Posts

Hot on the heels of his meeting with Macron, Starmer met with the German Chancellor  Friedrich Merz last week. Clearly a lot of talking had been done under the radar beforehand, because an agreement- the Treaty of Kensington- emerged very quickly. This covers a range of areas as follows (I quote)

• diplomatic cooperation on broader geopolitical issues;
• defence and security;
• internal security and coordination on combating illegal migration;
• economic ties, science and research cooperation;
• fostering people-to-people contacts;
• cooperation on energy and climate policy. 

I’m indebted to Nicolai von Ondarza of Chatham house for his analysis of the treaty. He made two further points

1. Mutual support on defence is the ‘centre of gravity’ this treaty.
2. Together with the Macron-Starmer agreements a few days ago, it recreates the E3 group: The UK, France and Germany. This trio has the potential to provide the hub of the (slowly) developing European security system.

Its clearly a grand plan, slowly manifesting.

However, part of the context provided by von Ondarza makes depressing reading. The UK has drifted away from Europe on many levels since 2016, and he offered two examples relating to Germany:

• The UK dropped from Germany’s third most important trading partner in 2016 to ninth in 2024
• school exchanges from Germany to the UK have fallen by more than 80 per cent since Brexit.

However, it looks as though someone is finally trying to reverse that.

The recent visit by President Macron has resulted in several agreements between France and the UK, the usefulness of which will only become clear in the longer term. One of these is the ‘one in one out’ agreement concerning the exchange of illegal migrants between the UK and France. At first sight the scale of this deal seems very modest indeed, and the fact that it seeks to address a problem that looms so large in the UK only serves to emphasize its very limited scale. But presumably it could be expanded if it works.

 And if it does work, it will perhaps vindicate Macron’s comment about Brexit, made during his visit. He said (I paraphrase) that Brexit was sold to the British public on a false claim; the claim that Brexit would give the UK more control of its own borders and, by implication, enable it to keep more people out of the country. But, Macron argued, the truth is that Brexit has in fact made the UK less able to control its borders, because border control depends on co-operation with neighbouring states (obvious when you think about it), and that co-operation was disrupted by Brexit. And that explains the increase in illegal entries since 2020. Probably Macron is right. But why did he say it? His remark seems to have been addressed to the British public, and Macron must know that he would annoy a lot of people and provoke a backlash from certain quarters. Lecturing us on our bad decisions doesn’t seem a good way to win friends and influence people this side of the channel.

One possible explanation for Macron’s remarks is that he is weak at home (having lost control of the national assembly), and he feels he needs to compensate by high-profile initiatives in foreign policy. He has two years of his second term to go, so he may also be thinking in terms of his legacy. And anyway there has always been a tension in the relationship between France and the UK, with partnership and rivalry closely intertwined. Something that annoys the British might amuse the French.  So perhaps his remarks were ultimately aimed at his own people. Overall the French are less preoccupied with illegal migrants than the British, but local opinion along the French north coast is nonetheless somewhat inflamed on the issue. The mayor of Calais was not impressed by the Macron-Starmer deal. There is a danger that it is already suffering an image problem

In the longer run, the practical effectiveness of the agreement is of enormous political importance. If a narrative can be established that closer co-operation with our neighbours does in fact improve our control of our borders, this will further discredit Brexit. For this reason, I guess, rejoiners should want it to work, and to be seen to work. And for the same reason, brexiters presumably want it to fail, and to be seen to fail. Brexiters need to establish a counter-narrative that co-operation with Europe solves nothing and compromises our sovereignty, and that European leaders are strutting popinjays who cannot be trusted and wish us ill. Farage and Philp have already started work on this. For them, this agreement needs to be discredited.  Macron’s lecturing is irritating, but it will be forgotten- or possibly vindicated. What brexiters really need is for the agreement to go badly wrong, or to seem to go badly wrong. Pro-Brexit media will buzz round it like flies on a cowpat over coming months, looking for anything that feeds their agenda. Starmer needs to talk up the agreement for all he’s worth, but tread carefully in implementing it.