All the following propositions seem to me to be true.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1454851993642717186
1. The key phrase in Castex’ letter wasn’t accurately translated by @alexwickham and nuance was lost. Nuance matters in diplomatic letters (see eg how the Franco Prussian war broke out).
2. The French government (which knows rather a lot about diplomacy and careful drafting) must have known that the phrase (even accurately translated) would wind up the current government and its outriders (and that an inaccurate translation was quite likely).
3. The current government and its outriders appear to think that it suits its interests to take excessive umbrage at any suggestion that its chosen form of hard Brexit has inevitable disadvantages. In the national interest, it needs to move on.
4. The current government should also appreciate that there will be a tendency to giggle when it talks about the importance of sticking to treaties. The words “specific and limited breach” will be recalled.
5. Fundamental lesson: if you are the smaller party to a treaty, the proposition that its terms are to be kept is on your side. Don’t behave in a way that makes people giggle when you assert that proposition.
PS: someone whose relevant experience and knowledge is far greater than mine, and whose judgment I would immediately defer to, tells me that this is probably not right: they think that the French government would not have appreciated this.
https://twitter.com/georgeperetzqc/status/1454907776627523586
PPS: on “giggle”.
https://twitter.com/cbeaune/status/1454741253715857409
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
