There is no better place to restart the debate on Britain’s relationship with the European Union than by admitting that Brexit has flopped.
The prime minister is too courteous to use such blunt language, and the term certainly lacks macroeconomic nuance. But public opinion polls, fuelled by a potent mix of disappointment and shifting demographics, show that an increasing number of Britons believe that much has been lost from the once-strong and mutually advantageous relationship enjoyed by the UK as a full member of the European Union.
The much-vaunted “Brexit opportunities” have failed to materialise.
Indeed, one of the most tempting alternatives, a closer free-trading and security alliance with the United States, has become something of a tragicomedy. As Andy Burnham tells us in his latest move to nudge the argument forward, it is indeed time to “face up to the reality that Brexit has done more harm than good” and “the status quo is not good enough for Britain”.
A decade on, it is not too soon to review what progress there has been, or to seek a new path forward that reflects the radically changed circumstances we find ourselves in now.
In 2016, for example, it was possible to believe, with some justification, that the UK could become a “beacon for free trade”, just as Brexiteers proclaimed.
But the referendum came just as the great wave of globalisation was drawing to a close. Nations – led with increasing ferocity by America – began to turn instead to protectionism and tariffs.
A decade ago, it was also thought by many that Britain should attach itself to the fastest-growing major economic power on earth, but China has turned out to be an unattractive, and increasingly hostile, prospect for closer cooperation.
Instead, Britain has been forced to accept the sheer economic power of China and limit its diplomatic protests in order to protect whatever trade and investment Beijing is gracious enough to grant – while spying on the British establishment.
Free trade deals with Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and others have proved more harmonious and lucrative. But even collectively, they amount only to a tiny fraction of the loss to GDP that has come as a consequence of Brexit.
Even as the chancellor and the British nation contemplate yet more tough choices on public spending and higher taxation, it is sobering to reflect on the fact that better defence of the realm and social care could both be funded by the tax revenues lost as a result of Brexit. The EU itself, under its “Made in Europe” initiative, is contemplating imposing non-tariff barriers to trade with the UK – a disaster for the British automotive sector, among others.
There can be no question that, faced with such a scale of slow-burn economic destruction by stealth, the time has come to seriously consider if Britain can do better than both the status quo and Boris Johnson’s panicky and botched Brexit deal.
Whether Russia succeeded in materially affecting the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum, as Mr Burnham has now alleged, is something we may never know for sure. But it is an open secret that the Kremlin was rooting for Leave to win because it would weaken the UK, the EU and Nato.
Much the same goes for Moscow’s interest in Donald Trump’s successive elections as president of the United States. It would certainly be a surprise if the case of Nathan Gill, a Brexit Party MEP bribed by the Russian secret service to spread pro-Kremlin propaganda, was some sort of wildly isolated example of such activities. That such propagandistic activities are still continuing is starkly evidenced in the sudden fall in Russian online bot activity after successful Ukrainian hits on Russian data centres.
There are now legitimate, fundamental questions to ask about the path back to a more stable and productive relationship. Should a referendum, a device that proved so traumatic and divisive before, also be ditched, and the decision left to the outcome of the next general election and a new parliament? Should Britain consider joining the euro?
What would be the impact on migration – and, in fact, would membership make irregular Channel crossings easier to deal with? What fresh opportunities would membership open up for British manufacturers, AI firms and farmers?
Mr Burnham is right to look ahead to the next decade, and is prepared to talk about a different path forward, one that brings British influence back into the heart of Europe where it belongs. The UK, it turns out, really is “stronger in”.
Read MoreThe Independent’s Free Thinkers: 40 people who have shaped our world
Putin’s war in Ukraine was on life support. Trump has handed him a defibrillator