Is an Englishman’s word no longer his bond?

Call me old-fashioned, but I was led to believe that, amongst other virtues, that an Englishman’s word is his bond. As an ersatz Englishman by virtue of my mixed race background, one cleaves firmly to such concepts as honour and decency, because they matter.

Indeed, much of our modern model of governance relies on the concept that most people are honourable or, at the very least, can be broadly trusted to do the right thing. It is suggested, for example, that 90% of taxpayers are compliant with the requirements of tax law. What that means is that regulatory authorities can focus their efforts on a minority of those whom they supervise.

The same goes for international relationships, be they between states or collections of states. There is a set of rules, some written, others unwritten, which guide how states will behave towards each other, and if everyone adheres to them, we can generally rub along somehow.

The Johnson/Cummings administration appears to think that it need not play the game, or wants to suggest that it might not, as it leaks the idea that it might pass domestic legislation designed to undermine the intentions of a legal agreement signed between the United Kingdom and the European Union earlier this year... by this administration. Now, I do note a degree of “rowing back” from various ministers but, if you are deliberately attempting to sow mistrust, this is a damned good way to do so.

And it matters. If a country gains a reputation for untrustworthiness, there is a price to be paid. Any deal that you sign needs to have the risk of default priced in, and the more scepticism the other side have in your integrity, the higher the price of that risk becomes. Naturally, it’s the party perceived as less trustworthy that pays it.

There’s also the risk of contagion. The United Kingdom has made a pretty good living out of supplying professional services to the world - banking, legal, accountancy - all of which are underpinned by trust, trust in our legal system, the neutrality of our judiciary and the concept that an Englishman’s word is his bond. Weaken that sense, and that business may go elsewhere, with the resultant damage to an economy that already relies heavily on services.

But, ultimately, the people who pay the price for such rashness are not politicians, they’re the people whose jobs are lost due to a breakdown in trading relationships, the imposition of tariff and non-tariff barriers or a simple choice by trading partners to look elsewhere for goods and services. Because trust matters, and we all, consciously or subconsciously, know that.