I was asked to write about perceptions in Washington DC towards the United Kingdom’s referendum on membership of the European Union, and how worried the Americans are. The truth is that there is very little interest, and even less concern. ‘Brexit’ sounds more like an illicit sugary breakfast cereal than a potential event of global import. True, Barack Obama has previously intervened, saying in July last year that Britain’s EU membership gives Americans ‘much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union’, and he is expected to do so again. However, for the most part, the topic does not come up in conversation unless I bring it up. I can think of three reasons why not.

The first, of course, is the American presidential election this year. Political coverage has been focused round the clock on campaign trails and debates ‘showcasing’ each party’s slate of candidates. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are leading the Republican field, with GOP elders deliberating publicly who is worse. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are duking it out to be the Democratic nominee. Sanders is 10 points ahead of Clinton in Iowa, fuelling her fears that it is 2008 all over again. Presidential primary season kicks off for real in February, so it is not surprising that politicos are more captivated by their candidates’ tough talk against Washington than David Cameron’s against Brussels. And pundits prioritise the protection of US borders against immigrants and terrorists, not the EU’s.

Second, it is confusing to keep track of the renegotiations and referendum details. I am sure there will be more interest this side of the Atlantic once the date of the referendum is set and the contours of what a ‘reformed Europe’ will look like are (dare I say) set in stone, or more settled at least. At the moment, it is hard to make sense of Cameron ‘banging on about Europe’ at summits and in speeches. Every other day it seems he is visiting one European capital or another, making his case, which remains vague, to his counterparts on the continent but hiding it from Conservative party colleagues. The grandstanding and machinations between Cameron and Donald Trump over which foreign nationals may enter the UK, under what conditions and so on is far more newsworthy than the debate and grandstanding between David and the other Donald (Tusk, that is) over who can enter the UK, under what conditions and so on. To most Americans (and Britons?) it is amorphous.

Third, and most alarmingly: the paradigm shift from Britain being a major power to a minor player on the world stage seems to have already occurred. We all have our favourite anecdote to support this point of view. My go-to of late is a podcast by Foreign Policy magazine Editors’ Roundtable. The particular question up for debate was: Which country is best at doing foreign policy? ‘Britain’, proffered one of the panellists immediately, perhaps instinctively. With much pride, I turned up the volume. But, ‘Say what?’ and ‘When was that?’ were the retorts. ‘1922?’… ‘The Sepoy Mutiny?’ More peals of laughter. I was mortified. There was discussion of the merits of this proposition: The British are good at leading from behind. We are smart and adaptive. We have more influence over the United States than anybody else. We are great at building norms and institutions. In short, we are brilliant for a small country at playing big. I was feeling reassured. Then editor David Rothkopf poured scorn on all of the above saying it was hard to think of a country whose power and influence has fallen more precipitously than Britain’s. It is in this context that the European referendum is taking place. Must we get used to being a small country playing small?

———————————

Claire O’Connor is former head of policy at the Labour party

———————————

Photo: nervsappy