It’s interesting to compare the language of Brexit in Britain and the language of Brexit on the continent.
Granted, Theresa May’s Article 50 letter was measured and calm (in an interview last week, Guy Verhofstadt described as a good arguement for staying in the EU), but much of the debate here has been dominated by sound bites, name calling and hyperbole, the calls for military intervention in Gibralter being just one such example. In contrast, the comments coming out of mainland Europe, on the whole, seem to be considered, reasoned, informed and encouraging of debate.
Someone recently wrote (I forget where, but it’s not important) that as the political norm on the continent is for coalition government there is a requirement for people to work together, even if they are sometimes in disagreement, in the interest of their greater aims and ambitions. It’s a strategic approach. In the UK however our government rarely relies on coalitions. Instead it adopts the crude techniques of the debating society, getting the chamber to cheer and jear, verbally hitting any opponent as hard as possible and once they’re down keeping them down. Trying to understand the other side is not a commonly deployed tactic and is instead seen as tedious weak.
So how will this pan out in the Brexit negotiations? One side shouting and brawling, the other trying to explain its thinking and find areas of compromise and agreement. The trouble is, the latter side has 27 members and the former only has one. The likelihood, therefore, is that the brawler will be rapidly ignored and in all likelihood sent to bed without any supper. So will the Brexiters get what they want (whatever that actually is)? Very unlikely.