Free A Spy By Nature by Charles Cumming

they be the English Channel or the Mediterranean, are connected geographically in the minds of the Americans. If one is polluted, particularly by nuclear waste, then they all are.”
    “I think that’s quite a patronizing view of America.”
    This comes from Elaine. I had made the mistake of perceiving her as an ally. In my peripheral vision I see Rouse and Pyman duck into their pads.
    “Okay, perhaps it is, but consider this.”
    This had better be good or I’m finished.
    “Any lasting export ban of radioactive shellfish to America will quickly become an international ban. No one wants to eat contaminated food. If we don’t put a stop to it soon, other countries, even in Europe, will refuse to buy shellfish and fish from British and French waters. It’s a domino effect.”
    This goes down well. Both Ann and the Hobbit nod respectfully. But Ogilvy has decided he has been silent too long. He leans forward, like a chess grand master on the point of making a telling move in the endgame. He’s going to make me look ineffectual.
    “The question is an interesting one,” he says, drawing us into his web of good-naturedness. A bird sounds territorially outside. “Is this a direct face-off between the United States of America and a United States of Europe? Do we as British citizens want to see ourselves that way, as part of a federal Europe? Or do we value our sovereignty too much, our prerogative to dictate terms to other European states and to the world at large?”
    This is inch-perfect, not a fluffed line. He goes on.
    “I suggest that we see this problem in those terms. There are too many conflicting European interests to mount an effective British campaign. We must do it with the assistance of our European partners and present a united front to the Americans. We hold many of the cards. Our major problem is Germany, and that is what we have to address. Once they’re on board, the rest will follow.”
    This is the smart move. He has set the foundations for the conversation, given it a clear starting point from which it can develop and assume some shape. Ogilvy has essentially proposed to chair the discussion, and this aptitude for leadership will not go unnoticed.
    Ann takes up the argument.
    “I don’t see why we have to present pan-European resistance to America as the civil servant in this document suggests.”
    As she says this, she taps the printed sheet quite vigorously with the point of her middle finger. She is not as good at this as Ogilvy is, and she knows it. Every contour of her body language betrays this to the rest of us, but some dark stubbornness in her, some Ulster obstinacy, will not allow her to back down. So she will wade in, deeper and deeper, pretending to know about things she barely understands, feigning a self-confidence she does not possess.
    “To put it bluntly, this is France’s problem,” she says, and her voice is now overexcited. “It’s a French nuclear reprocessing”—her tongue trips on this last word several times—“plant that is leaking. I suggest that, perhaps with EU funding, you know, we conduct some definitive checks on the plant with American observers on site. On the site. If it proves to be clean, then there’s no reason why the Americans shouldn’t begin rebuying European fish. If it’s leaking, we demand that the French get it fixed. We then try to persuade the Americans to buy fish and shellfish from non-French, uncontaminated waters.”
    “So you’re suggesting we just abandon the French?” I ask, just so that my voice is heard, just to make it look like I’m still taking part.
    “Yes,” she says impatiently, hardly taking the time to look at me.
    “There’s a problem with that solution.”
    Ogilvy says this with the calm bedside manner of a family GP.
    “What?” says Ann, visibly unsettled.
    “The plant was built in 1978 with joint British, French, and Dutch cooperation.”
    This trips everyone up. Nobody had recalled it from the printed sheet