By PETER YOUNG

Britain and France were in the news last week with the state visit of President Macron to London. It was the first such visit to the UK by the leader of a European Union country since Britain left the bloc in 2020.

In modern times, some people believe that there is less need for traditional such state visits, because of the regular top-level exchanges and international meetings that are made possible by today’s ease of communications and of travel. But the symbolic value of these visits remains important as a formal expression at the highest level of friendly bilateral relations between two sovereign states.

Such visits also help to reinvigorate the relationships between the countries concerned at all levels and stimulates co-operation across the board; including, for example, in diplomacy, defence and security, trade, the arts, sport and tourism.

In Britain, the monarch, as the nation’s constitutional head of state, is the host for a state visit but acts on the advice of the government.

President Macron, amidst all the pomp and pageantry for which Britain is justifiably famous, was received with traditional welcoming ceremony and a procession in open horse-drawn carriages; and one of the highlights was a grand state banquet at which both heads of state delivered formal speeches.

According to reports, the Macron visit was designed to be a symbol of Britain’s desire to reset relations with individual member states after leaving the EU which had caused some rancour. An important indication of a new era of bilateral relations with France was the president’s formal address to both Houses of Parliament in a joint session. There were also separate discussions about political and economic issues and matters of mutual interest, including immigration, in what was termed a mini -summit with prime minister Keir Starmer.

Reportedly, Ukraine was high on the agenda and, particularly, the joint efforts by Britain and France to create a “coalition of the willing” to provide a post-ceasefire security force. This would underpin new local conditions following cessation of hostilities, despite apparent US indifference to the idea and Russia’s refusal to end the war. There was, too, a joint announcement of a new defence relationship that will, for the first time, coordinate the two countries’ independent nuclear deterrence systems. The two leaders described this as an historic deal that aimed to protect Europe from threats amid growing uncertainty over the US commitment to European security.

Significantly, in his address to parliament the French president celebrated a return of closer ties between France and the UK and stressed that the two countries must work together to end “excessive dependency” on the US and China. They should, he said, strengthen Europe in various different ways, not least in relation to defence – as shown in the nuclear co-operation just announced – immigration, climate change and trade, in order to help Europe as a whole play an important role in global affairs. He also spoke of the importance of European countries never abandoning Ukraine and the pressing need to work for an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza.

The separate bilateral meetings mentioned above included exchanges on the thorny issue of stopping migrants crossing the English Channel from France in small boats in a bid to settle in the UK illegally.

The two countries have been at odds over this for some while so it was encouraging that an agreement was reached, and the details were announced by both leaders at a press conference. Given that immigration is a major political topic in the UK – and is of particular interest here in The Bahamas because of illegal immigration from Haiti – it might be worth writing separately about this agreement in today’s column.

Since leaving the EU, British government ministers have consistently maintained that this action was taken in order to respect the wishes of the people as expressed in the nation’s 2016 Brexit referendum. But the UK had quit the institution of the EU, not Europe as such of which it was still very much a part, not least geographically and historically. It wished to continue to co-operate as extensively as possible with its European partners and friends; and this meant nurturing close and mutually beneficial relations with the individual countries of the bloc.

In his speech of welcome at the state banquet, King Charles christened the new era of friendly relations with France an “entente amicale”. He welcomed this, with a characteristic touch of humour, as an “upgrade” of the existing “entente cordiale” which was an unwavering alliance that went back as far as 1904 and which had ended centuries of military rivalries.

Historians say that it was the entente cordiale that formed the basis of Anglo-French co-operation in the First World War. They also say, somewhat sardonically, that it may be wise to refrain from too much discussion of the rivalries referred to that characterised earlier centuries, since these included the actions of English monarchs in laying claim to the throne of France – and they mention The Hundred Years’ War, a prolonged conflict between England and France during the 14th and 15th centuries.

But all that is in the distant past. France is Britain’s closest neighbour and an old ally. What welcome news it is that bilateral relations have been demonstrably strengthened following last week’s state visit.

Anglo-French agreement to control migrants

In writing on this page about President Macron’s state visit to Britain last week, I have mentioned the controversial subject of immigration and a deal he and prime minister Keir Starmer had reached on immigration. This was in a bid to stop migrants making the hazardous journey from France across the English Channel in small and grossly overloaded boats, typically, inflatable rubber dinghies.

Over the years, there have been various agreements between Britain and France about how to handle the so-called boat people. With the help of payments from the UK government, the French authorities agreed to step up patrols – of the beaches regularly used by people smugglers – in an effort to disrupt the activities of the gangs concerned. But such action has largely failed.

In 2024, approximately 37,000 would-be migrants crossed the Channel in small boats. More than 20,000 have undertaken the journey during the first six months of this year, which is double the number in the same period last year. Dozens have died attempting the crossing. The British government have pledged to smash the smuggling gangs but have been looking to the French police to be more active and forceful in stopping the boats from starting their journey in the first place. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the British authorities welcomed the recent action by the French police in slashing some rubber dinghies with knives.

During talks in Downing Street about this important issue, Macron and Starmer pledged to “apply our collective strength” to handle the problem of undocumented migration through this dangerous English Channel route.

The two leaders announced at a press conference a “one-in-one-out” migrant deal aimed at deterring them from crossing the Channel in small boats. The agreement will see failed asylum-seekers returned to France for the first time. France has now agreed to take back asylum seekers who have crossed over to the UK but have been unable to prove a family connection there. For each migrant France takes back, the UK will grant asylum to one migrant from France who is able to prove such a family connection.

It remains to be seen how this will work out in practice. The Labour government is calling it a ground breaking agreement. But critics are saying already that it appears to be hopelessly limited in scope and is unlikely to have much, if any, deterrent effect. The numbers, they say, are likely to be small compared to the masses of people involved. Moreover, the process of proving family connections will probably be subject to abuse.

But others say that it is at least a small step forward in what has been an intractable problem so far. Nonetheless, doubts have been raised already because the French say that the agreement is “subject to legal verification” – presumably by the EU Commission.

Britain, which is seen as a generous welfare state, remains a magnet for migrants. French officials are on record as saying the country does not enforce properly its own immigration laws and needs to crack down on illegal workers. According to the latest polls in the UK, immigration and asylum have become the most significant issues of concern to voters, and the UK press is now warning that, if effective action is not taken soon, the government could be in real trouble.

Meanwhile, I spotted a press report recently that former US secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, John Kerry, has told a BBC journalist that the Democrats made a mistake on immigration by allowing the US-Mexico border to be “under siege” during the Biden presidency.

Reportedly, Kerry is now suggesting that this pro-immigration policy allowed Republicans – not least, of course, Trump himself – to gain considerable political advantage and damaged the Democrats’ chances in the most recent elections. He has gone on to say that any president should made clear explicitly that, without a border protected, “you don’t have a country”.

For many, the irony of this is all too obvious. It is the same wording used by Trump on the campaign trail. Could this perhaps herald the beginning of an end to the Democrats’ advocacy of more relaxed US immigration laws and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants – at least for those who survive the current crackdown?

ANNIVERSARY OF BRITAIN’S 9/11

Last week, the 20th anniversary of the terrorist bombing attacks in London was marked by a memorial service at St Paul’s Cathedral and a separate one in Hyde Park. There were also commemorative events held across the capital including at the sites of the bombings. Fifty-two people were killed and almost 800 more injured when four suicide bombers struck the capital’s transport network on July 7, 2005.

These bombings in London have become known as 7/7 and been called Britain’s 9/11 although not on the same scale as the tragic event of the atrocity of the suicide bombing of the Twin Towers in New York in 2001. Last Wednesday was described as the “solemn anniversary of an act of terror inflicted on our city”, and at the St Paul’s service the names of the fifty-two who lost their lives were read out individually – as has been the custom each year in New York.

In a heartfelt message to mark this anniversary, King Charles spoke of the “senseless act of evil” and called on people to remember the countless stories of “extraordinary courage and compassion that emerged from the darkness of that day”. He also spoke of the need for unity in a country where people can live together with mutual respect and understanding.

Whatever views people may have about divided communities in today’s Britain, 7/7 was an act of terrorism and should be condemned as that, so that expressions of the need for unity should not simply be dismissed. Meanwhile, it is heartening to note from the UK press that people find it uplifting that such terrible events are always properly commemorated.