Irreconcilable differences

Why is it that we are at such an impasse? The issue dividing us seems simple so why can’t it be easily resolved so that Brexit can happen in a way that all find acceptable, even if not perfect?

To answer this one has to understand the fundamental difference in the way in which the EU and the UK agree things. Look at any EU Treaty or Directive and you will be struck by the length and detail of the preamble. Conversely, look at any piece of UK legislation and you will see nothing remotely similar. Europeans believe it is essential to set out the purpose and intent of what is to follow so that if there is any subsequent disagreement about the words, the intent will guide the judges.

The UK sees things very differently. The devil is in the detail, as we often say, and if there is any argument after the event, our courts scrutinise the words rather than what the intention may have been. If Parliament hasn’t been able to articulate its intent, tough; the language is the key.

English is, perhaps, the problem. We have lots of words that are confusingly similar. Many that sound very different in fact mean the same thing; others that sound the same mean something very different. No wonder we pin so much importance to the language.

Continental Europe is very different. Fewer words and less potential confusion means that slavish reliance on specific language is considered unsafe hence the need for lengthy expressions of intent to clarify any linguist defects.

It should therefore be no surprise that the backstop provision is seen so differently by each side. We interpret the language strictly; it could last forever so it probably will. The EU takes the commitment to negotiate a trade agreement as an absolute commitment and regards the backstop as unlikely and unimportant.

As we have often said, “Vive la difference”. But maybe at this stage the difference is the difficulty.