Remainers will use any excuse to drag us back into Europe

Donald Trump has won the US presidential election
Donald Trump has won the US presidential election - Evan Vucci /AP

The return of Donald Trump justifies a greater effort by the UK to repair its relationship with the European Union, according to Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Ed Davey.

Well, of course it does. Doesn’t everything?

Sir Ed spent much of yesterday doing an impression of one of those camp counsellors you see in 1980s slash horror movies, sitting around a camp fire and trying to scare his young charges with gruesome urban legends. “And when she answered the phone, a disembodied voice said: ‘Pennsylvania just went red too!’” Cue the horrified shrieks of his audience.

For the 45th (and soon to be 47th) president is the ultimate, unchallenged bogeyman of the progressive Left, and Sir Ed sees himself as the only true champion of the kind of voter-repellant values that, ironically, put Trump where he is today. The prime minister disappointed lots of LibDem activists by not firing off insults at Trump when he was officially declared the victor in this week’s election, as Sir Ed did. But then, Sir Ed is never going to be prime minister so he has the luxury of not having to worry too much about international diplomacy.

“This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue,” he said to nods of approval from the kind of newspaper that offered therapy services to any of its staff who felt overwhelmed by Trump’s victory.

It is not yet known what degree of anxiety and panic this rhetoric caused in Trump Tower, but over here Sir Ed’s words were enthusiastically embraced by those who grasp every opportunity to make the case for “closer EU ties” and “a stronger relationship with our European partners” – code for rejoining the trade bloc.

Former Liberal Democrat minister Sir Nick Harvey, chief executive of the European Movement UK, said Britain must “make a clear choice to be part of a strong Europe” (okay, that one wasn’t coded at all), while Naomi Smith, chief executive of the pro-Europe campaign group Best for Britain, advised: “Britain’s response must be to deepen ties with our European allies on defence and trade to protect the economic interests and security of our continent.”

As the old saying goes, when life gives you lemons, make the case for rejoining the single market and customs union and ultimately rejoining the EU even if it means abolishing the pound in favour of the euro.

In fact, the biggest danger Trump poses internationally is his apparent willingness to reach an accommodation with Russia’s Vladimir Putin over the future of Ukraine, an accommodation that would betray the Eastern European country’s fight for survival against Putin’s imperialist ambitions. That threat demands a stronger, better funded Nato that depends less on America’s defence budget, not on closer integration with a trade bloc that British voters rejected eight years ago.

But here the overlap between Trump and Brexit assumes a horrific degree of relevance in Liberal Democrats’ (and many others’) minds. Trump’s victory was achieved thanks largely to the kind of voters that most progressives would never deign to talk down to, let alone talk to.

Watching CNN on Tuesday evening must have triggered flashbacks to 2016 when the optimism of polling day in the EU referendum quickly gave way to horror, with the realisation that all those people on council estates weren’t doing as they were told after all.

In dining rooms all across Islington, talk is turning once more to the concept of a United States of Europe, the absurd fantasy that the continent might construct, with or without the consent of the people living there, a political counterweight to the might of the United States, one that acted and thought as a single entity in the same way that America did.

And what better justification for the resurrection of such a project than the prospect of spending the next four years being annoyed that the person you wanted to win the presidency didn’t?

Sir Ed probably didn’t have much choice but to issue his student union-style condemnation of Trump. His own party, after all, is closer to the Democrats in many policy areas than even the Labour Party. His members would have stamped their sandals angrily on the floor had he attempted to strike a more conciliatory tone towards the winner of a democratic election contest, as the prime minister did.

For Sir Ed and his party – and for many on the progressive Left – losing elections and referendums is no more than an opportunity to consider how else to get your way regardless. Democracy is all very well, but surely it was never intended to produce results that are this triggering?