By PETER YOUNG

In the flurry of activity by the new Labour government in Britain since the general election two months ago, its moves to reconsider and, in its words, reset the nation’s relationship with individual European countries and with the European Union itself seems to make sense to many people, including eurocrats in Brussels. But the proviso for the 52 per cent majority, who voted in the 2016 referendum to leave the EU, is that such a reset should not lead to reversal of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the bloc.

However, eurosceptics in Britain regard prime minister Keir Starmer’s recent moves to this end as a troubling sign. This is because of his and foreign secretary David Lammy’s strong opposition to Brexit at the time of the referendum. The PM was an ardent Remainer, who described the vote as “catastrophic”, while Lammy was even fiercer in his criticism, complaining about rule by plebiscite and that the views of the 48 per cent who voted to stay could not be simply ignored.

Last week’s visits to Berlin and Paris by prime minister Keir Starmer should be viewed in this context, and also against the background of the 4th meeting, hosted on July 18 by the UK government at Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire, of the European Political Community (separate from the EU and with different membership).

This gathering brought together some fifty leaders from across Europe to cooperate on a variety of different issues; and, although it was not an occasion to discuss EU/UK relations as such, it gave the new British premier a stage to showcase the UK’s new approach to the EU. Lammy has been discussing separately with his main European counterparts the possibility of a foreign policy and security (including cyber) pact; and the EU has always made it clear that it favours, in particular, post-Brexit security cooperation with Britain.

Starmer has said that he wants to rebuild ties strained by years of wrangling over Brexit and its terms and conditions. In his words, “we want a reset with Europe and the EU”. Improved ties with Europe would, he hoped, be at the heart of his government’s efforts to boost Britain’s economic growth. He indicated that this was a priority for the new Labour government. But he has also made it clear that establishing new such ties does not mean reversing Brexit. He has stated repeatedly that rejoining the EU is “off the table” and that means no return to free movement, the single market or the customs union, not least because that would mean the UK accepting EU regulatory rules without having any say in making them.

Germany and France are fully aware of all this, as is Brussels. Nonetheless, those who voted for Britain to leave the EU, and the Conservative opposition more widely, are wary that any attempt to deepen relations with the EU – as opposed to bilateral relations with individual European countries – may result in gradually unravelling Brexit and serve to deepen that narrow divide between Remainers and Leavers.

Although, of course, it should come as no surprise that a newly-elected British prime minister will want to visit almost immediately his country’s two biggest neighbours, there are – post-Brexit --inevitably a range of other considerations. Initially, EU countries, including Germany, were concerned that the UK might try to use its bilateral relations with them to drive a wedge into the EU as an organization. But it appears that such a worry has died away because, following its withdrawal from the bloc, Britain has consistently made it clear that it wants a constructive and harmonious relationship with Europe as a whole.

At the time of the UK referendum, what Remainers seemed reluctant to grasp - or at least to take proper account of - was that the Leavers were motivated primarily by a strong wish to take back, as a sovereign nation, full control of its own affairs including its borders; and that meant ending the free movement of people and no long acquiescing in the imposition of EU laws and their incorporation into UK domestic law.

According to press reports, Starmer managed last week to put bilateral relations with Germany on to a new and closer footing. Officials are saying that his visit was genuinely productive in so far as in a Joint Declaration it was announced that work would begin on a bilateral cooperation treaty to be signed in early 2025.

As well as new collaboration on foreign policy, defence – a partnership perhaps resembling the Lancaster House pact of 2010 with France - and security, including energy security, the agreement would cover other aspects of the bilateral relationship like trade, immigration and law enforcement, climate change, youth and education, as well as collaboration in science and technology, business and culture. As part of this, there would also be a joint action plan to tackle illegal immigration including agreed measures to deal with people smugglers.

It remains to be seen how all this would fit it in with Germany’s EU obligations; for example, the fact that the European Commission handles trade matters and it will not be possible to encroach on EU rules and procedures. But, interestingly, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been quoted as saying that Germany wanted to take the UK’s outstretched hand for “Britain has always been an indispensable part of solving the big issues that affect the whole of Europe and this has not changed since it left the EU”.

It seems that Starmer’s visit to France was equally successful since President Macron pledged to deepen ties with Britain over defence, security, migration and energy and, in particular, to dismantle the migrant smuggling routes and to increase intelligence sharing.

Thus, the prime minister’s trips to these countries seems, initially at least, to have fulfilled his pledge to improve the UK’s relations with its principal European allies - and it will be interesting to see how successful he will be in trying to reset relations with the EU itself.

Don't put the blame on Churchill

It is not hard to imagine the irritation of some historians and serious students of the Second World War in reaction to the BBC giving air time recently to fresh claims that Britain’s wartime leader, Winston Churchill, was personally responsible for the Bengal Famine of 1943. Three million people died in this disaster. After doing some research, I believe such claims cannot be justified.

It is clear that in 1943 during the height of the Second World War the north-eastern region of Bengal in India, which was still under British rule, did indeed suffer a particularly severe famine. It is said that Japan’s bombing of the capital Calcutta and patrolling of coastal areas with submarines - together with its then occupation of neighbouring Burma - were partly responsible for the food shortages at the time even though rain levels had been above average; but, as recounted in historian Niall Ferguson’s excellent book entitled “Empire”, at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th and beyond, serious famines occurred relatively often.

He mentions, in particular, notably bad ones in 1783-4, which killed more than a third of the population of the Indian plains, and in 1791, 1801 and 1805 in a region which regularly experienced severe food shortages in subsequent years that resulted in severe such famines.

It has been claimed that the 1943 famine was caused by policy mistakes rather than lack of rain or crop failures. Reportedly, wartime inflation, speculative buying and excessive hoarding pushed the price of food out of the reach of poor Bengalis. But it is alleged that all this was exacerbated by decisions reached by the war cabinet in London which had apparently been warned that overuse of Indian resources exported for the war effort elsewhere in the Empire could result in famine.

Some of the evidence is contradictory. But from the available information, it seems to me that, at worst, unsound policy decisions in a particular set of circumstances could be blamed, since, even with severe food shortages in Europe, the historical records show that Churchill and his war cabinet invariably sought ways to alleviate suffering in India.

Nonetheless, writers like Madhusree Mukerjee, author of “Churchill’s Secret War” published in 2010, have attempted to pin direct responsibility on Churchill for what appeared to be mistakes on the ground in Bengal. Moreover, it seems that, rather than blaming Churchill exclusively for causing it, she contends that the wartime leader made the situation worse by refusing to allow shipments of grain from Australia and Canada bound for Europe from being diverted to Bengal.

The war cabinet considered that extra supplies of grain to India could be arranged only at the cost of ignoring pressing requirements elsewhere. Far from not taking this issue seriously, as has been alleged, Churchill considered that the problem had essentially to be addressed by Bengal’s elected ministry on the ground locally rather than by officials thousands of miles away in London.

Be that as it may, Churchill was criticised for his supposed racist comments about Indians and Bengalis in particular. He was known as an unashamed imperialist who was staunchly committed to maintaining India’s unity – as a country of massive diversity - within the British Empire. He thought that too rapid a move to democracy might tear the subcontinent apart on sectarian lines, a fear that, tragically, later events would justify. So this was hardly a man who would have favoured any policy that deliberately allowed Indians to die of starvation.

The evidence I have seen shows that Churchill replaced Lord Linlithgow, who was regarded as somewhat lethargic, as viceroy with the efficient and politically aware Field Marshall Wavell. He became India’s most able and conscientious viceroy who used the army to end the famine and get food supplies moving quickly and properly.

Post-colonial academics and liberals have condemned Churchill for knowingly bringing about the Bengal famine. From what I have read, the facts do not support this so it must be regarded as simply untrue. That said, during wartime there will always be conflicting demands and priorities and leaders will never get things right all the time. But, on this important issue, any mistakes were surely attributable to failures of judgement rather than ill intent.

Tories to select new leader

Following the Conservative Party’s overwhelming defeat at Britain’s general election in July, it is clear from the local press coverage that people in the UK are growing more and more impatient while awaiting, with considerable interest, the selection of a new Conservative Party leader since the incumbent, Rishi Sunak, announced after the election that he was standing down.

New prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, is already attracting criticism for his and his government’s controversial performance – described by some as stumbling - after barely two months in office. But rather than doing their own job of holding him to account for his actions so far, the Tories are still licking their wounds and trying to work out what went wrong for them in the election.

However, reportedly, the long process of a party leadership contest is now under way. Nominations had to be submitted by July 29. There are six candidates standing for the job. Each needed the backing of at least ten Tory MPs. This list will be narrowed down by the parliamentary party to 4 candidates who will make their case to members at the annual Conservative conference due to take place from September 29 to October 2. Two final candidates will then be subject to a vote by Conservative Party members and the winner announced on November 2.

To some, this process sounds to be long drawn out. But it should be remembered that at this time of year MPs are away a good deal. At Westminster, the summer recess usually takes place from late July to early September. Parliament then normally sits again during the first two weeks of September before adjourning for the party conference recess.

Thus, to the relief of many the timetable for this selection process is finally clear – and nearer the time it will surely be interesting to look more closely at the winner and the likelihood, in Britain’s long-standing successful democracy, of the current government being held to account by an active opposition with a strong and effective leader.