It’s not enough for hardline Brexiteers that Britain should succeed: Europe must fail

I shouldn’t get angry about this. It’s not good for my blood-pressure. But when I read Sherelle Jacobs’s latest column in the Daily Telegraph, I nearly blew a fuse. 

According to the headline on her column (amply borne out by the argument beneath): “the EU is a failed empire that has condemned itself to irrelevance”. 

The European project, Jacobs says, “was, and remains, an illusion: a 1950s Disney fairytale wrapped in Continental legalese. It is a failed federation not just riven by power struggles and vanity, but tormented by suspicion of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ freedom.” 

Last week, her message was that “the divided, distracted and deluded West,” led by the United States, was allowing China to take over the world, but let’s not dwell on that. My sermon this morning is taken from the Book of Brexit, chapter 1, verse 1: 

The United Kingdom, in liberating itself from the European Union, shall be free to pursue its own course in the world, released from the despotic constraints of EU law and the dismal prospect of Ever Closer Union. 

Ms Jacobs doesn’t get this. She remains obsessed by what she obviously sees as the still brooding presence of the EU in the UK’s everyday life. She is like a divorcee who after winning a generous financial settlement in the courts that includes the family home and custody of the children bangs on endlessly about the alleged iniquities of her ex-husband. 

Just listen to her: “Through luck and the strength of its idealism, the EU has managed to endure. Through decades of turbulence it has never retreated from its founding vision of bureaucratic technocracy. Now, though, as the world transforms, the EU’s aura of invincible purpose is fading away. The end will not be implosion but obsolescence. And it is surely not a matter of if but when.” 

Get a life, lady! Aren’t you supposed to be all about building back Britain? 

But Jacobs is not alone. Far from it. Those who most embrace Brexit are often the ones who are most exercised by the continuing existence of the EU. They want it to die. They want to be there when it breathes its last. Only then will they feel truly vindicated in their belief that it was always a snare and a delusion that would have dragged Britain with it into the pit of despair. 

The following, however, is the alternative truth about the European Union that I happen to believe. 

The EU is the world’s pre-eminent trading bloc. It is rich and well-endowed, home to many of the world’s leading corporations. Built on a shared history that dates back to Roman times, it is the most visited continent on Earth. And the journey it is taking today remains utterly unique. 

It is, however, deeply flawed (like the US and the UK, or China come to that). Its far-reaching political ambitions don’t always sit easily with the fact that it is made up of 27 sovereign nations, some of which have been at daggers-drawn for centuries. 

The single currency has a long way to go before it can be viewed as a fixed component of the world’s monetary system. Big issues of centralised taxation and economic governance remain to be resolved. The ideological tug-of-war between the core western membership and the former Communist states in the East may yet result in the suspension of Poland and Hungary and the creation, at least temporarily, of an associate eastern union that, in terms of shared vision, goes its own way, linked as much to Moscow as to Brussels. 

Exactly like Britain and America, the EU cannot decide what is to be done about mass migration. Its geography and its wealth act as a lure to millions of would-be migrants from Africa and Asia who, in terms of sheer numbers, cannot possibly be accommodated. No one knows how the circle can be squared between liberal values and self-preservation. 

In short, Europe is in something of a quandry. But – and here is the point – it is not a sinking ship about to disappear beneath the waves. Though buffeted by storms and taking on water, it is continuing on its course, determined to reach safe harbour.

Is Britain sitting any higher in the water these days? Is the US of Donald Trump and Joe Biden? 

If I had had my way, given that Brexit was rendered inevitable by the result of the referendum, Britain would have remained in the Customs Union. On that basis, UK trade secretaries would not have to waste their time traipsing around the world in search of the El Dorado of gold-plated trade deals. Whatever else the EU may not be good at, it is highly skilled in the business of trade negotiation. Can anyone name a single trade advantage worthy of the name that the UK has derived from its post-Brexit roll-out? Seriously. Anything at all or in prospect – not least with the US. 

If the Government had endorsed the settlement reached by Theresa May, the Northern Ireland Protocol would never have existed. Ireland, north and south, could have carried on pretty well exactly as before. The Good Friday Agreement and all its works would have been left in limbo where they belong. 

Dover and Calais would simply have carried on trucking – twin ports joined by a thousand years of history. Lorry drivers would have driven on and off ferries without having to produce a mountain of paperwork. Companies buying and selling into the European market would have had no need for additional documentation or extra-territorial representation. 

The UK, it is true, would have become a taker when it came to the rules governing trade. But does anyone imagine that the concerns of the British Government would not have been taken into account, as are the views today of Norway, Iceland and Switzerland? At the same time, would Britain have been in any way less equipped to sell its goods to the US, India or South Korea? 

Brussels would have been so relieved to keep the UK inside its trading tent that it would have been generous in setting up consultative arrangements. It would have allowed the City of London to hold on to its passport and would likely have allowed the two sides to enter into talks covering a free, or at least more liberally inclined, market in financial services. 

All that went for a Burton with the hard Brexit demanded by Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings. 

As things stood, we were already outside of the single currency and the Schengen Agreement (and, due to the rebate, paid only 70 per cent of our nominal contribution into the shared budget). But, under the May deal, as offered by Michel Barnier, we would no longer have been governed by 90 per cent of EU legislation and no longer obliged to send representatives to the much-derided European Parliament. The European Commission would have ceased being a bogeyman and become a mere institution.  

Ever Closer Union would have ceased to apply to Britain (as it would have under the deal rejected by David Cameron), and the European Court of Justice, to which there has never been any popular-based opposition in the UK, would have retained jursidiction only in respect of access to the single market and disputes over the fine print of trade. Freedom of movement would have ended, allowing Britain, as advertised, to take back control of its borders. Honestly – what’s not to like? 

But, okay, that’s not the route we chose and it’s not what we got. We decided to go for broke instead: a clean separation. So, can we please concentrate in future on our own business (Global Britain) and leave the EU to get on with the regulation of its internal affairs? Would that really be so hard?

I will end with a prediction of my own. Ten years from now, fifty years from now, there will still be a European Union. It may have evolved into a tighter, more centralised superstate or it may – more likely, in my view – have taken a step back by restoring some elements of national sovereignty. It might be a little larger or it could be somewhat smaller, with or without the former East Bloc. But there will still be a single currency and there will still be freedom of movement. 

Taking more of a punt, I would even say that some form of defence pact, built around enhanced military cooperation and a rapid reaction force, will emerge over the next decade. Linked with Nato, such a pact would allow the EU, led by France and Germany, to act with a single voice when it comes to issues of global security. Should that be the case, we can only hope that Britain will be allowed to play its part from the outside. 

What do you think, Sherelle Jacobs? Do you still think that the EU is “staggering towards a fresh catastrophe”? But of course you do. For to those who fail to see themselves reflected in the vanity mirror held up by Remoan, it is not enough for Britain to succeed, Europe must fail.