It’s just as well we’re going to diverge from EU, given the chaos over there

Unanimity at Chequers was inevitable and is in contrast to the turmoil in Germany and Italy

to the point of chaos and only such a ritual show of harmony could remedy that. Also, somebody had to be seen to win some significant points if the event was not to look like a staged pretence (or “fudge”, as it is sometimes known). To that extent, the Brexiteers appear to have been the net winners. That is to say, they claim to have carried the day on the point of “divergence”.

But since, as I have said, divergence from the EU was the whole point of this exercise, it would have been truly extraordinary if they had not. In fact, as everybody has pointed out, no divergence at all would mean no Brexit at all, or else the worst possible outcome: loss of any say in the decisions from which we would never be permitted to diverge. So The Great Chequers Summit was a necessary spectacle. It was intended to prove that Theresa May could establish a unanimous government policy and that therefore she was not a busted flush as a national leader in these fateful negotiations.

But there is something oddly parochial about this view of things. A huge amount of attention has been paid to Mrs May’s weakness as head of a minority government and the fragility of her position within her own party. Her authority and that of the UK Government, it is said, are so tenuous that our relative strength in dealing with a united, formidable EU is hopelessly compromised. Perhaps it is understandable that the British press would concentrate on the condition of its own government and domestic political scene, but strangely enough it is the most Remain-friendly, pro-EU, anti-xenophobe organs of the media that have failed to attend properly to the other side of this equation: what is going on in Europe itself. Yes indeed, we do have an ineffectual prime minister who crippled her own government by calling an unnecessary election, and we have a divided Cabinet and an opportunist Opposition prepared to say anything to exploit all those problems.

You may have noticed, however, if you are an assiduous student of these matters that – at the time of writing – Germany has no government. The country that was a model of EU stability, in which the political power and the economic muscle of the whole outfit was thought to reside, has succumbed to electoral paralysis. And worse, it has seen the rebirth of a neo-fascist party, AfD, which is set to become the official opposition.

What is more, the German domination of Europe’s economic policy – which broke the back of an inconsequential member country like Greece – will now come up against a new and much more substantial threat. Italy, a founder EU state and, for all its problems, still a major economy, is about to hold national elections that are almost certainly going to result in great gains for antiBrussels parties under a coalition led by – don’t laugh – Silvio Berlusconi, who cannot legally hold office.

The Italian dissident parties like the vaguely anarchic Five Star movement (which polls show is likely to receive the highest number of votes) and the Northern League are said to be planning to subvert the euro from within by engaging in deficit spending. Whether Berlusconi, from his puppet master position, will be able to prevent this – and what he will demand from the EU in return – is anybody’s guess. All this will be going on while Angela Merkel’s CDU-CSU

at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion alliance definitively loses control not just of government but of Germany’s political mission. Now that’s what you call chaos. It leaves France as the only major EU state with confident, secure leadership. Emmanuel Macron is surely ready and eager to take charge of the EU project, but he is saying very different things in different contexts.

To the Brussels gang, he presents himself as a determined centraliser, enthusiastic about the next steps toward supra-national unification (so long as they are determined by France, of course). But when he visits the UK, he makes charming offers of “bilateral” agreements between our two countries which quite explicitly transcend (or ignore) the Commission negotiators’ insistence that any policy must be agreed with all 27 member states. France, it seems, can “cherry pick” its arrangements, but naughty Britain cannot. So who has the real power now? Who, in fact, are we – from our position of notorious weakness – negotiating with? Is it a paralysed Germany, or a divided collection of EU heads of government presiding over resentful and rebellious electorates, or an EU Commission happy to step into the vacuum and fulfil its historic destiny as a benign oligarchy rescuing Europe from the unruly mob?

One theme appears to get unanimous acclamation in the midst of this disunity: that the UK must accept every present and future EU rule and regulation dictated by the 27, if it is to have any deal at all. The Irish Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, who has proved so useful to the EU, has provided a new metaphor for this: we cannot have à la carte access to EU trade. We devour the whole smorgasbord or we get nothing. I think you can see where this has to end.

Germany has succumbed to electoral paralysis. And worse, it has seen the rebirth of a neo-fascist party, AfD