What can we expect from this week’s state visit by Emmanuel Macron?

Although there has been a recent thaw in cross-Channel relations since Brexit, Sean O’Grady expects the thorny issues of migration and Donald Trump to add a certain frisson to conversations

Remarkably, given the geographical closeness and the coincidence of interest, when Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte visit Britain this week to be given the full state visit treatment, it will be the first such honour since President and Madame Sarkozy came in 2008. That such a long gap has grown is obviously due to some difficult years in the interim, caused by the run-up to, and fallout from, the Brexit referendum in 2016. It’s fair to say neither country has fully recovered from the shock, but the old friendship is growing warmer…

Are things warming up?

Mais, oui. There have been obvious improvements that date back to Rishi Sunak’s premiership. Although a Brexiteer, he sought to move away from the childish antagonism displayed by Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, his immediate predecessors. Ms Truss infamously refused to say whether Macron was a “friend or foe”, an extraordinary moment which punctured even the French president’s considerable self-esteem. A row about the Aukus (Australia-UK-US) defence pact and the cancellation of an Australian order for a French submarine also soured things. King Charles was invited to Paris for his state visit, while the Windsor Framework on Northern Ireland’s EU border, and the first Anglo-French summit in years, rescued relations to an extent, with Ukraine presenting an opportunity for unity of purpose. But there was more to do…

What’s going well?

Plenty. Labour’s arrival offered a further chance for what Keir Starmer called a “reset” in relations with the EU, and France with it. This arrived in May in the shape of easier cross-border trade in food and livestock, further changes regarding Northern Ireland and some resolution of a long-running dispute over fishing rights.

Ukraine continues to be a focus for cooperation, and even more so since the Trump administration downgraded Europe as a priority, put Nato on a more transactional relationship and, bluntly, switched sides on Ukraine, giving Vladimir Putin far more leeway. Starmer and Macron have emerged as joint leaders of the “coalition of the willing” on resisting Russian aggression. They share a centrist outlook on the world, and as the two premier military powers on the continent, can, at least to some extent, make up for the loss of American commitment.

What’s going badly?

Migration. This is proving even more intractable than Starmer assumed, and irregular migration is a constant source of domestic trouble for both leaders. The UK-France “one in, one out” irregular migration deal also looks to be in trouble. Under this plan, the British could send back to France failed asylum seekers, in return for accepting those who have a proven, genuine claim. This is due to be front and centre during Wednesday’s talks in No 10.

However, some of France’s EU partners on the migration “front line” have objected to the European Commission because the deal makes it easier for other countries to return refugees to them. Malta, Cyprus, Italy, Spain and Greece have jointly stated: “We take note – with a degree of surprise – of the reported intention of France to sign a bilateral readmission arrangement. If confirmed, such an initiative raises serious concerns for us, both procedurally and in terms of potential implications for other member states, particularly those of first entry”.

Anything else?

Trump. After a brief but ultimately futile bid by the president of the French Republic to become a “Trump whisperer”, there’s now a slight tension between Macron’s Eurocentrism and public distancing from Washington and Starmer’s more pragmatic approach. For reasons, presumably, of personal chemistry, Starmer and Trump have a warm relationship denied to most of America’s allies, as well as lower tariffs. This includes Macron who recently irritated Trump by saying that the Americans had left the G7 early to negotiate peace with Iran, while the real purpose was to organise some heavy bombing.

As a result, the UK now has a relatively more favourable trading and general diplomatic relationship with Washington than the EU or France. The Europeans wonder whose “side” the British are on. Starmer, in true British tradition, insists there is no choice to be made.

Do such state visits make a difference?

A bit. The personal diplomacy of Edward VII helped cement the Entente Cordiale, which was signed in 1904, for example, but the 1960 state visit by President de Gaulle didn’t do much to erode his hostility to Britain’s desperate attempts to gain membership of the then European Economic Community on favourable terms. Like the tiaras and the banquetry on display this week, there’s also a certain continuity in Britain’s ambiguous attitude to Europe.