Map of every battle ever fought (Source: here)
It is easy to take the European Union (EU) for granted. After all, the vast majority of Europeans were not even born when the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957.
A quick glance at the picture above, however, reminds us that EU was formed for a very specific reason, namely to reduce the risk of war.
The picture shows the distribution of all known battles across the globe over the past four thousand years. Not only has Europe had vastly more battles than any other region, Europeans also account for many of the battles in other parts of the world due to Europe's bloody history of Imperialism and Colonialism.
Put simply, Europeans have gone to war more often and typically with greater barbarity than any other people on Planet Earth.
In the aftermath of World War II, Europe's leaders found the will to finally put an end to the barbarity. A key factor spurring them forward was the advent of new war technologies, such as nuclear and biological weapons, which meant that each new war posed ever greater dangers. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just one major war in Europe could pose an existential threat to Europe, even to the entire planet.
With the ratification of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952 and the adoption of the Treaty of Rome five years later, Europe's leaders began the process of building a new institutional framework that would, in effect, tie the hands of European leaders.
Through a series of treaties leading bringing European nation states ever closer, a union of countries was formed, which curbed the ability of each individual member to conduct war by requiring member states to make decisions collectively, with unanimity.
Unanimity ensured that no single country could force the EU in any one direction. Unanimity also meant that all EU member states would have to agree for the EU to move at all.
The requirement for unanimity in all major decisions arguably errs on the side of caution. After all, EU often finds it difficult to act decisively due to the objections of just a single nation. For example, it has proven difficult to adopt a firm approach towards Russia due to objections from the pro-Russian government in Hungary.
Unanimity has also fuelled a perception in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) that the EU is an indecisive giant incapable of quick and effective action. This characterisation is somewhat misplaced; it is precisely because of Europe's long history of over-decisiveness, especially on the battlefield, that EU's rules are so restrictive. Besides, it has been possible to act with decisiveness in existential crises as illustrated by the actions of the European Central Bank (ECB) in response to the European Debt Crisis (see here).
Criticisms notwithstanding, EU has successfully prevented war between the 27 EU member states and ushered in their longest period of peace in history.
Recent events in post-Brexit UK have also served as a reminder why EU was formed. Since it left the EU in 2016, Britain has descended rapidly into the kind of authoritarianism and nationalism that characterised European nations prior to the formation of the EU.
In the UK, these tendencies have found expression in an erosion of the balance of powers as the central government has usurped ever more powers from the press, the civil service, and the judiciary (for more discussion of this see here).
The motivation behind the British government's power grab has been 100% political: British politicians have sought to bolster their powers in a bid to reverse the collapse in their popularity as the ill-effects of Brexit have become more manifest. A recent poll from 16-17 January 2024 illustrates the collapse: voting intentions for the Conservatives ('Con' in the chart) have falle to a near all-time low of just 20%.
The popularity of the governing Conservative party has more than halved in recent years (Source: here)
Authoritarianism and nationalism have become a defining feature of the current British government's programme as it has become ever more beholden to the whims of the extremist Members of Parliament (MPs) that were elected in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.
Remember that voters in the UK electoral system only get to kick out politicians every four years or so, while MPs can call votes of confidence and trigger leadership contests almost anytime they want. This means that the survival of the government in the short term, especially when it is unpopular, depends far more on obeying the whims of MPs than delivering on promises to voters.
Since 2016, successive UK governments have thus acted against the wider public interest by abandoning climate objectives, weakening the rights to strike and protest, removing regulations protecting the environment, supporting gerrymandering, linking residency rights to income levels, and permitting gross levels of election interference.
With the government's popularity showing no signs of improving, there is every reason to fear that worse is to come. Only this week, the UK government's so-called Rwanda Bill won passage in the House of Commons. The bill was yet another important milestone on Britain's road to de-Democratisation, because it broke decisively with the fundamental principle that human rights are universal.
At a press conference after the vote, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak confirmed this by underlining his willingness to ignore rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, that is, he will break international law and suspend basic human rights:
"But of course, even with this new law here at home, we could still face challenges from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. So let me repeat what I said two weeks ago. I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights. If the Strasbourg Court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of our sovereign parliament, I will do what is necessary to get flights off." (Source: here).
Brexit Britain has descended further down the rabbit hole of authoritarianism and nationalism than EU member states precisely because UK is no longer constrained by the scrutiny and checks and balances implicit in EU membership. Brexit has, in effect, cleared the way for fascism to thrive in the UK (for more on British fascism see here).
What is next? Looking forward, one factor that could clearly accelerate UK's descent into fascism is a Trump victory in November's US presidential election. If Trump abandons treaties with Europe, such as NATO - as he says he will do - then European politicians will soon be forced to decide if the economic and military benefits of their close alliance with the US is still justifiable.
Exactly when this decision point is reached remains to be seen, but it seems clear that if Trump goes off the rails then EU will break with the US sooner than the UK. Unlike the UK, almost all EU member states have experienced two devastating world wars on their own territory, so they will know when Trump oversteps the line. The same simply cannot be said for the UK, especially given the current dynamics in UK politics.
Yet, it is highly unlikely that the majority of British voters will willingly jump into bed with the closest thing to Hitler since 1945. Hence, if Trump does go off the rails, the result will almost certainly be an even deeper rift between the British government and the people of Britain, many of whom are intensely sceptical of Trump and his policies.
Unfortunately, without the protection of the European Court of Human Rights and other curbs on executive power in the UK, there is very little that ordinary British people can do to stop a determined UK government from crushing dissent.
The EU should therefore also pay close attention to what is happening in Britain. After all, if there is one lesson to take away from European history it is this: once tyranny takes hold of domestic policy, the beast of war is easily vexed from stony sleep to nightmare in foreign policy too.
The End