Jonathan Miller truly understood France
He had a pre-digital habit, very 1980s, of ringing you up to chat, moan, laugh, explain, badmouth and joke for over an hour at a time. When he rang it always took me a couple of minutes to get reaccustomed to the colder waters of analogue conversation; but then we would have these long rambling discussions that don't much happen anymore. He'd sent me successive manuscripts of his book, Shock of the News: Confessions of Troublemaker, which he polished and repolished into the version coming out in three weeks' time .
We'd unknowingly worked for the same Murdoch outfits over the years, coming from radically different places, he from Saskatchewan by way of Bedales, Cincinnati, Detroit and Washington; myself having escaped the obsequious, stultifying Parisian press to grab at the lowest rung at the newly Andrew Neil-edited Sunday Times. Down the line, Jonathan always sounded like the surdoué child of Damon Runyon and David English.
His Spectator pieces annoyed many Parisian readers, because French political journalism doesn't prize either humour or forthrightness
Some two decades ago, he'd settled with his wife Terry in a beautiful small Languedoc village between Montpellier and Béziers, the Roman university city and the rugby-mad Cathar fortress. It may not have been the reason why he chose the place, but it was inspired: you understand a lot more about France west of Marseille than in the Parisian-colonised Luberon or Var. As a European national, he became a conseiller municipal (alderman) until Brexit ended his tangle with French village administration.
His Spectator pieces annoyed many Parisian readers, because French political journalism doesn't prize either humour or forthrightness. You have to be convoluted to impress your Sciences-Po classmates who made it into politics or the upper reaches of the civil service. Jonathan neither cared nor feared shocking the citoyens respectables – in Paris or even in his own village. One of his amusing pieces for the French conservative magazine Causeur accused some of his all-too-recognisable neighbours of doing DIY restoration in the village. The article included pictures of cinder block walls and vinyl double-glazed verandas taken metres from his home. He enjoyed the subsequent brouhaha immensely.
We met on what was then known as Twitter, around 2017 or 2018, and then progressed through private messages, emails and WhatsApps, which I have been trawling through today. Eventually we met in person at my Paris New Year party. The Millers then invited me down south last May Day bank holiday, so that Jonathan and I could attend Marine Le Pen's first rally, a week after she was handed down a sentence which barred her from standing as president.
We arrived three hours early to bag good seats in the public bleachers, not the press division, where all we could hope to get would be French colleagues rehashing the French bubble's accepted views of Le Pen (bad), her voters (Neanderthals) and the fate of French democracy (dire). 'Je suis Anglais', Jonathan would say to people at the rally: to shoe shop assistants; National Rally security guards; twentysomething waitresses coming to get a selfie with Jordan Bardella, Le Pen's deputy; pensioners moved to tears by the presence of a friendly television presenter from CNEWS, the French answer to GB News. That put him both outside people's everyday experience-based prejudices and made his genuine interest acceptable enough to get them talking. It was beautiful to watch. I bet that's the effect he had on cops in Minnesota and congressional aides in Washington DC, when he was reporting there years ago. I will miss him horribly.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
30 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Ursula von der Leyen's deal exposes the delusions of EU boosters
Photo byThe French prime minister François Bayrou said it was a 'dark day' for Europe. Under the trade deal that Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced in Scotland on 26 July, the US would impose a 15 per cent tariff on most European imports, but the European Union would not increase tariffs on American imports in return. According to Bayrou, 'an alliance of free peoples' had 'resolved to submission'. It was definitely a climbdown for the EU. Ever since Trump was re-elected last year and threatened new tariffs on imports to the US, the European Commission had threatened counter-measures – just as it did during the first Trump administration, when it responded to US tariffs on European aluminium and steel with its own tariffs on American products like bourbon. In the end, though, the EU simply accepted the new US tariffs this time – and on top of that, promised to increase purchases of American liquified natural gas and weapons. To be clear, what was agreed in Scotland is a political or 'framework' deal and a lot of the important details have yet to be worked out. In particular, it is not yet clear whether pharmaceuticals – a hugely important sector for the EU and especially Germany – will be included or how much steel will be exempt from tariffs. Moreover, the promises that von der Leyen made to increase investment in the US have already turned out to be empty – there is no way the EU can buy $750bn of American oil and gas in the next few years and it cannot direct companies to invest in the United States. Nevertheless, in the few days since the deal was announced, it has widely been seen as a humiliating European capitulation to Trump. Many critics of deal – especially EU boosters who fantasise about the idea of 'strategic autonomy' or a 'geopolitical Europe' – seem to imagine that the EU could have followed an alternative approach and stood up to Trump. In reality, though, there was little alternative to what Bayrou called 'submission'. Critics of the deal think EU member states undermined von der Leyen and forced her to negotiate from a position of weakness. It is true that some member states, especially Germany and Italy, ultimately backed off from threats of retaliatory measures because they feared that a full-on transatlantic trade war would ultimately hit important sectors of their economies harder than they are now being hit by the new US tariffs. But the idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it had but did not use – and that if it had used it, it could have struck a much better deal – is wishful thinking. As the world's largest trading bloc, the EU has long thought of itself as an economic superpower and prided itself on its ability to negotiate trade deals – that, of course, was one of main arguments why the UK should remain within in the EU. This deal has somewhat undermined that self-image. After all, in May, the UK was able to negotiate a slightly better deal with the Trump administration, with a baseline tariff of 10 per cent. But what really makes the EU weak relative to the US is its vulnerability in security terms. The idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it did not use only makes sense if you think that economics and security are completely separate realms and that security issues are irrelevant to trade negotiations and cannot be linked. But deep down, despite all the tough talk and the threats of retaliation to Trump's tariffs, European politicians knew that taking such a confrontational approach could have consequences for US support for Ukraine – or even for Nato and the US security guarantee to Europe itself. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe It's striking that this trade deal was being negotiated just as Trump seemed to be becoming increasingly frustrated with Vladimir Putin and more supportive of Ukraine. Earlier in July, Trump had reinstated supplies of US weapons to Ukraine – albeit paid for by Europeans – and threatened new economic sanctions against Russia if Putin did not make progress in negotiations within 50 days. (The day after the EU-US trade deal was announced, Trump said he was now giving Putin even less time.) As tentative as European leaders know Trump's shift on Ukraine is, they do not want to jeopardise it. EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who apparently spent hundreds of hours in frustrating negotiations with Trump administration officials, hinted at this in a briefing the morning after the announcement of the deal. He said he could not go into the details of everything that was discussed with Trump in Scotland, but 'it was not just about trade'. In the end, what has made the EU so dependent on the US, and made the EU's 'submission' inevitable, is the war in Ukraine – or, to be more precise, the way that, for the last two and half years since the Russian invasion in 2022, European leaders have insisted that their own security depends on a Ukrainian victory. Related
Metro
4 hours ago
- Metro
Which countries recognise Palestine as a state - and what exactly does that mean
The UK's announcement that it would recognise the State of Palestine if Israel doesn't take 'substantive steps' has sparked discourse worldwide. All eyes have been on Gaza as conditions worsen in the enclave. Israel controls all aid flow into the strip and denies any responsibility for the mass starvation, which has only increased in recent weeks. The increasingly dire situation has prompted some countries, including the UK, to consider officially recognising the State of Palestine. French President Emmanuel Macron announced last week that France would recognise Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in September. Canada also announced plans to recognise Palestine in the near future. Palestine has long existed as a 'quasi-state'. It has no capital or internationally agreed boundaries. This means that recognising it is a major symbolic move from other countries, which are becoming increasingly outraged at Israel's operations in Gaza. Palestine currently consists of two separate territories – the West Bank and Gaza – governed by separate Palestinian groups. Hamas has ruled Gaza, the site of Israel's ongoing war, since 2007. The Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority governs the West Bank. They were initially connected by land under the United Nations' partition plan in 1947, but Israel has absorbed much of that land in successive wars since then. Although nominally governed by Palestinians, much of what is formally part of the West Bank is under Israeli control, with military checkpoints and segregated roads. The Palestinian Authority controls just 17% of the West Bank, although this accounts for most of the area's Palestinian population. Israeli settlements, which break international law, have been set up in the West Bank, gradually encroaching on Palestinian territory and carving gaps between Palestinian cities, towns and villages. Once opposed by Israel's governments, the settlements received backing and military protection from the current administration of Benjamin Netanyahu. Any peace agreement would likely require the removal of the 500,000 Israeli settlers from the West Bank, similar to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. It may also include other transfers of people and land between the two sides. Of course, however, there are people in Palestine who hope for a Palestinian state across all of the land currently consisting of Israel and Palestine, much like Israelis who hope for the same for themselves. The two-state solution is an approach which has been flouted for decades as a way to stop the conflict and tensions between Palestine and Israel. It would mean both Israel and Palestine are recognised as their own states, ruling independently. It's supported by many countries, including the Palestinian Authority, but Israel is vehemently against it. Israel's opposition to the two-state solution has made it a non-starter for years, but the idea is being floated again as other countries recognise Palestine. Israeli academic Yossi Mekelberg told Metro: 'It's not a hopeless case. My argument, time and time again, is that the two-state solution is not the remedy for everything. 'The remedy needs to be for everyone to enjoy the same political, civil and human rights – Israelis and Palestinians. The question is, which solution can best guarantee this?' The Palestinian Authority, formed in the 1990s, already operates in many ways like a state. It has 80 embassies globally and is represented at the UN as a non-member observer state. Diplomatic recognition would give Palestine more authority internationally and send a signal to Israel that the world is not okay with how they have operated in Palestine. 'It's been nearly two years since the beginning of this. What happened on October 7th, of course, put most of the world on Israel's side. It was a terrible massacre. But since then, what Israel is doing in Gaza has shifted public opinion – and rightly so,' Mekelberg added. 'We shouldn't forget or ignore October 7th, but what's happened since has made the Israeli government look much worse. 'The fact that it took so long for the international community to come together when 60,000 people, many of them civilians, children, non-combatants, were killed, and now the starvation of so many people when there's so much food on the border. 'If there is any humanity left in the world, they should react to this. They should respond and ensure a ceasefire and end the war, send the hostages back, and reconstruct Gaza. 'If you ask me, why are countries reacting now, I'd ask you: Why did they not react sooner?' Norway Algeria Bahrain Indonesia Iraq Libya Malaysia Mauritania Morocco Somalia Tunisia Turkey Yemen Sahrawi Republic (Western Sahara) Afghanistan Bangladesh Cuba Jordan Madagascar Malta Nicaragua Pakistan Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates Serbia Zambia Albania Brunei Djibouti Mauritius Sudan Cyprus Czech Republic Slovakia Egypt The Gambia India Nigeria Seychelles Sri Lanka Namibia Russia Belarus Ukraine Vietnam China Burkina Faso Comoros Guinea Guinea-Bissau Cambodia Mali Mongolia Senegal Hungary Cape Verde North Korea Niger Romania Tanzania Bulgaria Maldives Ghana Togo Zimbabwe Chad Laos Sierra Leone Uganda Congo Angola Mozambique São Tomé and the Príncipe Gabon Oman Poland DR Congo Botswana Nepal Burundi Central African Republic Bhutan Rwanda Ethiopia Iran Benin Kenya Equatorial Guinea Vanuatu Philippines Eswatini Kazakhstan Azerbaijan Turkmenistan Georgia Bosnia and Herzegovina Tajikistan Uzbekistan Papua New Guinea South Africa Kyrgyzstan Malawi East Timor Paraguay Montenegro Costa Rica Lebanon Ivory Coast Venezuela Dominican Republic Brazil Argentina Bolivia Ecuador Chile Guyana Peru Suriname Uruguay Lesotho South Sudan Syria Liberia El Salvador Honduras Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Belize Dominica Antigua and Barbuda Grenada Iceland Thailand Guatemala Haiti Sweden Vatican City Saint Lucia Colombia St Kitts and Nevis Mexico Barbados Jamaica Trinidad and Tobago The Bahamas Ireland Spain Canada Prime Minister Netanyahu advocates an autonomous Palestine with no military capability, and its security controlled by Israel, something unacceptable to most Palestinians. This has been Israel's position for 30 years, but the country has grown more wary of the prospect of a Palestinian state since October 7. More Trending For Israelis, the bloodshed of that day confirmed their worst fears regarding what they believe to be the Palestinians' intentions. Earlier this week, the far-right Israeli minister of finance, Bezalel Smotrich, said something which encapsulates what many Israelis hope for the region. 'The re-establishment of Israeli settlements in Gaza is no longer wishful thinking, but part of what has become a realistic work plan. Gaza is an inseparable part of the Land of Israel,' he said. Israelis believe they have a God-given right to the region, despite Palestinians having lived there for thousands of years. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: 'More than 48 Palestinians killed' while waiting for flour delivery in Gaza Strip MORE: What's stopping Keir Starmer from recognising Palestine as a state? MORE: I offered to trade my £600 camera – all for a bag of flour
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
UK recognising Palestine 'may breach international law', Lords claim
In a letter addressed to Attorney General Richard Hermer, the [[UK Government]]'s top legal adviser, 40 peers – including seven KCs – argued that the criteria for recognising Palestine as a state have not been met under the Montevideo Convention. The treaty, signed in the Uruguayan capital in 1933, laid out the four key criteria for statehood: a state must possess a permanent population; a defined territory; a government; and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The Montevideo Convention has 17 states parties – all of which are in the Americas and many of which, including Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, have already recognised the Palestinian state. However, the letter, which was reported by The Times, urges the UK Government to reconsider its position based on the 1933 treaty. Keir Starmer has committed to recognising Palestine in September, if Israel does not meet a list of conditions including signing up to a peace process resulting in a two-state solution. The letter calls on Hermer to advise Starmer 'that this would be contrary to international law'. It goes on: 'You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this government and its approach to foreign policy. 'You have said that a selective 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience. READ MORE: UK recognition of Palestine 'worthless' without concrete action, expert says 'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.' Among the signatories from the House of Lords are David Pannick KC, Guglielmo Verdirame KC, Edward Faulks KC, and Lawrence Collins, a former judge on the Supreme Court. The peers, many of whom have longstanding ties to the Conservative Party, warned that recognising a Palestinian state now would represent a 'selective' application of international law and risked politicising legal principles. Their intervention comes as Starmer announced the UK Government would follow France's lead and officially recognise Palestinian statehood in September if Israel and Hamas do not agree to a ceasefire. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French premiere Emmanuel Macron (right)In recent days, the Labour leader has spoken with Canadian prime minister Mark Carney and Australia's Anthony Albanese, framing recognition not as a symbolic act, but as a lever for peace. Starmer was fiercely criticised for the conditions of recognition, with the SNP saying that recognising [[Palestine]] must be 'irreversible'. Canada has since indicated it will recognise a Palestinian state, provided the Palestinian Authority commits to elections and other democratic reforms with no involvement from Hamas. More than 250 MPs, including Labour's foreign affairs committee chair Emily Thornberry, have called for the recognition of the Palestinian state. Meanwhile, in a separate legal development, the High Court ruled this week that the Home Office's proscription of the protest group Palestine Action should be reviewed. The group is accused of damaging military infrastructure, but the court found it 'reasonably arguable' that the ban infringes on rights to protest. A full hearing will now go ahead.
