
Europe does not have to choose between guns and butter. There is another way
But to frame the dilemma facing Europe in this way is a big mistake. History teaches us that the political choice has never been about guns or butter, but rather guns or taxes.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s seemed to close almost a century of global ideological conflict, but it was also supposed to make us all richer. With the end of the cold war, Europeans would no longer need to uphold an expensive military apparatus for territorial defence. Governments ditched conscription and walked back defence outlays. Cashing in on that so-called 'peace dividend', governments could spend on the domestic priorities of their liking, boosting non-military investment.
Last month's Nato summit in The Hague showed how this tide has been dramatically reversed. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Trump's uncertain commitment to Nato means that European governments have no choice but to invest more in their own mutual defence. The peace dividend, as Kristalina Georgieva, the head of the IMF, stated, 'is gone'. Europe's Nato members pledged to increase spending on 'hard defence', such as tanks and military salaries, from 2% to 3.5% of GDP by 2035.
The question now is how to finance it. For some experts, the only way to build a warfare state that can deter Russia is to slash social spending. After all, goes the misleading argument, governments in the 1990s splashed the savings from defence on expensive welfare promises.
Even before the Nato agreement in The Hague, the public were being softened up for the new reality. In a TV address in March, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, warned citizens that in a 'more brutal' world, they would have to make budget sacrifices. Macron ruled out higher taxes. Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, decided to scrap a public holiday to finance higher defence spending. The UK has cut savagely into its international development aid budget for the same reason.
But Europe would be drawing the entirely wrong lessons from history if it weakened the welfare state to build up the military state. There is another way: instead of slashing social spending, Europe's governments should raise taxes on corporations and capital to finance deterrence.
Let's look at what actually happened in the 1990s. While cutting defence spending after the collapse of the Soviet Union allowed governments to increase social spending, it mostly gave them room to cut taxes and budget deficits, which they did with great zeal, as the 1990s neoliberal consensus took hold and tax competition intensified.
Yes, the 'peace dividend' helped to finance big increases in social spending, but with ageing societies it was mostly devoted to pensions, health and longterm care. Social protection for the working age population has fallen across Europe since the end of the cold war.
But from the mid 1980s to 2023, corporate income tax rates fell by around half within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Capital gains tax rates also dropped significantly: from up to 53% in the early 1990s to 26% today in Germany, or from up to 30% to up to 24% today in the UK for the same period. The 'peace dividend' was in fact a boon for the wealthiest in Europe.
Savings in defence not only went to the private sector via tax cuts, but also via reduced fiscal deficits. Germany's adoption of its contentious constitutional 'debt brake' in 2009 helped it to achieve a balanced budget; something that would have been impossible without cutting defence spending to the bone.
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
In the years ahead, Europe cannot afford politically to place the burden of the defence buildup on the most disadvantaged groups. More public debt, as Germany has now committed itself to, will be necessary. But debt is often a regressive tax, weighing more on the poorest, as the wealthy own a large share of the debt. Moreover, if EU members don't agree to common borrowing to finance the defence surge, as happened during the pandemic, financial markets may not let EU countries with a high debt load, such as Italy or France, increase deficit-spending on defence.
The 'new normal' of higher defence spending should thus also be funded by increasing taxes, especially on corporate income, high wealth and capital gains. This won't be possible without limiting tax competition at a Europe-wide level.
Indeed, the idea that some European tax havens continue to suck up corporate tax resources from others while they free-ride on their defence spending will become increasingly difficult to sustain. France and Germany have long pushed for the harmonisation of corporate taxes across the EU's 27 members. The EU must now rein in tax-dumping countries such as neutral Ireland. Europe cannot achieve better defence without better tax revenues.
And only a defence buildup that is supported by the wider public across Europe can run beyond the short-term momentum and thus develop into a credible deterrence.
The experience of 'military Keynesianism' globally, and across history, has never been about guns or butter, but guns and butter. In a war, you not only need weapons, but also a supportive population to operate them. Keeping the peace on the home front is just as important as holding the line in the trenches. Rather than slashing the welfare state to build up the military state, Europe's leaders should think about how to improve and modernise social spending. Only the prospect of a better and fairer world will keep our societies united and capable of fighting.
Shahin Vallée is a senior research fellow at the German Council for Foreign Relations. Joseph de Weck is a fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
26 minutes ago
- NBC News
U.S. tariffs on European goods threaten to shake up the world's largest trade relationship
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — The European Union expects to find out on Monday whether President Donald Trump will impose punishing tariffs on America's largest trade partner in a move economists have warned would have repercussions for companies and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. Trump imposed a 20% import tax on all EU-made products in early April as part of a set of tariffs targeting countries with which the United States has a trade imbalance. Hours after the nation-specific duties took effect, he put them on hold until July 9 at a standard rate of 10% to quiet financial markets and allow time for negotiations. Expressing displeasure with the EU's stance in trade talks, however, Trump said he would increase the tariff rate for European exports to 50%, which could make everything — from French cheese and Italian leather goods to German electronics and Spanish pharmaceuticals — much more expensive in the U.S. The EU's executive commission, which handles trade issues for the bloc's 27-member nations, said its leaders hope to strike a deal with the Trump administration. Without one, the EU said it was prepared to retaliate with tariffs on hundreds of American products, ranging from beef and auto parts to beer and Boeing airplanes. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN's 'State of the Union' program on Sunday that 'the EU was very slow in coming to the table' but that talks were now making 'very good progress.' Here are important things to know about trade between the United States and the European Union. US-EU trade is enormous The European Commission describes the trade between the U.S. and the EU as 'the most important commercial relationship in the world.' The value of EU-U.S. trade in goods and services amounted to 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in 2024, or an average of 4.6 billion euros a day, according to EU statistics agency Eurostat. The biggest U.S. export to Europe was crude oil, followed by pharmaceuticals, aircraft, automobiles, and medical and diagnostic equipment. Europe's biggest exports to the U.S. were pharmaceuticals, cars, aircraft, chemicals, medical instruments, and wine and spirits. EU sells more to the US than vice versa Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more stuff from European businesses than the other way around. However, American companies fill some of the gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. The U.S. services surplus took the nation's trade deficit with the EU down to 50 billion euros ($59 billion), which represents less than 3% of overall U.S.-EU trade. What are the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained a generally cooperative trade relationship and low tariff levels on both sides. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products. But the White House has taken a much less friendly posture toward the longstanding U.S. ally since February. Along with the fluctuating tariff rate on European goods Trump has floated, the EU has been subject to his administration's 50% tariff on steel and aluminum, and a 25% tax on imported automobiles and parts. Trump administration officials have raised a slew of issues they want to see addressed, including agricultural barriers such as EU health regulations that include bans on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef. Trump has also criticized Europe's value-added taxes, which EU countries levy at the point of sale this year at rates of 17% to 27%. But many economists see VAT as trade-neutral since they apply to domestic goods and services as well as imported ones. Because national governments set the taxes through legislation, the EU has said they aren't on the table during trade negotiations. 'On the thorny issues of regulations, consumer standards and taxes, the EU and its member states cannot give much ground,' Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Germany's Berenberg bank, said. 'They cannot change the way they run the EU's vast internal market according to U.S. demands, which are often rooted in a faulty understanding of how the EU works.' 'Consequence for many companies' Economists and companies say higher tariffs will mean higher prices for U.S. consumers on imported goods. Importers must decide how much of the extra tax costs to absorb through lower profits and how much to pass on to customers. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. Simon Hunt, CEO of Italian wine and spirits producer Campari Group, told investment analysts that prices could increase for some products or stay the same depending what rival companies do. If competitors raise prices, the company might decide to hold its prices on Skyy vodka or Aperol aperitif to gain market share, Hunt said. Trump has argued that making it more difficult for foreign companies to sell in the U.S. is a way to stimulate a revival of American manufacturing. Many companies have dismissed the idea or said it would take years to yield positive economic benefits. However, some corporations have proved willing to shift some production stateside. France-based luxury group LVMH, whose brands include Tiffany & Co., Luis Vuitton, Christian Dior and Moet & Chandon, could move some production to the United States, billionaire CEO Bernaud Arnault said at the company's annual meeting in April. Arnault, who attended Trump's inauguration, has urged Europe to reach a deal based on reciprocal concessions. 'If we end up with high tariffs, ... we will be forced to increase our U.S.-based production to avoid tariffs,' Arnault said. 'And if Europe fails to negotiate intelligently, that will be the consequence for many companies. ... It will be the fault of Brussels, if it comes to that.' 'Road could be rocky' Some forecasts indicate the U.S. economy would be more at risk if the negotiations fail. Without a deal, the EU would lose 0.3% of its gross domestic product and U.S. GDP would fall 0.7%, if Trump slaps imported goods from Europe with tariffs of 10% to 25%, according to a research review by Bruegel, a think tank in Brussels. Given the complexity of some of the issues, the two sides may arrive only at a framework deal before Wednesday's deadline. That would likely leave a 10% base tariff, as well as the auto, steel and aluminum tariffs in place until details of a formal trade agreement are ironed out. The most likely outcome of the trade talks is that 'the U.S. will agree to deals in which it takes back its worst threats of 'retaliatory' tariffs well beyond 10%,' Schmieding said. 'However, the road to get there could be rocky.' The U.S. offering exemptions for some goods might smooth the path to a deal. The EU could offer to ease some regulations that the White House views as trade barriers. 'While Trump might be able to sell such an outcome as a 'win' for him, the ultimate victims of his protectionism would, of course, be mostly the U.S. consumers,' Schmieding said.


BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump tells Brazil to stop 'witch hunt' against Bolsonaro
US President Donald Trump has urged Brazilian authorities to end their prosecution of the country's former President Jair Bolsonaro, accusing them of carrying out a "WITCH HUNT".Bolsonaro, who governed Brazil between 2019 and 2022, is standing trial for allegedly attempting a coup against current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The former leader has denied involvement in any alleged a social media post, Trump said Bolsonaro was "not guilty of anything, except having fought for THE PEOPLE" and told prosecutors to "LEAVE BOLSONARO ALONE!"President Lula said Brazil is a sovereign country that "won't accept interference or instruction from anyone." "No one is above the law. Especially those that threaten freedom and the rule of law," he wrote in a post on his earlier post on Truth Social, Trump praised Bolsonaro as a "strong leader" who "truly loved his country". The US president compared Bolsonaro's prosecution to the legal cases he himself faced between his two presidential terms."This is nothing more, or less, than an attack on a Political Opponent - Something I know much about! It happened to me, times 10," Trump thanked Trump for his comments, describing the case against him as "clear political persecution" in a social media to Trump's remarks, Minister of Institutional Affairs Gleisi Hoffmann said: "The time when Brazil was subservient to the US was the time of Bolsonaro.""The US president should take care of his own problems, which are not few, and respect the sovereignty of Brazil and our judiciary," she back and fourth comes as Lula hosted representatives from China, Russia and other nations at a Brics summit in Rio de had earlier threatened to levy additional tariffs against countries aligned with what he called the bloc's "anti-American" policies. Trump and Bolsonaro enjoyed a friendly relationship when their presidencies overlapped, with the pair meeting at the White House in 2019. Both men subsequently lost presidential elections and both refused to publicly acknowledge defeat.A week after Lula's inauguration in January 2023, thousands of Bolsonaro supporters stormed government buildings in the capital, Brasilia, in what federal investigators say was an attempted coup. Bolsonaro was in the United States at the time and has always denied any links to the has been barred from running for public office until 2030 for falsely claiming Brazil's voting system was vulnerable to fraud, but he has said he intends to fight that ban and run for a second term in in court for the first time last month, Bolsonaro said a coup was an "abominable thing". The 70-year-old could face decades in prison if convicted.


The Sun
29 minutes ago
- The Sun
Ferrari is building a 100-foot YACHT that can ‘fly' over the water – and it won't have an engine
FERRARI is building a 100ft yacht that is able to "fly" over the water with no engine. The Hypersail project - designed by French naval architect Guillaume Verdier - uses foils to stay afloat rather than fuel. 6 6 6 Underwater wings are installed in the stunning design to lift the boat out of the water, reducing drag and increasing speed and allowing it to "fly". The monohull yacht Hypersail of Ferrari - while sailing - is able to balance itself on three points. One is a foil attached to a special canting keel - a moving part under the yacht that helps it keep upright whilst adding speed at the same time. The second is a foil on the rudder which helps steer the incredible vessel, and the third is one of the two side foils - depending on which direction the boat is turning. The Ferrari boat is to measure 98ft in length, 65.5ft in width and 131ft height - making it the biggest fully foiling monohull to ever exist. And Ferrari has even said it is st to be the first of its size in the world to be entirely energy self-sufficient. No fuel or combustion engine will be used - but it will rely on renewable sources like solar power, wind power and kinetic energy, or even the energy created by the vessel's movement due to the foils. Architect Verdier is behind the design of the incredible vessel, and is responsible for the overall concept of stabilising the boat's flight on the three points of contact. Ferrari is yet to decide what kind of events the Hypersail would be entered for when it's ready, according to Yachting World. The company's chairman John Elkann said: "[The] America's Cup is regulated and this boat is thought to go beyond rules. "This project gives us the chance to experiment in new areas." The Hypersail is currently being built in Italy. Ferrari is hoping to finish the prototype by some point of 2026, After that, it will be taken out on the water for sea trials. These tests will be crucial in understanding how the yacht behaves and how the systems work together. They will also show just how well the vessel can handle long trips using just renewable energy and its foils. 6 6 6