logo
Macron will enjoy his royal welcome. But the Franco-British relationship remains a love-hate affair

Macron will enjoy his royal welcome. But the Franco-British relationship remains a love-hate affair

The Guardian08-07-2025
Britain and France are so close that there's a saying in Wimereux, a seafront resort on the north French coast, that if you can see England it's going to rain, and if you can't, it's because it's already raining.
Despite – or perhaps because of – that geographical proximity, Europe's two nuclear powers have historically been adversaries as often as friends, and frequently a bit of both. While France lacks a feral press to sustain public contempt for the tribal enemy with the unique talent of the British tabloids, that enduring love-hate relationship is the indelible backdrop to this week's state visit to the UK by President Emmanuel Macron. Even if solidarity and fortitude in the face of Russian aggression and American unreliability is the flavour of the week, the relationship remains an enduring mix of friendship, rivalry, mutual admiration and suspicion.
Tellingly, this is the first state visit by a European leader in the nine years since the British people, in their infinite wisdom, voted to leave the European Union. Keir Starmer's cautious effort to repair some of the economic and political damage from that act of self-harm has faced French obstruction on any matter related to closer economic ties, including the totemic issue of fishing rights. As long as Starmer sticks to his red lines of no return to the EU's single market or customs union, and no free movement of people between the continent and Britain, he will face dogged resistance from Paris against any attempt to soften the consequences of Brexit.
Both leaders have domestic problems. Macron is a lame duck who cannot seek re-election in 2027 and does not have a parliamentary majority. He regained the power to dissolve the National Assembly this week, but to do so again after last year's fiasco would be a recidivistic suicide. Starmer has only been in office a year and enjoys a giant majority. But he failed last week to force through welfare reforms after a revolt in his Labour party, leaving him with a budget hole and an authority crisis. Both men are constrained by the rise of far-right populist parties that are exploiting public discontent over immigration and identity issues.
All the warmth of a royal welcome at Windsor Castle, a horse-drawn carriage parade and a stroll through the restored nature reserve in Windsor Great Park will not move the French president to ease his opposition to any EU special treatment for the UK, despite its strategic importance to Europe in this new age of geopolitical turbulence.
In French minds, this is about defending the club that the UK quit, preserving the EU and its prized single market from unravelling and – though Macron would not say this publicly – ensuring that the UK's gamble on prospering outside the union is not successful. It is important to be able to point to British economic losses 'pour encourager les autres', as Voltaire might have said.
There will be lots of togetherness on defence at Thursday's political summit, and plenty of talk in Macron's ceremonial address to parliament of the two countries standing together to uphold a rules-based international order (are you listening, Donald?), to support Ukraine (are you listening, Vladimir and Donald?) and to strengthen Europe's defences within Nato (ditto). The UK and France have Europe's most robust armies and strategic cultures, yet both are so hemmed in by debt and welfare costs that they will struggle to meet the Nato pledge they agreed last month to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, of which 3.5% will be devoted to core military outlays.
Starmer and Macron will jointly chair a meeting of the 'coalition of the willing' created to give security guarantees to Ukraine, held symbolically at Nato's maritime headquarters in Northwood, outside London. It sends a message of European determination to stand by Ukraine at a time when the US is winding down military support as Russia steps up its war of aggression.
US disengagement from European security will be a crucial, if largely unspoken sub-theme to the Franco-British rapprochement on strategic affairs. It's worth paying particularly close attention to what both leaders say about the scope of their nuclear deterrence and the degree to which they consider their vital interests to extend beyond national borders to the rest of Europe.
Nuclear doctrine moves by millimetres. Given increasing uncertainty over the reliability of the US nuclear guarantee for Europe in the Trump era, it will be interesting to see whether Starmer and Macron go beyond what a previous generation of British and French leaders declared in 1995, when the then prime minister John Major said: 'The president [Jacques Chirac] and I have concluded that the vital interests of one could not be threatened without the vital interests of the other equally being at risk.'
Successive French leaders, while maintaining a degree of strategic ambiguity, have cautiously extended that nuclear doctrine to make clear that France's vital interests reach beyond its borders and 'have a European dimension'. In the light of Trump's equivocation, Macron recently proposed a strategic dialogue with willing European partners on this issue.
Ideally, Starmer and Macron would develop the Major-Chirac formula to include an explicit mention of the vital interests of European allies. More likely, they might jointly offer consultations with European partners on nuclear deterrence. That would be another step towards a European defence identity within Nato.
Paul Taylor is a senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer says boosting living standards is central focus of his Government
Starmer says boosting living standards is central focus of his Government

The Independent

time41 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Starmer says boosting living standards is central focus of his Government

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said he wanted people to feel better-off and more secure by the time of the next election as he set out his priorities in government. Sir Keir said he also wanted people to feel that the National Health Service (NHS) is working better than it was when Labour came into office last year. He also highlighted the need for border security – at a time when small boat crossings of the English Channel are running at record levels – and improvements in defence. After a year in office, Sir Keir was asked what he wanted the UK to look like at the end of his first term in No 10. He told MPs on the Liaison Committee: 'I want people to feel better off and there has to be a central focus on living standards. 'I want them to feel – as they will – that the health service is working much better, is there for them and their families in a way that it hasn't been for many years. 'And I want them to feel safe and secure, both in their immediate neighbourhood and as a country, both our borders and national security and defence. 'So, they're the three things that I'm focused on more than anything else.' Sir Keir's drive to improve the NHS could be derailed if resident doctors in England go ahead with strike action which is due to begin on Friday. The Tory government faced waves of strike action in the NHS which contributed to care backlogs. The Prime Minister has put international co-operation, including a promised one in, one out deal to return small boat migrants to France, at the heart of measures to control the borders. But arrivals are running at record levels for this point in a year, with Home Office figures up to July 19 showed 23,474 people had crossed in small boats. The Liaison Committee, a panel made up of senior MPs who chair the various Commons select committees, was focusing on measures to tackle poverty. The Prime Minister, who is under pressure from within his own party to scrap the two-child benefits cap, said: 'People will not feel better-off or safe and secure if we haven't tackled poverty.' He said there were four 'limbs' to the Government's strategy: increasing incomes, decreasing costs, strengthening local support including measures to get people into work and boosting financial resilience. 'I'm very proud of the fact that the last Labour government drove down poverty and I'm determined this Government is going to as well,' Sir Keir said.

Belgium questions 2 Israelis at music festival over Gaza crime allegations
Belgium questions 2 Israelis at music festival over Gaza crime allegations

The Independent

time41 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Belgium questions 2 Israelis at music festival over Gaza crime allegations

Belgian police questioned two members of the Israeli army who were attending a music festival in Belgium over allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza, the Federal Prosecutor's Office in Brussels said in a statement Monday. In a statement to The Associated Press, the Israeli Foreign Ministry said an Israeli citizen and an Israeli soldier who were on vacation in Belgium 'were taken in yesterday for interrogation and were released shortly afterward." It said Israeli authorities "dealt with this issue and are in touch with the two.' It was not immediately clear why the Israeli Foreign Ministry referred to one civilian and one soldier, while Belgian prosecutors spoke of two Israeli army members. The whereabouts of the two people who were questioned was not immediately clear. The case was hailed as a 'turning point in the global pursuit of accountability' by a Belgium-based group called the Hind Rajab Foundation, which has campaigned for the arrest of Israeli troops it accuses of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The group was named for a young girl who Palestinians say was killed early in the war by Israeli fire as she and her family fled Gaza City. Israel says its forces follow international law and try to avoid harming civilians, and that it investigates allegations of wrongdoing. In a written statement, the prosecutor's office said that the two army members — who were in Belgium for the Tomorrowland festival — were questioned after the office received legal complaints on Friday and Saturday from the Hind Rajab Foundation and another group. The prosecution office requested the questioning after an initial assessment of the complaints 'determined that it potentially had jurisdiction.' The Hind Rajab foundation said it filed its complaints along with the rights group Global Legal Action Network. The decision to question the two Israelis was based on an article in Belgium's Code of Criminal Procedure that went into force last year and grants Belgian courts jurisdiction over acts overseas that are potentially governed by an international treaty, in this case the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1984 United Nations convention against torture, the prosecution statement said. 'In light of this potential jurisdiction, the Federal Prosecutor's Office requested the police to locate and interrogate the two individuals named in the complaint. Following these interrogations, they were released,' the statement said, without elaborating. It said it was not providing any further information at this stage of its investigation. The news in Belgium came as the U.N. food agency accused Israel of using tanks, snipers and other weapons to fire on a crowd of Palestinians seeking food aid, in what the territory's Health Ministry said was one of the deadliest days for aid-seekers in over 21 months of war. The death toll in war-ravaged Gaza has climbed to more than 59,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Its count doesn't distinguish between militants and civilians but the ministry says more than half of the dead are women and children. The ministry is part of the Hamas government, but the U.N. and other international organizations see it as the most reliable source of data on casualties. Since forming last year, the Hind Rajab Foundation has made dozens of complaints in more than 10 countries to arrest both low-level and high-ranking Israeli soldiers. 'We will continue to support the ongoing proceedings and call on Belgian authorities to pursue the investigation fully and independently,' the group said in a statement. 'Justice must not stop here — and we are committed to seeing it through.' ____ Melanie Lidman and Isaac Scharf in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

The government's pensions overhaul might just work… but there's one glaring omission
The government's pensions overhaul might just work… but there's one glaring omission

The Independent

time41 minutes ago

  • The Independent

The government's pensions overhaul might just work… but there's one glaring omission

Britons need to save more for retirement if they are to avoid penury in their twilight years. There is no getting away from that uncomfortable fact. The triple lock – the mechanism that ensures the state pension rises in line with inflation, wage increases or 2.5 per cent, whichever is the greater – has done a fine job of reducing pensioner poverty, but, as the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) has stated, it is now getting horribly expensive. The economy is simply growing too slowly, and the population is ageing too quickly, to make it sustainable. There's an easy way to wriggle out of this bind: protect pensions by linking their value to inflation from hereon out – or earnings, if you like. You could call it the single lock. And then take steps to encourage pensions saving. There – problem solved, at least in broad terms. All it took was a bit of honesty and the willingness to speak uncomfortable truths. Who knew? Except that's not what the government will do. Because, despite all its macho talk about taking 'tough decisions', it's running scared of the voters and the opposition, which is what happens when you make a mess of things and go into government without a plan. Instead, we have the revival of – in the words of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) – the ' landmark Pensions Commission ', with supportive quotes from 11 (count 'em) organisations, including business groups, unions and charities. Talk about overkill. The statutory review of the state pension age (currently 66) is also being brought forward from 2029. The latter will probably end up recommending pushing the retirement age up to 70 – there won't be any supporting quotes when that's announced – in the hope that enough of us pop our clogs before we ever get the chance to benefit from the triple lock. The latter is a cow so sacred that the mere mention of changing it to make it less ruinously expensive is enough to cast the offending minister into the deepest pit of political hell. If the state pension were to rise in line with inflation (protecting its value) or earnings (linking it more closely to tax revenues from the working population), but not both – and especially not the third part of the lock (2.5 per cent if the other two are lower) – then we might be able to claim it a bit earlier. But the government doesn't dare say that. Anyway, we have the Commission. It is charged with finding a way to increase pension saving because, while auto-enrolment into workplace plans has boosted the number of employees contributing to them to 88 per cent, 45 per cent of working-age adults aren't saving anything at all. If we all saved a bit more, then perhaps we could retire before we're knocking on heaven's door without having to worry too much about the arrival of the state pension. Why the discrepancy between those two numbers? Self-employed people and the growth of the gig economy. Surprise: pensions are not the first concern of young people grappling with sky-high housing costs while in insecure employment. Perhaps it's time to bite the bullet and focus on people who can afford to save a little bit more? Just a thought. One thing that might help: simplification. The private pension market is still a lot more complicated than it ought to be. We're still a long way from the US, with its 401(k) schemes that everyone moons over. Make pensions easier, and people would save more rather than retreating in confusion when they start thinking about the issue in their 40s because it's all so damnably complicated. Just a thought. Will Baroness Jeannie Drake (a member of the first Commission), Sir Ian Cheshire and Professor Nick Pearce see that? Offer some meaningful solutions that a poorly led government, which keeps tripping over its own feet, might feel able to accept? I have my doubts. The Commission's members are worthy, well-meaning and clever. I have no doubt that their hearts are in the right place. But they are part of the class that does not live in the difficult world where the rest of us reside – with its uncomfortable truths and trade-offs, and its tough challenges, the biggest of which is just getting through another workday with one's job intact and food on the table. I suspect that the government would like to put the burden of improving the situation on employers, so as not to upset the voters. That would be a dangerous road to go down. They've already had to swallow an increase in taxes on jobs in the middle of a sickly economy, and unemployment is now rising as a result. Adding to their burdens will simply put jobs at risk. The government also faces some uncomfortable trade-offs. It just likes to ignore them in a way that the rest of us can't. But pigeons have a habit of coming home to roost. Perhaps the Commission can work the oracle when it comes to the slow-burn pensions crisis that's been simmering for the last 20 years – longer, if we're honest. Someone is ultimately going to have to pay for better pensions, and that's where we come in. There's no real way to sugar-coat it. This will be a burden on our finances – one that might well end up feeling like another tax. Sometimes the truth hurts. But it has to be faced – sooner or later.

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