Discover more from REACTION
This week, Emmanuel Macron, who last month in Washington made such an impact with both Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress, is in Australia, where he is to hold talks with prime minister Malcolm Turnbull on trade, cooperation on security in the Asia-Pacific region, climate change and – as a bonus – a greater commitment to cultural exchange.
As the Paris press likes to point out, Macron’s visit has to be seen in the context of an agreement by Australia to purchase 12 submarines from Naval Group, the state-controlled French shipbuilder, in a deal worth £28bn. Australia and France are already linked on the security front by the so-called Franz and Quad accords, and there is little doubt that Macron plans to further deepen and broaden the relationship on all fronts..
On the other side of the world, France is already drawing closer to Canada, whose French-speaking prime minister, Justin Trudeau, drew plaudits last month from deputies of all parties when he addressed the National Assembly in Paris following talks with Macron.
“We have an extremely close convergence of views,” Macron said of his Canadian counterpart.
“Canada, France and Europe are extremely aligned,” Trudeau replied.
What next? New Zealand? Well, actually, yes. In fact, it has already happened. In Paris, again last month, Macron played host to the 37-year-old Kiwi premier Jacinda Ardern, who told reporters after their hour-long encounter in the Élysée Palace that she had been struck by the close alignment of their views, which showed they were “natural partners”.
Ms Ardern – six months pregnant at the time of their meeting – said that relations with the EU were “hugely significant” for New Zealand and that she was “greatly heartened” by Macron’s support for her approach, linking trade, climate change and social outcomes. Acknowledging the French President’s “leadership” on climate change, she want on to say that France was probably the European country that took the greatest interest in the Pacific region. Not Britain, note – France.
And where have Britain’s leaders been while all this was going on? Stuck in London arguing about Brexit, anti-semitism and immigration. Theresa May it is true, met with Trudeau, Turnbull and Ardern during the recent Commonwealth summit, but, with the focus on security issues – mainly to do with Russia – references to trade with the onetime Mother Country were more like those of well-wishers, not active partners.
Turnbull probably summed it up best. He would do everything in his power, he said, to assist Britain in its transition from a European to a world focus. But the UK would be only one of a number of nations with which Australia would be engaged in the years ahead, behind the U.S., China, Japan and South Korea. His key piece of advice? That Britain should apply to join the “Comprehensive and Progressive” Trans-Pacific Partnership – an oceanic version of the old EEC – currently being stitched together following the withdrawal of the U.S. from the original TPP.
In the meantime, valuable momentum is being squandered. Liam Fox may have visited Washington, Wellington, Canberra and Ottowa, among dozens of other world capitals, since the Referendum. But the truth is, the trade secretary is no superstar, and his achievements in the field have thus far failed to trouble the scorers. All that sticks in the memory is his repeated claim that, with Brexit in mind, the Old Commonwealth is beating a path to his door.
Wrong, Dr Fox. They are beating a path to Brussels and the Élysée.
Frankly, if it wasn’t for the Queen, Britain’s claim to a special relationship with the U.S. and the former Dominions would turn on little more these days than the fact that we speak the same language. It’s not as if we can boast any longer of being a leading military power. World War II ended in 1945, and the less said about Iraq and Afghanistan, or the current state of the Navy, the better. Nor, let’s face it, is British industry even close to being the world-beater it once was. The fact is that in the twenty-first century we have lost the primus inter pares status that once so impressed our kith and kin. Demographic change and the long-term fallout from Britain’s abandonment of the Commonwealth when we joined the Common Market in 1973 further help explain the shift in loyalties. But inattention also played its part. The things we had that were “special,” rooted in family and shared endeavour, were frittered away, and for that we have no one to blame but ourselves.
The French President will not lead a charmed life for ever. Nemesis will come a-calling. It always does, usually from an unexpected quarter. But as things stand, if you were a foreign leader, or the representative of a serious newspaper or television news station, who would you rather spend time with, Emmanuel Macron or Theresa May? And which country is striding ahead while the other stumbles?
Leadership matters. So does clear direction of travel.
One of the things Remainers are most criticised for is “doing down Britain”. It is as if those of us who oppose Brexit would actually be gratified if the UK, having turned its back on Europe, ended up bankrupt, like Venezuela or Cuba, with Jeremy Corbyn as Il Presidente.
I can’t speak for all Remainers, and there are certainly some who would exult with manic glee if our cities became left-right battlegrounds and sterling went through the floor. I will simply say that I am not one of them, and nor are most who share my general view, that Britain would have a brighter future as a member of the EU than going it alone. But I ask you, if we can’t even hold on to pole position with the Commonwealth, what chance do we have of impressing a wider world?
Subscribe to REACTION
Iain Martin and the team make sense of the news, providing commentary and analysis on the stories that matter in politics, geopolitics, economics and culture.