On 11 May, David Abulafia, Professor of Mediterranean History and a fellow at Gonville and Caius, published an article in History Today, forwarding the case for British exceptionalism in Europe, and encouraging voters to take this in mind in the run up to the 2017 referendum.

Professor Abulafia is chairman of Historians for Britain, an organisation formed in 2013 which intends (in the words of its website) ‘to give a voice to Britain’s historians who want to see fundamental changes made to the terms of our EU membership’. The group’s members include the well-known British constitutional historian, David Starkey, and Professor Abulafia's article marks their entrance into a more public sphere.

The article, disguised by the premise of a considered academic viewpoint, is in fact an articulation of Euroscepticism that rests largely on implied prejudices about British (and especially English) pre-eminence in Europe and a rather narrow-minded, traditionalist interpretation of the history of the British Isles.

‘The United Kingdom’, Abulafia writes, ‘has always been a partner of Europe without being a full participant in it’; it developed ‘in a distinctive way’, he argues, and retained its distinctive nature with a ‘degree of continuity … unparalleled in continental Europe’ and ‘largely uninterrupted … since the Middle Ages’.

This viewpoint rests on a number of significant oversights and dangerous assumptions. The assumption that Britain’s past should have a strong bearing on how we approach contemporary affairs is unconvincing. The implication that, over the course of recorded history, Britain has represented a fixed, unchanging national unit is, simply, wrong. And, above all, the notion that the various peoples who have occupied Britain since the early Middle Ages remained detached from the Continent – without fully participating in European affairs – seems, to me, misguided in the extreme.

From the arrival of Christianity in Canterbury in 597 to the Second World War and beyond, the peoples of Britain have profoundly affected and been affected, in turn, by affairs on the Continent; in many respects, it is inconceivable that this could not have been the case. The origin of writing and manuscript production in Britain, the development of a native system of coinage and many, many other technological, artistic and cultural developments in England occurred directly as a result of contact with mainland Europe.

Professor Abulafia specialises in maritime history, so he ought to be aware that the sea rarely ever acts as an impassable barrier, across which people, objects and ideas are unable to travel. The opposite is true. Especially prior to the development of modern transport, the sea has tended to act as a more convenient means for travel and trade than the land. (This is one reason why Cornwall has, historically, shared more in common with Wales than with England).

It is no surprise that the majority of major historical cities in Britain are built along major waterways, near to the coast. London, a Roman city which gradually established is pre-eminence over the course of the Anglo-Saxon period, is not the capital city of England because of its detachment from the Continent; it was and remains so successful and wealthy precisely because it acted (and continues to act) as a point of contact between England, Europe and further afield.

Of course, Britain, as it exists today, is unique. Its relationship with the countries of mainland Europe is unique. But it is difficult in any meaningful sense to argue that Britain and its people are more unique than any other nation or people in Europe. In fact, it may be argued that certain countries of Scandinavia or Eastern Europe have much less in common with the major players in the European Union, France and Germany, than Britain does.

These oversights are frustrating, but they are secondary to a more important message: the past should not be the primary basis on which we make political decisions today. We ought to approach the referendum on Europe mindful of the present and looking towards the future. The past may influence our outlook and inform our decisions, but it ought to be only one amid a myriad of considerations.

If the past were to be the primary basis on which we might decide contemporary issues, then we might consider allowing Surrey to reassert the independence that it once enjoyed in the seventh century. Just as Turkey’s present bid to join the EU is unaffected by its historical affiliations, so any reasoning behind a British withdrawal from the EU ought not to rely on a (skewed) sense of historical perspective – especially not one that espouses a false ideal of continuity stretching back over more than a thousand years.

Professor Abulafia’s historical oversights are unfortunate, but it is his overemphasis of history’s place in contemporary affairs that is the fundamental flaw of his article and of Historians for Britain.

@bret_cameron