BY STEWART SLATER

The arc of history, we are told, bends towards justice. The exact specifics of this may be disputable (the last century was, after all, the bloodiest in human history), but as an insight into human psychology, it is useful – we assume that the world follows a straight predictable path, going merrily on its way like a probe launched into the inky vacuum of space. Every so often, however, something happens to nudge us on to a different path. At which point we can either accept our new trajectory, or try to get back on to our old route.

Brexit was, whichever side of the argument one took, one of those nudges. Back in 2010, it would be easy to assume the country’s destiny was set – it would be an important, if not always cooperative, member of an economic grouping which would play an increasing global role. That was an entirely reasonable view – the post-War years had been ones of increasing integration with the continent, both economic and military and there was no reason for those trends to change. Britain had become a European country, and its future, like its recent past, would be in Europe.

With this understanding the result became a deviation, and it was natural for the Remain side to try to get things back on to what they thought was the right course either by advocating membership of the single market, a second referendum which gave the right answer or, at the more extreme end (if the arch-centrist Lib Dems can be called extremists) by ignoring the referendum altogether.

But what if, rather than Brexit being a nudge, it was a correction, an attempt to return from an earlier deviation from the path?

For while, sitting at the end of what future historians may pretentiously term “The Long 20th Century”, it is easy to see Britain’s recent past as normal, we can equally see it as highly unusual.

Permanent British involvement in Europe was far from the historical norm. For centuries the country has acted as an “offshore balancer”, intervening to put its finger on the scale when another power looked likely to dominate the continent. Once the French, and it was usually the French, had been given a biffing, it was back to Blighty, or, quite frequently, parts more exotic. If this traditional approach had been followed, rather than maintaining forces in Europe after the end of the Cold War and joining the move from the European Community to the European Union, Britain would have left.

For ensuring that no-one dominated Europe was just one of Britain’s foreign policy objectives. Geography made the country an offshore trading nation. As such, it also needed to ensure the steady flow of goods from far-off locales and that meant controlling the sea. While complicated by the fact that, having a moat, the country did not need land forces to ward off invasion, it is a notable insight into its historical priorities that it developed the world’s biggest navy, while maintaining a relatively small army compared to its peers.

The Remain side were correct when they said “Geography is Destiny”, if not quite in the way they thought. Compelled in the past by its location to involvement in the wider world, Britain still is. As Lord Palmerston put it, “our interests are eternal and perpetual”. On its traditional path, with Europe quiescent and no threat to its interests there, the country would have turned its eyes further afield. Since nothing fundamental has changed, why would it not do so again?

There are signs that it already is. As Asia rises economically, protecting trade with that region becomes more important, particularly now that we have joined the CPTPP which will shift supply chains East. With China a less than completely friendly actor, cynics might see membership as a blocking move on the country’s rumoured interest in joining, fulfilling Britain’s third great strategic imperative – keeping on the right side of the Americans. But beyond such skullduggery, it will be increasingly important to protect the free flow of goods and ensure the Pacific remains open. The AUKUS deal, helping Australia procure nuclear submarines, is one high profile way of doing so. Others include the permanent deployment of two Offshore Patrol Vessels to the Indo-Pacific, using an existing Royal Navy logistics hub in Singapore, enhanced cooperation with Japan under the Reciprocal Access Agreement and the “2030 Roadmap for India-UK future relations”.

Considering Britain’s two historical strategic imperatives, this is unlikely to be a flash in the pan. The war in Ukraine is currently showing that no individual nation can dominate Europe – indeed, it is not even clear that any individual nation can dominate Ukraine. There is no military threat to our interests from the continent. While it will remain an important trading partner, this will diminish over time due to Asia’s growth. Victorian Britain contradicted economists’ beloved “gravity models” by trading more with Australia, Canada, South Africa, America, Brazil and Argentina than with France or Germany – the only iron law in economics is that there are no iron laws in economics. Even if no Asian nation rises to the top of our trading tree, there will be more threat to our interests there. Having the smallest army since Napoleonic times might be embarrassing, but since war is more likely over Taiwan than Trieste, having two aircraft carriers and numerous submarines is more important.

Those who saw Brexit as a vote for isolationism were wrong, for it did nothing to change Britain’s fundamental interests or its propensity to defend them. Seeing Russia as a threat in Europe, it was early to intervene in Ukraine. Seeing China as a threat further afield, it is taking action in the Pacific. This is not unusual, the country is doing what it always has – protecting the interests geography and history have given it. What was unusual was its recent entanglement with the continent to the exclusion of the wider world. If we want to know our country’s future, we must look to its more distant past. Our 21st century will be more like our 18th and 19th than our 20th.

Stewart Slater works in Finance. He invites you to join him at his website.