we would negotiate a trading relationship better, rather than worse, that which the EU has with other major markets, helped by the adverse balance of trade we have with it. I hadn’t reckoned with the ghastly Mrs May, the equally awful ‘Conservatives’ like Soubry (ugh, I try not to think of past nightmares), and the Lords, who were also prepared to thwart the referendum result.
It would certainly have been interesting to see what she made of it. I suspect we’d have never had the referendum and she’d have brow-beaten EU partners into further exemptions first. But all academic isn’t it even if intriguing to speculate.
Staying in SM but just with consultation rights would clearly have annoyed many. It works of course for Norway/Swiss et al, and it’s just trading market rules not everything that one decides upon when running a Nation. As it we’ve stayed in v close alignment and TCA committed us to ‘level playing field’ (albeit no doubt interpretation will be a contestable point). But we’d have left and any economic downside mitigated. EU would not be getting billions in contributions. We wouldn’t have a NI issue at all. We could have then applied all the Article rules available to control EU immigration – jobs advertised locally first, minimum capital requirements etc. And we could have clamped right down on non-EU immigration which was always on a par possibly with ID cards and a proper naturalisation process to help where we did make it permissible. Not to be, but how I’d have done Brexit.
It would certainly have been interesting to see what she made of it. I suspect we’d have never had the referendum and she’d have brow-beaten EU partners into further exemptions first. But all academic isn’t it even if intriguing to speculate.
Staying in SM but just with consultation rights would clearly have annoyed many. It works of course for Norway/Swiss et al, and it’s just trading market rules not everything that one decides upon when running a Nation. As it we’ve stayed in v close alignment and TCA committed us to ‘level playing field’ (albeit no doubt interpretation will be a contestable point). But we’d have left and any economic downside mitigated. EU would not be getting billions in contributions. We wouldn’t have a NI issue at all. We could have then applied all the Article rules available to control EU immigration – jobs advertised locally first, minimum capital requirements etc. And we could have clamped right down on non-EU immigration which was always on a par possibly with ID cards and a proper naturalisation process to help where we did make it permissible. Not to be, but how I’d have done Brexit.
We will never know her thoughts on the current set up of the SM, however I suspect she would be against outsourcing the UKs global trade policy to a 3rd party.
I think a reading of her Bruges speech should clear things up about what she thought and how she saw the EU from what she viewed as the correct path for the UK. Her opinion in 1988 (when she was also free as the PM to say whatever she liked) is probably a better guide than he opinion in 1973. Certainly, few commentators at the time took her Bruges speech to be anything other than firmly Eurosceptic. Were they mistaken ?
Yes, she advocated the SM, and I understand that, but if the UK had remained within the SM in 2020, it would have been in the stupid situation of having its trade rules decided by others, and who can doubt but that the EC would have thoroughly screwed us, just have they have always done since 1973, despite or because of our representatives?
I expect some would then say that we should have remained in the EU so as to stay within the SM; for me, that would have been too high a price, besides which, I fully expected that we would negotiate a trading relationship better, rather than worse, that which the EU has with other major markets, helped by the adverse balance of trade we have with it. I hadn’t reckoned with the ghastly Mrs May, the equally awful ‘Conservatives’ like Soubry (ugh, I try not to think of past nightmares), and the Lords, who were also prepared to thwart the referendum result.
The irony of course is she helped construct the Single Market and a huge advocate. I reckon, but can’t prove obviously, she’d have got relaxed with a pragmatic Norway type arrangement with ‘consultation’ rights on new SM rules. She was more pragmatic on many occasions than the mythology often suggests.
Margaret Thatcher left office around 30 years ago, yet plenty on the left still blame her.
In your opinion that was the main driver and you are entitled to that view. Many though would suggest that wasn’t the thing that tipped it.
Still banging on about Blair 16yrs after he left office always seems a bit silly. Tories been in power for last 13 years.
“Clearly folks voted Leave for different reasons.”
Obvious really, but the first time seen anyone, at all put it in print. My complements.
“. . . compliments.” Different spelling, different meaning.
Did not folks vote Remain for different reasons? The reasons of the many I know who voted that way were (a) it would affect their business, (b) they liked easy travel, work and benefits in the EU, (c) they thought it was virtuous to be a member, (d) they believed Osbourne, the Treasury and many others that there would be an immediate recession, (e) it’s essential to be in a very large trading block, (f) they had relatives in the EU and didn’t like the idea that a schism was about to happen, (g) we’d lose influence in the world, and I’m sure there are others.
“. . . compliments.” Different spelling, different meaning.
Did not folks vote Remain for different reasons? The reasons of the many I know who voted that way were (a) it would affect their business, (b) they liked easy travel, work and benefits in the EU, (c) they thought it was virtuous to be a member, (d) they believed Osbourne, the Treasury and many others that there would be an immediate recession, (e) it’s essential to be in a very large trading block, (f) they had relatives in the EU and didn’t like the idea that a schism was about to happen, (g) we’d lose influence in the world, and I’m sure there are others.
Clearly folks did vote Leave for different reasons. The two reasons mentioned, though true and relevant, were not my chief reasons for being (both then and now) a convinced Leaver. For me the decisive and all-important factors were identity and self-respect. I voted leave because I didn’t want our British identity to be lost by being merged into a superstate, and I did want to maintain the self-respect that comes from being perfectly capable of governing ourselves and making our own decision.
I’ve never yet met a Remainer who understood this kind of thinking.
I, for one, do understand it. To some extent I even share it. It is just that being free to make your own decisions is not worth as much as you would think where you are not strong enough to actually get what you want. In many areas Britain can probably get *more* of what she wants by making deals inside the EU than by going up against the EU, US, China, Amazon etc. on her lonesome. And my respect for people who want to keep their self-respect quickly drops to zero if they are not willing to own up to the cost, but prefer to pretend that their choices do not have consequences.
This is an excellent response and is the first time I have felt the slightest twinge of Leaver regret. Voted Leave because I resent not having a democratic vote I can exercise if those in power let me down. But I do increasingly feel that while I now have that vote, a fat lot of good it is when both parties look so alike and its increasingly clear that the vote which ‘sovereignty’ gave me isn’t worth a fig.
I feel the same. but live in hope!. Today I might just vote to rejoin but only if abolishing Westminster was pert of the deal 🙂
When you cast your vote, did you imagine for one moment that the current occupants of Parliament were the right people to lead an independent UK? It could take a generation to get back the talents, vision and qualities a top-ten player on the world stage requires, or that a population of almost 70 million deserves. Regaining our sovereignty is a necessary, but not a sufficient first step.
I feel the same. but live in hope!. Today I might just vote to rejoin but only if abolishing Westminster was pert of the deal 🙂
When you cast your vote, did you imagine for one moment that the current occupants of Parliament were the right people to lead an independent UK? It could take a generation to get back the talents, vision and qualities a top-ten player on the world stage requires, or that a population of almost 70 million deserves. Regaining our sovereignty is a necessary, but not a sufficient first step.
This is an excellent response and is the first time I have felt the slightest twinge of Leaver regret. Voted Leave because I resent not having a democratic vote I can exercise if those in power let me down. But I do increasingly feel that while I now have that vote, a fat lot of good it is when both parties look so alike and its increasingly clear that the vote which ‘sovereignty’ gave me isn’t worth a fig.
I, for one, do understand it. To some extent I even share it. It is just that being free to make your own decisions is not worth as much as you would think where you are not strong enough to actually get what you want. In many areas Britain can probably get *more* of what she wants by making deals inside the EU than by going up against the EU, US, China, Amazon etc. on her lonesome. And my respect for people who want to keep their self-respect quickly drops to zero if they are not willing to own up to the cost, but prefer to pretend that their choices do not have consequences.
Maybe also the wish to govern ourselves and not to have to refer everything back to Brussels.
We left to avoid becoming a state in a United Europe
This was never proposed or accepted by any vote of the British people despite promises by Tony Blair
Some things money can’t buy, sovereignty being one of them
Now we need to get rid of Blair’s blob to restore self government
“Clearly folks voted Leave for different reasons.”
Obvious really, but the first time seen anyone, at all put it in print. My complements.
Clearly folks did vote Leave for different reasons. The two reasons mentioned, though true and relevant, were not my chief reasons for being (both then and now) a convinced Leaver. For me the decisive and all-important factors were identity and self-respect. I voted leave because I didn’t want our British identity to be lost by being merged into a superstate, and I did want to maintain the self-respect that comes from being perfectly capable of governing ourselves and making our own decision.
I’ve never yet met a Remainer who understood this kind of thinking.
Maybe also the wish to govern ourselves and not to have to refer everything back to Brussels.
Indeed. The glee with which they still fall on the regular academic studies claiming Brexit has caused (frankly, quite mild) economic damage proves it.
There is a big difference between having some understanding why a majority voted for it, and agreeing that it was the best decision. Don’t mix the two issues up. They are different debating points.
That said it’s seems self evident that many Brexiteers struggle to reconcile the different reasons folks voted Leave – the Red wall vs Small state dichotomy being an obvious contradiction they are struggling to square.
Clearly folks voted Leave for different reasons. IMO the biggest being immigration concern, followed by a sense we were paying more than we got back. Nuances about how Single Market trading rules worked were lost on most on all sides.
Indeed. The glee with which they still fall on the regular academic studies claiming Brexit has caused (frankly, quite mild) economic damage proves it.
I think the opening suggests she does get it – but most of the French elite don’t and never will.
BTW – the wider French population are far more in line with the English population than the French elites.
I remember reading an opinion poll of French voters sometime before the referendum and this indicated that the French were more anti-EU than the British.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/
Hmm, they voted for Macron twice.
Of course pretty standard folks want to find someone/something to blame and will express that. But thus far they rejected following a similar path to us as evidenced by Macron being in the Elysee Palace.
That may have more to do with the alternative being Le Pen who is beyond the pale for most French voters. In a choice between the EU status quo with Macron and a Frexit with Le Pen, the voters chose the slightly more palatable option.
That’s not to say the French are necessarily anti-EU, but that election was far from a referendum on the issue.
The votes were against Le Pen. Macron just happened to be the beneficiary.
It does seem to be a fact though that there are v few far Right, or just Right wing parties in EU countries pushing for a form of Brexit. Le Pen wasn’t actually pushing Frexit. Meloni hasn’t pushed Italexit. Czechs just voted, by some margin, for a moderate etc. Orban resistant to some things but not proposing to Leave. Etc etc
Annoyance with the EU is not quite the same as wanting to withdraw. If anything that’s because they’ve seen what it’s done to us. So the irony is our Brexit has pulled Europe more together not apart. That’s telling us something.
It does seem to be a fact though that there are v few far Right, or just Right wing parties in EU countries pushing for a form of Brexit. Le Pen wasn’t actually pushing Frexit. Meloni hasn’t pushed Italexit. Czechs just voted, by some margin, for a moderate etc. Orban resistant to some things but not proposing to Leave. Etc etc
Annoyance with the EU is not quite the same as wanting to withdraw. If anything that’s because they’ve seen what it’s done to us. So the irony is our Brexit has pulled Europe more together not apart. That’s telling us something.
That may have more to do with the alternative being Le Pen who is beyond the pale for most French voters. In a choice between the EU status quo with Macron and a Frexit with Le Pen, the voters chose the slightly more palatable option.
That’s not to say the French are necessarily anti-EU, but that election was far from a referendum on the issue.
The votes were against Le Pen. Macron just happened to be the beneficiary.
Hmm, they voted for Macron twice.
Of course pretty standard folks want to find someone/something to blame and will express that. But thus far they rejected following a similar path to us as evidenced by Macron being in the Elysee Palace.
Quite.
The headline suggests that “The French love to hate Brexit”, whereas, as you suggest, the truth is that the elite hate that many of the French would love Frexit
Certainly my experience in Normandy and Brittany in July 2016. Everyone who mentioned the referendum was saying either well done or wish we could have one.
And these poor souls had not the faintest idea of what they were talking about.
France currency was worth toilet paper and seing the state of its industry……we would be like a third world country.
The Germans sold their soul to Putin for cheap energy safe guarding their industry. Putin ……forced them to abandon nuclear energy manipulating the the greens and the French sucked up the Germans to get a respectful currency.
Just a bloody mess. Still……Frexit would be a catastrophe that I could easily escape by changing country. The people you are talking about would have no other choice but to live with their decision…….anywhere as opposed to nowhere.
Mhmmmmmm……this somehow sounds familiar……it’ll come back to me.
By the by…..there is no other place I feel safe queuing up than in the UK.
The Brits invented queuing up…..the French jumping it….and that’s the reason I’ll always miss the Uk being part of the EU……
And these poor souls had not the faintest idea of what they were talking about.
France currency was worth toilet paper and seing the state of its industry……we would be like a third world country.
The Germans sold their soul to Putin for cheap energy safe guarding their industry. Putin ……forced them to abandon nuclear energy manipulating the the greens and the French sucked up the Germans to get a respectful currency.
Just a bloody mess. Still……Frexit would be a catastrophe that I could easily escape by changing country. The people you are talking about would have no other choice but to live with their decision…….anywhere as opposed to nowhere.
Mhmmmmmm……this somehow sounds familiar……it’ll come back to me.
By the by…..there is no other place I feel safe queuing up than in the UK.
The Brits invented queuing up…..the French jumping it….and that’s the reason I’ll always miss the Uk being part of the EU……
Certainly my experience in Normandy and Brittany in July 2016. Everyone who mentioned the referendum was saying either well done or wish we could have one.
And put another way. The French and British elites are not only in agreement but also cahoots.
Surely most of the British elite don’t get it either.
I remember reading an opinion poll of French voters sometime before the referendum and this indicated that the French were more anti-EU than the British.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/
Quite.
The headline suggests that “The French love to hate Brexit”, whereas, as you suggest, the truth is that the elite hate that many of the French would love Frexit
And put another way. The French and British elites are not only in agreement but also cahoots.
Surely most of the British elite don’t get it either.
The piece wasn’t meant to explain my own understanding of Brexit, but I did mention “issues of sovereignty”, which incidentally I essentially agree with. But as a Frenchwoman, I’ve always felt that a large country like Britain or, say, France, has many options for getting its own way in Brussels. The problem is that you Brits are more respectful than us of (most) rules….
Merci. Ca merite du respect quand l’auteur ecrit une reponse, ce qui n’arrive presque jamais ici.
Et j’etais carrement paresseusse de faire une telle erreur.
En depit de tous que j’ai ecrit ici, je vous jure que je garde une grande admiration pour la France apres avoir vecu deux ans pres de Vence.
Dear Mrs Moutet
it is always a pleasure to listen to you and read you. Your analysis on everything that regards our feuding cousins on the other side of the channel are always worth taking on board.
You are right, big countries like France and the UK have ways to get what they want in Brussels…….but ironically, it is always the British who come up as the cheaters in public opinion, of course relayed by médias.
Boris Johnson certainly didn’t do the country’s reputation any favour when it comes to Brexit. He turned the issue into a very irritating circus that could only win French public opinion in making Brexit punishing for the UK.
But, Brussels or no Brussels……I still think Brexit hasn’t delivered anything but Whitehall red tape under all the Sir Humphrey Appleby who loom there and unwanted and unregulated immigration……Both were at the root of Brexit.
Merci. Ca merite du respect quand l’auteur ecrit une reponse, ce qui n’arrive presque jamais ici.
Et j’etais carrement paresseusse de faire une telle erreur.
En depit de tous que j’ai ecrit ici, je vous jure que je garde une grande admiration pour la France apres avoir vecu deux ans pres de Vence.
Dear Mrs Moutet
it is always a pleasure to listen to you and read you. Your analysis on everything that regards our feuding cousins on the other side of the channel are always worth taking on board.
You are right, big countries like France and the UK have ways to get what they want in Brussels…….but ironically, it is always the British who come up as the cheaters in public opinion, of course relayed by médias.
Boris Johnson certainly didn’t do the country’s reputation any favour when it comes to Brexit. He turned the issue into a very irritating circus that could only win French public opinion in making Brexit punishing for the UK.
But, Brussels or no Brussels……I still think Brexit hasn’t delivered anything but Whitehall red tape under all the Sir Humphrey Appleby who loom there and unwanted and unregulated immigration……Both were at the root of Brexit.
Brexit happened because on that Sunday of 2016, scores of young Londoners didn’t bother to get out of bed while in Swansea they were queuing up for their day in history.
Who do you think you are kidding ? This referendum was a cliff hanger and it could have easily gone either way had these kids bothered
Ann then the best bit ……how many Brexiter went for a European passport to keep gallivanting around Europe ?
If that’s no double standard…..then what is !!
Thursday. A day that I will never forget.
Go on, then: how many? Another Remainer fantasy – but they don’t count, do they? Only ‘Brexiters’ can be guilty of dishonesty, double standard or woolly thinking.
Thursday. A day that I will never forget.
Go on, then: how many? Another Remainer fantasy – but they don’t count, do they? Only ‘Brexiters’ can be guilty of dishonesty, double standard or woolly thinking.
Thumbs up Peter B
I’ve yet to hear from any remainer who does, I believe it’s one of the main reasons why they lost the vote.
I think the opening suggests she does get it – but most of the French elite don’t and never will.
BTW – the wider French population are far more in line with the English population than the French elites.
The piece wasn’t meant to explain my own understanding of Brexit, but I did mention “issues of sovereignty”, which incidentally I essentially agree with. But as a Frenchwoman, I’ve always felt that a large country like Britain or, say, France, has many options for getting its own way in Brussels. The problem is that you Brits are more respectful than us of (most) rules….
Brexit happened because on that Sunday of 2016, scores of young Londoners didn’t bother to get out of bed while in Swansea they were queuing up for their day in history.
Who do you think you are kidding ? This referendum was a cliff hanger and it could have easily gone either way had these kids bothered
Ann then the best bit ……how many Brexiter went for a European passport to keep gallivanting around Europe ?
If that’s no double standard…..then what is !!
Thumbs up Peter B
Strangely the uk cabinet seems to have so many scandals which surprise, surprise seems to empty the cabinet of pro-brexit types
Strangely the country seems to have polls pushing proEU sentiment with a sprinkling of so very reasonable EU types saying the door is always open
Strangely the pro EU media is full of brexit scepticism and how bad it is rather than the usual drip drip of it
You don’t think it would be a coordinated thing by any chance? The fat cats are pushing hard from their metropolitan enclaves to make sure we go back to “business as usual “ before all this. The deep rooted malaise from an elite who long ago ran out of ideas and integrity are back and making the mistake of asking the proletariat what their opinion is will never be repeated. Everything on this side of the channel is deplorable and everything on the other side is a shining beacon of integrity. Really?
The ruling class metropolitans haven’t changed, here or there, and the EU DEFINITELY hasn’t changed, So the reasons why we left haven’t changed. in fact the behaviour of both over the Covid years shows neither have learned anything and definitely not humility
It was a divorce with unreasonable behaviour as it’s core cause. Would you go back after the divorce is done and expect the other party to behave differently? The clinical definition of psychotic behaviour “to repeat a behaviour over again even though you know each time it will end in failure”. People were tired of EU behaviour before brexit but much of the reactionary vote, leave, is the ruling class here and in the EU are cut of the same clothe. The blob strains not to do anything against their brothers across the water and so it’s dead in the water. Rishi and his banker set are the final nail in that coffin. Not a rant just a reality sadly
Bigger things afoot in the world than perfidious Albion finally seeing the error of its ways (apparently, if you don’t look too closely at the data) in having been rude to la belle France? Incroyable!
No. There’s nothing new or particularly insightful here. She still doesn’t really understand why Brexit happened. I’ve yet to hear from any French person who does.
Strangely the uk cabinet seems to have so many scandals which surprise, surprise seems to empty the cabinet of pro-brexit types
Strangely the country seems to have polls pushing proEU sentiment with a sprinkling of so very reasonable EU types saying the door is always open
Strangely the pro EU media is full of brexit scepticism and how bad it is rather than the usual drip drip of it
You don’t think it would be a coordinated thing by any chance? The fat cats are pushing hard from their metropolitan enclaves to make sure we go back to “business as usual “ before all this. The deep rooted malaise from an elite who long ago ran out of ideas and integrity are back and making the mistake of asking the proletariat what their opinion is will never be repeated. Everything on this side of the channel is deplorable and everything on the other side is a shining beacon of integrity. Really?
The ruling class metropolitans haven’t changed, here or there, and the EU DEFINITELY hasn’t changed, So the reasons why we left haven’t changed. in fact the behaviour of both over the Covid years shows neither have learned anything and definitely not humility
It was a divorce with unreasonable behaviour as it’s core cause. Would you go back after the divorce is done and expect the other party to behave differently? The clinical definition of psychotic behaviour “to repeat a behaviour over again even though you know each time it will end in failure”. People were tired of EU behaviour before brexit but much of the reactionary vote, leave, is the ruling class here and in the EU are cut of the same clothe. The blob strains not to do anything against their brothers across the water and so it’s dead in the water. Rishi and his banker set are the final nail in that coffin. Not a rant just a reality sadly
A very well written and amusing article made more impressive by the fact the author’s first language is French not English (I took French through high school, even passed my exams, and promptly forgot it all).
I suppose the Unherd poll triggered the talk of Brexit this week. Isn’t it time to move on, dear Europeans? Aren’t there bigger things afoot in the world today? What’s that you say? Oh, it’s easier to rehash Brexit than tackle current problems. Yup. Got it.
Non, Je ne Bregret rien.
You make an amusing – and reasonably plausible – case, but your argument only works among heartbroken Remainers here, and what I imagine is your circle of bien pensant compatriots.
What could be a more telling indictment of the “European Project” than to witness the extraordinary volte face of M Barnier, as he tried to run for office in France?
Mr Europe – The man for whom the 4 Freedoms were indivisible and entirely sacrosanct. The man who refused to accept the idea that the EU could or should ever give an inch. For whom ECJ edicts were as unchallengeable as the word of God.
All well and good whilst he sat cocooned in his Ivory Tower at the Berlaymont, part of the technocratic priesthood dictating doctrine, safe from the inconvenience of ever having to achieve a popular mandate.
But then, suddenly, channelling his inner Farage, and taking the line that “We must regain our legal sovereignty so that we are no longer subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.”
Isn’t it illuminating that even the most staunch defender of the EU has to turn against the institutions and point out their obvious faults if he wants to appeal to an actual voter?
Of course the concerns of the citizenry have never been allowed to stand in the way of the broader EU ambitions, but domestically different rules apply – you actually have to win voters over.
Sovereignty was – and is – a real issue. Though our take on what it means rather differs from the French- and has done for centuries.
I was always rather confused as to why, in all the interminable deliberations and discussions over Brexit, so few journalists referenced the Common Law.
I think it is quite a large part of why the British have always had a very different take on the various incarnations of the EU than most European nations – that, and the fact that we haven’t been conquered and ruled by a hostile power for nearly 1000 years. (Though we almost managed to let our “leaders” achieve the same by simply gifting dominion to Brussels without ever gaining the consent of those they sought to govern)
I read an article a while ago (in a rival publication) that talked warmly of the EU “allowing” its citizens freedoms – I thought that rather telling.
The great difference between our Common Law system and the legal systems adopted by most other European countries is encapsulated in what we have by right – as opposed to what they are “allowed”.
The British (and Commonwealth citizens, who adopted our system) have the good fortune to enjoy a Common Law heritage – a very different inheritance to their European counterparts.
France’s judicial system is based on the Napoleonic code of 1804, which is in turn based on the Roman system of law. This was copied by a great many European states and forms the backbone of the ECJ’s understanding of legal frameworks.
The British system is based on Law established by court decisions rather than by statutes enacted by legislatures.
The difference between them has been rather simplistically characterised as:
In Britain anything is allowed unless specifically proscribed.
In France nothing is allowed unless specifically permitted.
It is a wholly different mindset and, although rarely mentioned in all these debates, is the foundation, I would suggest, to a lot of why we have always viewed supranational government differently from other European countries.
Very astute comment.
Common Law versus Civil Law IS the crucial argument as you so rightly say. Sadly even the great Lord Jonathan Sumption, KS, missed that one.
Incidentally we were “conquered “ in 1688 when a Dutch homosexual at the head of an army of foreign mercenaries landed in Torbay and overthrew our (albeit worthless) God”s anointed Monarch, the hapless James II.
… by invitation. And that particular dynasty had had a very short and unhappy flirtation with ruling the whole of Britain, and not just the Scottish bit. Also, there wasn’t much ‘overthrowing’ to do, more a bit of marching about while the ‘worthless anointed Monarch’ got himself and his cronies safely away. To France.
… by invitation. And that particular dynasty had had a very short and unhappy flirtation with ruling the whole of Britain, and not just the Scottish bit. Also, there wasn’t much ‘overthrowing’ to do, more a bit of marching about while the ‘worthless anointed Monarch’ got himself and his cronies safely away. To France.
Interesting and some good academic stuff on the differences in legal principles. Nonetheless both countries much more similar and freer than likes of Xi’s China so caution on the ‘narcissism of small differences’.
None of this though is why the public voted for Brexit. Well maybe a tiny number for whom this is their thing, but immigration, enhanced affluence and promises of reinvested sums in the NHS etc were why we voted Leave. And on those it’ll be judged by the vast majority of the public. Arcane discussions on whether we are now free to have as many E numbers in our prawn cocktail crisps as we like are lost on vast majority.
But I really don’t think this is an “arcane discussion”.
I’d agree with you that few people stop to consider the Common Law and its precepts, in the particular – or even the abstract, but I firmly believe there is a sense of freedom under the Law that is hard-wired into every Briton in a manner quite distinct from other nationalities. I would contend that the reason for that, whether people stop to consider it or not, is our Common Law heritage.
As a country we’ve long taken pride in our democratic tradition. Even those on the political Left, who recoil from most of British history, have always wanted to associate themselves with the struggles of the British people to achieve a voice, to have a say – however small – in shaping our national destiny.
Before most other countries in Europe, we created a system of Popular sovereignty, the idea that people should have a say in how they are governed – and by whom.
Brexit was the latest in a long line of occasions when the people of these isles stood up to those in power and asserted and fought for their rights.
Historically, the demands of all the various rebellions and movements against entrenched privilege and power in this country have essentially been the same, namely that if we are expected to live by the laws of the land then we should have a say in who makes those laws – with the obvious corollary that if we have no capacity to influence who makes the laws, then we will break the law.
The Peasants Revolt, the English Civil War, the Chartists, the Suffragettes, the demands have all been the same – the right to have a say in our national destiny. The right to have a vote and, since achieving universal suffrage, that each vote should count the same whether cast by duke or dustman, young or old, male or female.
We fought for those rights. We hold those rights dear. They are rights that everyone, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum, claims to hold dear. Even those who might not stop to consider those rights in the abstract, still have a sense that democratic sovereignty and the common law are the birthright of every Briton, thanks to those who came before us and fought to gain those rights.
Our membership of what the EU had become was denying the British people their democratic say, and we rebelled against it. For a good many years after the 1975 vote, there was general acceptance of our place in the EEC and its other incarnations. Of course I can’t speak for all 17.4 million Leave voters (nor the countless millions of Eurosceptics across the EU) but I would hazard that a very large number of them would agree that the Common Market had made sense. A group of entirely sovereign European nations agreeing to cooperate on trade. Had we remained simply as that there would have been a willingness – even enthusiasm – for the project.
Since Maastricht, it was the creeping usurpation of powers without a democratic mandate that caused the rising Euroscepticism (not merely here in the UK but across all of Europe). 40 years after our vote to stay in, the EEC had morphed into an entirely different organisation that had accrued untold additional powers and areas of responsibilities (and sought to accrue yet more) without seeking the consent of the governed.
The reason “Take back control” was such an effective slogan was precisely because it touched on that sense that we had the right to demand democratic sovereignty be returned to us.
As I say, I’m sure few people stopped to think of it in such (long-winded) terms, but that is why Take Back Control resonated with so many.
(apologies for length of my response. I rather got the bit between my teeth!)
I did appreciate reading that, and it’s a good debate.
Nonetheless I don’t concur with some of the ‘fundamentals’. Firstly I think the ‘democratic deficit’ is overplayed. The Common market needed rules setting and managing, and we had democratic input into that so the rules could be discussed, debated, agreed. Ditto later the Maastricht was not imposed but subject to democratic input from our representatives who, as it happened, extracted key exemptions. Not everyone was happy with the compromises for sure, but our elected Govt was part of the process and signed up. Lisbon ditto. These things were not imposed regardless of what our elected Govt said. We can disagree with the choices they made and then vote them out
Now one might contend each stage should have been subject to referenda. That’s a view but it doesn’t mean our inputs and agreements were undemocratic without referenda. It comes back to the key issue – are our MPs and Ministers representatives or delegates? You’ll appreciate the history of UK parliamentary democracy is they are representatives we elect and expect to do the detail of governing. That said I can buy into referenda when a v significant constitutional change – joining/leaving etc. But another thing altogether when it gets to policy detail. To use a legal concept, the precedent for that in our history is v weak.
I think remove the immigration issue (and especially the Syrian refugee crisis happening at the same time) and ‘Take Back Control’ would not have resonated in quite the way it did. It would have still had traction with many but it didn’t need to be much for the Vote to go the other way.
More broadly of course it remains to be seen whether ‘pooling some sovereignty’ gives a Country more control in a complex world, than seeking to float entirely alone where the ebbs and flows of others may force much more following.
There are many highly successful countries in the world which have not ‘pooled sovereignty’ with other countries with different languages, cultures, laws, climates, sizes, etc..
Which ones you referring to CE? Give me at least some of your list and we can continue discussion.
Which ones you referring to CE? Give me at least some of your list and we can continue discussion.
There are many highly successful countries in the world which have not ‘pooled sovereignty’ with other countries with different languages, cultures, laws, climates, sizes, etc..
No need to apologise for a very good response. Absolutely right that most people accepted the Common Market made sense but did not accept the EU superstate that they never voted for.
The other point that is often disregarded is that because of the 40 odd year game between the *stay in* referendum with near 70% voting to do that, and a higher proportion of the young back then, and the 2016 referendum is the ‘Gammon vote’ cohort was made up of exactly those people who had been so enthusiastic in 1975.
Other than some mumbling about, people getting older change their views, by Remainers to who I have pointed this out nobody ever really addresses it, so when asked I usually say the clue is in the initials of what was voted for in 1975 and for what was voted against in 2016.
In favour of a community of free nations; against a union of increasingly irrelevant states.
I also find Remainers split almost 50/50 between those who call me thick because increasing ‘ever closer’ union was always known and clearly articulated, first a monetary union and after that a single chancellory for fiscal union, at which point political union would be de facto…and those who call me thick because full union is not on any agenda, and could never happen anyway.
It can be quite confusing.
Almost as confusing as Brexiteers failure to clarify what type and form of Brexit they actually want and convey the related choices clearly and honestly to the public.
We’ve moved on from the Remain/Leave debate. We’ve Left. Now front up with what exactly are you Brexiteers doing with it. Otherwise it risks coming across as the thinking stopped after a yah-boo contest ended.
Why should they ‘clarify what type and form of Brexit they actually want’? Any more than a Remainer needs to spell out exactly what path the EU should take over the coming year/decade/century before being permitted to vote ‘Remain’?
Why should they ‘clarify what type and form of Brexit they actually want’? Any more than a Remainer needs to spell out exactly what path the EU should take over the coming year/decade/century before being permitted to vote ‘Remain’?
Almost as confusing as Brexiteers failure to clarify what type and form of Brexit they actually want and convey the related choices clearly and honestly to the public.
We’ve moved on from the Remain/Leave debate. We’ve Left. Now front up with what exactly are you Brexiteers doing with it. Otherwise it risks coming across as the thinking stopped after a yah-boo contest ended.
Sounds like a convincing argument for leaving EU political structure but staying in the Single Market/Customs Union. Shame we didn’t have the ‘sense’ to do that. We got a bit carried away didn’t we.
The other point that is often disregarded is that because of the 40 odd year game between the *stay in* referendum with near 70% voting to do that, and a higher proportion of the young back then, and the 2016 referendum is the ‘Gammon vote’ cohort was made up of exactly those people who had been so enthusiastic in 1975.
Other than some mumbling about, people getting older change their views, by Remainers to who I have pointed this out nobody ever really addresses it, so when asked I usually say the clue is in the initials of what was voted for in 1975 and for what was voted against in 2016.
In favour of a community of free nations; against a union of increasingly irrelevant states.
I also find Remainers split almost 50/50 between those who call me thick because increasing ‘ever closer’ union was always known and clearly articulated, first a monetary union and after that a single chancellory for fiscal union, at which point political union would be de facto…and those who call me thick because full union is not on any agenda, and could never happen anyway.
It can be quite confusing.
Sounds like a convincing argument for leaving EU political structure but staying in the Single Market/Customs Union. Shame we didn’t have the ‘sense’ to do that. We got a bit carried away didn’t we.
I did appreciate reading that, and it’s a good debate.
Nonetheless I don’t concur with some of the ‘fundamentals’. Firstly I think the ‘democratic deficit’ is overplayed. The Common market needed rules setting and managing, and we had democratic input into that so the rules could be discussed, debated, agreed. Ditto later the Maastricht was not imposed but subject to democratic input from our representatives who, as it happened, extracted key exemptions. Not everyone was happy with the compromises for sure, but our elected Govt was part of the process and signed up. Lisbon ditto. These things were not imposed regardless of what our elected Govt said. We can disagree with the choices they made and then vote them out
Now one might contend each stage should have been subject to referenda. That’s a view but it doesn’t mean our inputs and agreements were undemocratic without referenda. It comes back to the key issue – are our MPs and Ministers representatives or delegates? You’ll appreciate the history of UK parliamentary democracy is they are representatives we elect and expect to do the detail of governing. That said I can buy into referenda when a v significant constitutional change – joining/leaving etc. But another thing altogether when it gets to policy detail. To use a legal concept, the precedent for that in our history is v weak.
I think remove the immigration issue (and especially the Syrian refugee crisis happening at the same time) and ‘Take Back Control’ would not have resonated in quite the way it did. It would have still had traction with many but it didn’t need to be much for the Vote to go the other way.
More broadly of course it remains to be seen whether ‘pooling some sovereignty’ gives a Country more control in a complex world, than seeking to float entirely alone where the ebbs and flows of others may force much more following.
No need to apologise for a very good response. Absolutely right that most people accepted the Common Market made sense but did not accept the EU superstate that they never voted for.
Lovely post.
Off course the “Founding Fathers” of the USA thought exactly the same in 1776, which is hardly surprising given their background.
In 1975 the Common Market made sense, even if there the were the odd one or two siren voices that thought otherwise.
As it turned out they were CORRECT and Maastricht came as a bitter shock to many, if fact “we had been had”, and in no uncertain terms.
However to plead for British exceptionalism is too invite screams of heresy from the ‘shriekers of Quislington’ and their Ilk!
I would agree with most everything written here,except the common Market never made sense. I recall an impassioned speech by I believe it was Peter Shore who laid out what a Market was and what was required of a market for it to function. Essentially each of the parties had to bring to the market goods that others did not have, In the case of the Common Market we produced the same things that the majority of European states produced and required many raw materials which they did’nt have so both sides were down to importing from outside the market, hence no basis for a Market.
It is my belief that had there been a referendumn prior to joining we would never have joined, I wouldn’t have voted for it and many of those I worked with were of a similar mind.
(apologies for length of my response. I rather got the bit between my teeth!)
Lovely post.
Off course the “Founding Fathers” of the USA thought exactly the same in 1776, which is hardly surprising given their background.
In 1975 the Common Market made sense, even if there the were the odd one or two siren voices that thought otherwise.
As it turned out they were CORRECT and Maastricht came as a bitter shock to many, if fact “we had been had”, and in no uncertain terms.
However to plead for British exceptionalism is too invite screams of heresy from the ‘shriekers of Quislington’ and their Ilk!
I would agree with most everything written here,except the common Market never made sense. I recall an impassioned speech by I believe it was Peter Shore who laid out what a Market was and what was required of a market for it to function. Essentially each of the parties had to bring to the market goods that others did not have, In the case of the Common Market we produced the same things that the majority of European states produced and required many raw materials which they did’nt have so both sides were down to importing from outside the market, hence no basis for a Market.
It is my belief that had there been a referendumn prior to joining we would never have joined, I wouldn’t have voted for it and many of those I worked with were of a similar mind.
Dear Mr Watson,
Speak for yourself! You certainly don’t speak for me, nor for the many like me who discovered soon after being duped by the Establishment in 1975 that our whole system of law, both criminal and civil, would need to be replaced by the alien – yes, alien – rule of the Code Napoleon-based European system. But then, that was when I began to study ‘the English Legal System, Constitutional and Administrative Law’ as a nineteen-year-old. Until then, I naively assumed that if the greater part of both main parties at Westminster supported something, it was probably in all our best interests.
But I really don’t think this is an “arcane discussion”.
I’d agree with you that few people stop to consider the Common Law and its precepts, in the particular – or even the abstract, but I firmly believe there is a sense of freedom under the Law that is hard-wired into every Briton in a manner quite distinct from other nationalities. I would contend that the reason for that, whether people stop to consider it or not, is our Common Law heritage.
As a country we’ve long taken pride in our democratic tradition. Even those on the political Left, who recoil from most of British history, have always wanted to associate themselves with the struggles of the British people to achieve a voice, to have a say – however small – in shaping our national destiny.
Before most other countries in Europe, we created a system of Popular sovereignty, the idea that people should have a say in how they are governed – and by whom.
Brexit was the latest in a long line of occasions when the people of these isles stood up to those in power and asserted and fought for their rights.
Historically, the demands of all the various rebellions and movements against entrenched privilege and power in this country have essentially been the same, namely that if we are expected to live by the laws of the land then we should have a say in who makes those laws – with the obvious corollary that if we have no capacity to influence who makes the laws, then we will break the law.
The Peasants Revolt, the English Civil War, the Chartists, the Suffragettes, the demands have all been the same – the right to have a say in our national destiny. The right to have a vote and, since achieving universal suffrage, that each vote should count the same whether cast by duke or dustman, young or old, male or female.
We fought for those rights. We hold those rights dear. They are rights that everyone, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum, claims to hold dear. Even those who might not stop to consider those rights in the abstract, still have a sense that democratic sovereignty and the common law are the birthright of every Briton, thanks to those who came before us and fought to gain those rights.
Our membership of what the EU had become was denying the British people their democratic say, and we rebelled against it. For a good many years after the 1975 vote, there was general acceptance of our place in the EEC and its other incarnations. Of course I can’t speak for all 17.4 million Leave voters (nor the countless millions of Eurosceptics across the EU) but I would hazard that a very large number of them would agree that the Common Market had made sense. A group of entirely sovereign European nations agreeing to cooperate on trade. Had we remained simply as that there would have been a willingness – even enthusiasm – for the project.
Since Maastricht, it was the creeping usurpation of powers without a democratic mandate that caused the rising Euroscepticism (not merely here in the UK but across all of Europe). 40 years after our vote to stay in, the EEC had morphed into an entirely different organisation that had accrued untold additional powers and areas of responsibilities (and sought to accrue yet more) without seeking the consent of the governed.
The reason “Take back control” was such an effective slogan was precisely because it touched on that sense that we had the right to demand democratic sovereignty be returned to us.
As I say, I’m sure few people stopped to think of it in such (long-winded) terms, but that is why Take Back Control resonated with so many.
Dear Mr Watson,
Speak for yourself! You certainly don’t speak for me, nor for the many like me who discovered soon after being duped by the Establishment in 1975 that our whole system of law, both criminal and civil, would need to be replaced by the alien – yes, alien – rule of the Code Napoleon-based European system. But then, that was when I began to study ‘the English Legal System, Constitutional and Administrative Law’ as a nineteen-year-old. Until then, I naively assumed that if the greater part of both main parties at Westminster supported something, it was probably in all our best interests.
“In Britain anything is allowed unless specifically proscribed.
In France nothing is allowed unless specifically permitted.”
Perhaps in theory – I’m not sure how it pans out in practice. One example – there is far more freedom to roam, boat, hunt, camp on land and waterways on the continent. The recent ruling banning camping on Dartmoor, because it is not specifically permitted, is a case in point.
What about the “Right to Roam” in bonny Scotland?
Sure that is a UK exception – doesn’t negate my point. As an aside, I think that you’d get into trouble hunting on anyone’s land in Scotland – whilst in much of Europe it is everyone’s right to shoot most anywhere (I’m told this is why French always have good fences around their gardens – a legal necessity).
A more interesting point perhaps is the ultimate link of British restrictive land practices to the Norman invasion. ‘Get off my land’ (that they’d just stolen) is something the Normans epitomised, and we copied it for a thousand years. Now it seems a certain sort of Brit (e.g. Alexander Darwall) denies the deep influence of foreigners on British culture, whilst simultaneously scapegoating them for our failure to govern ourselves effectively, and fighting to protect the Norman rules, against the British people.
Trespass is no longer a Criminal offence in England.
Trespass is no longer a Criminal offence in England.
The SNP are certainly making the most of the “Right to Remoan” in Bonny Scotland.
Indeed they are! Along with the wretched Welsh, or so I hear.
But the Welsh voted ‘Leave’. More emphatically than the English.
But the Welsh voted ‘Leave’. More emphatically than the English.
Indeed they are! Along with the wretched Welsh, or so I hear.
Sure that is a UK exception – doesn’t negate my point. As an aside, I think that you’d get into trouble hunting on anyone’s land in Scotland – whilst in much of Europe it is everyone’s right to shoot most anywhere (I’m told this is why French always have good fences around their gardens – a legal necessity).
A more interesting point perhaps is the ultimate link of British restrictive land practices to the Norman invasion. ‘Get off my land’ (that they’d just stolen) is something the Normans epitomised, and we copied it for a thousand years. Now it seems a certain sort of Brit (e.g. Alexander Darwall) denies the deep influence of foreigners on British culture, whilst simultaneously scapegoating them for our failure to govern ourselves effectively, and fighting to protect the Norman rules, against the British people.
The SNP are certainly making the most of the “Right to Remoan” in Bonny Scotland.
You are right o query how it pans out in practice, because French people often seem to ignore the law when it suits them.
What about the “Right to Roam” in bonny Scotland?
You are right o query how it pans out in practice, because French people often seem to ignore the law when it suits them.
It’s a total difference in philosophical outlook. British empiricism vs. French idealism. We believe that if the observations don’t agree with the theory, then the theory must be wrong; with the French it’s the other way round.
The differences in framing laws, as above, demonstrates this perfectly. It also explains why French philosophers are so keen to subvert objective reality. It is essentially authoritarian & undemocratic – our glorious leaders have, by virtue of their enormous intellect, formed the most perfect rules for society & must therefore be obeyed unquestioningly, no matter how ridiculous they may appear to everyone else.
It’s a pernicious & dangerous outlook & I want nothing to do with it.
Very astute comment.
Common Law versus Civil Law IS the crucial argument as you so rightly say. Sadly even the great Lord Jonathan Sumption, KS, missed that one.
Incidentally we were “conquered “ in 1688 when a Dutch homosexual at the head of an army of foreign mercenaries landed in Torbay and overthrew our (albeit worthless) God”s anointed Monarch, the hapless James II.
Interesting and some good academic stuff on the differences in legal principles. Nonetheless both countries much more similar and freer than likes of Xi’s China so caution on the ‘narcissism of small differences’.
None of this though is why the public voted for Brexit. Well maybe a tiny number for whom this is their thing, but immigration, enhanced affluence and promises of reinvested sums in the NHS etc were why we voted Leave. And on those it’ll be judged by the vast majority of the public. Arcane discussions on whether we are now free to have as many E numbers in our prawn cocktail crisps as we like are lost on vast majority.
“In Britain anything is allowed unless specifically proscribed.
In France nothing is allowed unless specifically permitted.”
Perhaps in theory – I’m not sure how it pans out in practice. One example – there is far more freedom to roam, boat, hunt, camp on land and waterways on the continent. The recent ruling banning camping on Dartmoor, because it is not specifically permitted, is a case in point.
It’s a total difference in philosophical outlook. British empiricism vs. French idealism. We believe that if the observations don’t agree with the theory, then the theory must be wrong; with the French it’s the other way round.
The differences in framing laws, as above, demonstrates this perfectly. It also explains why French philosophers are so keen to subvert objective reality. It is essentially authoritarian & undemocratic – our glorious leaders have, by virtue of their enormous intellect, formed the most perfect rules for society & must therefore be obeyed unquestioningly, no matter how ridiculous they may appear to everyone else.
It’s a pernicious & dangerous outlook & I want nothing to do with it.
Non, Je ne Bregret rien.
You make an amusing – and reasonably plausible – case, but your argument only works among heartbroken Remainers here, and what I imagine is your circle of bien pensant compatriots.
What could be a more telling indictment of the “European Project” than to witness the extraordinary volte face of M Barnier, as he tried to run for office in France?
Mr Europe – The man for whom the 4 Freedoms were indivisible and entirely sacrosanct. The man who refused to accept the idea that the EU could or should ever give an inch. For whom ECJ edicts were as unchallengeable as the word of God.
All well and good whilst he sat cocooned in his Ivory Tower at the Berlaymont, part of the technocratic priesthood dictating doctrine, safe from the inconvenience of ever having to achieve a popular mandate.
But then, suddenly, channelling his inner Farage, and taking the line that “We must regain our legal sovereignty so that we are no longer subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.”
Isn’t it illuminating that even the most staunch defender of the EU has to turn against the institutions and point out their obvious faults if he wants to appeal to an actual voter?
Of course the concerns of the citizenry have never been allowed to stand in the way of the broader EU ambitions, but domestically different rules apply – you actually have to win voters over.
Sovereignty was – and is – a real issue. Though our take on what it means rather differs from the French- and has done for centuries.
I was always rather confused as to why, in all the interminable deliberations and discussions over Brexit, so few journalists referenced the Common Law.
I think it is quite a large part of why the British have always had a very different take on the various incarnations of the EU than most European nations – that, and the fact that we haven’t been conquered and ruled by a hostile power for nearly 1000 years. (Though we almost managed to let our “leaders” achieve the same by simply gifting dominion to Brussels without ever gaining the consent of those they sought to govern)
I read an article a while ago (in a rival publication) that talked warmly of the EU “allowing” its citizens freedoms – I thought that rather telling.
The great difference between our Common Law system and the legal systems adopted by most other European countries is encapsulated in what we have by right – as opposed to what they are “allowed”.
The British (and Commonwealth citizens, who adopted our system) have the good fortune to enjoy a Common Law heritage – a very different inheritance to their European counterparts.
France’s judicial system is based on the Napoleonic code of 1804, which is in turn based on the Roman system of law. This was copied by a great many European states and forms the backbone of the ECJ’s understanding of legal frameworks.
The British system is based on Law established by court decisions rather than by statutes enacted by legislatures.
The difference between them has been rather simplistically characterised as:
In Britain anything is allowed unless specifically proscribed.
In France nothing is allowed unless specifically permitted.
It is a wholly different mindset and, although rarely mentioned in all these debates, is the foundation, I would suggest, to a lot of why we have always viewed supranational government differently from other European countries.
It’s official. I’ve reached my Brexit saturation point for this particular round of belly aching! Was starting to feel rather rueful and sceptical…but then Guy Verhofstadt and Michel Barnier crawled out the woodwork and opened their mouths and I thought “ah, yes- THAT’S why people decided they wanted out”.
Hope we can put away the discussions like Christmas decorations for another year, although I suspect that won’t be possible. Where are my earplugs…?
Katherine,
When I think of the many hours (which probably by now totals weeks of my life) that I’ve spent writing/arguing/debating Brexit, from the broad concept right through to the tiniest, nerdiest details, I don’t think any of it was particularly good for me, or a productive use of my time. Not that it’s stopped me from doing it, of course.
About a year ago I was chatting to a very dear friend and somehow the Brexit negotiations came up in conversation, specifically the idiotic accusation of ‘cherry-picking’. I made a disparaging remark about Michel Barnier and he responded with “Who’s she?”
I pressed him and he said he had honestly never heard of Barnier, because within a week of the referendum result, he could already see how toxic it was going to become, and that he didn’t have a strong enough opinion either way to want to get involved, so he’d deliberately tuned it all out – and had continued to do so.
At the time I was absolutely horrified at his wilful ignorance on such an important topic. But subsequently I’ve thought about it and (in a strange way) actually rather envy him.
Oh my goodness – same here. For me, the process of tuning out had to be learned. The discipline slips every now and then. Clearly – otherwise I wouldn’t be here commenting again!
Oh my goodness – same here. For me, the process of tuning out had to be learned. The discipline slips every now and then. Clearly – otherwise I wouldn’t be here commenting again!
Katherine,
When I think of the many hours (which probably by now totals weeks of my life) that I’ve spent writing/arguing/debating Brexit, from the broad concept right through to the tiniest, nerdiest details, I don’t think any of it was particularly good for me, or a productive use of my time. Not that it’s stopped me from doing it, of course.
About a year ago I was chatting to a very dear friend and somehow the Brexit negotiations came up in conversation, specifically the idiotic accusation of ‘cherry-picking’. I made a disparaging remark about Michel Barnier and he responded with “Who’s she?”
I pressed him and he said he had honestly never heard of Barnier, because within a week of the referendum result, he could already see how toxic it was going to become, and that he didn’t have a strong enough opinion either way to want to get involved, so he’d deliberately tuned it all out – and had continued to do so.
At the time I was absolutely horrified at his wilful ignorance on such an important topic. But subsequently I’ve thought about it and (in a strange way) actually rather envy him.
It’s official. I’ve reached my Brexit saturation point for this particular round of belly aching! Was starting to feel rather rueful and sceptical…but then Guy Verhofstadt and Michel Barnier crawled out the woodwork and opened their mouths and I thought “ah, yes- THAT’S why people decided they wanted out”.
Hope we can put away the discussions like Christmas decorations for another year, although I suspect that won’t be possible. Where are my earplugs…?
Regards the Unherd survey, the British public are just reflecting the negative ambience on Brexit oozing from the greasy pores of the MSM. And the French elite are simply displaying their vain personalities and self-confirming their position on top of civilisation’s flagpole.
We deserve better, on both sides of La Manche!
Remember alot of Brexiteers are also criticising that it’s not delivered what was expected. They tend to find scapegoats, including current Govt, to blame for that, but the point is the negative ambience is also coming from elements of the Brexit side. Now that’s uncomfortable for some, but it’s a fact.
I think they rightly blame the establishment who at every turn hve sought to frustrate Brexit no matter what the detriment to this country
The problem is that ‘what kind of Brexit do we want?’ (several models were posited, are available) was not defined, voted on, or even asked much. Essentially, half the country, and a clear majority of the powerful groups (e.g. business, unions medicine, politicians, academia, science, arts) did not want it. Individual Brexiteers assumed that they would get whatever version they wanted; and Remainers have fought to get a version of Brexit they preferred. Politics did not stop, were not settled on June 24th. ‘no matter what the detriment to this country’ – sorry this is cynical nonsense – the great majority of Brexiteers and Remainers alike want the best for the country; they just have very different views on what that is. A 52/48% is very far from a clear mandate – even if it was 80/20 – the 20 should not be ignored; and what ‘Brexit’ actually entailed in the detail was tragically vague – all but setting us up for a civil war. No wonder Cameron has slumped into depression.
The usual Remainer weasel words ‘what kind of Brexit’; there’s only one kind, which is to cease being a member. How is it that this can be argued about?
Once out, one might have agreements with the EU, but these are treaties, to be ended or changed or renegotiated.
Unfortunately, the EU wanted to make it hell for us, and they mostly succeeded, thanks to the stupidity of the Conservatives in permitting a Remainer to become PM once Cameron dishonourably walked out in pique.
“Brexit’; there’s only one kind, which is to cease being a member. How is it that this can be argued about?”
Only one kind; weasal words! Colin, I really don’t mean to be insulting, but that ranks amongst the most obtuse opinions I’ve heard on the whole subject. Why would you make such a patently false claim? ‘Brexit means brexit’ – is a glib statement from a glib, vacuous narcissist – Boris Johnson. He gets away with because of his charm, buffoonish manipulations that he perfected across his lifetime. Do not follow.
There are a wide range of possible Brexit arrangements,, discussed lightly by both sides (not so much by the teams) – I have never heard this denied, until today. This doesn’t inspire faith in your knowledge. Nor does the idea that the EU would just role over to whatever an anti- EU government wants. Who does that in a negotiation? Extraordinary.
“Brexit’; there’s only one kind, which is to cease being a member. How is it that this can be argued about?”
Only one kind; weasal words! Colin, I really don’t mean to be insulting, but that ranks amongst the most obtuse opinions I’ve heard on the whole subject. Why would you make such a patently false claim? ‘Brexit means brexit’ – is a glib statement from a glib, vacuous narcissist – Boris Johnson. He gets away with because of his charm, buffoonish manipulations that he perfected across his lifetime. Do not follow.
There are a wide range of possible Brexit arrangements,, discussed lightly by both sides (not so much by the teams) – I have never heard this denied, until today. This doesn’t inspire faith in your knowledge. Nor does the idea that the EU would just role over to whatever an anti- EU government wants. Who does that in a negotiation? Extraordinary.
The usual Remainer weasel words ‘what kind of Brexit’; there’s only one kind, which is to cease being a member. How is it that this can be argued about?
Once out, one might have agreements with the EU, but these are treaties, to be ended or changed or renegotiated.
Unfortunately, the EU wanted to make it hell for us, and they mostly succeeded, thanks to the stupidity of the Conservatives in permitting a Remainer to become PM once Cameron dishonourably walked out in pique.
Who is this ghost like ‘establishment’ you keep blaming? You don’t get more establishment than Boris and his Etonian chums. Mail & Express too with their rich establishment owners. Farage a Stock Broker Etc etc.
Who is the establishment?
Let me see, unelected civil servant and especially senior civil servants, a large proportion of MPs of all parties, the senior Judiciary, NGOs an their officers and employees of the establishment MSM – that would be the Guardian, Times, Independent, Telegraph and BBC who have the ear/are the voice of the establishment, and most definitely not the Mail and Express. The fact that you single them out shows you know exactly what I mean.
Boris has never been part of the establishment. For the longest time they have loathed and feared him in equal measure. Look at the lengths the establishment went to remove him form office.
As for Farage he is the appear as the antithesis of the establishment but could be fulfilling the role of controlled opposition.
By contrast Owen Jones and Ash Sarker are part of the establishment
Quite a contortion you have to pull yourself into there to come up with this ‘Ghost’.
I strongly suspect that Boris is much more establishment than you like to think. Remember he was London Mayor, and certainly not Leave then. I fear many genuine Leavers have been played by the Establishment figures who led the charge and wouldn’t lose much either way. Didn’t Moog move one of his businesses to Ireland before we left?
Quite a contortion you have to pull yourself into there to come up with this ‘Ghost’.
I strongly suspect that Boris is much more establishment than you like to think. Remember he was London Mayor, and certainly not Leave then. I fear many genuine Leavers have been played by the Establishment figures who led the charge and wouldn’t lose much either way. Didn’t Moog move one of his businesses to Ireland before we left?
Who is the establishment?
Let me see, unelected civil servant and especially senior civil servants, a large proportion of MPs of all parties, the senior Judiciary, NGOs an their officers and employees of the establishment MSM – that would be the Guardian, Times, Independent, Telegraph and BBC who have the ear/are the voice of the establishment, and most definitely not the Mail and Express. The fact that you single them out shows you know exactly what I mean.
Boris has never been part of the establishment. For the longest time they have loathed and feared him in equal measure. Look at the lengths the establishment went to remove him form office.
As for Farage he is the appear as the antithesis of the establishment but could be fulfilling the role of controlled opposition.
By contrast Owen Jones and Ash Sarker are part of the establishment
Are there really people screaming that Brexit needed to provide clear and unambiguous increases in GDP within 5 to 10 years lest it be deemed a failure.
Why weren’t we screaming about the disaster EEC membership had *proven* to be during the 10 years when the swinging sixties gave way to the decade of strikes, 3 day weeks and power cuts, industrial collapse and dead people stored in refrigerated lorries… ?
The problem is that ‘what kind of Brexit do we want?’ (several models were posited, are available) was not defined, voted on, or even asked much. Essentially, half the country, and a clear majority of the powerful groups (e.g. business, unions medicine, politicians, academia, science, arts) did not want it. Individual Brexiteers assumed that they would get whatever version they wanted; and Remainers have fought to get a version of Brexit they preferred. Politics did not stop, were not settled on June 24th. ‘no matter what the detriment to this country’ – sorry this is cynical nonsense – the great majority of Brexiteers and Remainers alike want the best for the country; they just have very different views on what that is. A 52/48% is very far from a clear mandate – even if it was 80/20 – the 20 should not be ignored; and what ‘Brexit’ actually entailed in the detail was tragically vague – all but setting us up for a civil war. No wonder Cameron has slumped into depression.
Who is this ghost like ‘establishment’ you keep blaming? You don’t get more establishment than Boris and his Etonian chums. Mail & Express too with their rich establishment owners. Farage a Stock Broker Etc etc.
Are there really people screaming that Brexit needed to provide clear and unambiguous increases in GDP within 5 to 10 years lest it be deemed a failure.
Why weren’t we screaming about the disaster EEC membership had *proven* to be during the 10 years when the swinging sixties gave way to the decade of strikes, 3 day weeks and power cuts, industrial collapse and dead people stored in refrigerated lorries… ?
I develop a stock system in a parts warehouse and occasionally run training sessions for the people who work there. Everyone there voted leave, not just the Brits, but the south Asians and even the east Europeans. No-one has changed their mind. So forgive me for being a little skeptical about your claims.
That’s just the kind of argument – making bold claims from anecdotal evidence – that makes me worry that someone may not understand the world.
But he made no such “bold claim” or generalisation, did he ? His comment was about his direct experience only. Unless you think he’s lying, your point is invalid.
He said he was sceptical about the idea that some Brexit voters were regretful (a finding based on repeated polling of thousands of people, carried out by professional polling companies)…. because of some people he’s met at work ‘all of whom voted Brexit’ and none of whom regretted it’. This is a clear claim, and a classic ‘class 101’ mistake – referencing anecdote in situation where it is actually irrelevant. As a side issue, I may be wrong, but it seems highly unlikely that he asked all the staff i) whether they voted Brexit, and ii) whether they regretted it, and iii) that none of them did.
Again, if someone doesn’t understand this, or thinks that anecdotes are meaningful (in this scenario) – it calls into doubt their understanding of the world.
Read it again. “No-one has changed their mind.” That clearly refers to the people he asked (the previous sentence). Context.
He is merely reporting his direct experience (rather than making stuff up or imagining what other people think). He’s probably not a professional opinion pollster – so I think you’re asking a bit much from him.
I am not asking anything of him. Just pointing out the fallacy of argument by anecdote. He clearly stated he doubted the premise (from polling) that many had changed their mind… because of a few people he’d talked to. Maybe I’m sweating the issue because it’s another frustrating example of rhetorical overeach and poor quality reasoning & analysis that is typical of Brexit debates – on both sides (but you’ll not be surprised to hear my opinion that it is particularly a sin of Leave).
I am not asking anything of him. Just pointing out the fallacy of argument by anecdote. He clearly stated he doubted the premise (from polling) that many had changed their mind… because of a few people he’d talked to. Maybe I’m sweating the issue because it’s another frustrating example of rhetorical overeach and poor quality reasoning & analysis that is typical of Brexit debates – on both sides (but you’ll not be surprised to hear my opinion that it is particularly a sin of Leave).
Read it again. “No-one has changed their mind.” That clearly refers to the people he asked (the previous sentence). Context.
He is merely reporting his direct experience (rather than making stuff up or imagining what other people think). He’s probably not a professional opinion pollster – so I think you’re asking a bit much from him.
Let’s assume, though hugely unscientific so far as sample goes, HB honesty conveys his impression. But it’s an impression, not an independently verified fact. He’s compromised because he implies a power-dynamic between him and the employees and because, like us all, he will be prey to confirmatory bias. You pick up most what you want to hear.
It’s why anecdotes can be interesting but we should all remain inquisitive.
He was doing some training for other people. We know nothing about the relative seniority of the people involved (or the so-called “power dynamics”). For all we know, they were more senior than he was. But in nay case it doesn’t matter.
How on earth do you expect “independent verification” of this sort of information ? You must either believe him or not. Life’s too short for 100% inspection of everything.
He was doing some training for other people. We know nothing about the relative seniority of the people involved (or the so-called “power dynamics”). For all we know, they were more senior than he was. But in nay case it doesn’t matter.
How on earth do you expect “independent verification” of this sort of information ? You must either believe him or not. Life’s too short for 100% inspection of everything.
He said he was sceptical about the idea that some Brexit voters were regretful (a finding based on repeated polling of thousands of people, carried out by professional polling companies)…. because of some people he’s met at work ‘all of whom voted Brexit’ and none of whom regretted it’. This is a clear claim, and a classic ‘class 101’ mistake – referencing anecdote in situation where it is actually irrelevant. As a side issue, I may be wrong, but it seems highly unlikely that he asked all the staff i) whether they voted Brexit, and ii) whether they regretted it, and iii) that none of them did.
Again, if someone doesn’t understand this, or thinks that anecdotes are meaningful (in this scenario) – it calls into doubt their understanding of the world.
Let’s assume, though hugely unscientific so far as sample goes, HB honesty conveys his impression. But it’s an impression, not an independently verified fact. He’s compromised because he implies a power-dynamic between him and the employees and because, like us all, he will be prey to confirmatory bias. You pick up most what you want to hear.
It’s why anecdotes can be interesting but we should all remain inquisitive.
Not at all like a Remainer, of course, who does.
But he made no such “bold claim” or generalisation, did he ? His comment was about his direct experience only. Unless you think he’s lying, your point is invalid.
Not at all like a Remainer, of course, who does.
It may be that they fear saying differently to the boss given they know his views? You sure they didn’t feel just a little intimidated? You can’t be sure of what they really feel, and beholds us all to have some humility about how much insight we have into what others really think.
That aside the issue is now 6 yrs later do they feel it’s delivered what they were told?
That’s just the kind of argument – making bold claims from anecdotal evidence – that makes me worry that someone may not understand the world.
It may be that they fear saying differently to the boss given they know his views? You sure they didn’t feel just a little intimidated? You can’t be sure of what they really feel, and beholds us all to have some humility about how much insight we have into what others really think.
That aside the issue is now 6 yrs later do they feel it’s delivered what they were told?
Not so much the present government (if you mean the elected ones rather than the permanent ones being the civil service), but Mrs May, MPs like Soubry and Benn, and most of the Lords.
I actually think May made one of the biggest clangers in the whole post Vote saga by almost immediately dismissing, via her Lancaster statement, retention of Single Market/Customs Union membership and a Norway/Swiss type model. Had we done that, whilst some would have still grumbled, we’d have been out and settled with hardly any economic shock. Thus she steered us towards a much harder Brexit than in fact likes of Farage/Hannan had been suggesting during the campaign. Subsequently she impaled herself on the NI issue, but not clear any Brexiteer is finding that easy, even Steve Baker. So to suggest she’s anti-Leave really is nonsense.
I think your contention really lacks depth of understanding and I suspect you really haven’t been following the detail as much as you should. The problem with so many Brexiteers is they failed to then engage with complexity arising and instead so go looking for next scapegoats.
I actually think May made one of the biggest clangers in the whole post Vote saga by almost immediately dismissing, via her Lancaster statement, retention of Single Market/Customs Union membership and a Norway/Swiss type model. Had we done that, whilst some would have still grumbled, we’d have been out and settled with hardly any economic shock. Thus she steered us towards a much harder Brexit than in fact likes of Farage/Hannan had been suggesting during the campaign. Subsequently she impaled herself on the NI issue, but not clear any Brexiteer is finding that easy, even Steve Baker. So to suggest she’s anti-Leave really is nonsense.
I think your contention really lacks depth of understanding and I suspect you really haven’t been following the detail as much as you should. The problem with so many Brexiteers is they failed to then engage with complexity arising and instead so go looking for next scapegoats.
I think they rightly blame the establishment who at every turn hve sought to frustrate Brexit no matter what the detriment to this country
I develop a stock system in a parts warehouse and occasionally run training sessions for the people who work there. Everyone there voted leave, not just the Brits, but the south Asians and even the east Europeans. No-one has changed their mind. So forgive me for being a little skeptical about your claims.
Not so much the present government (if you mean the elected ones rather than the permanent ones being the civil service), but Mrs May, MPs like Soubry and Benn, and most of the Lords.
Remember alot of Brexiteers are also criticising that it’s not delivered what was expected. They tend to find scapegoats, including current Govt, to blame for that, but the point is the negative ambience is also coming from elements of the Brexit side. Now that’s uncomfortable for some, but it’s a fact.
Regards the Unherd survey, the British public are just reflecting the negative ambience on Brexit oozing from the greasy pores of the MSM. And the French elite are simply displaying their vain personalities and self-confirming their position on top of civilisation’s flagpole.
We deserve better, on both sides of La Manche!
This statement by Macron’s previous PM Jean Castex quoted in the article tells you everything you need to know: “It must be made obvious that it is more painful to leave the EU than to remain within it,”.
As I noted at the time, the fact that he freely admits that it is *not obvious* is a direct admission that we are better off out. If it were not in our interests to leave, it would not be necessary to start creating artificial costs to punish us.
The author still refuses to admit the strong French self-interest in keeping the UK within the EU to pay the bills which the French always expect others to pay for them. We had consistently been a far larger net contributor to the EU than France – a situation that could not be justified by the relative economic parity of the countries.
The author also clearly expects France to continue to be able to bully Eastern European EU members into doing what it wants. Dream on. That may have worked in the past. It won’t going forwards. And certainly not after the disgraceful lasck of action from France and Germany over Ukraine.
This statement by Macron’s previous PM Jean Castex quoted in the article tells you everything you need to know: “It must be made obvious that it is more painful to leave the EU than to remain within it,”.
As I noted at the time, the fact that he freely admits that it is *not obvious* is a direct admission that we are better off out. If it were not in our interests to leave, it would not be necessary to start creating artificial costs to punish us.
The author still refuses to admit the strong French self-interest in keeping the UK within the EU to pay the bills which the French always expect others to pay for them. We had consistently been a far larger net contributor to the EU than France – a situation that could not be justified by the relative economic parity of the countries.
The author also clearly expects France to continue to be able to bully Eastern European EU members into doing what it wants. Dream on. That may have worked in the past. It won’t going forwards. And certainly not after the disgraceful lasck of action from France and Germany over Ukraine.
Interesting insights into the self image of Germany’s junior partner.
I suppose we all think we’re more than we are, and take delight when a perceived stumble by our fellows temporarily confirms that fantasy.
Nicely whimsical essay.
Interesting insights into the self image of Germany’s junior partner.
I suppose we all think we’re more than we are, and take delight when a perceived stumble by our fellows temporarily confirms that fantasy.
Nicely whimsical essay.
As a visitor to France – not Paris, mind you – I find on the whole the locals to be an agreeable bunch. They hate Macron and are deeply suspicious of the EU. On the other hand, I’ve found a feature of French thought is rampant cakeism of the sort to make Boris flush. They want to retire at sixty but they don’t want to pay for it. They want to governed properly but have no real understanding of sovereignty. They want prosperity but not if it means upsetting their bloated and inefficient agricultural sector. And so on and so forth.
Sounds quite similar to us then. Albeit they retire a bit earlier.
Sounds quite similar to us then. Albeit they retire a bit earlier.
As a visitor to France – not Paris, mind you – I find on the whole the locals to be an agreeable bunch. They hate Macron and are deeply suspicious of the EU. On the other hand, I’ve found a feature of French thought is rampant cakeism of the sort to make Boris flush. They want to retire at sixty but they don’t want to pay for it. They want to governed properly but have no real understanding of sovereignty. They want prosperity but not if it means upsetting their bloated and inefficient agricultural sector. And so on and so forth.
On the really important things over the last 100 years France has been found wanting and especially during the 2nd war, surrendered with relative ease leaving others to sort out the mess.
Perhaps this is why the French elite show such disdain for the Americans and the British.
The Macron French remind me of the playground bully – all tough and mighty while threatening from the EU underskirt but weak and feeble when asked on its own to actually do anything.
Of course the reverse might be contended – because we were on winning side in WW2 we failed to have the self reflection the French state may have had and struggle more with our diminished status than they do?
Probably something in both sides of the contentions.
I’m really not convinced that the French spent much time on “self-reflection” after WWII. I think they mainly brushed all the uncomfortable history under the carpet (let’s remember that Mitterand was a minister in the Vichy government – apparently also in the Resistance – as well as the government after the war – before reinventing himself yet again as a socialist).
The idea that France has coped better with decolonisation and a diminished world role doesn’t ring at all true to me. They got into a real mess in both Vietnam (leaving the US to try to clean it up for them – just as in WWII) and Algeria (which has been broken ever since). And they’re still meddling in some of their old ex-colonies in Africa (still have troops fighting there).
I suggest that the UK has been far more honest about its history and role than France (though we seem to be trying to rewrite large chunks these days on the spurious and mistaken basis that we allegedly did more bad than good).
Certainly made some mistakes. But v quickly a large element, led by Jean Monnet, grasped they had to see the European challenge differently and re-centre on that.
Whereas we hung on to imperial preference etc and a desire to stand aside from Europe for longer. WSC was v much in favour of much closer European cooperation, even using phrases such as united states of Europe. It remains unclear how much he saw UK in or separate to that, but regardless we took longer to realise that we were declining whilst European growth was motoring.
I agree France never really had full reckoning with it’s collaborationist history and the Resistance legend took over. But thank goodness for 21miles of water. Had the Wehrmacht got across we’d have had just as much collaboration.
Churchill’s attitude to Britain’s role is not “unclear” at all. He clearly understood that in the final analysis, Britain was a maritime and not a continental nation and that it’s instincts meant it belonged in the Anglo-Saxon world.
I think it is impossible to know how much collaboration there would have been had the UK been conquered by Germany. We have only the example of the Channel Islands to go on. Which suggests a lot less than in France. Remember also that there was little political extremism or anti-semitism to build on in the UK.
Churchill drifted alot his last few years in power, but he wasn’t as clear about UK not being in the emerging European pacts forming. He was a v old man out of power by time of Treaty of Rome and as an International stateman one suspects would have wanted to be at the table, esp after Suez had demonstrated our weakness and changed status? I think we’d agree though he was in favour of European nations coming together much more.
As regards British collaboration – we certainly like to think so, but remember Mosley and the Black Shirts. Alot of them were locked up once WSC gained office so he was not complacent to the threat. We all now know about the Duke of Windsor’s weaknesses too and anti-semitism did lurk in upper class circles especially. That said we did have a strong Labour and Union movement that would have resisted having seen what Nazi’s did to the left in Germany, which is partly why they were so quick to support WSC in May 40. Support that was vital. But how many Moseley’s and even Halifax’s would we have had remains a question we must be glad we never faced.
Churchill drifted alot his last few years in power, but he wasn’t as clear about UK not being in the emerging European pacts forming. He was a v old man out of power by time of Treaty of Rome and as an International stateman one suspects would have wanted to be at the table, esp after Suez had demonstrated our weakness and changed status? I think we’d agree though he was in favour of European nations coming together much more.
As regards British collaboration – we certainly like to think so, but remember Mosley and the Black Shirts. Alot of them were locked up once WSC gained office so he was not complacent to the threat. We all now know about the Duke of Windsor’s weaknesses too and anti-semitism did lurk in upper class circles especially. That said we did have a strong Labour and Union movement that would have resisted having seen what Nazi’s did to the left in Germany, which is partly why they were so quick to support WSC in May 40. Support that was vital. But how many Moseley’s and even Halifax’s would we have had remains a question we must be glad we never faced.
Churchill’s attitude to Britain’s role is not “unclear” at all. He clearly understood that in the final analysis, Britain was a maritime and not a continental nation and that it’s instincts meant it belonged in the Anglo-Saxon world.
I think it is impossible to know how much collaboration there would have been had the UK been conquered by Germany. We have only the example of the Channel Islands to go on. Which suggests a lot less than in France. Remember also that there was little political extremism or anti-semitism to build on in the UK.
Certainly made some mistakes. But v quickly a large element, led by Jean Monnet, grasped they had to see the European challenge differently and re-centre on that.
Whereas we hung on to imperial preference etc and a desire to stand aside from Europe for longer. WSC was v much in favour of much closer European cooperation, even using phrases such as united states of Europe. It remains unclear how much he saw UK in or separate to that, but regardless we took longer to realise that we were declining whilst European growth was motoring.
I agree France never really had full reckoning with it’s collaborationist history and the Resistance legend took over. But thank goodness for 21miles of water. Had the Wehrmacht got across we’d have had just as much collaboration.
I’m really not convinced that the French spent much time on “self-reflection” after WWII. I think they mainly brushed all the uncomfortable history under the carpet (let’s remember that Mitterand was a minister in the Vichy government – apparently also in the Resistance – as well as the government after the war – before reinventing himself yet again as a socialist).
The idea that France has coped better with decolonisation and a diminished world role doesn’t ring at all true to me. They got into a real mess in both Vietnam (leaving the US to try to clean it up for them – just as in WWII) and Algeria (which has been broken ever since). And they’re still meddling in some of their old ex-colonies in Africa (still have troops fighting there).
I suggest that the UK has been far more honest about its history and role than France (though we seem to be trying to rewrite large chunks these days on the spurious and mistaken basis that we allegedly did more bad than good).
Of course the reverse might be contended – because we were on winning side in WW2 we failed to have the self reflection the French state may have had and struggle more with our diminished status than they do?
Probably something in both sides of the contentions.
On the really important things over the last 100 years France has been found wanting and especially during the 2nd war, surrendered with relative ease leaving others to sort out the mess.
Perhaps this is why the French elite show such disdain for the Americans and the British.
The Macron French remind me of the playground bully – all tough and mighty while threatening from the EU underskirt but weak and feeble when asked on its own to actually do anything.
I voted out and have no regrets. There was always going to be “some ructions” but I’m glad to be free of the corruption in The EU (we have enough corruption of our own to conted with, without having to put up with a massive layer on top that we would not have been able to do anything about!) and to have avoided Napoleonic Law. We have often gone through difficult times but come out of them in good order. I am convinced the same will happen now. I am absolutely delighted if The EU doesn’t want us back.
I voted out and have no regrets. There was always going to be “some ructions” but I’m glad to be free of the corruption in The EU (we have enough corruption of our own to conted with, without having to put up with a massive layer on top that we would not have been able to do anything about!) and to have avoided Napoleonic Law. We have often gone through difficult times but come out of them in good order. I am convinced the same will happen now. I am absolutely delighted if The EU doesn’t want us back.
One can only hope that France continues to ban the UK from every EU organisation and project… something we can’t trust our own elite political class to do.
My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
Unfortunately Eurovision seems to have alluded this, to the extent we’re even hosting the thing! It’s a cruel joke and I definitely blame the French.
My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
Unfortunately Eurovision seems to have alluded this, to the extent we’re even hosting the thing! It’s a cruel joke and I definitely blame the French.
One can only hope that France continues to ban the UK from every EU organisation and project… something we can’t trust our own elite political class to do.
Leaving aside the moaning, she surely got one thing right. France welcomes the EU because they see it as a power enhancer, a way France can be big internationally. Germany welcomes it because they see it as a safe way for Germany to throw its weight around and enhance its economy, which still amounts to a bigger Germany. Small countries see it as a way of being at least part of the discussions, given that ‘adapting’ to bigger neighbours is unavoidable anyway. The UK also feels that it ought to be a great and powerful country, but understands clearly that the EU cannot ever be a bigger England – and anyway disdains the necessity of adapting.
“The UK also feels that it ought to be a great and powerful country,”
Oddly, I have never felt that desire, Rasmus. Perhaps, like many of my countryman, I am simply comfortable in my own skin.
For a citizen of a small European country there is one very visible difference. We find it obvious that one needs to accommodate ones neighbours, that you will not be able to insist on getting your own way, and that just going it alone without allies will result in getting squashed. France and Germany, as per the article, clearly see a need in joining up with the rest of Europe in order to have the power to get what they want. As Danish minister put it: “There are two kinds of country in Europe: Those that are too weak to be successful on the world stage all by themselves – and those who have not figured it out yet.”
Yet, it has been all through the Brexit debate that people in the UK expect that they will be free to get what they want, do what they want, have a leading role in the world, once they are free from the EU. All the trade deals that were promised – on the assumption that other countries would be eager to trade with Britain on beneficial terms. The freedom to do things without interference – without considering how your competitors would react and how that might crimp your style. You may not feel a need to be in a great and powerful country – but there does seem to be an assumption that Britain’s natural state is to be free of hindrance and (implicitly) powerful enough to do what you want. And that is different from the self-image of a lot of European countries.
Please don’t take this as an insult, because it isn’t intended as one. But your self-image is not my problem.
I won the lottery of life, Rasmus and I am appropriately rebarbative.
¨I won the lottery of life, Rasmus and I am appropriately rebarbative¨
Are you sure that is what you intended to convey? From the online Cambridge English Dictionary:
rebarbative
adjective formal UK /rɪˈbɑː.bə.tɪv/ US /rɪˈbɑːr.bə.t̬ɪv/
unpleasant and unattractive
yup
How does winning the lottery of life square with being unpleasant and unattractive?
Not a problem. You see Dom, I don’t care what you find attractive or pleasant. I regard you as a d!ck. Okay?
Aah, a true winner of life’s lottery!
Aah, a true winner of life’s lottery!
Not a problem. You see Dom, I don’t care what you find attractive or pleasant. I regard you as a d!ck. Okay?
How does winning the lottery of life square with being unpleasant and unattractive?
yup
¨I won the lottery of life, Rasmus and I am appropriately rebarbative¨
Are you sure that is what you intended to convey? From the online Cambridge English Dictionary:
rebarbative
adjective formal UK /rɪˈbɑː.bə.tɪv/ US /rɪˈbɑːr.bə.t̬ɪv/
unpleasant and unattractive
I think we are just happy to be an island nation that has always enjoyed trading with others who live beyond the seas that have protected us.
I agree, except that the seas don’t protect us unless we can make better use of them than others. After all, the seas never protected our enemies from us!
I need to add that one needs to control the airspace above the seas, too.
I agree, except that the seas don’t protect us unless we can make better use of them than others. After all, the seas never protected our enemies from us!
I need to add that one needs to control the airspace above the seas, too.
Being a member of a gang, is best left to children in the playground.
Please don’t take this as an insult, because it isn’t intended as one. But your self-image is not my problem.
I won the lottery of life, Rasmus and I am appropriately rebarbative.
I think we are just happy to be an island nation that has always enjoyed trading with others who live beyond the seas that have protected us.
Being a member of a gang, is best left to children in the playground.
Spot on!
We had ‘our days in the Sun’ and much ‘plunder and profit’ was the result.
Now is is the time to sit back and bask in the brilliance of our own munificence. “God save the King”.
I regret to say that whatever plunder and profit we made in the past was more than blown away by two world wars, during which many European neighbours, although suffering grievously, which I’m glad we mostly escaped, came out the other side without huge debts, indeed, often with gold reserves which we looked after for them.
Yes both 1914 & 1939 were a catastrophe for the Pax Britannica!
.
Yes both 1914 & 1939 were a catastrophe for the Pax Britannica!
.
I regret to say that whatever plunder and profit we made in the past was more than blown away by two world wars, during which many European neighbours, although suffering grievously, which I’m glad we mostly escaped, came out the other side without huge debts, indeed, often with gold reserves which we looked after for them.
For a citizen of a small European country there is one very visible difference. We find it obvious that one needs to accommodate ones neighbours, that you will not be able to insist on getting your own way, and that just going it alone without allies will result in getting squashed. France and Germany, as per the article, clearly see a need in joining up with the rest of Europe in order to have the power to get what they want. As Danish minister put it: “There are two kinds of country in Europe: Those that are too weak to be successful on the world stage all by themselves – and those who have not figured it out yet.”
Yet, it has been all through the Brexit debate that people in the UK expect that they will be free to get what they want, do what they want, have a leading role in the world, once they are free from the EU. All the trade deals that were promised – on the assumption that other countries would be eager to trade with Britain on beneficial terms. The freedom to do things without interference – without considering how your competitors would react and how that might crimp your style. You may not feel a need to be in a great and powerful country – but there does seem to be an assumption that Britain’s natural state is to be free of hindrance and (implicitly) powerful enough to do what you want. And that is different from the self-image of a lot of European countries.
Spot on!
We had ‘our days in the Sun’ and much ‘plunder and profit’ was the result.
Now is is the time to sit back and bask in the brilliance of our own munificence. “God save the King”.
I don’t think it is so much that “the UK also feels that it ought to be a great and powerful country” but that the UK didn’t care to take directions from the Napoleonic Bureaucracy. Napoleonic style laws rather than Common Law, and Protectionism rather than Free Trade.
We were, and are, better off out despite the political difficulties of transition. I expect that any attempt to Rejoin will require such onerous conditions that the UK will demur – and the behaviour of the EU since Brexit has only made Rejoin less attractive.
Ah, rejoining is a dead duck. The conditions would be onerous and the offer would be off the table anyway unless there was a clear UK consensus for gong in and staying in. And by electing Johnson (Boris Johnson!) to push through Brexit the UK electorate showed that the choice of hard Brexit was final. What it is about now is a slow patient diplomatic work of getting back to a reasonably close and productive relationship with the neighbours. At best it will still be less good than what Brexit threw away, but that ship has sailed. And sunk.
At best, it may well be significantly better. Your conclusion is a mere forecast.
A forecast? A guess.
A forecast? A guess.
At best, it may well be significantly better. Your conclusion is a mere forecast.
Thank you. I frequently mention the Common Law versus Napoleonic Code issue when discussing Europe, and too often people look at me as if I’m speaking ancient Aramaic. It’s such an important issue, and one New Labour bungled spectacularly with stuff like the Human Rights Act. It’s like trying to run IoS on a Windows box – the operating systems are completely different.
Ah, rejoining is a dead duck. The conditions would be onerous and the offer would be off the table anyway unless there was a clear UK consensus for gong in and staying in. And by electing Johnson (Boris Johnson!) to push through Brexit the UK electorate showed that the choice of hard Brexit was final. What it is about now is a slow patient diplomatic work of getting back to a reasonably close and productive relationship with the neighbours. At best it will still be less good than what Brexit threw away, but that ship has sailed. And sunk.
Thank you. I frequently mention the Common Law versus Napoleonic Code issue when discussing Europe, and too often people look at me as if I’m speaking ancient Aramaic. It’s such an important issue, and one New Labour bungled spectacularly with stuff like the Human Rights Act. It’s like trying to run IoS on a Windows box – the operating systems are completely different.
Historically it’s more that the French have seen the EU as a great way of collecting taxes from their neighbours.
Trouble is, they’ve got so used to getting something for nothing that the work ethic has disappeared almost entirely from their culture – hence the world-class debt and deficit.
“The UK also feels that it ought to be a great and powerful country,”
Oddly, I have never felt that desire, Rasmus. Perhaps, like many of my countryman, I am simply comfortable in my own skin.
I don’t think it is so much that “the UK also feels that it ought to be a great and powerful country” but that the UK didn’t care to take directions from the Napoleonic Bureaucracy. Napoleonic style laws rather than Common Law, and Protectionism rather than Free Trade.
We were, and are, better off out despite the political difficulties of transition. I expect that any attempt to Rejoin will require such onerous conditions that the UK will demur – and the behaviour of the EU since Brexit has only made Rejoin less attractive.
Historically it’s more that the French have seen the EU as a great way of collecting taxes from their neighbours.
Trouble is, they’ve got so used to getting something for nothing that the work ethic has disappeared almost entirely from their culture – hence the world-class debt and deficit.
Leaving aside the moaning, she surely got one thing right. France welcomes the EU because they see it as a power enhancer, a way France can be big internationally. Germany welcomes it because they see it as a safe way for Germany to throw its weight around and enhance its economy, which still amounts to a bigger Germany. Small countries see it as a way of being at least part of the discussions, given that ‘adapting’ to bigger neighbours is unavoidable anyway. The UK also feels that it ought to be a great and powerful country, but understands clearly that the EU cannot ever be a bigger England – and anyway disdains the necessity of adapting.
The current alleged ‘bregret’ is the result of the short term economic challenges added to discontent with an infuriatingly incompetent Conservative government who have lost the will to govern.
In addition, the mainstream media has now been pushing a consistent anti-Brexit stream of propaganda for 6 years now. It’s actually telling that despite the BBC, ITV, Sky News, Twitter, The Graun, and others shamelessly manipulating every forecast, every table, every speech and more for that whole time, Brexit support still holds up.
That being said, the drawbacks from leaving were always going to be short term, whilst the benefits were always going to be long term. Short term impact on supply chains, staffing, and inflation, will lead to longer term improvement in productivity (we will have to make more of our own stuff), trade balance (our position as a financial, services economy always left us disadvantaged in the so called single market), and greater opportunities to trade in emerging, more dynamic markets.
I will say now and you can remember this: in 15-20 years time, there will be no bregret – rather, it will be eyes across the channel looking enviously at us.
Hmm, 15-20yrs? Not how it was quite conveyed to the British public was it. Honesty about short term problems was not forthcoming. In part of course because the Brexit exponents thought we’d have our cake and eat it via retained Single Market access. So you are suffering from some post-facto alteration of what actually happened.(Of course some Remain exponents overplayed the cliff edge too, but that doesn’t mean you should warp things too)
Nonetheless it’s possible that we’ll have the last laugh, but economic consensus not suggestive of this yet. They could be wrong and let’s hope so. None of us delight in the French enjoying some Schadenfraude at our expense.
We have to make it work now. There’s no re-joining. The better terms we had will never get re-offered. But many do fear we’ve given ourselves a slow puncture to add to a misfiring engine.
Exactly right!
I think you’re re-writing history. None of us thought that Brexit would lead to any kind of economic bonanza in the short or medium term.
The incessant demands from remainers that we tell you what happened to this bonanza just reveals what a lot of shallow materialists you are.
I do not know what anybody thought – but the pro-Brexit propaganda was all about millions for the NHS, lots of profitable trade deals around the world, keeping the advantages of the single market even as Britain left. ‘Having your cake and eating it’, FFS. If the Brexiteers had run on ‘We may be poorer but we will be FREE‘ and won, nobody would be complaining today. But no Brexiteer ever admitted out loud that there would be any notable costs, let alone that we would have to wait twenty years to see the benefits – presumably because they knew that they could not win a referendum on an honest message.
I think you are suffering from some selective memory loss – I was there after all.
You were there? Goodness me, I bow to your experience! I didn’t exist before 2016, I was beamed down from planet brexit after the result and I’m lucky enough to be getting ‘educated’ by the EU boggled fools who can’t get over our vote to leave.
You were there? Goodness me, I bow to your experience! I didn’t exist before 2016, I was beamed down from planet brexit after the result and I’m lucky enough to be getting ‘educated’ by the EU boggled fools who can’t get over our vote to leave.
Not only the missing economic bonanza, but all the woes of the British economy since 2019 which are attributable to Brexit according to remainers. This despite Covid, the Ukraine war and the most economically illiterate government since the 1970s.
Jeez that takes the biscuit. A complete rewriting of promises because it hasn’t worked out quite so well.
Now to be fair Pandemic not helped, but we seem to be lagging behind others and we need to understand what’s different. And guess what – it’s just possibly the slow puncture we gave ourselves with the form of Brexit we chose.
However let’s put economics to one side for now. The full picture will emerge over more time. So what about immigration? Surely we expect a drop, or is that going to take a couple of decades? It’s gone up and we still have a major labour problem. What on earth are you lot doing?
And then the new ‘freedoms’? Any good examples we can all ‘feel’? Let me help you with a starter – the recent new UK Agriculture subsidy system is an improvement on EU equivalent if you are a Bee or a Hedgerow. It is to be applauded and I know you needed some help here.
I do not know what anybody thought – but the pro-Brexit propaganda was all about millions for the NHS, lots of profitable trade deals around the world, keeping the advantages of the single market even as Britain left. ‘Having your cake and eating it’, FFS. If the Brexiteers had run on ‘We may be poorer but we will be FREE‘ and won, nobody would be complaining today. But no Brexiteer ever admitted out loud that there would be any notable costs, let alone that we would have to wait twenty years to see the benefits – presumably because they knew that they could not win a referendum on an honest message.
I think you are suffering from some selective memory loss – I was there after all.
Not only the missing economic bonanza, but all the woes of the British economy since 2019 which are attributable to Brexit according to remainers. This despite Covid, the Ukraine war and the most economically illiterate government since the 1970s.
Jeez that takes the biscuit. A complete rewriting of promises because it hasn’t worked out quite so well.
Now to be fair Pandemic not helped, but we seem to be lagging behind others and we need to understand what’s different. And guess what – it’s just possibly the slow puncture we gave ourselves with the form of Brexit we chose.
However let’s put economics to one side for now. The full picture will emerge over more time. So what about immigration? Surely we expect a drop, or is that going to take a couple of decades? It’s gone up and we still have a major labour problem. What on earth are you lot doing?
And then the new ‘freedoms’? Any good examples we can all ‘feel’? Let me help you with a starter – the recent new UK Agriculture subsidy system is an improvement on EU equivalent if you are a Bee or a Hedgerow. It is to be applauded and I know you needed some help here.
Exactly right!
I think you’re re-writing history. None of us thought that Brexit would lead to any kind of economic bonanza in the short or medium term.
The incessant demands from remainers that we tell you what happened to this bonanza just reveals what a lot of shallow materialists you are.
Hmm, 15-20yrs? Not how it was quite conveyed to the British public was it. Honesty about short term problems was not forthcoming. In part of course because the Brexit exponents thought we’d have our cake and eat it via retained Single Market access. So you are suffering from some post-facto alteration of what actually happened.(Of course some Remain exponents overplayed the cliff edge too, but that doesn’t mean you should warp things too)
Nonetheless it’s possible that we’ll have the last laugh, but economic consensus not suggestive of this yet. They could be wrong and let’s hope so. None of us delight in the French enjoying some Schadenfraude at our expense.
We have to make it work now. There’s no re-joining. The better terms we had will never get re-offered. But many do fear we’ve given ourselves a slow puncture to add to a misfiring engine.
The current alleged ‘bregret’ is the result of the short term economic challenges added to discontent with an infuriatingly incompetent Conservative government who have lost the will to govern.
In addition, the mainstream media has now been pushing a consistent anti-Brexit stream of propaganda for 6 years now. It’s actually telling that despite the BBC, ITV, Sky News, Twitter, The Graun, and others shamelessly manipulating every forecast, every table, every speech and more for that whole time, Brexit support still holds up.
That being said, the drawbacks from leaving were always going to be short term, whilst the benefits were always going to be long term. Short term impact on supply chains, staffing, and inflation, will lead to longer term improvement in productivity (we will have to make more of our own stuff), trade balance (our position as a financial, services economy always left us disadvantaged in the so called single market), and greater opportunities to trade in emerging, more dynamic markets.
I will say now and you can remember this: in 15-20 years time, there will be no bregret – rather, it will be eyes across the channel looking enviously at us.
An interesting version of the situation from a french person, however the tongue in cheekiness’ of the piece.
It does illustrate however Macron’s perfidious role, and in particular, Barnier’s deceit.
I have met various people across European countries who said ‘ Well done, I wish we could do the same’
An interesting version of the situation from a french person, however the tongue in cheekiness’ of the piece.
It does illustrate however Macron’s perfidious role, and in particular, Barnier’s deceit.
I have met various people across European countries who said ‘ Well done, I wish we could do the same’
“We saw it as a personal insult”
We have all had one of those lovers. Some people just cannot accept that a relationship isn’t working and so move on. Better luck next time.
“We saw it as a personal insult”
We have all had one of those lovers. Some people just cannot accept that a relationship isn’t working and so move on. Better luck next time.
So she thinks the French can claim the establishment of the UN? I think I can speak for millions of Americans- please take it back to France with you. Locally, in NY city it’s at once ignored, yet also distained for the arrogance of its representatives in ignoring US law based on ‘immunity’ from misbehaving- everything from illegal car parking to personal bad behavior. On the national level, many of us see this as ground zero for third world grievances. A money pit that thinks it can intervene in domestic US politics. Yes France please take back your ‘brilliant’ idea.
They’ve just interfered in British politics, lecturing us of course on racism, despite the irony that our cabinet is so obviously created in a society surely less racist than almost any other country on earth.
And to add injury to insult, I have little doubt that the cost of their salaries, travel, and perks were borne by us and other targets for their destructive activities.
They’ve just interfered in British politics, lecturing us of course on racism, despite the irony that our cabinet is so obviously created in a society surely less racist than almost any other country on earth.
And to add injury to insult, I have little doubt that the cost of their salaries, travel, and perks were borne by us and other targets for their destructive activities.
So she thinks the French can claim the establishment of the UN? I think I can speak for millions of Americans- please take it back to France with you. Locally, in NY city it’s at once ignored, yet also distained for the arrogance of its representatives in ignoring US law based on ‘immunity’ from misbehaving- everything from illegal car parking to personal bad behavior. On the national level, many of us see this as ground zero for third world grievances. A money pit that thinks it can intervene in domestic US politics. Yes France please take back your ‘brilliant’ idea.
An excellent article. The ending though makes absolutely clear why we will never come back to the EU though. The British will all be in favour of re-joining the EU until the French dictate the terms. Not that we have anything against the French per se in the modern era, but we all know for a fact they’ll be insufferable about it.
Also on lies from the Leave campaign, the Remain one here omitted the most important thing about the EU. The creation of a European state.
And a very famous one “ An EU Army is a dangerous fantasy. It will not happen!”
And a very famous one “ An EU Army is a dangerous fantasy. It will not happen!”
An excellent article. The ending though makes absolutely clear why we will never come back to the EU though. The British will all be in favour of re-joining the EU until the French dictate the terms. Not that we have anything against the French per se in the modern era, but we all know for a fact they’ll be insufferable about it.
Also on lies from the Leave campaign, the Remain one here omitted the most important thing about the EU. The creation of a European state.
I suspect the real reason the French elites hate Brexit is that it means France is going to have to start paying its way for the first time since the EU was founded.
Even Ireland has found itself having to cough up after decades of being supported financially by Germany and UK (as did other EU members). I suspect attitudes will change now that others find they too have to pay up – questions will be asked “wheres the money gone?” – just as it WAS in UK.
Even Ireland has found itself having to cough up after decades of being supported financially by Germany and UK (as did other EU members). I suspect attitudes will change now that others find they too have to pay up – questions will be asked “wheres the money gone?” – just as it WAS in UK.
I suspect the real reason the French elites hate Brexit is that it means France is going to have to start paying its way for the first time since the EU was founded.
“the ridiculous postal delays and customs levies on mail between France and Britain. None of these are bugs; they’re all features in the Sacred Mission to make the British miserable over Brexit.”
I really enjoy reading Anne-Elisabeth Moutet and she is right about the above. It is spiteful, childish, and is a perfect illustration of the EU and France’s disregard of its “good neighbourliness” article in the Lisbon Treaty.
Poland shows us the way. Poland will be Europe’s biggest army. It will make 1000 Korean K2 main battle tanks and will buy 650 or so Korean 155mm self-propelled guns.
There is scope here for a British master stroke if we had the will, which we don’t.
1. Britain could donate substantially all its Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine, enough to significantly move the dial on driving Russia out of Ukraine.
2. Britain buys the Korean tank but builds an uparmoured version of it in Britain with Chobham armour. A prompt announcement to this effect would put real momentum behind encouraging other countries to follow suit. The value of a widespread “European” tank to common spares is obvious. It would also free Eastern European countries of the nagging doubt whether, if they faced Russian aggression, Germany wouldn’t authorise spare parts for their German tanks. This championomg of the Korean tank would be calculated to downsize Germany, specifically Kraus-Maffei, as Europe’s leading exporter of tanks. Same with self-propelled guns. Britain is seriously considering the Korean gun purchased by Poland to replace the AS-90. Again, the standardisation argument would be strong.
3. Britain should commit to stationing a division strength force with these weapons in Poland and the Baltics. Where else would we usefully deploy heavy armour when Russia is the only Eurasian threat to Europe? This would almost certainly forge a “special relationship” between Britain and Eastern Europe, not just in the security domain but with the expectation that we might encourage a more pro British stance on the part of Eastern Europe within the EU.
4. And finally, British purchases of this, excellent, Korean military equipment could only promote Britain’s prospects of entry into the CPTPP, the AsiaPac trading bloc.
And the cherry on the cake? It would “emmerder” the French and specifically Macron. What’s not to like?
Its always interesting to read an article such as this with sensible and detailed alternatives – to doing absolutely nothing.
You make a good point, if Poland wasn’t considering Korean tanks before Germany’s dithering they certainly are now – potentially all the others will soon phase out German tanks too so they can actually control their own possessions and deter future conflicts
After spending some time on business there, I came to think of South Korea as the “Germany of South East Asia”. They produce quality kit – like the Germans. And they do everything at scale and don’t tinker. Not surprised to hear that they produce good military kit. May not be the very best you can get, but will certainly bo good enough and reliable.
Its always interesting to read an article such as this with sensible and detailed alternatives – to doing absolutely nothing.
You make a good point, if Poland wasn’t considering Korean tanks before Germany’s dithering they certainly are now – potentially all the others will soon phase out German tanks too so they can actually control their own possessions and deter future conflicts
After spending some time on business there, I came to think of South Korea as the “Germany of South East Asia”. They produce quality kit – like the Germans. And they do everything at scale and don’t tinker. Not surprised to hear that they produce good military kit. May not be the very best you can get, but will certainly bo good enough and reliable.
“the ridiculous postal delays and customs levies on mail between France and Britain. None of these are bugs; they’re all features in the Sacred Mission to make the British miserable over Brexit.”
I really enjoy reading Anne-Elisabeth Moutet and she is right about the above. It is spiteful, childish, and is a perfect illustration of the EU and France’s disregard of its “good neighbourliness” article in the Lisbon Treaty.
Poland shows us the way. Poland will be Europe’s biggest army. It will make 1000 Korean K2 main battle tanks and will buy 650 or so Korean 155mm self-propelled guns.
There is scope here for a British master stroke if we had the will, which we don’t.
1. Britain could donate substantially all its Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine, enough to significantly move the dial on driving Russia out of Ukraine.
2. Britain buys the Korean tank but builds an uparmoured version of it in Britain with Chobham armour. A prompt announcement to this effect would put real momentum behind encouraging other countries to follow suit. The value of a widespread “European” tank to common spares is obvious. It would also free Eastern European countries of the nagging doubt whether, if they faced Russian aggression, Germany wouldn’t authorise spare parts for their German tanks. This championomg of the Korean tank would be calculated to downsize Germany, specifically Kraus-Maffei, as Europe’s leading exporter of tanks. Same with self-propelled guns. Britain is seriously considering the Korean gun purchased by Poland to replace the AS-90. Again, the standardisation argument would be strong.
3. Britain should commit to stationing a division strength force with these weapons in Poland and the Baltics. Where else would we usefully deploy heavy armour when Russia is the only Eurasian threat to Europe? This would almost certainly forge a “special relationship” between Britain and Eastern Europe, not just in the security domain but with the expectation that we might encourage a more pro British stance on the part of Eastern Europe within the EU.
4. And finally, British purchases of this, excellent, Korean military equipment could only promote Britain’s prospects of entry into the CPTPP, the AsiaPac trading bloc.
And the cherry on the cake? It would “emmerder” the French and specifically Macron. What’s not to like?
One must have an iota of sympathy for the self styled French elite.
After all NO nation in modern history has drunk so deeply from the Well of national humiliation as France, and that can solely attributed to their elite. ….Poor old things!
One must have an iota of sympathy for the self styled French elite.
After all NO nation in modern history has drunk so deeply from the Well of national humiliation as France, and that can solely attributed to their elite. ….Poor old things!
Would France one day make a British return to Brussels easy? I fear our attitude is of that of a more inflexible religious order. Sinners must experience purgatory. It wouldn’t be fun, and it’s the best you can expect from us.
Please, make it as hard as possible!
Would France one day make a British return to Brussels easy? I fear our attitude is of that of a more inflexible religious order. Sinners must experience purgatory. It wouldn’t be fun, and it’s the best you can expect from us.
Please, make it as hard as possible!
If the French are p*ssed off with Brexit then that alone makes my leave vote worth it.
If the French are p*ssed off with Brexit then that alone makes my leave vote worth it.
It seems to be overlooked that rarely did anyone make a positive argument in favour of the EU before the referendum was ever dreamt of. In fact I’d argue that in general there was considerable cynicism and resentment of the EU, certainly none of the apparent popular love for the EU that was expressed after 2016.
In fact you could be forgiven asking where it all came from which makes a lot of the Remainer enthusiasm seem so artificial and superficial. I seriously question whether anyone made compelling arguments in favour of the EU pre referendum era. I don’t think anyone envisaged the possibility of leaving but no one was waving EU flags and singing its praise. In fact I’d say the general attitude towards the EU in the UK was of its irrelevance.
The UK membership of the EU was like a bad marriage and there is nothing to suggest that the relationship would have improved had we not left. The creeping federalism; the inherent contradictions of the Euro; the French agenda to dominate; the likely implications of opening the doors to immigrants; the corruption and fraud in Brussels; the farce of agricultural subsidies; the inclusion of new members; and the fact that we’d have to pay for it all. None of that would have encouraged the luvvies to wave their EU flags nor fostered a greater enthusiasm to be EU-philes. The referendum confirmed the gap between the EU and the UK public, a gap that will continue to get wider. It won’t stop the EU sentimentalism and the idiots continuing to wave their flags but I’ve heard nothing to convince me that we’d be better off with the ex. The marriage is over.
It seems to be overlooked that rarely did anyone make a positive argument in favour of the EU before the referendum was ever dreamt of. In fact I’d argue that in general there was considerable cynicism and resentment of the EU, certainly none of the apparent popular love for the EU that was expressed after 2016.
In fact you could be forgiven asking where it all came from which makes a lot of the Remainer enthusiasm seem so artificial and superficial. I seriously question whether anyone made compelling arguments in favour of the EU pre referendum era. I don’t think anyone envisaged the possibility of leaving but no one was waving EU flags and singing its praise. In fact I’d say the general attitude towards the EU in the UK was of its irrelevance.
The UK membership of the EU was like a bad marriage and there is nothing to suggest that the relationship would have improved had we not left. The creeping federalism; the inherent contradictions of the Euro; the French agenda to dominate; the likely implications of opening the doors to immigrants; the corruption and fraud in Brussels; the farce of agricultural subsidies; the inclusion of new members; and the fact that we’d have to pay for it all. None of that would have encouraged the luvvies to wave their EU flags nor fostered a greater enthusiasm to be EU-philes. The referendum confirmed the gap between the EU and the UK public, a gap that will continue to get wider. It won’t stop the EU sentimentalism and the idiots continuing to wave their flags but I’ve heard nothing to convince me that we’d be better off with the ex. The marriage is over.
The EC/then EEC etc.,
The UK was – as you say – quite happy with the former EC – which was a sensible trading club (actually bloomed, in effect when marched through by Thatcher – with the Single market) – but then the EC got a bit too big for its boots – and started evolving into a nation State – without any meaningful representation, thats when the Brits said ”Uh Oh!’.
UnHerd(of)
By the way: dont take too much comfort in ”that Poll” – it was more of a marketing tool for Unherd(of). You see, few people had actually heard of UnHerd(of) until they published that ”poll”. The have now, of course, indeed I go there for my coffee (sometiems dinner) and its nice.
A work of warning:
In 2015/2016 – ”The Polls” you seems to like so much, were all in favour of staying in The EU – but then the debate started……………..
The EC/then EEC etc.,
The UK was – as you say – quite happy with the former EC – which was a sensible trading club (actually bloomed, in effect when marched through by Thatcher – with the Single market) – but then the EC got a bit too big for its boots – and started evolving into a nation State – without any meaningful representation, thats when the Brits said ”Uh Oh!’.
UnHerd(of)
By the way: dont take too much comfort in ”that Poll” – it was more of a marketing tool for Unherd(of). You see, few people had actually heard of UnHerd(of) until they published that ”poll”. The have now, of course, indeed I go there for my coffee (sometiems dinner) and its nice.
A work of warning:
In 2015/2016 – ”The Polls” you seems to like so much, were all in favour of staying in The EU – but then the debate started……………..
Brexit was a clear cry for change and yearning for returned sovereignty. That the political landscape hasn’t improved hasn’t made the desire for change go away (the same issues also have an undercurrent in France).
In fact, the frustration with lack of change is probably even more strong now, as the Tories are going to find out – it feels like they have made everything worse, and nothing better despite the increase in room-to-manoeuvre. It’s also clear there is an enormous hole in British politics at the moment. Starmer has also failed to set the voters’ hearts aflutter.
The British system doesn’t do well with lone-actors, so somewhere in the wings there would need to be a small knot of energetic politicos and intellectuals with a broad, aggressive vision of change – Thatcher and Joseph, Blair and Brown. At the moment I don’t know who or where that knot is being created, but the vacuum will create new possibilities.
Brexit was a clear cry for change and yearning for returned sovereignty. That the political landscape hasn’t improved hasn’t made the desire for change go away (the same issues also have an undercurrent in France).
In fact, the frustration with lack of change is probably even more strong now, as the Tories are going to find out – it feels like they have made everything worse, and nothing better despite the increase in room-to-manoeuvre. It’s also clear there is an enormous hole in British politics at the moment. Starmer has also failed to set the voters’ hearts aflutter.
The British system doesn’t do well with lone-actors, so somewhere in the wings there would need to be a small knot of energetic politicos and intellectuals with a broad, aggressive vision of change – Thatcher and Joseph, Blair and Brown. At the moment I don’t know who or where that knot is being created, but the vacuum will create new possibilities.
Surely the takeaway from 2016 is that there is no longer such a thing as ‘the British’ any more than there is such a thing as ‘the French’?
Instead there are those who have done well from globalisation and the abandonment of democracy, and those left behind (or those who empathise with the left behind). In that respect I have more in common with a Gilets Jaune than I ever will with an Islington Remainer.
Globalists of the sort you describe are still a small minority. You also have more in common with a pragmatic Remainer than either of you have with the Islington Remainer. A great many Remain voters in 2016 were not ideologically wedded to the EU but merely voted Remain to avoid economic risk – the “I’d prefer to leave the EU but not if it means losing my job” voter. This sort of person was usually then disgusted at the obvious contempt for democracy involved in trying to overturn the vote, which is why anti-Brexit manifestos failed colossally in the various elections that took place in 2017, 2018 and 2019. The only reason that impetus isn’t still evident is the hugely destructive effect of the pandemic.
Globalists of the sort you describe are still a small minority. You also have more in common with a pragmatic Remainer than either of you have with the Islington Remainer. A great many Remain voters in 2016 were not ideologically wedded to the EU but merely voted Remain to avoid economic risk – the “I’d prefer to leave the EU but not if it means losing my job” voter. This sort of person was usually then disgusted at the obvious contempt for democracy involved in trying to overturn the vote, which is why anti-Brexit manifestos failed colossally in the various elections that took place in 2017, 2018 and 2019. The only reason that impetus isn’t still evident is the hugely destructive effect of the pandemic.
Surely the takeaway from 2016 is that there is no longer such a thing as ‘the British’ any more than there is such a thing as ‘the French’?
Instead there are those who have done well from globalisation and the abandonment of democracy, and those left behind (or those who empathise with the left behind). In that respect I have more in common with a Gilets Jaune than I ever will with an Islington Remainer.
Only the same sort of French as their British equivalents: the Notting Hillites, the Camdenites and Hampstead Heathers etc. In Paris, they occupy the various arrondissements inside the Peripherique (sort of the equivalent of our North Circular), but they are stuffed with the same brand of horseshit either way.
In many parts of France, they’re jealous that the British were actually asked their opinion on EU membership – as M Macron himself has referred to publicly when declaring that he knows what answer France would give in a national referendum on EU membership, hence why he would never grant it.
Only the same sort of French as their British equivalents: the Notting Hillites, the Camdenites and Hampstead Heathers etc. In Paris, they occupy the various arrondissements inside the Peripherique (sort of the equivalent of our North Circular), but they are stuffed with the same brand of horseshit either way.
In many parts of France, they’re jealous that the British were actually asked their opinion on EU membership – as M Macron himself has referred to publicly when declaring that he knows what answer France would give in a national referendum on EU membership, hence why he would never grant it.
“They” have never forgiven us for allowing Napoleon’s p***s to to sliced off and stolen during his post-mortem on Saint Helena in 1821.
“They” have never forgiven us for allowing Napoleon’s p***s to to sliced off and stolen during his post-mortem on Saint Helena in 1821.
Well out of it thanks. Always the way with the UK. Get close to Europe and then step back – Reformation, Gothic Revival, Brexit.
Well out of it thanks. Always the way with the UK. Get close to Europe and then step back – Reformation, Gothic Revival, Brexit.
Robespierre’s “pour decourager les autres” is the best summing up of the French, or indeed the EU’s, attitude to Britain since Brexit.
Robespierre’s “pour decourager les autres” is the best summing up of the French, or indeed the EU’s, attitude to Britain since Brexit.
I could disagree vehemently with everything Anne-Elisabeth Moutet writes and still hugely enjoy reading it.
And I’m neutral – being from across the big pond and all – so I’m happy to take everything in this piece as gospel.
I could disagree vehemently with everything Anne-Elisabeth Moutet writes and still hugely enjoy reading it.
And I’m neutral – being from across the big pond and all – so I’m happy to take everything in this piece as gospel.
The French. Crow about being macho. Surrender to Hitler in a few days.
The French. Tell everyone how important they are to Europe’s freedom. Tell Ukraine to surrender to Putin.
The French. Complain about the EU. Forget that the Common Agricultural Policy allows French farmers to have medieval work practices while EU taxpayers pay for it.
The French. Sneer at Britain yet forget their absurdly generous retirement age. If the French think that Germany, Holland and other countries are going to continue to fund French pensions at 62, they are deluded.
The French. Crow about being macho. Surrender to Hitler in a few days.
The French. Tell everyone how important they are to Europe’s freedom. Tell Ukraine to surrender to Putin.
The French. Complain about the EU. Forget that the Common Agricultural Policy allows French farmers to have medieval work practices while EU taxpayers pay for it.
The French. Sneer at Britain yet forget their absurdly generous retirement age. If the French think that Germany, Holland and other countries are going to continue to fund French pensions at 62, they are deluded.
Fascinating ..
Fascinating ..
No regret here.
The EU is an undemocratic, bureaucratic abomination that is well on its way to becoming a fascist state. It extends itself into every area of national sovereignty, extinguishing democracy as it goes.
No regret here.
The EU is an undemocratic, bureaucratic abomination that is well on its way to becoming a fascist state. It extends itself into every area of national sovereignty, extinguishing democracy as it goes.
Thank you for at elast putting the English translations next to your french phrases. its utterly bizzaire how many english writers dont bother – its rediculous.
🙂
Thank you for at elast putting the English translations next to your french phrases. its utterly bizzaire how many english writers dont bother – its rediculous.
🙂
People have forgotten the treacherous nature of France before WW2, during it, and then afterward when De Gaulle tried to conspire with the Soviet Union to create a counter-balance to Anglo-American power to preserve the French colonial presence in the Middle East, Africa. and the Far East. He hated the British but loathed the Americans even more.The sentimental rot about helping America free herself from British tyranny was simply realpolitik at work. The French believed the creation of an adversary state in North America would weaken its ancient foe.
People have forgotten the treacherous nature of France before WW2, during it, and then afterward when De Gaulle tried to conspire with the Soviet Union to create a counter-balance to Anglo-American power to preserve the French colonial presence in the Middle East, Africa. and the Far East. He hated the British but loathed the Americans even more.The sentimental rot about helping America free herself from British tyranny was simply realpolitik at work. The French believed the creation of an adversary state in North America would weaken its ancient foe.