Leading Europe, not being led by Europe

I'm not a fan of leadership. I don't mean I object to having capable, inspiring leaders, I mean I don't want to be one myself and don't see why everyone else seems obsessed with crawling to the top of the heap. I'd rather be the one actually doing stuff than telling everyone else what to do.

But leadership seems to be an important political narrative. Years back, the Tories were saying they wanted to be "in Europe, but not run by Europe". I personally think that the issue of who's in charge matters only insofar as that's relevant to what they do with their power. If they're going to run things well, then who they are is almost immaterial. Still, "not run by Europe" is okay as far as it goes, though it was already pandering to the lie that we are somehow subservient to other countries in a quite peculiar way. As with any group, all members are required to surrender a degree of direct control, but in return they get a larger slice of indirect control. It isn't just us that this happens to.

I think this article makes an excellent point :

Over many years, Brexiters constructed a fable that presents the UK as the helpless victim of an unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels... Brave Britannia is increasingly portrayed as a heroic underdog determined to fight for its independence from Europe. It matters not a jot that the organisation from which the UK is purportedly seeking to escape is a decent grouping of democratic nations that the UK willingly joined, which it helped significantly to shape and of which at least half the British people now very much wish their country to remain a member. 

I was in a social setting recently with a group of British people with differing views on Brexit. The issue was simmering below the surface when one of them proclaimed that the UK was leaving the EU because “we don’t like France telling us what to do”. There is, of course, a fundamental contradiction between asserting that the EU is run by bureaucrats and that it is subject to excessive influence by other governments.

I mean, that's weird, isn't it ? The idea that we're at the mercy of other countries and utterly helpless, while simultaneously being one of the richest countries in the world. If we're so helpless and at their mercy while being a member of a group that we helped shape, how the hell are we expected to become stronger and more influential when we're outside that group and no longer have any control over its rules ? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

A few weeks ago we had a visitor who told of his experiences of the Czechs requesting British help to get them started on (if I recall correctly) a medical project. And way back in February 2016, there was a call for Britain to take a greater leadership role in the E.U. rather than running away from it, tail ticked between its legs. A vision of Britain leading a latter-day empire is, among many other things, simply too grandiose to have a realistic chance of persuading anyone. But what about the more modest prospect of selling more strongly what Britain actually does for the E.U., instead of (or rather in addition to) what the E.U. does for us ?

British influence in the EU went well beyond that available to most member states. The UK’s impact was exceptional due to several factors. The quality of its civil servants. The effectiveness of its coordination mechanisms. The reach of its diplomacy. The potency of its networking. The admiration for its pragmatism. The predominance of the English language.

Every member state has its strengths and weaknesses. But there is a wide measure of consensus across Europe that British influence on the EU has been exceptional and immense. The EU today looks more like the one the UK wanted a quarter of a century ago than the one France had in mind.

Brexit will change all that. Europe will be the poorer for the loss of British influence. But Britain itself will be diminished even more. It is important that our British friends understand the influence they once had in Europe so that they also know what they are giving up. As an EU, without the UK, continues to shape the legislation and regulatory standards that will affect British business, France will be delighted to find that it has more scope to “tell the UK what to do” than was ever possible when the UK significantly influenced every decision.

We need not pretend that E.U. membership does not bestow interdependency - it does. But perhaps more strongly saying, "look at how much we've shaped and managed this project", in essence, "look at how much we influence them" rather than, "look at how much we need them" would be a better story to sell ? Selling our own contribution ought to appeal to patriotism, whereas selling the benefits from the other sides makes us look (to Leavers) weak. On the other hand, the risk is that this would be interpreted to mean, "we're so strong, we don't need them at all, and they're just a dead weight slowing us down". It's a difficult balancing act. But with a "we're in charge" approach, blaming the E.U. for British mistakes would become a lot harder - and it would be more difficult to paint us as having a more powerful position outside of a group which we're seen to be leading.

... except, of course, that this sort of appeal sounds ridiculous when your Prime Minister is the sort of guy that people are twenty times more likely to describe as "buffoon" than "statesman".

I sat at the EU's negotiating table for years - and saw how great Britain's influence was | Bobby McDonagh

The Conservative party's choice of a new leader will also impact on Britain's influence in the world. Friendship, not showmanship, is valued by foreign governments. Bluster at home diminishes lustre abroad. Over many years, Brexiters constructed a fable that presents the UK as the helpless victim of an unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels.