The Fox of France - Chapter 362: "The Textile Workers Union Club"

In a certain sense, the selection for the “Prometheus Award” was almost a grand review of the scientific prowess across various European nations. Even before the awards were conferred or all the candidates completely chosen, it had already prompted astonishment across Europe, including among the British, declaring France as the unrivaled leader in scientific endeavors.

Discussions in British newspapers concerning their youth, students, and educational system had certain advantages. One such benefit was the successful suppression of voices regarding trade issues, reducing unnecessary interference for the British during negotiations. After all, in trade negotiations, England and France differed significantly. In France, when Napoleon suggested any category endure a slight inconvenience, they had to comply, whether it was their own or, more often, foreign interests. But in democratic England, that notion was unthinkable.

Under the cover of the “Prometheus Award,” the British trade delegation and the French reached a memorandum of understanding regarding their prior trade disputes.

According to this memorandum, British textiles secured a “Free Trade Status” on the European continent for the following year. Essentially, it meant British textiles would be considered goods of a “free trade nation” in Europe. However, this “Free Trade Status” wasn’t unconditional. British textiles had to undergo an annual review; failure in this review would revoke their status.

The conditions for this review primarily revolved around intellectual property protection. This meant that the British textile industry couldn’t manufacture counterfeit European-branded clothing. To ensure the effective implementation of this provision, a joint office led by France would be established in London. This office would have the authority to conduct unannounced inspections of any British factories exporting textiles to the European continent and their warehouses to ensure compliance with regulations. Any manufacturer found infringing would permanently lose their export qualifications. The Textile Guild also pledged to the “Free Trade Union” that anyone found involved in such activities would be expelled from the guild, never allowed to work in the textile industry again.

Of course, agreeing to such a ‘loss of face’ agreement came with certain compensations. Firstly, they successfully circumvented transport regulations for “non-free trade nations,” enabling continued profit on the European continent. Additionally, they even retained the possibility of continuing their ready-to-wear clothing industry, as long as they refrained from counterfeiting high-end French clothing. Overall, the French stance towards the British textile industry remained relatively amicable. The turbulence mainly arose because some individuals were excessively audacious, attempting to snatch money directly from the Bonaparte family’s coffers.

After resolving the textile industry issue, negotiations moved to the steel industry. Predictably, the French opposed the British proposal to increase tariffs on steel products entering Europe, while the British shamelessly suggested France also raise tariffs on British steel products entering Europe.

“Outrageous! Even if we grant you zero tariffs, your steel products won’t sell in Europe. If you insist on maintaining high tariffs on the steel industry, then we’ll have to increase tariffs on your textiles, and of course, you can reciprocate by raising tariffs on our textiles entering Britain and its territories. At least our textiles still have some market in England,” retorted Talleyrand.

Talleyrand’s argument held weight. France also exported textiles to England; for instance, the Chris line of men’s wear and the Crista line of women’s wear found many buyers in England. Interestingly, rebellious young girls often bought the Chris line, and there were even men flamboyantly wearing Crista garments. This prompted conservative British media to vociferously denounce these items as ‘corrupting youth.’ Of course, this was just noise; even the newspapers making these claims knew that banning French goods was nearly impossible in the current circumstances.

The two sides quarreled vehemently over tariff issues. Yet, as the French were about to declare “an end to this meaningless discussion,” the British made concessions. Losing the European market completely would be too detrimental for England. Moreover, the French shamelessly hinted that the peace and friendship between the two nations were upheld by their trade relations.

Implicit in this statement was a threat: if you dare raise steel tariffs, we might just send the ‘Free Trade’ vessel to disrupt free trade!

Just a few months prior, the French had retired their first ‘Free Trade’ vessel, promptly selling it to the British navy. Upon receiving the vessel, the British navy conducted numerous tests and concluded: “Britain’s current industrial level is insufficient to build similar vessels.”

Yet, as the French retired their old ‘Free Trade’ vessel, they announced in newspapers the commissioning of a new ‘Free Trade’ vessel into the French navy.

About this new ‘Free Trade’ vessel, the ‘Scientific Truth Gazette’ only briefly mentioned it in an inconspicuous position on its front page. But everyone knew the Gazette’s habit: the shorter the news, the more significant the event.

In the relatively specialized ‘French Maritime Communication’ magazine, there were a few more descriptive sentences about the new ‘Free Trade’ vessel:

“The new generation steam-powered patrol ship is larger in size, faster, and more efficiently armed. Its advent promises revolutionary changes for the navy.”

However, specifics about the appearance and performance of this “new generation steam-powered patrol ship” weren’t elaborated in the ‘French Maritime Communication’ magazine. The article didn’t focus on introducing the warship; rather, it used the new vessel to promote a new perspective—arguing that ocean-going merchant ships should also adopt steam power.

Yet, after meticulously examining the article in the ‘French Maritime Communication,’ the British navy grew even more concerned. According to their deductions, the possibility of a completely steam-powered vessel capable of crossing the Atlantic was within reach.

If the new ‘Free Trade’ vessel was a ship capable of purely steam-powered transatlantic voyages, its ability to disrupt free trade would be even stronger. Its high maneuverability would allow it to decide independently when to enter or withdraw from combat almost at any time. Considering the old ‘Free Trade’ vessel had already threatened England and its colonies, especially those in the Far East, the new ‘Free Trade’ vessel was a nightmare for free trade.

Therefore, after the French issued such a threat, the British had to strategically yield for the time being. Eventually, they compromised, asking to maintain relatively high tariffs on French mechanical products to protect the British mechanical manufacturing industry but relinquishing high tariffs on steel products.

The French weren’t entirely satisfied with this proposal. However, considering their navy’s construction wasn’t fully complete, the development of their overseas colonies required peaceful times, and the impending Olympics demanded peace as well, they reluctantly accepted these conditions. Thus, both parties officially reached a new “Franco-British Paris Trade Agreement,” putting a temporary stop to the recent trade disputes.

With trade matters temporarily resolved, the British naturally brought up whether the French should cease intervening in strikes within Britain.

However, on this issue, the French struck a high note, asserting they couldn’t betray the spirit of France and abandon their international obligations.

The British understood the French intent. To the French, these striking workers were exceptionally convenient tools to cause trouble for the British whenever needed. Presently, due to the death of the former president of the “Textile Workers Union,” the union had suffered a major setback and was only stabilized because the French unexpectedly intervened, sustaining the organization. Consequently, French influence within the “Textile Workers Union” rapidly strengthened. For the French, as long as they were preserved, they gained a means to disrupt the

British. Naturally, they wouldn’t abandon such a useful tool.

However, the French also expressed their disapproval of seeing British textile enterprises default on numerous orders due to strikes. Thus, they suggested that British textile merchants should reason with their workers. Now that their trade issues with the French were resolved, they no longer needed to maintain survival by depressing workers’ wages. They could assure workers that wages wouldn’t decrease, nor would their labor intensify.

Regarding the British assertion that, according to English law, the “Textile Workers Union” was already an illegal organization, and they couldn’t negotiate with an illegal entity, Talleyrand, in good faith, mentioned that while laws were sacred and once established, shouldn’t be casually altered.

“As far as I’m aware, your country’s law merely prohibits the formation of united unions across various factory unions. But it doesn’t outlaw the union itself,” said Talleyrand. “The ‘Textile Workers Union’ could easily circumvent this issue by changing its name, let’s say, call themselves the ‘Textile Workers United Club.’ In theory, it could be a place where various factory unions gather for celebrations. Wouldn’t that work?”