If the EU refuses British tourists, we should rethink our relationship

Sadly, while their decision might seem strange, it is entirely consistent.

The EU’s vaccine passport scheme, which is designed to allow tourists to visit the EU safely, might effectively ban five million Britons from entering the continent.

The EU has still not approved those Oxford/AstraZeneca doses manufactured in India, meaning that although the vaccine itself has been approved for use in the EU, the millions of Britons inoculated with the Indian batches face yet more holiday uncertainty.

This seems to be a strange decision. First, how much different are the batches manufactured in the world-renowned Serum Institute of India to the ones made in the UK and EU, realistically? Secondly, one might have imagined the EU would have wanted to do a little more to encourage Britons to holiday there. Tourism is the third largest component of the EU economy, and British holidaymakers spend many tens of billions of pounds there every year.

Sadly, while their decision might seem strange, it is entirely consistent. Since Brexit, the EU has treated Britain as a hostile and competing power, and during negotiations on withdrawal and then trade, the European Commission ruthlessly applied Thucydides’ maxim that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” to extract concessions from the UK.

This behaviour reached its apogee (or nadir) in the early weeks of 2021, when it became clear that the UK had done a far better job of vaccine procurement and rollout than had the EU. The European Commission, looking for a scapegoat to take the blame for its slapdash performance, set its sights directly on AstraZeneca, an Anglo-Swedish company.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the decision to exclude the batches of AstraZeneca vaccine made in India are part of the same same. One might assume that the EU would be more worried about the damage done to Spain, Portugal and Greece by excluding millions of British holidaymakers; however, one does not have to have such a long memory to realise that the EU cares very little about the damage it does to those economies.

It is understandable that the EU wishes to get the best possible deal for itself on individual issues, and strategically, so the UK remains in the EU’s orbit- or at least serves as a lesson to the others. However, it is entirely another question whether the UK should carry on in this way. At present, for example, British men (and a great deal of eye-wateringly expensive materiel) are in Mali, risking their lives to help the French achieve their foreign policy aims there. Without us, the French could not undertake that operation.

Equally, our soldiers are in the Baltic and Poland at great cost to the Exchequer, acting as human tripwires for any possible Russian aggression against EU member states. We may want to consider whether we wish to risk either our soldiers’ lives in Mali or getting involved in a shooting match against a nuclear armed power to help nations that are acting in such a nakedly hostile way on trade, finance, and law – and even to British internal unity.

As we ponder that question, let us look at some travel brochures for Turkey. If the EU thinks taking revenge on AstraZeneca is more important than receiving British tourists, so be it. Turkey has beautiful beaches, warm seas to swim in, thrilling cities, stunning countryside, magnificent historical monuments and sites, and a cuisine equal to any in the world. It is also making an effort to welcome British tourists.