The decision of institutions

The voice of Europe is not heard for good reason, the Union is an agreement between nations, and Britain is a force of nationalism that has its origins in economic boundaries from the nineteenth century. This means its leaders like to hear from those under its influence, which doesn't include Europe. European integration was never likely to work for these reasons, but the alternative may be unlikely to function either. Globalisation has led to a misreading of other nations willingness to entertain our idea of their economic position, and we may be heading for a fall in terms of political success.

The advantages of a Union is it can be agreed with the aim of mutual benefit, and can be adjusted with that in mind. This is still possible because it is an agreement, but leaving is against a belief in Britain having a place at all. I suggest the East and the Third World that are traditional alternatives, entertain different ideas, and the west and the Commonwealth has no reason to accommodate us. This means  a period of isolation, and a time to recover from this and other malaises, I predict a low level of political victory as we try and carve a way forward.

The disadvantages of Union are that our leaders are not in full control, and the public have more authority and influence with their governments. This alienation may be unwise and has on the surface resulted in leaders ganging up in places like Davos. The period since the 1970s have given a slow learning curve to those who now must take decisions by themselves, about former members and former political foes. I predict that mistakes will have to be made public, in a way the Union didn't guarantee, and for the future the Union was an instrument of accountability.

This direction is liable to be against the national interest, because we have had different political and economic origins to those of pre-Union approaches to politics, and the marketplace will be more dangerous and less predictable. Will this matter? If the recessions turn out to be fleeting they will not damage the economy, but we shouldn't look for dividends for our pensions or our youth out of this predicament. Some aspects of this is politics is predictable in a carry on as usual type of approach. Defence, the city, law and order, immigration will benefit, but foreign policy as has been said is not much of a political slogan at the best of times.

Integration has its losers and what might have been is beyond the imagination of the electorate. A safe bet then that we won't miss Europe. Unlike the French we will not leave Nato, but economically we may suffer more, than the prediction of an eclipse would suggest. In European terms we may become useless and this doesn't help our political parties and 'buy British' is no longer a slogan except for a very small minority. I argue if the loss takes place and foreign influence is something we inherited from abroad, we will no longer have European partners. Integration without us is unlikely to be a French success story. A bit like the Cold war, Cameron is dismissing something which has solved many of our problems.