The Two Matts podcast is made by Matt Kelly, the managing director of The New World magazine, and its editor-at-large Matt d’Ancona. Both are experienced journalists who have genuinely backed pro-Europeanism with proper commitment, including taking real career risks.
Recently, when the podcast was discussing Matt Kelly’s excellent article (£/€) in the magazine on setting up a proper debate in the UK about its future and how it might move towards a new Europe, I found myself shouting at the wireless.
Mr Kelly stated that the UK wouldn’t be joining (note, for Mr Kelly, definitely not “rejoining”) the same European Union it had left. In particular, he said that “the principle of absolute freedom of movement is not sustainable”. He then went on to cite examples of temporary border checks around Europe’s internal borders, calling free movement a “dogmatic myth”.
This is why the debate matters
I don’t mean to be “that guy”, but this is exactly why a public debate on Europe (a core point of Mr Kelly’s argument) is vital. Open borders (Schengen) is not the same as free movement (a citizen’s right). Whatever pressure Schengen may be under, free movement has never been stronger and better protected. The UK needs to be informed.
Leaving that error aside, Mr Kelly’s starting point is that Brexit hasn’t worked. This is now indisputable. Given that, and global geopolitics, the argument in the UK for its working with and being in Europe is bulletproof. The question is, how?
“We need a national debate to produce a national vision”, is the reply in the article. Mint this on coins. Paint it in letters five metres high. Tattoo it on your arm. It is the perfect response to where the UK finds itself.
Britain needs this conversation now
Britain is crying out for that wide-ranging conversation. What kind of society does it want to be? How does it want to relate to Europe? Is it ready for the euro? How does European unity contribute to collective wellbeing? What can the UK do to promote European ideals and even the learning of European languages? What is the place of the UK’s constituent nations in this? Perhaps even – and forgive me for being cheeky – what is the difference between free movement and a passport-free zone?
Ideally, such a debate would be led by the government, without prejudice. They should invite serious input from across the board, including from within the Brussels system. It should be deliberative. Designed well, the UK should be able to move towards a consensus on what to do next.
Neither Kelly, nor Matt d’Ancona his podcast partner, are starry-eyed dreamers. They have the pragmatic toughness of jaded journalists, acknowledging that the outcome of such a debate may not be what they wish for. But whatever it is, it is likely to make the UK’s moves towards a new relationship with Europe a national project. The momentum will then be enormous on the British side.
How Europe might see it
Of course, there is another side in this discussion. It is impossible not to feel a real pang when Kelly writes: “It’s not a question of rejoining the institution we left ten years ago, but of joining a new institution where our membership is inextricable with the EU’s success.” How rarely have we heard this over the years in the UK, even from pro-Europeans? Leagues away from the sneering at France, Germany, Spain and Ireland that has sometimes characterised the Brexit period.
On that “new Europe” Matt Kelly sees an overarching European debate that he would like the UK to plug into. For now, that looks unlikely. Apart from, as d’Ancona points out in their conversation, the serious trust issue (“we have to persuade Brussels that we are ready and mature enough to enter the European family … a big ask”).
Europe is moving towards a clearer constitutional unity right now. That will likely be, among other things, a fiscal and defence union. It will be very hard to be central to such a debate from outside the eurozone, still less as a non-member of the Union.
So, in order to add to the European debate – the outcome of which will define all our futures, including those of Britons – the UK realistically needs to have applied or be a member and to display commitment to the various aspects of European unity that it has in the past resisted. There are serious fears in Brussels and member states around the future of liberal democracy and around how to integrate the Western Balkans, Ukraine and other candidate states.
Why ambiguity won’t work
Whatever happens, an equivocal, transactional UK would only add to the problems. The great national debate should hopefully resolve some of this, pushing Britons to make community their priority. That would salve European fears.
The UK is not alone. A similar debate is taking place in Iceland, an embryonic one in Norway, and a constant one in applicant countries.
It shouldn’t take two podcasters to say the obvious: the UK must apply to join the European Union; and it shouldn’t be coming back out of regret, but to join positively to help us all resolve the issues we face.
More from East Anglia Bylines
Bylines Network Gazette is out!
The latest Bylines Network Gazette is out now. Become a Friend of Bylines Network or upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, and you will get access to a vital collection of citizen articles and stories.
Journalism by the people, for the people.
