I am biased on Europe: born, postwar, in a divided Germany. Educated in a Britain outside of the common market, seeing a terrifying wall built in Berlin. Helped set up the European Trades Union Congress as we joined in 1973, bringing non-communist trade union bodies across the European Union and European Free Trade Association together. Cried with happiness at the November 1989 fall of that Berlin Wall and the subsequent reunification of Germany. Working in the European parliament, welcomed members of the European parliament from newly democratised Spain, Portugal and Greece (some with experience of prison and torture for political activity) as they joined the Socialist Group in Strasbourg. Saw the EU’s subsequent enlargement as democracy spread to former Soviet-controlled countries, leaving me almost speechless when, one day, I flew into Bulgaria (a closed, authoritarian society in my youth) and was just waved through with my little purple passport.

Through all of this, my connections with trade unionists, socialists and consumer groups across the growing union have grounded my thinking in the desire for a ‘people’s Europe’ – one which enriched all of our lives, at home, at work, in education and, above all, as a contributor to peace and security.

Many employers, conservatives and bankers I know shared many of these aims: that the EU would contribute to their success in building an economy, free trade, training, export and a stable currency in addition to peace and security.

So when David Cameron – before he was ever prime minister – announced he would pull his MEPs out of the EPP (the European People’s Party, the conservative equivalent of our Party of European Socialists), I confidently, but wrongly, predicted he would never carry that through as he would need to work with his Conservative equivalents at the European parliament and at national level – how, after all, could he work effectively at European council without those pre-council EPP caucus dinners with Merkel and co.

What I completely misunderstood was both Cameron’s weakness, and his lack of core beliefs, which meant he could bend to the wind, endlessly making concessions to his Eurosceptic right (in and out of his party as the United Kingdom Independence party snapped as his ankles), which led us to the farce of today: a British prime minister, without a good word to say about Europe, sitting among prime ministers who owe him nothing, begging for a bone to throw before the electors for a referendum we never needed.

The demands on his shopping list are peripheral to the European project, fail to tackle remaining agricultural issues, have no vision for growth and improved trade, training or better regulation; and ignore the interests of consumers – either holiday-makers or purchasers of goods and services, who want guaranteed quality, fair prices and ready access to redress when things go wrong. Most seriously, there is no mention of internationalism, joint security, a peaceful and harmonious future for European people. Without articulating the benefits of cooperation, seeing only difficulties in our membership, how can this prime minister hope to persuade the British people that this is a project of which we should be part?

So, assuming he recommends ‘Remain’, it is the right answer. But what a lost opportunity to pose the right question.

———————————

Dianne Hayter is a member of the House of Lords and a former chief executive of the European parliamentary Labour party. She tweets @HayterAtLords