Good heavens, it was a baby. The wicked fairies assumed that so long and painful a labour meant David Cameron's Europe speech would be a limp monster all the world would hate. Instead it is a healthy, bouncing thing, with even Cameron's critics patting its head and admiring its dimples.

Wednesday's speech was to the point, workmanlike and devoid of fudge and platitude. It had a clear narrative argument rare in political discourse. Cameron must have believed in it. He threw both Labour's Ed Miliband and the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, off their stride.

No politician ever finds himself on the spot where he would like to be. All must dance to the music of time. Nor can they always choose their audiences. Thus to accuse Cameron of speaking to his party, his backbenchers or the growing horde of defectors to Ukip is to accuse him of being no more than an ordinary political leader. In 2011 he had 81 Tory MPs voting against him on Europe, with public opinion apparently behind them. To expect him to ignore this fact is naive.

Europe. not a burning issue to many Britons, matters. Had the UK joined the euro, its currency would now be disastrously overvalued. Europe's political engineering has to change as a result of the eurozone crisis. It may be uncomfortable for a Briton to point this out, but Cameron is merely positioning Britain for such a change, other countries agreeing with him below the parapet.

As for accusations of Britain wanting special treatment, of cherry picking, that is how France and Germany have always treated Europe. France is currently demanding the craziest "double-subsidy" farm reform in EU history, with not a peep of objection from Brussels. Germany's guardianship of its banks, disastrous for the Greeks among others, has been entirely self-interested. Those are not cherries but watermelons.

In all history the conundrum of Britain's relationship with the rest of Europe has never been resolved. This is especially true when some power has, as now, sought "pan-European" ambitions. Proud states – and all states are proud – are seldom at ease with a regional superpower. Almost every modern war is one of separatism or subsidiarity, region against centre, tribe against bigger tribe: Mali, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Congo. In Europe half a century of "ever closer union" has only fuelled the separatism of Basques, Catalans, Corsicans and Scots. Political "unions" rarely work for long.

Cameron has reiterated a clear, if hardly novel, line. He wants actively to pursue a single European market, accepting some of the political disciplines required for its enforcement. Not every playing field needs to be absolutely level, he says: "We cannot harmonise everything." But he will not participate in the political centralism of the eurozone or in some deeper European federation.

This view is shared, probably, with most Britons and with millions across Europe who view "ever closer union" with alarm. As Cameron says, "the gap between the EU and its citizens has grown dramatically". That is the message of the 2005 French and Dutch referendums, of others in Ireland and Denmark and countless opinion polls. Subsidiarity, devolving power to member states "from within", has not happened. The only power shift in contemporary Europe has been towards ever greater bureaucracy.

There must be a point where the burden on industry and commerce of regulatory compliance outweighs the advantage of a supposedly more open market. It is already crippling Europe's less efficient states and is making all Europe uncompetitive with the world. The last war is over. The virtues of economic union should be a matter of fact, of evidence, not ideology. The EU is an economy, not a faith. It should have arguments, not jihads.

Angela Merkel, who did not reject Cameron's remarks out of hand, has no interest in Britain being forced out of the EU by a failed negotiation. It would leave Germany's increasingly assertive leadership more exposed, and impose strains on weaker European states who fear German dominance. If there is one alliance in Europe that makes sense, it has always been between Britain and Germany.

Cameron has bought himself five years before he has to seek a plebiscite on whatever EU deal is achieved. The concept of referendum on such a matter is now embedded in British constitutional practice. Five years is hardly a rush.

Nor will the question really be in or out, rather yes or no to a specific deal – with, if no, a further negotiation. Cameron's message is clear. In a peroration of genuine pro-European sentiment, he declared his eagerness for a deal he can recommend to voters, which they will likely accept. This is hardly a grim confrontation "with Europe".

This continent is now a mess. The news that Spanish unemployment has topped 25% – with the eurozone silent in response – is appalling. So are similar prospects facing the overvalued currencies of Greece, France and Italy. This predicament is not an act of God. It is the fault of the political institutions of the European political collective. Indeed, Cameron could be accused of extreme tact in his analysis.

Every tribe has its scapegoats for such failure. Mine are the political and intellectual elites that uncritically pampered and flattered the Brussels powerbrokers for half a century. These brokers were given free rein to wield untrammelled power, a power that has less to do with free trade than with the interest groups and lobbyists that are now also corrupting and immobilising federal Washington.

The past is water under the bridge. For Britain to "leave Europe" is most unlikely, though only the blinkered could call it catastrophic. Life, and trade, would go on. American, Chinese and Japanese goods are not absent from Europe's shelves because they are not in the EU, nor vice versa. There would be a crisis, but crisis is the only time the EU shakes itself to life.

Britain and the other peoples of Europe should benefit from sharing one economic space, a single and competitive market place. That does not yet exist: as Gandhi said of British civilisation, "that would be a good thing". The EU's elder statesmen tried to run politically before they could walk economically. They have ended flat on their faces and seem unable to move.

In recent surveys median approval for the EU has never risen above 60% in its big countries; the euro is closer to 40%. This is an ailing political institution. Most of their embattled leaders have buried their heads in the sand. Cameron has had a terrible year and could have done likewise. Instead he has come up for air and told Europe's emperors it is time they got dressed.