By Timothy GARTON ASH
As Britain approaches the tenth anniversary of its vote to leave the European Union [EU], Britons have begun to debate reunification with what they call Europe. But, as with most previous British debates about “Europe,” this is a Europe with Europe left out. The discussion is all about what would be best for Britain economically, and about British policy to get there. Little or no consideration is given to what the rest of Europe thinks or cares about. The other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Livermore, became the first member of the government to publicly support reunification with the EU. “Of course,” he told the House of Lords, “the United Kingdom will rejoin the European Union, because it is absolutely in our national economic interest.” If only we could just knock on the EU door and – abracadabra! – we would be welcomed right back.
If you were to ask all current British MPs to say when the next European Council will meet in Brussels, I doubt more than a handful of them would give the correct answer. In fact, I wonder how many of them would be able to say straight away what the European Council is. It is good to look at the agenda for that top-level meeting of the national leaders of the 27 EU member states, together with the union’s main institutional leaders. Between 6pm this Thursday and midday on Friday, they hope to discuss Ukraine, the Middle East, the EU’s next seven-year budget, global economic challenges, European defence and security, migration and illicit drugs. So, to put it mildly, they have a lot on their table.
If you follow the European media, or listen to Germans talking about Europe with Poles, or Italians with Portuguese, our crowned island is barely mentioned at all. On both sides of the Channel, “Europe” is once again being understood as something that does not include Britain. The only major exception is defence and security, where the British are still seen as playing a significant role. Poland’s foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, an Oxford-educated and once Anglophile, now callously describes the UK as nothing more than a “security provider”.
As for countries wanting to join, the EU is not short of them. There are already nine known candidates for membership, including Montenegro, the tiny front-runner, and the very large Ukraine (today, Ukraine is more important to Europe than the United Kingdom). This August, Iceland is holding a referendum to decide whether to reopen membership negotiations. A debate has been opened again in wealthy Norway. And, let’s be honest, there are some people in the EU – a minority, to be sure, but a significant minority – who would not welcome Britain back. All countries think largely of themselves, but if there were a World Cup for solipsism, the British would win the trophy without a hitch. A new BBC documentary, which looks back at the 2016 vote, is a painful reminder of the poverty of the British debate on Europe. Here, amidst a parade of scheming boys who brought us the greatest act of national self-harm in our recent history, we meet again Boris Johnson, whose thoughts are as messy as his hair. He sums up the essential issue thus: “Either you want the country to be independent, or you think we should create a federal Europe.” In fact, the whole mainstream of continental European politics today is precisely about finding a middle ground between these two extremes. On the most benevolent possible interpretation, Johnson has learned nothing and forgotten nothing since his time as a Eurosceptic correspondent in Brussels in the early 1990s.
If you look at how the world is likely to develop over the next 20 years – a world of competing great powers and empires, with a militarily aggressive Russia, an economically aggressive China and a United States that will never return to the extraordinary level of transatlantic engagement it enjoyed after 1945 – it is clear that the best option for a middle power like Britain is to be part of a larger grouping of countries that, to a large extent, share the same interests and values. Tony Blair, when he first became prime minister, once declared, somewhat ironically: “Britain must become greater!” Any other European country, starting with France and Germany, can tell you that this is exactly how you become “greater.” The strategic objective of British policy should therefore be for the United Kingdom to become a full member of what will by then be a European Union very different from today’s. And, with all modesty, a sober analysis suggests that it would be in the long-term interest of the EU as a whole to have, among its more than 30 future members, a Britain whose firm will would be to be among them.
However, it will take a marathon of democratic persuasion to get there. That persuasion will be needed on both sides of the Channel. In opinion polls in Britain there is already a solid majority in favour of reunification with the EU, and an overwhelming majority in favour of it among younger voters – 68 per cent of those aged 18-34, according to Ipsos. So time will work in Bretton’s favour. But the politics will continue to be complicated. The person most likely to succeed Keir Starmer as Labour prime minister this autumn is Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester – if he wins the by-election this Thursday, the same day as the European Council. He (or whoever succeeds Starmer) may still feel constrained by negotiating within the party’s current red lines, which stipulate that there will be no return to the customs union, the single market or freedom of movement. But the new government must immediately and boldly announce a much broader strategic ambition.
Then, the Labour Party should contest the next election, which should be held no later than 2029, without any red lines, simply saying that it aims to achieve the relationship that will be best for Britain. Ideally, the entire fragmented left-liberal bloc in the making (rather European-style), made up of the Liberal Democrats, Labour, the Greens and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, would embrace this position. Much will change in Europe over the next three years, and some interim steps (membership of the single market, for example) may be needed during the next parliamentary term; but democratic conviction must begin now. In this dangerous post-American world, the best place for Britain is indeed “at the heart of Europe,” and the only way to be at the heart of Europe is to be a full member of the European Union. The path is unknown, but the goal must be clear.
However, every step will depend on the EU side, which holds most of the cards. So, to put it bluntly, the British also need to understand where other Europeans are coming from, how their complex union actually works, and what they gain from it. And Britain’s elected representatives need to learn to speak the European language, that unique multilingual language in which advancing the national interest is properly combined with embracing a common European future, based on historical awareness. Is today’s British political class capable of this? I hope so more than I doubt it.