David Cameron’s depleted England confronts a lonely future

Will David Cameron go down as the prime minister who turned Great Britain into Little England? If things go wrong for him, he could end up presiding over the departure of Scotland from the UK – swiftly followed by Britain’s own departure from the EU.

Many foreign observers are bemused. The Obama administration has made it clear that it would be appalled if Britain left the EU. The US also worries that Britain’s ability to play a global role is dwindling, as military capacity shrinks. A senior German politician sniffs that Mr Cameron has a knack of “organising his own defeats”. The Japanese, key investors in Britain, are alarmed at the prospect of UK withdrawal from the EU. And a Chinese official warns that the UK is becoming the “third power” in Europe.

Scotland will vote on independence on September 18 and the polls look uncomfortably close. But the immediate crisis is in Europe. Mr Cameron is heading for a bruising defeat at an EU summit next week, in which Britain is likely to be comprehensively outvoted in its opposition to the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as the next president of the European Commission. That kind of high-profile setback would make it harder for Mr Cameron to campaign successfully for continued British membership of the EU, in the referendum he has promised for 2017.

Mr Cameron’s domestic critics fume that the prime minister’s problems are the product of his overconfidence, mismanagement and indulgence of Europhobes, within his own party. But there is method – as well as risk – in Mr Cameron’s apparent madness. In both Europe and Scotland, he has inherited tensions that have been building up for decades. Britain’s relationship with the EU has become steadily more detached, ever since the creation of the euro began to drive the EU into something closer to a genuine political union. A decisive redefinition of the UK-EU relationship is probably inevitable. Every major political party in Britain has made it clear that they oppose Mr Juncker’s candidacy and reject the process that is leading to his appointment. Britain may be isolated in Europe but, on this issue, it appears to be united at home.

For European politicians, for whom “consensus” is second nature, Mr Cameron’s willingness to be publicly outvoted is baffling. But the British see no reason to pretend to approve of a candidate, and a process, they actually abhor. Having correctly warned against the risks involved in the creation of a European single currency, the British are comfortable in playing the role of Cassandra. A strong economic recovery in the UK – making Britain the fastest-growing large economy in the EU – has bolstered the country’s confidence.

As things stand, the Cameron government is almost daring the other Europeans to outvote the UK next week. The government believes that such a vote might generate what Americans call a “teachable moment” – in which the Europeans are forced to face the implications of imposing their will on Britain, the second largest contributor to the EU budget, on a matter it regards as one of vital national interest.

If, as expected, the vote goes against the UK, then it is the British who may draw their own lessons from the “teachable moment”. Mr Cameron, while angry, is unlikely to become a convert to the idea of Britain leaving the EU. He is enough of a pragmatist to be well aware of the economic and political risks involved – as well as the sheer, hair-wrenching hassle. But his ability to claim that Europe is “changing” would be severely impaired.

As things stand, the Cameron government is almost daring other Europeans to outvote the UK next week

When it comes to Scotland, Mr Cameron faces an ironic role reversal. This time, it is he who is fighting to preserve a political union – while it is the unhappy Scots who are considering breaking away. Here, the charge that the prime minister has been inept and overconfident is easier to make. Once the Scottish Nationalists won power in Edinburgh, Mr Cameron probably had to grant a referendum. But the UK government should have pressed much harder for the 800,000 Scots who live in England – the natural pro-union constituency – to get a vote. Allowing the break-up of the country to be passed by a simple majority also looks careless. The bar for constitutional change in the US is set much higher.

The Scottish and European dilemmas are not the only challenges to Britain’s self-image as a global player. The UK’s military capacity is declining sharply, under the pressure of economic austerity. That reflects a growing reluctance to deploy military force, in the wake of the Afghanistan war – illustrated by parliament’s rejection of military action in Syria. That vote showed both Mr Cameron’s habit of suffering mishaps in foreign policy – as well as his ability to bounce back quickly.

Syria, Scotland and the EU, taken together, suggest that the UK may be quietly abandoning its remaining pretensions to be a great power. But it would be a mistake to conclude, therefore, that Britain is becoming an inward-looking country.

Its entrenched internationalism is rooted in economic, cultural and social forces that are ultimately more powerful than the political questions thrown up in Brussels, Edinburgh or the Middle East. Whatever happens politically, the UK will remain an outward-looking, trading nation and a magnet for immigrants the world over. London’s position as one of the few truly global cities is also unlikely to change.

Nor should it be forgotten that Mr Cameron has, so far, proved a lucky politician. He is playing for very high stakes in Scotland and Europe. But while, the worst-case scenarios are certainly possible, it is still more likely that Mr Cameron will end his term in office, as a prime minister who presided over a strong economic recovery – and with the UK united, and a member of the EU.