This is the text of my speech in the House of Lords this afternoon in the debate on the preparations and negotiations for Brexit. It needs to be read in the context of other speeches. The italicised paragraph was omitted for reasons of time.
My Lords, others noble Lords are addressing details … which leaves me to take a step back to look at culture. At Committee stage of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill I spoke about such matters as the corruption of the public discourse – asking that we do not lose sight of the end to which Brexit is supposed to be the means. I tried to pose the existential questions of who we think we are and for whom we are doing what we are doing. However, the debate has coarsened, the ideological divide deepened, and poor use of language worsened.
What I have to say has nothing to with Leave or Remain, but where we are now and what shape we might be in the future.
Weren’t we all embarrassed by the mockery in European media at the UK government’s attempts to translate the White Paper into other languages – German being the most obvious? Were we not aware that professionally you always translate into your native tongue, not out of it? It seems that not only are we islanders hopeless at learning languages, but we still don’t even see or understand the cost of our hopelessness.
Surely, the first requirement of any negotiation is that the negotiators understand the mindset, culture, language and perceptions of the opposite number – get inside their head, look through their eyes and listen through their ears. If I don’t understand what I, we and the world look like through the eyes of my interlocutor, I can’t begin to negotiate intelligently. This goes well beyond figures, facts and tactics; it goes deeper from the superficial to the emotional and subliminal. It is where we discover what actually moves and shapes the mindset, reactions and behaviours of those with whom we seek to trade. Yet, here we are, unable or unwilling to speak the language of those with whom we think we can reach agreement. We just tell them they have to see everything as we do.
The problem, of course, is that most of those with whom we deal in the EU do speak our language, do get behind the words to the mindset, and, therefore, are in a stronger position from the outset.
I labour this point not in order to grind an axe about the poverty of language learning in the UK – seen as a priority in other countries – but because my earlier concerns about the culture generated by Brexit have deepened. How are ‘the people’ to read a former Foreign Secretary who resigns and immediately and unaccountably earns a fortune from a newspaper column? Or an MP for North East Somerset who moves his business investment interests abroad whilst telling the rest of us that we will experience the benefits of Brexit over the next fifty years (which, by my reckoning, means we still have another ten years or so in which to work on the benefits of EU membership)? Neither of these men will suffer the negative consequences of any form of Brexit. And this is not even a party or partisan matter.
This is a moral issue. In the same way that the US President has normalised lies and relativised truth (‘alternative facts’ and all that stuff, for example), we have descended into a non-rational lobbing of slogans and empty promises and damnations from trench to trench. Honesty and integrity – the essential prerequisites of moral culture are being sacrificed on the altar of mere political or personal pragmatism.
And this is at the core of my concern: the sheer dishonesty of much of the language and rhetoric of the last couple of years. If “the will of the people” matters so much, then shouldn’t the people be told the truth about the range of potential consequences of Brexit? If the government sees that the UK (and the EU) will suffer short- or medium term negativity in order to gain nirvana after a couple of decades or so, shouldn’t they actually say that? Explain that it is worth consigning a generation of young people to a poorer life because we need to take a longer-term view of the national good? If ‘the people’ can be trusted with a vote in a referendum, why can’t they be trusted with the truth rather than being patronised with endless polarising rhetoric?
What happens if the ‘will of the people’ turns out not to be ‘in the national interest’. And who defines these terms? Whose interests have priority? If we are attempting to square an unsquarable circle – whoever is PM -, then this should be admitted – not just lobbed back at the EU for them to resolve when they didn’t ask us to leave.
These are not arcane questions. The Prime Minister has said that we now need to “get on with Brexit”. Which, of course, begs the question as to what we have been doing thus far. The new Brexit Secretary promises “energy, vigour and pragmatism” … as if these were laudable new ideas. But, they remain meaningless and vacuous if they are not underpinned by a respect for and an intelligent learning of the languages of our interlocutors in the EU.
(If we had been as committed to the EU as France is, and France had voted marginally for a Frexit, do we really think we would be taking seriously the flexing of Gallic muscles or belligerent demands for the best deal in the interests of France over against the integrity of the bloc? I think not.)
My Lords, we can talk about a second referendum, a general election, the change of Prime Minister in a party coup, the ‘taking back of control’ and so on. But, the questions of culture, of language, of dealing with the real world rather than some nostalgic fantasy couched in slogans: these will outlast any deal or no deal. Are we paying attention to who we shall be – not only seen through our own eyes, but also through the eyes of our neighbours, and also in the eye of our children, in the months and years to come?
This debate is not neutral.
July 23, 2018 at 4:33 pm
[…] This is the text of my speech in the House of Lords this afternoon in the debate on the preparations… […]
July 23, 2018 at 5:10 pm
Great stuff, Nick !
July 23, 2018 at 7:55 pm
Well said, Nick. In contrast to my own attempts to learn French, Welsh and Hungarian, with varying degrees of failure (!), both my sons (aged 27 and 15) are bilingual (Anglo-Magyar) and the eldest is teaching German and French in Suffolk. He works for a specialist language high school, but other local high schools are giving up teaching languages at ‘A’ level. His career prospects may soon be limited if this trend continues, as seems likely. He went to a dual language Lycee in France, where his French became fluent, and in his ‘Erasmus’ year he taught at a school near Heidelberg. In Hungary, my younger son is getting ready to go to a ‘dual language’ school where he can continue with his education in both Hungarian and English, as well as learning German or French as a foreign language. As a monoglot nation, Hungary has continued to invest in ‘content area language teaching’ in which my wife and I are very involved from primary to university level. Of course, Hungary is opposed to the federal integration of the UK, and sees itself as the guardian of ‘Christian Europe’, but there is still a consensus that the EU is the only ‘game’ in town, and that the country cannot afford to be isolated. For Hungarians, Euroscepticism is not seen as leading inevitably to exiting the EU, at least not by choice. Mind you, I don’t like being told, as a Christian humanist, that I am not allowed to provide refugees with food, water and clothing. We all seem to have difficulty walking in each other’s mocassins, let alone learning each other’s languages and cultures.
July 23, 2018 at 7:58 pm
Reblogged this on hungarywolf.
July 23, 2018 at 9:02 pm
An excellent viewpoint, well articulated.
July 24, 2018 at 12:21 pm
Thanks Nick. Would that more CofE leadership would speak to these and man other moral issues raised by Brexit
July 24, 2018 at 4:47 pm
But isn’t it precisely because the English ‘ aren’t good at languages’ that we want to leave the EU, and in fantasy return to the dream of an Empire where everyone speaks English ( and many still do – it’s absolutely necessary for international communication).
July 25, 2018 at 1:36 pm
[…] you’re the Bishop of Leeds addressing the House of Lords: then your topic is Brexit culture and British hopelessness, mingled with anti-Boris, […]