By allowing Boris Johnson to actively disrespect Europeans, Theresa May is leading us into an acrimonious Brexit

The Foreign Secretary’s choice of the word ‘undemocratic’ when referring to a ruling from the European Court of Justice confirms a general trend from the conservative side of the British establishment that presents judges as obstacles to democracy

It is difficult to exaggerate the effect that the behaviour of the Foreign Secretary is having on the UK-EU relationship

The UK Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, has chosen to start the new year rubbishing the EU with “post-truths”. In an article he published on 1 January he claimed that a 2014 ruling from the European Court of Justice on motor vehicles’ insurance means that all owners of quad bikes will need compulsory insurance in the UK. He has implied that such compulsory insurance on all quad bikes will be imposed “immediately” by EU governments. And he has indicated that in his view the request is “undemocratic”.

The assertions he has made are misleading and wrong. The ruling from the European Court of Justice he is referring to is indeed a controversial one, just as there are controversial rulings from courts all over the world, including courts in the UK. But claiming that the ruling will lead to European governments immediately requiring compulsory insurance on quad bikes for domestic use in private properties is simply not true.

In fact what has happened is exactly the opposite: after the ruling was issued by the court, the European Commission started working with EU Member States (including the UK) to prevent the ruling of the Court of Justice being applied with absurd effects, such as having to insure the quad bike used by Boris Johnson in his own garden. This has led to a consultation on the possibility to revise the existing legislation with the proposal of asking for compulsory insurance on the basis of whether the vehicle is being used for “traffic” rather than on the basis of the type of vehicle (understanding by traffic the transport of goods or people in public areas, as defined in national law).

Thus if Johnson was to use the quad bike in his garden he would not need insurance; but if he were to drive his quad bike on the King’s Road he would need insurance. While the pros and cons of such option are still being discussed, it seems at first sight reasonable because if Johnson runs over a child in the street while “giving some welly” to his quad bike (as he claimed he does), the child’s parents would not care whether Johnson has run over their child with his government-driven car or with his quad bike.

As Boris Johnson should know, this is just a consultation at this stage: the Commission and governments are gathering views and if the legislation is revised the proposal would be subject to the normal EU legislative process whereby governments (democratically elected), including the UK if it was a member of the EU, and parliamentarians (also democratically elected) would have to agree on what option to take. Thus, Johnson’s claim that this proposal is “undemocratic” is another “post-truth”.

The Foreign Secretary’s choice of the word “undemocratic” when referring to a ruling from the European Court of Justice is in any case disturbing, because it confirms a general trend from the conservative side of the British establishment that presents judges (in the UK and in the EU) as obstacles to democracy rather than as the necessary checks and balances of any well-functioning democracy.

The “post-truths” from Johnson would be worrying when coming from a private citizen. But they are shocking when coming from the Foreign Secretary of the UK, because surely he knows how EU legislation works, how decisions are taken, the state of play of every individual proposal. That is the job of a foreign secretary after all.

It is difficult to exaggerate the effect that the behaviour of the Foreign Secretary is having on the UK-EU relationship. Many Europeans have admired the UK for decades as a big, generous and engaged country, a country who has led the way in Europe and in the world, whether on the economics, politics, research or socially. But unfortunately that political credit, earned little by little with the effort not only of many UK governments but also many British citizens, is now quickly evaporating as a result of the actions of individual members of this Government.

Much has been discussed about the merits of a soft or hard Brexit. The Prime Minister seems still keen not to define what type of Brexit she wants. It is her right to do so. But by allowing the Foreign Secretary to continue disrespecting the Europeans she risks heading towards an “acrimonious” Brexit. And that is worst Brexit of all.

Miriam Gonzalez is an international lawyer