Sorry, m'Lud, not just larceny but grand larceny!

Yes, I'm afraid that I'm at it again.  Stealing other people's wisdom is becoming a bit of a habit.  In this case it is an essay from The Spectator - to which I have subscribed for nearly 40 years so at least I have paid my dues - by a history swot who, judged by this piece, is a first class scholar.  I must have read, and sometimes written, tons of verbiage on the subject of Brexit but this detached and scholarly essay explains better than anything I have read before that it is not just different language that divides Britain from France but a totally different way of thinking and behaving.

Until now, I had never heard of Prof. Robert Tombs but I see from his Wiki entry that he has authored several books on the history of relations between Britain and France, so 'SoD' should stand-by for a few more additions to my Xmas Book Wish List!  His article here is fairly lengthy but well worth reading in full:

If Michel Barnier and David Davis, in their regular dialogue of the deaf, seem to be inhabiting different mental universes, that is because they are. The British and French have often found each other particularly difficult to negotiate with. Of course, Barnier represents not France but the EU, and he has a negotiating position, the notorious European Council Guidelines, on which the veteran British diplomat Sir Peter Marshall has recently commented that ‘I have never seen, nor heard tell of, a text as antipathetic to the principle of give and take which is generally assumed to be at the heart of negotiation among like-minded democracies’. But, as a senior German politician recently commented off the record, its most important clause is the one that says it can be ‘adjusted’. This is the sort of language the British understand, the language of bargaining. But that is not how the French understand negotiation or texts, and alas for Davis, he has to deal with a Frenchman.

We have been meeting this problem for at least two centuries. The most damaging occasion was when the British encountered a far more formidable duo than Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker: Napoleon Bonaparte and his foreign minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, atheist bishop turned tricky politician. In 1802, to end a long and indecisive war, the two sides had signed the Treaty of Amiens, best remembered for Gillray’s cartoon showing William Pitt and Bonaparte cutting themselves slices of the globe.

This compromise could have given Europe a generation of peace. But after a few months of wrangling and bad temper, relations broke down, and 13 years of bloody and devastating conflict ensued. Napoleon tried to destroy the British economy by stopping its trade with Europe. Britain retaliated, evaded the restrictions, and hugely increased its global trade. The saga ended at Waterloo, and the defeated Napoleon blamed ‘all my wars on England’.

The disaster came about because the two sides had very different conceptions of what signing a peace treaty meant. The British took it to be a first step towards acceptable coexistence, implying future concessions and confidence-building measures on both sides. George III aptly called it ‘an experimental peace’. But the French took it as a rigid text which the British must execute to the letter — the end, not the beginning of a process, with no other issues on the table.

The French moved troops into Holland, expanded their power in Switzerland and Italy, took measures to damage British trade and began unconcealed preparations to invade the Ottoman empire. When the British objected, Talleyrand insisted that these matters were not covered by the Treaty of Amiens, and persistently delayed discussion of them. The final break came over Malta, which the British had liberated but were due to evacuate under the Treaty. They delayed both for practical reasons and as a precaution against the French threat to Turkey. This caused the French angrily to insist, with Napoleon shouting publicly at the British ambassador, that Britain must fulfil its treaty obligations in full and at once. The British, deciding that no deal was better than a bad deal, gave France an ultimatum and then declared war.

Misunderstandings continued over the generations, even when the two countries were on good terms. The British wanted a broad but undefined relationship based on practical cooperation. The French wanted binding written agreements based on defined principles. The great Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston stated that ‘it is not usual for England to enter into engagements with reference to cases which have not wholly arisen’, and his successor Lord Granville a generation later echoed that British practice was to ‘avoid prospective understandings to meet contingencies, which seldom occur in the way which has been anticipated’.

Lord Curzon was less stoical: after a long and fruitless meeting with the obdurate French prime minister Raymond Poincaré, he staggered out of the room in tears saying, ‘I can’t stand that horrible little man. I can’t stand him!’ The French, for their part, repeatedly complained that the British could not think logically. In the 1920s, André Tardieu, a future prime minister, deplored the ‘repugnance of the Anglo-Saxon to the systematic constructions of the Latin mind’. Nothing had changed by 2003, when a British diplomat commented that ‘the French are most comfortable when they can define a set of principles… the British shy away from principles’.

This difference has deep roots. Roman Law, going back to Emperor Justinian and in its modern form to the Code Napoleon, works by applying unchanging general principles. Common Law seeks practical outcomes; indeed, judges may begin by finding a solution and then seek legal justification on which to base it. As the celebrated American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed it, ‘the life of the Common Law has not been logic; it has been experience’.

British ways of thinking are also shaped by the empiricism propagated by Sir Francis Bacon, a pioneer of modern scientific method. He was suspicious of ‘men of theory’ or ‘reasoners’ who put metaphysical ideas before practical experience: ‘the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own substance’, whereas ‘men of experiment are like the ant; they only collect and use’. A contrasting influence in France was the rationalism of René Descartes. For Cartesians (which educated French people proverbially regard themselves as being), understanding begins with ideas in the mind. Hence theory comes first, applications follow.

These basic differences are deeply inculcated by the British and French education systems from primary school to university. The British are encouraged to try to find things out for themselves, to come up with practical answers, and to be original even if they make mistakes. The French, from tiny tots copying teacher’s handwriting to the erudite authors of magisterial theses, are required to accept and apply the correct models and ideas. Moreover, arguments have to be expressed in a set form: if the ideas are good but the form is bad, you fail. Every leading French official and most politicians have gone through the most intense form of this disciplined training, which at every stage eliminates those who fail to meet its standards. Those who win through are what the French call bêtes à concours — ‘examination animals’ to whom this system has become second nature. Few are more brilliant than Michel Barnier, graduate of a leading Parisian grande école.

All this makes the British and French approach any negotiations in a very different spirit. The British are reluctant to define a priori aims, because for them negotiation is an experimental process to discover a mutually acceptable deal. As a senior British official has described it: ‘The British put themselves in the position of the person they are negotiating with… the French are not interested in getting inside the thought of others.’ Rather, the French adopt what seem to them a logically coherent set of principles and then defend them rigidly. In the words of one French diplomat: ‘When one is right, one does not compromise.’

As poor Harold Macmillan found with General de Gaulle, ‘he does not apparently listen to argument. He merely repeats over and over again what he has said before.’ The British find this inflexible and arrogant, if not deliberately obstructive. But the French consider the British reluctance to define principles proof of lack of preparation or, worse still, an attempt by la perfide Albion to pull the wool over their eyes. The situation is not helped by further cultural differences. The British try to be relaxed and friendly, and to lighten the atmosphere with humour — David Davis’s natural style. The French are much more formal and hierarchical, and often take backslapping and jokes as a sign of disrespect and superficiality. Moreover, they are willing to show anger, be confrontational and exaggerate — none of this being intended personally, but seen as a display both of authority and conviction. As de Gaulle told his subordinates, in dealing with the British ‘you have to bang the table, and they back down’.

These frictions extend into business relations too, and having learned about them the hard way, the French Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain published in 2014 an admirably concise handbook to oil the wheels of Franco-British trade, optimistically entitled ‘Light at the End of the Tunnel’. It notes that the British ‘prefer a faster pace’, while the French ‘dislike being hurried’. The British ‘emphasise solutions’, the French ‘emphasis problems’. For the British, ‘compromise is viewed positively and is linked to pragmatism’; for the French, ‘compromise can be viewed negatively, as it implies that a position was not well reasoned’. To crown it all, while the British are ‘proponents of “win-win”, and will compromise in an effort to build long-term relationships that benefit both parties’, the French are ‘proponents of “I win-you lose”, appearing not to care if it risks the breakdown of the relationship’.

However, if they find that their interlocutors refuse to accept their impeccable logic, the French, in a different application of logic, will often cut a last-minute deal. But if Michel Barnier’s Cartesian cobweb–spinning exhausts the patience of our Baconian ants, perhaps we should give up fruitless bargaining over the ‘divorce bill’ and propose a Cartesian solution: to accept binding international arbitration, perhaps using the permanent mechanisms that exist at The Hague. With that obstructive issue out of the way, we might then get on with seeking a mutually acceptable deal over future trade.

I couldn't have put it better myself, in fact, I couldn't even have begun to put it at all!  My sincere thanks to Prof. Tombs and 'The Speccie'.

 

 

 

Comments

[backofanenvelope]

More than half the voters voted to leave. Now it seems that half the remainers want to leave! And three quarters of all voters want to get on with it and leave.

[David Duff]

Yes, yes, BOE, but Mr. Nick Clegg and his Senorita do not want to leave. 'Nuff said, I feel!

[Pat]

I really can't see the difficulty. At present we apply one set of tarrifs to goods from the EU and another for goods from anywhere else. We would I assume be happy to continue the special deal we offer the EU were they to reciprocate.
Myself I would threaten to impose WTO tarrifs as a lever to get them to reciprocate, but suspend all tariffs on leaving whilst negotiations are in progress.
But we don't need EU approval, we just need to decide how much tax we want to pay on imported goods.
Of course the one problem is that the EU is negotiating to retain as much power, wealth and prestige for itself as possible. The effect on French farmers, German car makers etc. etc. is incidental to them.

[decnine]

I don't know who said it first, but I strongly believe that "Wisdom includes never allowing Principles to prevent you from doing the right thing."

[Whitewall]

David, if you had to steal one, this is as good as it gets. Productive negotiations with the French on Brexit won't happen, and with the shifty eyed dwellers in Brussels looking over their shoulders, can't happen.

Britain can simply declare a decision and then act on it. The French will be horrified and take to their fainting sofas for a while. After some smelling salts, they will come around along with the rest of the herd. Proceed from there as the last paragraph in the article suggests.

[Timbo]

David, if Cleggy's missus is still a señorita, then he's definitely batting for the other side! How about señora?

[David Duff]

Now look here, Timbo, don't go confusing me with all those Spanish terms, my knowledge of the Spanish language is limited to "Dos San Miguels, por favor"!

[Loz]

A good article.

"Irresistible force meets immovable object" comes to mind.

In the end, British empiricism, compromise, practical solution finding, materialism, and, Continental rules-based, logic, problem elucidating, idealism are both wrong. Dare I say it, but Godel proved it. If there is truth and form that cannot be proven or formed in a logical system, and that is proven in a logical system, then that blows idealism out of the water. But if there's matter hanging off the back of it too, then your practicalities are somewhat tricky also. (I'll use a BigHen "acknowledged" at this point, lest we kick off again on the Godel front again!). Will is the at the heart of what ends up happening. Materialism and idealism both miss the mark.

But what you can say is: when the two smash into each other the Continentals end up compromising before the deal, and the Brits end up with new rules after it.

Thereby both reveal their inner wrongness.

SoD

[David Duff]

I would suggest, SoD, that there was little in the way of compromise before the events from Philip of Spain, Louis XIV of France, Bonaparte, Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler.

[Loz]

Was there much compromise before the events that lead to Blighty invading and subjugating the peoples of 25% of our planet's landmass? No compromise there and Blighty gained an empire.

But then instead of switching to a rules based system that says "no taxation without representation", Blighty compromised again - and thereby lost the true jewel in the crown, North America.

Dogmatically sticking to compromise or rules ain't where it's at.

"Flicking back and forth between them advisedly in the application your will." That's where it's at. That's what actually happens. Get it right and you'll succeed, wrong and you fail. Stick by one or the other and you'll fail 50% of the time.

And so it will be in the EU / UK Brexit debacle. Both sides will end up worse off, of course. Neither set of pols can understand why the Brit hoi-poloi want to shoot themselves in the feet so badly, but hey-ho, they're just reps of the people these days, so if that's what you want, that's what'll happen.

But at least the flicking back and forth between rules and compromise by both sides will limit the damage to being the "least worst" of this ugly parade foisted upon us by the hoi-poloi.

The Frogs will start with rules and then accept compromise.

The Rosbifs will start with compromise and then accept rules.

But maybe, just maybe, the hoi-poloi will change its mind. Then we won't do this thing with our feet and a shotgun.

SoD

[David Duff]

Well, SoD, this particularly proud member of the "hoi-poloi" can only shake his head in sadness that any Brit would think that escaping from the dictatorial clutches of the unelected EU 'apparat' is a self-inflicted wound. You seem to despise your own countrymen as much as Juncker and Barnier do!

[Loz]

Grand larceny the other way round!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/24/eu-may-abhor-separatism-imperial-structure-encourages/

I said that a week or so back.

Despite the Prodi principle that secessionist sub-states of European nation states are not to be welcomed into the EU, the mere existence of the EU encourages it. By offering an alternative protection and prosperity umbrella above the secessionist sub-state, and one that is more remote and less interfering than the nation state, secessionism is actually encouraged.

Of course the "rock breaking" of large powerful European states is very much in the interests of the EU. A big bunch of little guys is easier to stay in charge of than a small bunch of big guys. But the EU could never admit it, or be seen to encourage it, at least while the big guys are still big and powerful enough to clip the EU's wings at will.

But here's the rub: Article one (article *one* no less!) of the UN charter is the right to self-determination of peoples. You can envisage Junk-the-Drunk shrugging his shoulders and saying, "Well what can we do? We are members of the UN and Catalonia has exercised its right under article one. Although we don't approve, didn't wish it, and won't encourage it, here's your membership card Catalonia, welcome to the club".

How the supranational bodies work together on their dirty laundry!

And what an interesting place Europe would be when all those fantastic old states come back again: Catalonia, Aquitaine, Lombardy ... All under the hands off, low interference, confederacy of the EU, protecting and prospering for all.

So why not Wessex, Mercia, Essex, Northumbria ... cut out the middle man and join the party?

SoD

[David Duff]

SoD, headline to a report at The Coffee House:

"The Czech Republic could be the next country to leave the EU"

Oh no, say it ain't so!

[Loz]

Spectacular own goal by HMG ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/25/energy-cost-review-lays-blame-governments-door/

May and co spent the last how ever long berating the big 6 energy companies for monopolistic practices and hiking energy prices to consumers. To get proof, they commissioned an independent report into the causes of the "rip-off" prices. The report came back not quite as expected: HMG was to blame due to excessive and costly state interference into the normally efficient workings of the energy market!

Hahaha! Another state run cock-up of epic proportions.

SoD

[Loz]

"Don't tell 'im, Pike!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41747035

The moron factory at full tilt supplying HMG and the Tory party with top notch under-achievers.

SoD

[Loz]

How the EU might look after "rock breaking" the large nation-states ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#/media/File%3AMitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.

The Holy Roman Empire. Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, of course.

A confederacy where the leader is elected by the heads of state. Sound familiar?

Each micro state with devo-max. Freedom of movement. Protection and prosperity.

Until that archetypal centralized nation state bastard and Corsican country-bumpkin Boney came along and knocked it on the head!

SoD

[Loz]

https://www.ft.com/content/5f128086-bed2-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2

"And it is here that we see most clearly what the empire can tell us about Europe’s possible future. Its inhabitants generally identified with it positively because it preserved their own autonomy and ways of life."

Viva the non-Holy, non-Roman, non-Empire!

SoD

[Loz]

The Country-Bumpkin Action Faction demonstrate they are, thankfully, not much brighter than their Islamist terrorist counterparts: -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/national-action-member-accused-plot-kill-labour-mp-rosie-cooper/

SoD

[Loz]

See it's all Martin Luther's fault ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/27/protestantism-wane-reformation-brexit-martin-luther

SoD

[Loz]

Fat lady tuning up? ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/remain-voters-increasingly-against-brexit-re-leavers-u-turn/

SoD

[Loz]

Viva Catalonia!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/spanish-government-demands-special-powers-could-remove-catalan/

"[The EU] doesn't need any more cracks, more splits ... we shouldn't insert ourselves into what is an internal debate for Spain, but I wouldn't want the European Union to consist of 95 member states in the future," warned Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, on Friday evening.

I bet Junck-the-Drunk crossed his fingers behind his back and nearly fell forwards due to the weight of his rapidly extending nose when he said that!

If Catalonia avoids being crushed by Spain and joins the EU as an independent nation, it'll be the end of the big nation states of Europe. Germany, France, Italy, and Britain will crumble away. Good riddance.

Viva Mercia, Wessex, Aquitaine, Burgundy, Saxony, Bavaria, Veneto, Lombardy, ... !

Viva the 95 Confederates and Junck-the-Drunk!

SoD

[Bob]

SoD, blaming religious currents for our erratic courses toward sunset is the stuff of a truly special relationship. Here's a lamentation by a prominently confused American:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/opinion/the-week-trump-won.html

[Loz]

"E pluribus unum"

Now there's a phrase.

Perhaps the motto of the EU when its done rock breaking and there's a glorious cobblestoned highway from Galway to the Urals?

A great article Bob.

SoD

[Bob]

SoD,

"E pluribus unum" was our national motto and appeared on most currency until 1956, when it was replaced by the vague, uninspiring, and divisive "In God We Trust", which politicians of the time thought would differentiate us better from the godless commies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

[David Duff]

I agree with 'SoD' - heavens to Betsy! - it was a good essay although I would need to dwell on it a little longer before accepting it.