We all perceive the world through a unique lens. After June 2016, when the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, this divergence of perspectives tested democratic institutions to their limits and threatened to unravel the social fabric.
A Decade On: No Regrets, But Lingering Division
Ten years later, I harbour no regret over the decision. Yet, the persistent division is disheartening. In a time of global turbulence, we must move forward confidently as a sovereign nation, in partnership with our European neighbours and allies.
Leaving the EU represents a generational shift in governance, but it is not an endpoint. It presents an opportunity to recalibrate economically, politically, and on the world stage. However, progress has been modest. We remain entrenched in silos, clinging to outdated mindsets, resentful, and hesitant to embrace necessary change.
The Imperative of a Durable Alliance
A more resilient alliance with continental Europe is essential. Without it, both the UK and Europe face continued decline and dangerous dependence on more powerful nations.
When Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973, my father, Charles Wheeler, was posted to Brussels as the BBC's chief correspondent. I attended the European School, where one classmate was Boris Johnson, whose father drafted directives at the European Commission. During those three years, wine lakes and butter mountains dominated headlines, alongside the energy crisis and Britain's unfavourable accession terms. Then, inertia set in.
By the 1990s, the Community was revitalised by a pledge to dismantle trade barriers and complete the single market by 1992. In this heyday, I returned to Brussels to pursue a master's degree in EU law, working as a lawyer inspired by the project. After the Berlin Wall fell, the EU embraced former communist states in Eastern Europe amid euphoric belief in our system's triumph.
A Shift in Perspective
Before leaving Brussels, I married Boris, who wrote sceptical pieces for The Telegraph and later became a leading figure in the Leave campaign. During that period, the EU accumulated vast new competencies, shrinking national politics. Doing too much at EU level became a serious political problem. Opportunities to address the EU's 'democratic deficit' and connect with ordinary voters were squandered.
At the time of the referendum, according to my unscientific private straw poll, very few people, even politically engaged, could name their Member of the European Parliament (MEP) or any issue they supported.
For me, many problems crystallised in one EU initiative: its Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter contained civil and political rights from the European Convention on Human Rights. As EU law is supreme, if the European Court of Justice (ECJ) considered a law in breach of the Charter, it could set it aside. This gave the ECJ and the Charter unprecedented force. I considered this a dramatic loss of national control. The sovereignty of parliament is the cornerstone of our political system. In joining the EU, we chose to pool sovereignty with other countries.
The Blair government negotiated what it told parliament was an 'opt out' from the Charter. However, the ECJ ruled that the opt out was a 'political', not a 'legal', document, so the UK was bound by the Charter. When I stumbled on this, I was aghast.
From Enthusiast to Sceptic
At that point, I was still married to Boris. Since our Brussels days in the 1990s, he remained the sceptic and I the enthusiast. The fact that I, a lifelong supporter of the project, felt in 2016 that the status quo was no longer acceptable undoubtedly struck him. Perhaps he saw my shift as a bellwether of wider opinion. In a sense, it was. The EU had changed. The sovereignty of parliament is the cornerstone of our political system. In joining the EU, we chose to pool sovereignty, hoping to enhance prosperity and influence. For a time, benefits seemed to outweigh constraints. By 2016, however, I and others felt the balance had tipped.
As voters turned against the status quo, change became urgent. When the EU proved unwilling to reform, I reluctantly concluded that the time had come to take back control.
Looking Forward: A Sovereign, Cooperative Future
As Labour struggles to govern, it blames the country's economic woes on how Brexit was delivered, omitting its own role in prolonging uncertainty that held back investment. We need greater belief that the country can thrive outside the EU in a way that bolsters rather than undermines it.
On the EU side, it is time to stop punishing the UK for leaving. Outside the EU, Britain remains a good European, committed to continental defence and security. Strong, close relations between the UK and Europe are in our mutual interest. But talk of 'rejoining' the EU is not a fruitful way forward. The EU did not command wide enough support in the UK, not just in 2016 but historically. Too frequently, EU action was seen as an assault on national sovereignty that Britain had to resist. Rejoining or unilaterally aligning with the EU would be regressive. A UK that is sovereign but engaged with its allies and neighbours is a vision of the future to rally around.
Using its nimbleness and talent for convening alliances, the UK should showcase the change Europe needs. If it can do this while preserving the democratic way of life that defines us, that will truly be a unifying mission.
