As this week’s round of Brexit talks in Brussels has shown, things are not going well at all. The current stalemate is bad enough. But there will be worse to come if the British public continues to be fed a narrative in which the process boils down to good guys (from London) v bad guys (in Brussels), or in which it only takes Theresa May to soften her approach for all the bad vibes to disappear.

The EU is blackmailing Britain – and it may well work | Simon Jenkins Read more

Brexit does sell newspapers. It may also boost or bury political careers. But it is not reassuring that both the EU and Britain have allowed the situation to deteriorate to the point that it appears as if two hostile camps are jumping at each other’s throats. Citizens could be forgiven for thinking that a battle is in progress. It isn’t. Britain is still mostly negotiating with itself.

Paying closer attention to how the continent perceives Brexit may help dissipate some of the hysteria that’s building up – Liam Fox accusing the EU of “blackmail” is the most recent example. This is not to minimise the importance of what is taking place: the severing of links built over 44 years and the breakup of a union that has existed as 28 since 2013 (Croatia was the latest to join) and is now set to shrink with one of its most important and influential members dropping out. Nor is suggesting that both the EU and Britain share responsibility for the dire state of the talks a vindication of those who propagate the view that the 27 are out to cut Britain’s interests to bits and share the spoils among themselves.

The first thing to say about the view from the continent is that it isn’t paying as much attention to Britain as Britain thinks. In France, Emmanuel Macron is fixated on his reform plans. In Germany, an election campaign is under way. In the Netherlands, everyone’s still waiting for a new cabinet to be formed. In Poland, the government is locked into a dispute with the EU over its backsliding on rule of law. The energy spent in Britain on the Brexit debate is far from replicated, or even echoed, elsewhere. That is only natural.

Then there’s a key nuance to consider. The main reason for the current impasse isn’t just that Brexit was always going to be a headache. Nor is it only the British government’s lack of clarity or strategy. It is to do with a complete mismatch of perceptions – one that remains almost unspoken.

In Britain, both the government and much of the public have come to believe that, as confrontational as it may be, Brexit is an issue that both sides have an equal interest in sorting out. It’s as if a mountain were to be climbed by two parallel teams. Whoever comes out on top will be the winner, but the mountain must be conquered by both, otherwise there will be a catastrophic cliff fall.

On the EU side, there is only one imperative: self-preservation

On the continent, an altogether different metaphor applies. Picture a ship sailing off from a port where it was well anchored, and the port’s many inhabitants wanting to make sure that ship is neither carrying cannons that it may shoot back at them, nor equipment that would make it impossible for the port to thrive.

Those on land also want to know that the departing ship’s captain won’t seek to return as if nothing had changed, and won’t demand a say in how the place develops without abiding by all of the locally agreed rules.

Indeed, the land-people believe, with good reason, that the integrity of those locally agreed rules is what defines their collective identity in the first place. It is what helped them overcome the trauma of self-destruction in a past century, and what allows them to face external and internal challenges today. It is also what their business and trade interests require in an environment of global competition, in which large blocs have a better chance of defending themselves than smaller entities do.

The departing ship is watched with both sadness and concern, but there is no rush to take on its navigation problems. That all of the land-people may not always agree on everything changes little. They’re aligned in letting the port authority discuss an orderly way out for the ship, and they’re keen to keep close contact with it in the future – but within conditions they consider non-negotiable. The point of this metaphor is that there is no common effort. Britain and the EU are not struggling with Brexit together: Britain is seeking its own route, and it is essentially alone in that quandary. On the EU side, there is only one imperative: self-preservation.

Take a moment to read the 29 April European council guidelines for Brexit negotiations. It’s all there: “no cherry-picking”, “no separate negotiations”. And this: “European integration has brought peace and prosperity to Europe and allowed for an unprecedented level and scope of cooperation in a rapidly changing world. Therefore, the union’s overall objective in these negotiations will be to preserve its interests, those of its citizens, its businesses and its member states.”

Simply put, the EU’s interests lie in preventing the UK from harming or threatening its integration. The EU is not in a race with the UK. Nor is it trying to punish anyone – which is not to say that the defence of EU red lines won’t at times be detrimental to the UK. But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this. It believes the onus is on Britain, not on itself, to do what is necessary to avoid a worst-case scenario.

It is not that Michel Barnier, or other EU leaders, have not pointed this out already. The trouble is that so little seems to be trickling down into British perceptions. As a consequence, the mood is souring. The EU is an existential, not a transactional project. Finally grasping that could take Britain a long way.

• Natalie Nougayrède is a Guardian columnist