and Charles Moore:
In a newspaper interview yesterday, Mrs May held out the prospect, if only MPS would vote for her Brexit deal, of having the whole thing sewn up by Christmas. Attached to her interview were various anonymous briefings. These suggested that otherwise Parliament might have to sit through Christmas for the first time since 1656 and/or – as it was rather oddly put – “Jeremy Corbyn would be able to visit the Queen over Christmas” (with a view to becoming PM).
It is indeed woeful to think of MPS holed up in the Commons wearing paper hats and trying to force the catering department to produce some turkey for them on the Feast of the Nativity. It is more profoundly upsetting to think of Her Majesty, before watching her own Christmas message, having to find a seat for Mr Corbyn at the Sandringham dining table and rustle up something vegan.
It is an enticing idea that the whole thing could be done and dusted here and now. But Mrs May’s promise cannot be fulfilled. “It will all be over by Christmas” was what they said at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. In fact, it took almost four more years, because no one had foreseen the nature of modern warfare.
Mrs May should be able to foresee the nature of EU warfare, because she has already experienced it. Its method is to snare the counterparty into future bondage by making what looks like a concession now in return for a binding commitment which will be called in later. This is the point of the backstop. By conceding it, Mrs May won some things she sought. She also, however, bound Britain (and herself, in the unlikely event that she is still Prime Minister) to EU control at the point when we want to leave the customs union. If they don’t like it, we can’t have it. If we defy them, the borders of the United Kingdom will be changed
The list of things which President Emmanuel Macron passionately longs for and most French people do not is quite long. It includes European fiscal union, an EU military structure and very expensive petrol prices to save the planet. These last were what sparked the current protests before which he now quails.
Another Macron obsession concerns African art in French museums. Building on a report he commissioned from two “anticolonial” art experts, Mr Macron has declared that the return of works of art taken from Africa “without consent” during the French colonial period must now commence. The first victims – 26 Benin objects from Paris’ Quai Branly collection of African and Oceanic art – have been ordered back “without delay”.
As a headline, it might sound quite good: “White people must give back treasures stolen from black people, says president”, but in fact the question is a mare’s nest. Jean-jacques Aillagon, a former culture minister of France, is someone who knows.
I asked him his views and he has furnished me with a formidable list of objections.
First, he questions the word “restitution”. It implies that museums holding works from the traditional cultures of Africa are “receivers of stolen goods”. In most cases, this will be untrue. Yet, says Mr Aillagon, the report reverses the burden of proof: museums will have to prove that their objects are not stolen, which could be “impossible”. There must be “stable legal rules” in international relations, he goes on, and they should not be unilaterally torn up. Before pushing forward alone, why has Mr Macron not consulted other former colonial powers with an interest in these matters – Belgium, Germany, and, of course, Britain? The British Museum and the V&A, for instance, have a huge amount to lose from the Macron precedent.
As other experts are pointing out, many of the relevant objects will have been legitimately bought; others rescued; others brought back from ethnological expeditions or bequeathed by donors acting in good faith. There are even examples of African artworks given by Africans in gratitude. The president of the Quai Branly Museum in Paris cites objects presented by Cameroonian chiefs to a French doctor who cured their people of leprosy in the Fifties.
Besides, the great European museums are not mere piles of loot: they are beautifully looked after on behalf of all. As Mr Aillagon puts it, “The universal and encyclopaedic museum is, in itself, a formidable invention which affirms the equal dignity of all cultures.” If every object has to be sent to the place it came from, that is “a cruel regression” to a narrowly nationalistic view of art.
What interests me is that Mr Macron has rushed forward so carelessly. He seems instinctively to shun his country’s patrimony and feel tender towards those who wish to denigrate France’s historic achievements, of which being a great world collector and custodian of art is certainly one.
The people who run European countries are a funny lot nowadays. They just do not seem to like the people and places they rule. They should not be surprised that the feeling is mutual.
She should be able to foresee the nature of EU warfare, because she has already experienced it by a foreign power. Which is why MPS must reject Mrs May’s Christmas present this week.