Editorial Comment:

There is a touch of Gallic chutzpah in President Emmanuel Macron’s offer to lend Britain the Bayeux Tapestry, though doubtless the French leader’s gesture, which he is expected to confirm on a visit to the UK today, is friendly and well intentioned. He has been adept at disarming foreign leaders with gifts – of a horse for President Xi of China – and with pomp and circumstance, as when he invited President Trump to the Bastille Day parade in Paris. The choice of the Bayeux Tapestry is inspired since it is embroidered – literally – into the histories of our two countries. Moreover, Mr Macron is meeting Theresa May at Sandhurst Military Academy for talks that will focus principally on security cooperation. What better way to concentrate the Prime Minister’s mind on the importance of defence than to remind her of what happened when this country last found itself unable to repel a foreign invader?

Although Brexit is not formally on the agenda because the EU insists on negotiating as a bloc, the implications of the UK’S departure for future defence arrangements will clearly be discussed. The defence of Europe is not supposed to be an EU matter, but a Nato concern – despite the best endeavours of federalists to give the EU its own military identity. Throughout our 44 years in Europe, we have always dealt with France on a bilateral basis when it comes to defence cooperation and will continue to do so.

However, there are consequences of Brexit for our military capabilities. In order to spend more on defence, as we should, we need to generate growth. Yet the efforts of France in particular to undermine the City of London, this country’s principal income generator, will have a knock-on effect on spending programmes if they succeed. President Macron has been to the fore of EU leaders seeking to impose some sort of penalty on the UK for leaving and has openly pitched for London’s financial business to come France’s way. Britain is entitled to say that if we are to help in Europe’s defence then our continental friends should not set out to damage our economy.

Over the centuries, France has been both our staunchest ally and our greatest foe. Brexit will not change geography nor alter the mutual defence interests of such close neighbours, both nuclear-armed permanent members of the UN Security Council. But President Macron will be lucky to extract from Mrs May what precisely the UK’S defence and strategic priorities are, since these seem to be in abeyance pending the outcome of the review being carried out by Sir Mark Sedwill, the National Security Adviser.

Strictly speaking, this is a capability rather than a defence review, though the distinction is not obvious, especially when so many rumours of cuts in the Armed Forces have accompanied its deliberations. It is now being indicated in Whitehall that the defence element is to be separated out and will take longer. This makes sense, not least to avoid precipitate Treasury-led cuts that will be regretted later.

Amid all this uncertainty, serious concern over the Government’s commitment to defence is inevitably being stoked up. Ministers are committed to spending two per cent of GDP on the military, which is Nato’s minimum target and one that few European countries – including France – match. But arguably the UK needs to spend more to meet the new cyber threat while maintaining its teeth arm capability. If that means other social programmes will have to be reduced, so be it.

Above all, the Government needs to formulate the UK’S post-brexit strategic priorities and tailor our defence needs to match. Yet a sense has grown, perhaps unfairly, that little in the way of a new world-view is being devised in Whitehall as we grapple with the distracting minutiae of regulatory alignment and other elements of withdrawal.

With the country facing some of the greatest threats of recent times, clarity is essential – but it is lacking, and not only from the Government. In the Commons last week, the former shadow defence minister Vernon Coaker said rhetoric needs to be matched to the reality of the threat. We can only hope he impresses that upon his own party leader, for whom defence of the realm has never appeared to be of any great interest.

Parliament and the Armed Forces are anxious that the mistakes made by the last defence review, resulting in an Army of fewer than 80,000 soldiers and new aircraft carriers without any guarantee of fighters on board, are about to be repeated. Perhaps President Macron’s reminder of the potential cost of inadequate defences will ensure they are not. But what to give in return? Daniel Maclise’s study for his monumental wall painting in the House of Lords, of Wellington meeting Blucher after Waterloo, would seem appropriate.

Macron has been to the fore of EU leaders seeking to impose a penalty on the UK for leaving

The president will be lucky to extract from Mrs May what precisely the UK’S defence priorities are