British politics
Britain and France
Britain and France: the impossible, indispensable relationship
Dec 1st 2011, 16:42 by Bagehot
DAVID Cameron will visit Paris tomorrow for a tense bilateral meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy. Senior officials expect the French president to ask the British prime minister a blunt question: what, David, do you actually want from me, and from Europe just now? That is an almost impossible question to answer. In essence, Britain faces the following scenario as the euro crisis swirls. Egged on by France above all, the 17 countries of the euro zone are planning to try to save their single currency with deeper political and economic integration. Britain thinks that in the short term some sort of deep integration is a necessary condition for saving the euro, and fears the consequences of a euro collapse. But Britain does not want to take part in that integration, will not pay for it, knows that it will be marginalised by it, cannot veto it and probably cannot extract many concessions from the process of creating it. Oh, and deep down the British government does not think it will work.
The stage is set for a very nasty crisis, in which France and Britain will be at loggerheads. The irony is that in other ways, notably in security and defence, Britain and France have rarely enjoyed such good relations in recent times. Just look at the strong support that Mr Sarkozy's administration is offering Britain when it comes to Iran, and the Iranian student assault on Britain's embassy in Iran. France is proposing some of the toughest sanctions ever contemplated against Iran, directly touching Iranian oil exports. We are a world away from Jacques Chirac, Mr Sarkozy's predecessor, who once asked American interviewers if it would be such a disaster if Iran had a nuclear bomb (before aghast French presidential aides attempted to say that he had not said that on the record).
My print column this week, reported from London and Paris, attempts to puzzle some of this out:
SEEN from Britain, most Europeans are neighbours, but the French are family. Not close family, perhaps, but cousins—viewed with exasperation, distrust, superiority and yet (deep down) gnawing envy. France is where abroad begins. No other country offers such a perfect yardstick for comparison, involving near-identical levels of national wealth, population, military clout, diplomatic cunning and historical swagger. It has long made for a satisfying rivalry, marred by a nagging fear: that the contest matters more to the British than to the French.
There matters might have stayed, if only the world did not keep evolving so alarmingly. A cosy competition is being transformed in opposing directions: one promising, one ominous.
First, the promising. On December 2nd David Cameron was due in Paris for bilateral talks with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. When it comes to foreign policy and defence, the Franco-British alliance is in remarkable shape. In London and Paris senior figures reach spontaneously for the same phrase: co-operation is the best “since the second world war”. In the UN Security Council, where France and Britain argued bitterly over invading Iraq, the pair work closely on such tough dossiers as Iran or Syria. In a 2010 defence treaty, the two countries vowed to co-operate on everything from aircraft carriers to what an official calls “the core of the core”: nuclear-weapons research. Then came Libya—an early test of those paper promises. It was a risky mission, it is stressed in Paris. Its success makes Mr Sarkozy and Mr Cameron “brothers-in-arms”.
Talk is cheap. But Britain and France face real, expensive facts. They are midsized countries clinging to the military and diplomatic infrastructure of larger powers. Used cleverly, those assets still offer global influence. Neither can manage that alone.
France long dreamed of using the EU for military leverage, in preference to American-dominated NATO. Other Europeans dashed that dream. Between them, Britain and France account for nearly half of all EU defence spending. But the British will not join a “Europe of defence”, or a mooted EU defence headquarters. The Germans spend money on kit, but mostly will not use it. When Germany abstained rather than endorsing Libyan action at the UN, it was a bitter blow to the French.
French diplomats initially opposed Libyan action under a NATO flag, saying it would be seen as a “crusade” in the Arab world. They called this a “red line”. Britain, backed by a rather disengaged America (and some European allies wary of French bullying), insisted on NATO leadership. The upside of President Sarkozy’s pragmatic-yet-impetuous personality came into play. Mr Sarkozy, who led France back into NATO’s military structures soon after taking office, overruled his own officials, and the Libyan mission was run from a NATO base near Naples. Mr Cameron has his own pragmatic streak, allies say. The downside of Mr Sarkozy’s character surfaced over Libya, as he pushed for quick results or called grandstanding councils of war in Paris. Mr Cameron pushed back when needed, but left the glory to his colleague.
One can quibble about the promise. For instance, a lack of money will limit joint military ambitions even now that the political will exists. But neither country is ready to quit the global stage: as long as that is so, Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy believe their two countries are indispensable to each other.
Now for the ominous side of the relationship. It involves the crisis in the euro zone and pits the same two leaders against each other. France sees a strong Europe as a lever of influence. Disliking the enlarged EU of 27 countries (in which its clout is diluted), France wants to use the euro crisis to deepen integration around a core of countries that use the euro, under the political control of a handful of big national leaders. To comfort French voters, Mr Sarkozy has started talking up euro-zone integration as a shield against globalisation and bullying by financial markets.
Today’s unprecedentedly Eurosceptic Conservative Party sees a strong Europe mostly as a threat to Britain’s global leverage. Mr Cameron says he supports deeper integration within the euro zone, as long as Britain does not have to pay, loses no sovereignty and yet is not marginalised. That is not enough for Tory MPs. They want the prime minister to use changes in the EU’s architecture to secure concessions, such as opt-outs from European employment law or EU rules that harm the City of London.
French sources call it “totally unacceptable” to allow British banks to set up in deregulated competition just across the Channel. Britain wants rights of oversight over the euro zone, it is said in Paris: well, the euro zone needs oversight over the City of London. If Britain seeks to “profit” from the crisis, then rule changes can be agreed by countries that use the euro, excluding Britain.
Mutual suspicions seethe. The French were incensed when the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, said on November 14th that financial markets were “asking questions about France”, alongside Greece and Spain. British sources say Mr Osborne was just justifying austerity plans and accuse the French of “spiteful” plans to regulate the City of London.
The best of times, the worst of times
A change of French president in elections next May would bring no comfort. Pierre Moscovici, the Socialist Party’s campaign chief, says the current crisis must be solved by Europe doing “more, not less” to protect employment rights. He also challenges British calls for an EU budget frozen in real terms.
The same force explains all aspects of Franco-British relations: a yearning by two established powers to preserve national greatness. In defence, this is working wonders. In the EU, a dangerous clash looms. Doomed by character, proximity and shared ambition, neither country has much room for manoeuvre at all.
In this blog, our Bagehot columnist surveys the politics of Britain, British life and Britain's place in the world. The column and blog are named after Walter Bagehot, an English journalist who was the editor of The Economist from 1861 to 1877
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- The euro crisis: Europe’s Achilles heel
- Should gay marriage be legal in America?
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Daily chart: The German motor
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: Europe’s Achilles heel
- Lexington: Peter David
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- J.P. Morgan’s trading mistakes: A billion here, a billion there
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Poverty: The audacity of hope
- Greece fails to form a government: Adrift
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
You forgot to mention that like spoilt children the French are used to getting their way and that like weary, indulgent parents the British are used to making concessions.
This article is the first one I really dislike in a long time. Stop this snobbish attitude. Once the Euro crises is resolved (good or bad), it will be the time of England. England is not doing well at all and the current crisis of the Euro is providing a good shelter to hide behind. That shelter is not going to last.
"what, David, do you actually want from me, and from Europe just now?"
Further to that, Sarkozy might continue his defensive tone in the chat like "Other than the aircraft carrier, you know, I am not prepared to share everything with you."
The British are on the cusp of realizing the entitlement state is no longer viable in the 21st century global economy. The French will resist that reality for at least another decade. This accounts for virtually all the differences in perspective between London and Paris.
john4law
The French are on the cusp of realizing superb national isolation is no longer viable in the 21st century global economy. The British will resist that reality for at least another decade and finally choose to join de euro. This accounts for virtually all the differences in perspective between Paris and London.
I think we are both right at least in part. Given the near collapse of the Euro zone, I don't think anyone in Britain feels any regret about the decision not to participate in the Euro and to keep the pound. Britain cannot stand alone and is part of the EU but has resisted the statism of even more business regulation and labor restrictions than Britain already has. All Britain really needs is free trade and free exchange of labor and capital with the continent. It does not need Eurocrats running the British economy from Brussels.
Well really... I don't know why you nutty limeys aren't interested in seeing the eurodollar running like the treaty plan with each nation having nation specific euro denominated debt issuances. Would give you city folk something to do...
Maybe chin up and take a breather on the austerity and figure in some yields for the axemoose stocking. Give the politicians a break with this balogna about firewalls, and new treatys, and such, just say, we're watching you're fiscals and we're rating risk, and so on.
You'd have to travel out there on the tram or whatever and make sure the shiznit is functioning as per specifications. ...
anyway,we shoud be positive to face the situation and try to improve what we can do .
TWO ESTABILISHED POWERS PRESERVING NATIONAL GREATNESS...IN DEFENCE IS WORKING WANDERS...You are kidding,sir,are you?Tell the truth,please,sir.Defence minister of USA Panetta just declared that there wouldn't have been any Lybian war without the NATO bases in Italy,the "wanders of defense" see France out of the major miltary aircraft program,(the F35),the oil contracts that the two GREAT NATIONS tried to holdup from Italy with a dishonourable as useless war move still well held by the ENI.Be serious,please,sir.The two superpowers lost on the whole front,and now that Egypt is slowly slipping towards extremism,the 113 NATO bases in Italy will be indispensable as ever to the west,much more than four Rafales.France is pulling back from the Afghan front,while Italy is still there and not withdrawing a single soldier.That's the true truth.
"George Osborne, said on November 14th that financial markets were “asking questions about France”, alongside Greece and Spain". Well I thought, at least in terms of the financial crisis, that there have been many more questions about London based specialists.
very good, te. tell the british they can´t do it alone.
over centuries britain has played the wise game of siding
with changing continental players for her own interest.
anyhow, i hope the french reject any offer this time.
Britain and France are very similar and badly need each other, but they will just never admit it.
So it's now Britain and France who are a pair of old dowagers
France wants Britain to join the Euro
Britain wants English to be the world language
kissy... kissy...
No tongue!
Would it help Britain join the Euro if France dropped her hostility to the English language?
A common world language is much to be desired
And nothing would give the economic world more confidence than Britain committing to join a revamped Euro, and taking a constructive part in the restructuring process
It would vastly strengthen Britain's position in a vastly strengthened Europe
And Europe and America would stand a better chance of withstanding the rise of China
It was Britain's stupid vanity that was responsible for WWI and Europe's agony 1914-1989
Let's not repeat the blunder
What utter tosh. Britian was not the one that fired the first shot in either of the Continental European wars. Britain did stand by its commitments. It was the ambition of continentals that have lead to their troubles, from wars to the €uro.
Utter tosh?... My foot!
Britain committed the greatest blunder in European history when we gratuitously sided with France and Russia against Germany before WWI. That's what destabilised the situation and led to the collapse of the European order.
It put Germany in an almost impossibly difficult position. True, they didn't play their cards right. But Germany was faced with an existential threat... POSED BY BRITAIN!
Balfour remarked at the time that Britain and Germany were like a pair of old dowagers each extending the cheek to the other to be kissed, but not wishing to kiss the other
It was a blunder... Cutters... And we risk repeating it
If the Euro project goes down, Britain will be reviled... We will have made enemies of our closest neighbours... And we have to live with them for all time
Economics is largely about confidence... And nothing would give more confidence than Britain committing to join a revamped Euro... and taking a constructive part in the restructuring process
Europe owes England snot
This is just a bunch of nationalist rubbish!
First of all WW2 was not as solely continental as you might think. Does name like Coventry, London or Bletchley Park tell you anything? Britain was fully involved in the Continental War, so there is absolutely no reason for calling it in a way, which would suggest otherwise... unless it serves one's purpose, of course... Does it?
Secondly, as usual it is about not the one who fired first, but about those who failed to fire in time. Neither France, nor Britain managed to stand fully by its commitments towards some of their best Allies during WW2. Know anything about the Phoney War? Who knows—if Nazi Germany was defeated in very early stages of WW2, all later atrocities might not have happened. So if not about British fault, it is more than fair to speak about British responsibility in that regard.
Now—do British feel responsible for the Euro? If not, they should also not expect any right to decide about its future... easy!
Britain is currently undergoing a very difficult moment in its history. It wants neither to let the memories of the imperial past go, nor accept a sober analysis of its current position and potential. Get over it!
@ willstewart
I oppose the idea that a stronger Europe means a greater France and a problem for Britain. Actually, a stronger Europe means a more confident Germany and therefore a more stable Europe and a substancial benefit for a sovereign Britain. The French have understood that it was a weak, frustrated and humiliated Germany what led to the III Reich. What about Britain? I think both countries would be well advised to let Germany recover its self-confidence economically (it already has) and politically (it hasn't yet).
Additionally, the Franco-German relationship is crucial because Germany bridges Western and Eastern Europe, while France bridges Southern and Northern Europe. Britain tries to "offer" bridging the EU and the US, which sounds good but very unclear because it assumes that the EZ needs a mediator to speak to the Americans. And frankly I don't see Cameron speak on behalf of the EZ, nor the EZ let him do so.
My point is that Britain could be a leader within a more integrated Europe instead of a shrinking power desperately trying to preserve its superb isolation in the middle of the waves. Beeing more European will not make the British lose their Britishness. But does anybody understands that accross the Channel?
This article is based on the irrational notion that there are universal "national interests" that all citizens of one nation share. The concept of nationalism has lead to destructive wars in Europe twice last century. So why continue to promote this idealogy....memories of the Empire days? move on
The UK has, as ever, two choices.
It can roll up its sleeves towards Europe, perhaps under the guise of 'we've had to save them twice before (Napoleon then Hitler), third times the charm'. Go down to Brussels and use our financial guile to sort this mess out! This could make it seem almost nationalistic to save Europe, as opposed to the word being the toxic hot potato it is now. There are problems in the UK, but there is always capacity to help. The Economist seems to worry that a Europe without the UK is a worse one than with it, offering our liberalism as a positive influence on the continent. Why doesn't Mr. Cameron use this to his advantage? The UK could gain a strong, respected position in the EU, rather than being the silly child at the table who doesn't want to sit down with his European cousins for dinner but would rather watch 'Zulu' in his bedroom with his obese American cousin. Solve the euro crisis, save the world, just like the old days of 1945, Cameron?
The other choice of course is the inevitable. Try to run away from Europe, but deep down know that the UK economy is too EU-focused to do anything more than dreamy rhetoric. Do nothing, tacitly isolating ourselves from the continent, occasionally whining and snapping at it, making a fool of ourselves. Then when Europe eventually recovers, they have no one but themselves to thank for it, only for the UK to come bounding in (its economy recovered) and start demanding new treaties that lets it get all the benefits of EU membership but surrenders nothing. We look like fools to Europe and wallow in our own pity as we sink a little lower down the rankings.
And it all could have been so much sunnier...
I love Britain (go ahead, scumbags, check my comments for defense of the Empire's nobler deeds and tributes to Churchill and Britain in WWII :-) But there is something irrational, in a peculiar way about the British EU debate, in (at least) two regards:
does not have to pay, loses no sovereignty" vs "is not marginalised"
Anyone can understand that there is a trade off between intact sovereignty and degree of marginalization. Logic dictates this directly.
And the other: As a pro-EU guy from the continent (btw, another country with an, albeit smaller "European-in-denial" complex, Denmark; not referring to "outside EZ" but general attitude) I've had a few rows here after having first been called "fascist" and then in lieu of my "respond to offenses like an Israeli defense minister" returning the compliment. It took some time to realize that the EU is seen as a fascist project by EU opponents in Britain. I know of NO other member state where that appears to be an idea taken seriously. (I also think it flattens the definition of "fascist" hopelessly)
I have read your comments where you have deliberately misquoted Churchill, and have given views more in tune with Oswald Mosley.
The Common Market may have gone along to a more liberal tune, but the "pro-ever closer union" view shares a lot of its propaganda with the Black Shirts of the British Union of Fascists.
The difference being that of Continental philosophy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy
And British empiricism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_philosophy
Brittain has two choices. Join Europe and really have some influence or just tag along with the US. Neither option garantees succes and neither option will leave a really independent Brittain. I would like the Brits to join Europe in ernest, but I don't think they will. I wouldn't mind the city being the financial heart of Europe, but would oppose the city being the financial nemesis of Europe as it is now.
Also the British have to realize that they are no longer the same powerfull country they once were. Just look at the London riots or the poverty that strikes holes into society. There is no country in Europe in which the difference between the haves and have nots is deeper. This will cost the British in the end. Also I wonder if the Scottish would like to join Europe.
Join us or just leave. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
How do you suppose we leave? I'd hazard a guess the vast majority of the British population want nothing more than a free-trade agreement with the continent, and would happily leave every single treaty and EU institution if given the chance. I don't actually see a single benefit to Britain's membership - we pay more than we get back, for starters, how do we benefit from that? If we only benefit from trade, lets have a free-trade agreement!
But no party will give the British this chance, so we're stuck with one foot on the continent.
Britain and France are so similar that they are a sort of mirror image one for another. They will just never admit it.
I realy recommand the book "That Sweet Enemy": 300 years of a franco-British love-hate relationship.
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/amztrack-21/images/1845951085
So both Britain and France see a united Europe as a greater France, with correspondingly different reactions! One wonders what the Germans think....
Will, it's actually a greater Germany. Always has been. The EC/EU was essentially Adenauer's project. The French just provided the diplomatic cover.
Less sophisticated observers may see this as the Third Reich by other more successful means. But in fact it's the opposite. The aim is to keep Germany at the centre of the European mainstream for everyone's benefit. Of course, Germany is central in every sense: geography, politics, diplomacy and economics.
The UK's supposed European policy of keeping the Americans in and the Germans down is proving a bit of loser, however.
Interesting analysis.
It is widely believed that the old rivalry between France and the UK is mostly because the two nations are so "similar" in so many ways.
The fact that the two, until WWII were the two major European global players also helps in this comparison.
What is daunting for Britain these days is that it is seen "abroad" (or France as you will) as a nation which only wants to reap benefits from the crisis and isn't moving a straw to help.
Top it up with yhe euroscepticism of Britain's press, and the perpretrated speculative attacks by City dwellers on the european debt market, and certainly the French president's wrath at Cameron can be easily understood.
Britain would do well to keep up appearances. Instead it has behaved as a spoiled brat looking for attention when everything else was on fire.
Military policies are, at best, a direct consequence of everything else. If Britain truly chooses to go on this path, she can expect the French to give her a "French shrug" and keep on with their lives, in a Franco-German alliance, and keeping Southern Europeans within their bossom. (instead of calling them PIGS as the Brits do).
What ever happened to British foreign diplomacy?