When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Ideas

Fishing For Trouble? Europe Must Stand Up To Boris Johnson's Bullying

The post-Brexit row of fishing rights is the last straw for not only France, but all of the European Union, who must put an end to the whims of Britain's prime minister, who seems ready to toss out years of negotiations for the divorce between the UK and EU.

Photo of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaking at the COP26 in Glasgow

Boris Johnson speaking at the COP26 in Glasgow

Jean-Francis Pécresse

-OpEd-

PARIS — The fishing war between Paris and London is on, but it would be a mistake to worry too much about it.

Of course, we should not underestimate the deterioration of relations between our two countries, especially since the UK has multiplied unfriendly and even aggressive actions against France. The level of conflict is unprecedented for the contemporary era.


Summoning all the perfidy it's capable of, our British neighbor has worked in secret to cancel France's massive submarine contract with Australia, proving that it has little regard for its former European partner.

Respect the deals that were signed

The UK has been playing the role of the troublemaker in Europe for years: from its desire to obtain as many advantages as possible from the common market, to its decision to withdraw from it without paying exit costs and finally to its arrogant demands in the never-ending Brexit negotiations.

The country is no longer part of the European Union, but the turmoil carries on. This can't go on any longer, especially knowing that the EU has enough to worry about already on its eastern flank.

He can't continue to mock with impunity.

The fishing row represents a great opportunity to show the country's unpredictable and capricious Prime Minister Boris Johnson that he can't continue to mock with impunity the deals that were signed.

Of course, we would not be there if the agreement over fishing rights had been better negotiated in the first place, in order to guarantee, without ambiguity, the right of all French trawlers that had operated before 2021 in the 6-12-mile zone to continue to do so.

Photo of a fisherman unloading a catch of scallops at the harbor in St Helier, Jersey.

A fisherman unloading a catch of scallops at the harbor in St Helier, Jersey.

Ben Birchall/PA Wire/ZUMA

“French bashing” is not a policy

The spat initiated by the British island jurisdiction of Jersey are not worthy of two historic business partners who want to continue to manage their relationship. Especially since the Brexit deal is not really advantageous for our fishermen, who, beyond the 12-mile zone, are forced to give a quarter of their catch back to the UK. Gentlemen of Britain, help yourselves first ...

Today, standing up to the actions of Boris Johnson is not only a necessity to preserve the interests of France, but also of Europe. The European Commission should stand unambiguously behind Paris, or else the next step will be the unilateral exit from the Northern Ireland Protocol, which imposes mandatory custom checks and health controls in the Irish Sea. In other words, the core of Brexit will crumble.

Let's not forget his calamitous management of the COVID health crisis.

A complex and uncomfortable framework has been painstakingly established for the new relationship between the UK and Europe. But at least, a framework exists — and as such, it must be protected from the whims of Mr. Johnson, who fuels nationalist sentiment across the Channel to try to make people forget about his own failures.

And it must be said that these failures include Brexit itself, which deprives the British of many products, and perhaps even their Christmas tree in December; not to mention his calamitous management of the COVID health crisis.

Sausage wars, fights over migrants, fishing rows ... Permanent "French bashing" may be a political strategy, but it will never be political leadership.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Geopolitics

Minsk Never More: Lessons For The West About Negotiating With Putin

The longer the war in Ukraine continues, the louder calls will grow for a ceasefire . Stockholm-based analysts explain how the West can reach a viable deal on this: primarily by avoiding strategic mistakes from last time following the annexation of Crimea.

"War is not over" protests in London

Hugo von Essen, Andreas Umland

-Analysis-

Each new day the Russian assault on Ukraine continues, the wider and deeper is the global impact. And so with each day, there is more and more talk of a ceasefire. But just how and under what conditions such an agreement might be reached are wide open questions.

What is already clear, however, is that a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine must not repeat mistakes made since the open conflict between the two countries began more than eight years ago.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

Contrary to widespread opinion, the so-called Minsk ceasefire agreements of 2014-2015 were not meant as a definitive solution. And as we now know, they would not offer a path to peace. Instead, the accord negotiated in the Belarusian capital would indeed become part of the problem, as it fueled the aggressive Russian strategies that led to the escalation in 2022.

In early September 2014, the Ukrainian army suffered a crushing defeat at Ilovaisk against unmarked regular Russian ground forces. Fearing further losses, Kyiv agreed to negotiations with Moscow.

The Minsk Protocol (“Minsk I”) – followed shortly thereafter by a clarifying memorandum – baldly served Russian interests. For example, it envisaged a “decentralization” – i.e. Balkanization – of Ukraine. An uneasy truce came about; but the conflict was in no way resolved.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ