The problem of Britain's relationship with the European Union is not London's supposed inability to influence what happens in Brussels. Rather, the British do not realise how much influence they have exerted over the years.
As a result, the British complain more than any other EU member about their lack of influence within the Union, playing into the hands of euro-sceptics.
Britain's relationship with Europe has not been the unmitigated series of failures that Prime Minister Mr Blair implied in his speech last Friday to Birmingham University's European Research Institute. Mr Blair has a point in arguing that certain prime ministers underestimated the momentum of the European train as it pulled out of the station in the 1950s, thereby missing an opportunity to influence the early stages. The Common Agricultural Policy, if created at all, would hardly have resembled the market-distorting horror it turned out to be, had Britain not turned its back on the six founding members of the European Economic Community.
However, Mr Blair's criticisms of past policy are overdone. Margaret Thatcher successfully shaped the single market to suit British purposes, removing barriers to trade and allowing highly competitive British multinationals to profit from a deregulated market.
The problem, therefore, is not one of failure but of ignorance. British governments have not been serially inept at dealing with the EU but hypocritical. Baroness Thatcher, in particular, used the EU as a tool to suit her purposes, while simultaneously carping about it to the British public.
Mr Blair took a first step towards remedying this situation in last week's speech. He gave a more positive tone towards European integration than any of his predecessors since Edward Heath. But Mr Blair should have spelt out the benefits that Britain could derive from a more positive policy towards Europe and those it had already obtained.
Taking a more positive tone about Britain's past would enable the government to approach the task of institutional reform - particularly pressing in view of the forthcoming convention to prepare for the next intergovernmental conference - in a more active way. The government could then begin to explain to the British public how the European Commission is more friend than foe in that it polices the single market and prevents Britain's partners from reneging on commitments to lower barriers to trade. Mr Blair would also be able to argue more effectively that the EU is not some continental straitjacket but a tool that can help Britain pursue its national interest.
Mr Blair also missed an opportunity to come out firmly in favour of joining the single currency. Britain is underestimating the dangers of self-exclusion and risks being excluded from debates on economic governance in the euro zone, which will profoundly affect the future shape of the continent.
The one glimmer of hope for europhiles is that, by adopting such an unreservedly positive tone towards Europe in general, Mr Blair has tied his own hands. His speech juxtaposed warnings about how Britain has been isolated over key issues in the past with a stated intention to make Britain a full player in the EU. He may have forced himself into adopting a firm position on the euro.
If Mr Blair is serious about providing Britain with a more constructive role within the EU, he must do two things. First, he must deal with the myths of the past. He must begin to make the argument that the EU is not a system imposed on Britain but one that Britain has played a leading role in shaping - it is not a threat to Britain but an opportunity.
Second, he must deal with the issue of the euro. Keeping one's options open today may appear a reasonable strategy, but continued delay limits Britain's ability to shape economic governance in the EU. Mr Blair needs to commit himself to the single currency unequivocally.
Anand Menson is professor of European politics and director of the European Research Institute at the University of Birmingham
