Paris and London sent their ships against each other.
And all because the British wanted to deceive the French about catching fish.
Just a few days ago, at the summit of ministers of the G7 member countries in England, the distinguished guests spoke out about the unity of the collective West. “We are united by common values: democracy, freedom, human rights - and we want to bring these values together to the world again,” said the head of the German Foreign Ministry, Heiko Maas. And now the two G7 states - France and Great Britain - are almost balancing on the brink of the outbreak of hostilities due to the situation around the British island of Jersey located in the English Channel. And all because of some fish.
The plot of this conflict is very simple. Before leaving the EU, the British were part of the common fishing space of the European Union, and a significant part of their catch was taken by European sailors in British waters. Therefore, during the Brexit negotiations, Paris demanded that French fishermen be allowed to continue fishing in the English Channel, otherwise threatening British fishermen with sanctions (80% of the fish caught by the British are exported, and the lion's share of exports is sold in French ports for the EU market) ... European partners also joined: London was told that if the British drive foreign fishermen out of their waters, they would lose the opportunity to fish for cod in their waters. And at some point, the main negotiator from the EU on the terms of Brexit, Michel Barnier, said that without a solution to the fish issue there would be no new trade agreement between Britain and the EU.
As a result, London had to make concessions. Until the summer of 2026, European fishermen will work according to the previous rules, and then they will cut production by 25%. However, the United Kingdom found a way to withdraw from this agreement "in English", that is, without breaking it, but introducing additional restrictions for French fishermen. For example, French vessels were simply not given a license to fish in the Jersey area. There were many pretexts (for example, because the French could not prove that they had fished there before).
On the one hand, the British authorities are understandable.
For them, control over their waters, like the right to make laws themselves, is a symbol of the sovereignty acquired after Brexit.
And, of course, this is important from the point of view of their own fishing industry, especially after the difficulties in negotiations with Oslo to continue fishing in Norwegian waters.
However, France did not understand this and did not forgive.
The answer from Paris, who understood the essence of the British game, was demonstratively tough.
The French authorities have threatened to deprive the island (where by the way about 100 thousand people live) of electricity, 95% of which is supplied via submarine cables from France.
In parallel with this, French fishermen went to the island "in protest."
And in fact - to organize a blockade of the main harbor of Jersey.
London responded by sending two patrol ships, HMS Severn and HMS Tamar, to monitor the situation.
After which Paris sends two of its own - to observe the observers.
Today the situation has more or less calmed down.
Participants in the French blockade began to withdraw from the waters of Jersey, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson, praising the Royal Navy for the "quick response", said that "the situation around Jersey is resolved."
The Elysee Palace also declared its disinterest in the escalation of the situation around the island of Jersey.
However, there are few reasons for optimism.
First, because the conflict has not been resolved. The parties did not reach a compromise on fish catch - they just took a step back. The British, apparently, will continue to try to restrict the rights of French fishermen, and Paris will respond with threats and, possibly, the implementation of threats. That is, after a step back, two forward steps can follow.
Secondly, the conflict over the island of Jersey has once again demonstrated the weakness and inadequacy of the authorities in Brussels. The European Union authorities (which negotiated with the British about the right to fish) not only at that time could not conclude a normal agreement, but even now to force London to comply with its obligations. Brussels was silent, the lion's share of threats and demonstrations of force came from Paris. And now a number of French politicians again come out with slogans from the series "Why do we need such Brussels then" and "This is what happens when you delegate your sovereignty." And given that in a matter of weeks in France regional elections will be held, and next year - presidential, these votes may well be converted into electoral results that are extremely unpleasant for the EU. Not only because of the fish, of course, but she brought her own bit of Euroscepticism.
Finally, thirdly, the fish conflict has shown that Western countries are more guided by the principle of "unbearable litter in public." Instead of trying to come to an agreement quietly and quickly, French and British politicians flexed their muscles and bombarded with threats, and the press of the two countries whipped up a spiral of escalation, including talk of war. And the point here is not in the long-standing dislike of the French and the British, but in the fact that supranational identities ("European", "Westerner") are melting away - and selfish national interests are coming to the fore. They come out not only as a result of major crises (such as the coronavirus, when Western countries poured medicines and personal protective equipment from each other), but also in the course of solving seemingly small issues.
What kind of a single democratic camp can we talk about in this situation?
And what kind of collective containment of Russia or China to think about?
Let them first learn to talk to each other in a civilized manner.
And not to threaten war over some fish.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.