logo
Britain is great at muddling through. But imagine if its leaders knew where they were heading

Britain is great at muddling through. But imagine if its leaders knew where they were heading

The Guardian5 days ago
Like a chronic ailment, strategic incoherence gnaws at everything Britain does in the world. Keir Starmer's real achievement in resetting relations with mainland Europe – witness the recent visits of the French president Emmanuel Macron and the German chancellor Friedrich Merz – does not obscure, and in a way even highlights, this deeper confusion.
After 1945, Winston Churchill envisioned Britain's global role at the intersection of three circles: the British Commonwealth and (then still) empire; the Europe whose postwar recovery and unification he strongly supported; and the United States. As Commonwealth countries have formed stronger ties elsewhere, the first circle is no longer of strategic significance. Having committed itself in the 1970s to the most developed political and economic form of the second circle, now the European Union, Britain has withdrawn from it. With the revolutionary nationalism of President Donald Trump, the third circle is also fading fast. So here's an 80-year countdown of Britain's strategic circles: three … two … one, going on none.
Instead of being at the intersection of three circles, Britain finds itself caught between three elephants. 'There are three elephants in the room and we just have to be careful we don't get trampled' is how one British official described to the Financial Times Starmer's attempt to navigate between the global economic powers of the US, EU and China.
Just like Tony Blair a quarter-century ago, this government has talked of Britain being a 'bridge' between Europe and the US. But what kind of a bridge can it be today, when the UK is outside the EU and Trump is putting in question the whole transatlantic relationship, with a special animus towards the EU?
There was only ever one way to take Brexit to its logical conclusion, and that was to become an offshore Greater Switzerland, a north European Singapore. To seek profit wherever you could find it, whatever those states were doing to their neighbours or their own citizens; to be a nation with the morals of a hedge fund. Ironically enough, the European country that comes closest to this cynical 'multialigning' is Viktor Orbán's Hungary, a full member state of the EU. But this was never a serious option even for the majority of Brexiters, who had five or six different (and generally vague) visions of what a post-Brexit Britain should be. For most Britons, it would be completely incompatible with our sense of what Britain should do and be in the world.
With Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Britain's Churchillian instincts kicked in again and have brought us to a place where we are working shoulder to shoulder with countries such as France, Germany and Poland for the defence of Ukraine and Europe as a whole. Merz and Starmer have just signed a German-British treaty that gives a framework for enhanced cooperation in many areas. Faced with uncertainty about Trump's commitment to nuclear deterrence on Nato's eastern flank, Macron's state visit to the UK produced the unprecedented announcement that Europe's only two nuclear-weapon powers will 'coordinate' their nuclear deterrents and 'there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by both nations'.
This takes us back to the strategic question. If we are prepared to risk even our very national existence for the defence of Europe, wouldn't it make sense to have some say in how that Europe develops? And if you're a government that has staked everything domestically on economic growth, as Starmer's has, wouldn't it help to get closer to your largest single market?
The situation now is that Britain is fully committed to the defence of Europe but has none of the economic advantages of belonging to the EU. Indeed, it even has to pay a price – for example, in concessions to the French on fishing – for the privilege of contributing to the rest of Europe's security. Addressing British parliamentarians, Macron said: 'The European Union was stronger with you, and you were stronger with the European Union.' True on both counts. But of the two sides, Britain is definitely the more weakened. In the language of diplomacy, Britain is now the demandeur wherever it turns, wanting something from the other party. Indeed its diplomatic triumphs, be they in the 'reset' with the EU or the trade deal with Trump, largely consist in the removal of obstacles that didn't even exist before.
The only strategically coherent long-term answer to this conundrum would be for Britain to rejoin the EU, painfully swallowing its pride and accepting that the new membership terms would be less favourable than those it had before. Halfway houses, such as the UK-EU customs union proposed by Britain's Liberal Democrats, would bring some modest economic advantage. Only full EU membership would give the large-scale economic benefits and the political influence in shaping the future of Europe – and, through Europe, the world. In a jungle full of elephants, you'd better be – or at least ride on – one yourself.
Any British government seriously committed to advancing the national interest should keep in mind that long-term strategic logic. But British politics is nowhere near this point. Not even the Liberal Democrats advocate Breturn and the political running is being made by the country's most successful anti-European politician, Nigel Farage. People in the EU see this and are themselves in no mood to start thinking about remarriage. The wounds of Brexit are still sore and the disjuncture between security and economics works better for them than it does for Britain. Anyway, the EU has more than enough on its plate already.
So what's left? Muddling through. Fortunately, muddling through is something of a British speciality. Some years ago I read an article about Britain in a German magazine which talked of die Philosophie des Durchmuddelns. (Only Germany could turn muddling-through into a philosophy.) Strangely maladroit in domestic politics, Starmer has been remarkably adept at forging good relationships with leaders such as Macron, Merz and Ursula von der Leyen, as well as Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He has shown real leadership on Ukraine and certainly delivered on his promise to Make Britain Serious Again.
His cabinet is full of individuals who, like him, seem well-intentioned, competent and decent. A little boring perhaps – but a glance at the Trump administration shows you there are worse things than that. The UK has a heap of problems, but so does every European country I know. British democracy has survived the stress test of Brexit better than US democracy is surviving that of Trump. Socially and culturally, there is still much to be said for Britain's everyday tolerance, creativity and humour.
So if anyone can make a success of muddling-through, Britain can. But Britain would muddle through better if it had a clearer idea of where in the world it wants to be in 10 years' time. As I believe it says in the Talmud: if you don't know where you want to go, any road is good.
Timothy Garton Ash is a historian, political writer and Guardian columnist
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How a junior trader paid for the banking crisis – while the big bosses never joined him in the dock
How a junior trader paid for the banking crisis – while the big bosses never joined him in the dock

The Independent

time26 minutes ago

  • The Independent

How a junior trader paid for the banking crisis – while the big bosses never joined him in the dock

The wheels of British justice are appallingly slow. Back in 2016, I wrote that the conviction of Tom Hayes, the bank trader jailed for conspiring to manipulate the Libor interest rate, was unsafe. Today, finally, the Supreme Court has agreed to quash his conviction. The case of Carlo Palombo, the other trader who had his conviction quashed today, was not linked to Hayes. Palombo received four years in 2019. When ex-Citi and UBS banker Hayes was found guilty in 2015, he was sentenced to 14 years, an astonishing long term for a white-collar criminal in this country. That was reduced to 11 years on appeal, but as I remarked at the time, you get less for killing someone. There is no doubt he was being made an example of. There was considerable public anger at the way bankers had walked scot-free from the financial crisis – still is – and Hayes was seen as discouraging others. He was portrayed as being at the centre of a web, setting the benchmark rate used for millions of personal loans; he was therefore the worst of the worst, an arch-villain who profited from ordinary folks; he, everyone seemed to agree, deserved every moment spent inside. But in his case, there literally were no others. A year later, in a blow to the Serious Fraud Office, which brought the prosecutions, six brokers were acquitted of conspiring with him to fix the interbank rate. On their acquittals, in his cell at HMP Lowdham Grange, Hayes could be forgiven for raging against the iniquity of a system that saw his life ruined. Particularly, as in the professional hierarchy, Hayes was a junior. We were supposed to believe that others never condoned what he did. It simply never rang true that he was able to act without anyone above him at the bank knowing and agreeing. That unease only increased with details emerging about his personality. He was a bit of a geek, as many are in his area of work. He learned by heart the Highway Code from cover to cover when he was learning to drive. It was one of the traits that earned him his nicknames of 'Rain Man' and 'Kid Asperger's'. But, as he explained, it also meant he was ideally suited to futures trading. 'The success of getting it right, the success of finding market inefficiencies, the success of identifying opportunities and then when you get it right, it's like solving that equation,' Hayes said in court. 'It's make money, lose money, and it's just so pure.' Symptomatic of an underlying condition, he was also open and personable, not sophisticated at keeping something secret. Indeed, that was his defence, that what he did was common; he was encouraged to do what he did and he did not believe he was acting dishonestly. It would have been more reassuring if his bank bosses had joined him in the dock. But they never did. Nevertheless, the promise of the subsequent trial of his alleged co-conspirators did provide some comfort. Then they were acquitted. Hayes said he was delighted with the outcome. He was 'thrilled that the brokers can return to their families and their lives' but was 'bewildered' that he was left 'in a situation where he [was] convicted of conspiring with nobody'. Originally, there were 22 names on the draft indictment, including the six found innocent. At Hayes' trial, most of the evidence presented against him was in relation to those six – hence the Serious Fraud Office's decision to pursue only them. Most of the other names were thought to be peripheral. Hayes said he had never met or even spoken to them; there were some he'd been in touch with via email or other messaging, but just a few times. Ahead of Hayes' trial, the judge, Mr Justice Cooke, decided to separate his hearing from that of the brokers and his alleged co-conspirators. Their statements were not allowed to be submitted in Hayes' trial. Presumably, if they had been, given the jury's conclusion in their trial, this may have assisted his defence. Critically, his jury was unaware of evidence relating to whether or not an agreement between the co-defendants was ever reached. After their acquittals, David Green, then head of the SFO, said: 'The key issue in this trial was whether these defendants were party to a dishonest agreement with Tom Hayes. By their verdicts, the jury have said that they could not be sure that this was the case.' It was an odd use of words from Green. He was trying to justify the prosecution by saying that in the end, the jury could not be certain, so therefore they acquitted. Where, though, does the jury say that? Equally, the jury could surely have been certain there was no agreement – Green simply did not know. In Hayes' earlier trial, however, without the evidence from his alleged co-conspirators, the jury was certain there was a conspiracy. Later, with those not guilty verdicts, that did not seem right or fair. During his closing speech to the jury at Hayes' trial, Mukul Chawla QC for the prosecution was keen to point out that Hayes was the first but would not be the last. Again this was a reference to the six. But look what happened. In light of their acquittals and the non-submission of their statements in his trial, Hayes deserved a fair hearing. Shamefully, it took nine further years for that day to arrive.

Sabadell targets profitability ratio of 16% in 2027 without TSB
Sabadell targets profitability ratio of 16% in 2027 without TSB

Reuters

time27 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Sabadell targets profitability ratio of 16% in 2027 without TSB

MADRID, July 24 (Reuters) - Spain's Sabadell ( opens new tab said on Thursday it expected to lift its return on tangible equity (ROTE) ratio, a measure of profitability, to 16% in 2027 from a 14.6% in 2024 as part of its new three-year strategy. Sabadell, which is trying to fend off a 13 billion euros ($15.31 billion) takeover bid by larger rival BBVA ( opens new tab, said it aimed to boost profits thanks to cost controls in Spain and a 5% accumulated annual rise in overall loans over the period. This would allow it to book a net profit higher than 1.6 billion euros in 2027. Its 2025-2027 strategy comes after agreeing to sell its British unit TSB to Santander ( opens new tab for 2.65 billion pounds, which still requires the approval by Sabadell shareholders. The bank will also ask its shareholders to vote on a proposed extraordinary 2.5 billion euro cash dividend financed with the proceeds of the divestment. Analysts see Sabadell's decision to dispose of TSB as defensive move to ward off BBVA. In the second quarter, Sabadell said its net profit rose 0.6% to 486 million euros thanks to lower provisions, above analysts' forecasts of 444 million euros. ($1 = 0.8812 euros) ($1 = 0.7365 pounds)

BNP Paribas beats Q2 profit forecast, investment bank has mixed quarter
BNP Paribas beats Q2 profit forecast, investment bank has mixed quarter

Reuters

time27 minutes ago

  • Reuters

BNP Paribas beats Q2 profit forecast, investment bank has mixed quarter

PARIS, July 24 (Reuters) - French bank BNP Paribas ( opens new tab reported a smaller-than-expected drop in second-quarter profit on Thursday after a jump in fixed income trading revenue and gains at its insurance unit cushioned the impact of a one-off tax hit in the United States. Overall it was a somewhat mixed quarter for the euro zone's largest bank by assets, with signs of a revival in its domestic retail unit offset by underwhelming performance at its investment bank that lagged Wall Street rivals. BNP is among the first of the big European banks to publish second-quarter numbers. Net income in the April-to-June period fell 4% from a year earlier to 3.26 billion euros ($3.83 billion), slightly above analyst forecasts. Revenue rose 2.5% to 12.6 billion euros, in line with expectations, while provisions for bad loans matched estimates. At its investment bank, fixed income, currency and commodity trading revenues soared 27% on the back of market volatility sparked by U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs, but equity trading revenue suffered a steep decline and income from global banking fell. Overall investment banking revenue was up 4% year-on-year. CEO Jean-Laurent Bonnafe, whose tenure was recently extended, has made the investment bank a key part of his efforts to boost BNP's profits, while also cutting costs and bulking up in asset management with the recent acquisition of AXA Investment Managers. The bank's shares have underperformed rivals, however, and even this year's 22% gain is behind the wider European banking sector (.SX7P), opens new tab, with investors cautious about BNP's relative growth prospects. BNP said its average tax rate for the quarter was nearly six percentage points higher than a year ago, following changes to U.S. tax rules on financing expenses. That weighed on net earnings, with pre-tax income up 3.1%. Earnings from BNP's insurance operations rose sharply, driven by solid operating income and a one-off gain related to a financial stake in China. BNP's retail and consumer division saw a 4.3% rise in net interest income (NII) in France. Analysts expect further improvement following a recent cut in the regulated rate on the country's popular Livret A savings account, which offers room for margin expansion. "Outlook for the second half of the year is very encouraging, with expected revenue acceleration driven by Commercial & Personal Banking," Bonnafe said. BNP announced an interim dividend of 2.59 euros per share, to be paid September 30. ($1 = 0.8503 euros)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store