France freer than Britain: why liberty feels stronger in France than in Britain

Show summary Hide summary

• How a waterpark reveals two approaches to public safety
• Ordinary freedoms: small choices, large effects
  • Examples of differing practices
• How overprotectiveness changes behavior and skills
• Where regulation belongs and where it doesn’t
• Public health responses and the appetite for protection
• What regaining practical freedom could look like
• A personal observation from the lakeshore

On a recent family trip to southwestern France, a small sign at the side of a vast inflatable aquapark read, in polite French, “ne bousculez personne que vous ne connaissez pas.” Translated: don’t shove people you don’t know. That was the only safety instruction before we launched onto a floating maze of slides, ramps and wobbling platforms where falling into the lake was part of the fun.

The contrast with similar attractions back home was striking. In the UK, such a place would come with pages of prohibitions, trained staff enforcing every movement and a blanket of rules designed to stop almost any risk — and, with it, most of the joy. The difference felt bigger than a cultural quirk; it felt like a window into two very different ideas about freedom, responsibility and how societies handle danger.

How a waterpark reveals two approaches to public safety

The aquapark on Lake Biscarrosse illustrated a broader French tendency: citizens are expected to take care of themselves. No staff hovered to prevent daring dives, and no public-address announcements warned us to avoid silly behavior. Instead, people were free to test their limits while accepting the possibility of a wipeout into the water.

• France: fewer prohibitions, more individual judgment.
• Britain: many rules, rigid enforcement and an emphasis on minimizing all risks.

This difference shows up in everyday moments. Cafés and bakeries in France did not interrupt orders with questions about allergies at every counter, trains didn’t constantly broadcast reminders to carry water in heat, and local attractions offered thrills with minimal signage. That hands-off approach can feel empowering rather than negligent when it trusts people to look after themselves.

Ordinary freedoms: small choices, large effects

Everyday liberties — the ability to climb a lookout platform, to lean over the side of a boat, or to let children run and fall while playing — add up. The cumulative effect of such freedoms shapes how people learn to assess danger and make decisions.

Examples of differing practices

• Motorway signs: in France, directions to services and a reminder of amenities are common; in the UK, gantries often display cautionary statements like “tiredness can kill.”
• Park equipment: playgrounds in Britain are frequently altered or stripped of features deemed risky; in other countries, children encounter more challenging apparatus that build physical confidence.
• Tourist attractions: some French viewpoints let you ascend exposed platforms without attendants, trusting visitors to be sensible.

Small policy choices about everyday risk influence how confident and capable people become. When a society constantly limits exposure to manageable danger, people lose chances to practice judgment and physical skills.

How overprotectiveness changes behavior and skills

The “nanny state” label is often used as shorthand for excessive regulation that treats adults like children. When public life is saturated with warnings, reminders and bans, two things happen: people stop exercising common sense, and practical skills decline.

• Decision-making atrophies when authorities intervene preemptively rather than when absolutely necessary.
• Children miss out on opportunities to climb, balance and take minor risks — activities that build resilience and coordination.
• Society develops a bystander habit, expecting institutions to manage every hazard instead of individuals acting responsibly.

These are not merely cultural complaints. The pattern of reduced physical competence among children — less confident climbing, jumping and balancing compared with previous generations — is linked to environments that prioritize safety to the point of banishment of play elements that challenge them.

Where regulation belongs and where it doesn’t

Public safety rules still have an essential role: when a threat is systemic, unpredictable and severe, legal protections are vital. The arrival of cars, medicines and the internet required new frameworks to protect citizens from large-scale harm. But that doesn’t mean every risk needs to be mediated by law.

Consider a simple heuristic:

1. If a hazard is widespread and catastrophic without oversight, regulation is appropriate.
2. If an ordinary adult can avoid a danger with reasonable care, heavy-handed rules and constant warnings are unnecessary and counterproductive.

Balance matters: safety laws should reduce real, significant harm while preserving individuals’ ability to make choices and learn from everyday risks.

Public health responses and the appetite for protection

Recent public health episodes — most notably Covid lockdowns — demonstrated a strong public willingness in Britain to trade freedoms for perceived safety. While many nations adopted restrictions, the UK’s response suggested a particular eagerness among citizens and officials to centralize control over daily life during crises.

That inclination to outsource risk management to the state has become embedded in other areas: longer liability lists, more detailed risk assessments for routine activities, and a legal culture that amplifies fear of blame. The result is a feedback loop that encourages further risk aversion.

What regaining practical freedom could look like

Restoring a sense of autonomy doesn’t mean abandoning sensible protections. Instead, it would mean scaling back the default assumption that authorities must pre-empt every minor hazard. Practical steps could include:

• Reviewing liability rules that incentivize blanket bans rather than targeted mitigation.
• Allowing parks and public attractions to include features that challenge visitors, with appropriate but proportionate safeguards.
• Encouraging education that builds personal responsibility and risk literacy from a young age.

Allowing managed risk into public life helps people develop competence, confidence and judgement. A culture that trusts citizens to act responsibly can create more resilient individuals without sacrificing necessary protections.

A personal observation from the lakeshore

Watching teenagers leap, flip and occasionally collide on the inflatable course felt liberating. There was laughter, the occasional shriek and the messy, physical learning that comes from testing limits and coping with minor mishaps. That scene underscored how much Britain has moved toward risk-avoidance in places where a little risk would be healthy and even necessary for development.

Miriam Cates is a GB News presenter, senior fellow at the Centre for Social Justice and a former Conservative MP.

You might also like:

• 22950 euros tax-free: why this savings account still wins over the French
• France bans PFAS, the forever chemicals, in cosmetics, fashion and ski wax
• Britain becoming like France raises alarm about politics, public services
• Do you really know France? Score at least 7/10 on this quiz to prove it
• Digital ID threatens individual rights and personal privacy