What would Disraeli make of Brexit? His recommendation to ‘learn no historical past; nothing however biography, for that's life with out idea’ is
What would Disraeli make of Brexit? His recommendation to ‘learn no historical past; nothing however biography, for that’s life with out idea’ is a helpful place to begin. Brexit has been – and continues to be – a hotch-potch of biographies the place human weaknesses, strengths and foibles chafe and collide. The upcoming conflict between the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier and his British counterpart David Frost is not any exception.
On 2 March, Barnier, who’s chargeable for main the ‘Process Drive for relations with the UK’ will face Frost, the British head of ‘Taskforce Europe’, throughout the negotiating desk for the primary time. These two titles would possibly sound mundane however they’re important for understanding the distinction in how the EU and Britain view the aim of the approaching months. Barnier’s title is solemn and critical; Frost’s is considerably irreverent.
Within the European Fee’s corridors there’s an dependancy to ‘taskforces’. It signifies navy decisiveness. However above all it means sustaining conformity with Brussels’ norms. Following the 2008 monetary crash, heavily-indebted Eurozone member-states that had been put by way of the EU austerity ringer had taskforces assigned to carry them into line with European necessities. As a member of the lead French staff’s remit to rework the Greek public sector within the EU-led ‘troika’ reforms – which was, inevitably, known as ‘Taskforce Greece’ – I keep in mind this nicely.
For the EU, then, Barnier’s Brexit ‘taskforce’ is enterprise as regular: its goal is to guard the EU’s approach of doing issues. Whereas for Britain, borrowing the ‘Taskforce’ epithet smacks of nose-thumbing (as does No.10’s description of the group as ‘small and agile’; the suggestion being that the EU is something however).
So if we will study this from the names the 2 sides have adopted in these talks, what can we predict will unfold over the approaching months based mostly on the variations between the 2 negotiators themselves?
Frost, the Derby man with an Oxford first in Historical past and French who majored in medieval historical past, doesn’t appears averse to a contact of Rabelaisian ribaldry. In contrast, Barnier, the Frenchman fourteen years his senior from the mountains of Savoy, graduate of one among France’s high, however dour, enterprise colleges (Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de Paris), is earnest, methodical and legalistically formal.
The 2 have had equally totally different skilled careers. Frost is a skilled diplomat with a stint as ambassador to Denmark. However he’s additionally a Brexiteer sufficiently jaundiced by the diplomatic service’s stance to retire in 2013; Barnier is a centre-right Gaullist politician with a number of ministerial stints turned European commissioner and Euro-enthusiast. Anticipate the negotiating types to replicate that distinction. Frost is a skilled medievalist cautious to marshal his proof. However he’s additionally imaginative within the avenues he opens up and never afraid to aim the occasional flourish. In the meantime Barnier is the well-prepared, affected person climber of mountains; cautious of wandering from the deliberate path, however dogged in his pursuit of the summit.
However as totally different as their biographies may appear, Frost and Barnier share some options. As David Frost charmingly however pointedly reminded ‘Michel’ in his recent lecture, he too is a Gaullist, sharing the overall’s perception within the independence of nation-states:
‘I do know that Michel is a superb admirer of Charles de Gaulle. He most likely doesn’t know that I’m as nicely. De Gaulle was the person who believed in a Europe of countries. He was the person who at all times behaved as if his nation was an important nation even when it appeared to have fallen very low and thus made it turn into an important nation but once more. That has been an inspiration to me, and people who assume like me, within the low moments of the final three years.’
Extra importantly, each Frost and Barnier have a shared expertise of the Brussels machine, albeit main them to very totally different conclusions. In 1993, earlier than Barnier’s break for Brussels in 1999, Frost had been first secretary for financial and monetary affairs at UKRep in Brussels. Right here he handled European enlargement and its implications for the EU price range. He was later the FCO’s deputy head for the European Union exterior division coping with commerce coverage, later changing into director of the FCO’s European Union division. As Frost lately defined, right here his ‘doubts about British membership of the EU’ first surfaced. These, he defined, ‘got here principally from the truth that I may see Britain was by no means going to be genuinely dedicated to the challenge of turning the EU from a ‘partnership settlement in commerce’ to an ‘object of reverence’’.
Barnier, against this, was a late convert to the Brussels’ world. And as with so many late converts, his ardour is intense. For 5 years from 1999 he was European commissioner for regional coverage. He returned to the EU in 2009 for a short spell as an MEP,…