This is the week that Boris Johnson is meant to rally the world against climate change. But the British prime minister goes into COP26 distracted by an acrimonious row with France about fish.
Sniping and rivalry between Britain and France is becoming a serious international problem. The G7 summit in June took place against the backdrop of another Franco-British dispute — on that occasion about Northern Ireland.
Every minor disagreement between the two countries seems to escalate into an exchange of threats and insults. The underlying problem is not fish, or Northern Ireland. It is Brexit. Put simply, Johnson needs it to succeed and Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, needs it to fail.
A leaked letter from Jean Castex, France’s prime minister, to the European Commission suggested that it is important to demonstrate to European public opinion that the costs of leaving the EU are greater than remaining. The British have seized upon this as evidence that Paris is seeking to punish Britain for Brexit. The French claim that this is a wilful misinterpretation.
The UK government’s eagerness to put the worst possible gloss on the letter is telling. Although Johnson is riding high after a successful Conservative party conference, opinion polls suggest that the British public are coming to the view that Brexit was a mistake. In response to the question, “In hindsight do you think Britain was right or wrong to leave the EU”, 49 per cent replied wrong and 38 per cent right. Another recent poll showed 53 per cent believe that Brexit has led to higher prices.
These shifts in public opinion could spell trouble for Johnson, particularly if inflation and shortages worsen over the winter. That makes a clash with Macron all too tempting. If the French carry out a threat to slow the traffic of British goods through Channel ports, any subsequent shortages could be blamed on French bloody-mindedness rather than the inherent defects of Brexit.
The British government also seems to be preparing to make unilateral changes to the Northern Ireland protocol that was part of the Brexit deal. A row with France could allow Johnson to claim those changes are a response to French intransigence, rather than an act of bad faith by Britain.
Macron, like Johnson, is under intense political pressure. He faces a presidential election in April. Eric Zemmour, the rising star of the far right, has repeatedly insisted “the English won the battle of Brexit”. Macron needs to squash that idea.
The conclusion of Aukus — a secretly-negotiated security pact between Australia, the UK and the US — came as a severe blow to France. One US official says: “France believed Brexit had made Britain irrelevant and that we would bypass London. Then they discovered we had done a secret deal with the Brits, behind their backs.” France’s anger was compounded by the loss of a valuable defence contract with Australia.
The pressure the Macron government is under is reflected in the slightly hysterical tone of some recent communications. Clément Beaune, France’s Europe minister, asserted that the only language the British understand is force.
Something clearly needs to be done to wind down these tensions in a manner that lasts longer than a few weeks. Ben Judah of the Atlantic Council think-tank, who is a dual French-British national, makes the creative suggestion that the two countries should form a joint committee of grandees to work on a plan for cross-channel reconciliation. In an ideal world, such an initiative could pave the way for a new “Entente Cordiale” — the 1904 deal that defused a previous round of British-French rivalry.
But neither London nor Paris seems ready to patch things up. Peter Ricketts, a former British ambassador to Paris, predicts that there will be several more years of sniping before relations eventually improve.
The western alliance cannot afford that. The poison between the UK and France is liable to spread and infect Nato, the G7 and international negotiations on everything from climate change to trade.
UK-French frictions will also make it harder to form common western positions in disputes with China and Russia. Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution worries that Britain and France risk turning into “the Japan and South Korea of Europe” — two close American allies that are also bitter rivals.
In Asia, the US has tried to build bridges between Tokyo and Seoul. It may now be time for Washington to perform the same role between London and Paris. The Americans need to squash illusions on both sides. The British need to understand that the US sees the EU as a crucial partner and will not snub Brussels in favour of “the Anglosphere”. The French need to accept that the US needs Brexit Britain to succeed and will not treat the UK as a rogue state.
America’s ability to play the role of honest broker is complicated by Aukus. But Biden seems genuinely contrite about blindsiding France and has moved quickly to patch things up.
The fact that both Macron and Johnson clearly value their close relationship with Biden gives the US an opportunity. To use the language of counselling, the Americans need to “stage an intervention”. They should try to persuade the British and French to drop their most outlandish threats and to work together in their own interests and those of the wider west.
Pretty spot on, really. Good quality article. 👍
Definitely agree that this will go on for years to the detriment of both British and French citizens. Why can’t we just get along?
« it’s time for the US to stage an intervention » Here we are, Brexit is already a success in the undermining of the EU
[removed]
France withdrew from the Nato central command at the height of the Cold War; that was a greater risk to the West.
Because if Johnson ‘loses’ his fight then out goes the Tories, and if Macron ‘loses’ then out goes En Marche (and in goes the far-right). Thus, Macron needs to show a spate with the UK to prevent an anti-anglosphere gov. There’s some dramatic irony about that.
The comparison to South Korea and Japan was interesting, because South Korea launched a trade war against Japan as soon as the US’s presence declined. Sounds a bit like herding cats.
Uk has always had our momments with France. Good and bad.
Our relationship with France has had ups and downs for centuries and centuries. We been everything from Allies to Enemies, ruled and been ruled and everything else possible.
This is no different.
Did someone expected the relations to be better than when the UK was in the EU ?
This fish squabble might just be the tip of the iceberg.
Ultimately the charade on both sides is for a domestic audience, but is visible in either country. The UK government hasn’t done a lot to ingratiate itself in European public opinion and the French government approach in particular hasn’t gone down well in the UK.
Two capitals using opposing hardline rhetoric isn’t going to work and means neither side can back down. As stated in the article Macron wants to convince his domestic audience that leaving the EU isn’t a viable strategy (which generally means rubbishing the only country to have done it), and Johnson wants to convince his audience that leaving the EU was the right choice and will use anything to vindicate that position and rubbish the EU.
People in the UK who want Macron to lose the election aren’t thinking very far ahead though, any likely right wing victor in France isn’t going to take a more diplomatic tact with the UK. Hopefully when the election passes the capitals take the opportunity to reset, there hasn’t been an Anglo-French summit in some time which seems like a good thing to bring back. People in France who want to cast the UK as irrelevant aren’t thinking very far ahead either, as ultimately the UK and France are the two premier European powers in a variety of great power topics and stepping on ones other foot isn’t a strategy conducive to success on a global level.
Not sure why the author thinks the US is the appropriate mediator though, a country who isn’t a particularly trusted arbiter in either capital at the moment for different reasons. Not to mention the general weariness of the US public when it comes to certain aspects of the US involvement in world affairs.
The “West”. What is this entity? And how does Australia apparently is in it if their island is in the far east?
Ohh… So HERE is how WW-III starts. Six months of name-calling. Some British sailor kid overreacts to some provocation, and actually shoots and kills a French sailor kid. The French vessel returns fire. The UK Coat Guard, defends the British boat. The French Navy responds. One sub or the other sinks another sub. The fire is lit. Europe comes into it on France’s side. A British Carrier gets sunk. The U.S. honors it’s special relationship with the UK. Attempts peacemaking by force with a carrier battle group. China takes the opportunity to invade Taiwan. Japan jumps to Taiwan’s defense with the support of the rest of Asia (Including India, New Zealand, and a newly totalitarian Australia. The U.S. honors it’s commitment to Taiwan. France pokes a hole in a U.S. carrier in the channel. The U.S. goes about the business of eliminating the French Navy. The E.U. responds in force. The channel is burning. The Chinese sink two U.S. carriers. Russia, until now sitting quiet, moves back into the middle east in force, taking Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia in quick order. Pakistan, now China’s bitch, launches a cross border border attack on India. India responds with nukes. Pakistan responds with nukes. North Korea shoots a nuke at Japan. It fails, but nonetheless, Japan clears the oceans of NK ships, and begins a regime-change effort with U.S. support. More nukes explode over India. The U.S. figures out it was China. The U.S. shifts from defense of Taiwan to a regime change strategy against China. China nukes Taiwan. The U.S. begins destroying underground facilities thought China. China begins using tactical nukes against ocean borne targets. Israel allies with Jordan to hold the line against Russia. Egypt’s sees it’s opportunity to attack Israel… How am I doing?
11 comments
This is the week that Boris Johnson is meant to rally the world against climate change. But the British prime minister goes into COP26 distracted by an acrimonious row with France about fish.
Sniping and rivalry between Britain and France is becoming a serious international problem. The G7 summit in June took place against the backdrop of another Franco-British dispute — on that occasion about Northern Ireland.
Every minor disagreement between the two countries seems to escalate into an exchange of threats and insults. The underlying problem is not fish, or Northern Ireland. It is Brexit. Put simply, Johnson needs it to succeed and Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, needs it to fail.
A leaked letter from Jean Castex, France’s prime minister, to the European Commission suggested that it is important to demonstrate to European public opinion that the costs of leaving the EU are greater than remaining. The British have seized upon this as evidence that Paris is seeking to punish Britain for Brexit. The French claim that this is a wilful misinterpretation.
The UK government’s eagerness to put the worst possible gloss on the letter is telling. Although Johnson is riding high after a successful Conservative party conference, opinion polls suggest that the British public are coming to the view that Brexit was a mistake. In response to the question, “In hindsight do you think Britain was right or wrong to leave the EU”, 49 per cent replied wrong and 38 per cent right. Another recent poll showed 53 per cent believe that Brexit has led to higher prices.
These shifts in public opinion could spell trouble for Johnson, particularly if inflation and shortages worsen over the winter. That makes a clash with Macron all too tempting. If the French carry out a threat to slow the traffic of British goods through Channel ports, any subsequent shortages could be blamed on French bloody-mindedness rather than the inherent defects of Brexit.
The British government also seems to be preparing to make unilateral changes to the Northern Ireland protocol that was part of the Brexit deal. A row with France could allow Johnson to claim those changes are a response to French intransigence, rather than an act of bad faith by Britain.
Macron, like Johnson, is under intense political pressure. He faces a presidential election in April. Eric Zemmour, the rising star of the far right, has repeatedly insisted “the English won the battle of Brexit”. Macron needs to squash that idea.
The conclusion of Aukus — a secretly-negotiated security pact between Australia, the UK and the US — came as a severe blow to France. One US official says: “France believed Brexit had made Britain irrelevant and that we would bypass London. Then they discovered we had done a secret deal with the Brits, behind their backs.” France’s anger was compounded by the loss of a valuable defence contract with Australia.
The pressure the Macron government is under is reflected in the slightly hysterical tone of some recent communications. Clément Beaune, France’s Europe minister, asserted that the only language the British understand is force.
Something clearly needs to be done to wind down these tensions in a manner that lasts longer than a few weeks. Ben Judah of the Atlantic Council think-tank, who is a dual French-British national, makes the creative suggestion that the two countries should form a joint committee of grandees to work on a plan for cross-channel reconciliation. In an ideal world, such an initiative could pave the way for a new “Entente Cordiale” — the 1904 deal that defused a previous round of British-French rivalry.
But neither London nor Paris seems ready to patch things up. Peter Ricketts, a former British ambassador to Paris, predicts that there will be several more years of sniping before relations eventually improve.
The western alliance cannot afford that. The poison between the UK and France is liable to spread and infect Nato, the G7 and international negotiations on everything from climate change to trade.
UK-French frictions will also make it harder to form common western positions in disputes with China and Russia. Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution worries that Britain and France risk turning into “the Japan and South Korea of Europe” — two close American allies that are also bitter rivals.
In Asia, the US has tried to build bridges between Tokyo and Seoul. It may now be time for Washington to perform the same role between London and Paris. The Americans need to squash illusions on both sides. The British need to understand that the US sees the EU as a crucial partner and will not snub Brussels in favour of “the Anglosphere”. The French need to accept that the US needs Brexit Britain to succeed and will not treat the UK as a rogue state.
America’s ability to play the role of honest broker is complicated by Aukus. But Biden seems genuinely contrite about blindsiding France and has moved quickly to patch things up.
The fact that both Macron and Johnson clearly value their close relationship with Biden gives the US an opportunity. To use the language of counselling, the Americans need to “stage an intervention”. They should try to persuade the British and French to drop their most outlandish threats and to work together in their own interests and those of the wider west.
Pretty spot on, really. Good quality article. 👍
Definitely agree that this will go on for years to the detriment of both British and French citizens. Why can’t we just get along?
« it’s time for the US to stage an intervention » Here we are, Brexit is already a success in the undermining of the EU
[removed]
France withdrew from the Nato central command at the height of the Cold War; that was a greater risk to the West.
Because if Johnson ‘loses’ his fight then out goes the Tories, and if Macron ‘loses’ then out goes En Marche (and in goes the far-right). Thus, Macron needs to show a spate with the UK to prevent an anti-anglosphere gov. There’s some dramatic irony about that.
The comparison to South Korea and Japan was interesting, because South Korea launched a trade war against Japan as soon as the US’s presence declined. Sounds a bit like herding cats.
Uk has always had our momments with France. Good and bad.
Our relationship with France has had ups and downs for centuries and centuries. We been everything from Allies to Enemies, ruled and been ruled and everything else possible.
This is no different.
Did someone expected the relations to be better than when the UK was in the EU ?
This fish squabble might just be the tip of the iceberg.
Ultimately the charade on both sides is for a domestic audience, but is visible in either country. The UK government hasn’t done a lot to ingratiate itself in European public opinion and the French government approach in particular hasn’t gone down well in the UK.
Two capitals using opposing hardline rhetoric isn’t going to work and means neither side can back down. As stated in the article Macron wants to convince his domestic audience that leaving the EU isn’t a viable strategy (which generally means rubbishing the only country to have done it), and Johnson wants to convince his audience that leaving the EU was the right choice and will use anything to vindicate that position and rubbish the EU.
People in the UK who want Macron to lose the election aren’t thinking very far ahead though, any likely right wing victor in France isn’t going to take a more diplomatic tact with the UK. Hopefully when the election passes the capitals take the opportunity to reset, there hasn’t been an Anglo-French summit in some time which seems like a good thing to bring back. People in France who want to cast the UK as irrelevant aren’t thinking very far ahead either, as ultimately the UK and France are the two premier European powers in a variety of great power topics and stepping on ones other foot isn’t a strategy conducive to success on a global level.
Not sure why the author thinks the US is the appropriate mediator though, a country who isn’t a particularly trusted arbiter in either capital at the moment for different reasons. Not to mention the general weariness of the US public when it comes to certain aspects of the US involvement in world affairs.
The “West”. What is this entity? And how does Australia apparently is in it if their island is in the far east?
Ohh… So HERE is how WW-III starts. Six months of name-calling. Some British sailor kid overreacts to some provocation, and actually shoots and kills a French sailor kid. The French vessel returns fire. The UK Coat Guard, defends the British boat. The French Navy responds. One sub or the other sinks another sub. The fire is lit. Europe comes into it on France’s side. A British Carrier gets sunk. The U.S. honors it’s special relationship with the UK. Attempts peacemaking by force with a carrier battle group. China takes the opportunity to invade Taiwan. Japan jumps to Taiwan’s defense with the support of the rest of Asia (Including India, New Zealand, and a newly totalitarian Australia. The U.S. honors it’s commitment to Taiwan. France pokes a hole in a U.S. carrier in the channel. The U.S. goes about the business of eliminating the French Navy. The E.U. responds in force. The channel is burning. The Chinese sink two U.S. carriers. Russia, until now sitting quiet, moves back into the middle east in force, taking Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia in quick order. Pakistan, now China’s bitch, launches a cross border border attack on India. India responds with nukes. Pakistan responds with nukes. North Korea shoots a nuke at Japan. It fails, but nonetheless, Japan clears the oceans of NK ships, and begins a regime-change effort with U.S. support. More nukes explode over India. The U.S. figures out it was China. The U.S. shifts from defense of Taiwan to a regime change strategy against China. China nukes Taiwan. The U.S. begins destroying underground facilities thought China. China begins using tactical nukes against ocean borne targets. Israel allies with Jordan to hold the line against Russia. Egypt’s sees it’s opportunity to attack Israel… How am I doing?