The European project has no place in the new age of empires

Telegraph

17-04-2025

As the world changes beyond recognition, Britain is sitting pretty. For all the talk of Trump's trade war backfiring, countries are lining up to strike free trade deals with Washington – and London is near the front of the queue.
We are in a strong position to exploit Scottish-American Trump's soft spot for the UK to mould the special relationship in our favour. In the mercurial Trumpian age this subtle advantage is not to be sniffed at.
Yet the PM risks sacrificing our strategic position on the altar of the Remainer cause. It is striking enough that Sir Keir Starmer should try to have his cake and eat it, pursuing the fundamentally incompatible objectives of a closer relationship with the US and deeper association with the EU. It is even more astonishing that the PM should do this at a time when the EU project faces obsolescence.
This week, murmurings emanated from the White House that it could strike a trade deal with the UK within three weeks. At the very same time, it emerged that Sir Keir Starmer is closing in on an agreement to align with Brussels on food and veterinary standards. Such a partnership could potentially scupper the US trade deal, as it may shut out American products that Trump wants to sell in Britain.
A diplomatic blowup is brewing. Trade experts are worried that the US could turn on Britain and renege on its offer of a deal should we start to live up to our 'perfidious albion' reputation. As one expert told me: 'On the global stage we aren't as trusted as we might like to think. We are not trusted in Washington or Brussels. They think we're very polite, but also tend to think we are being sneaky even when we are being indecisive.'
Unless the PM changes course, we may end up with the worst of both worlds – alienated from the US and estranged from Brussels.
Starmer's double dealing risks squandering a golden economic opportunity. A trade deal with the US – which would require the UK to slash domestic red tape – would offer Rachel Reeves a lifeline, giving her the authority she sorely needs to pursue the 'bonfire of regulations' that she has been struggling to drive through in the face of vested interests since her fiscal headroom evaporated.
But the most baffling thing about No 10's pursuit of a closer relationship with Brussels is that it comes at a time when the EU's future is more uncertain than at any point in its history. The EU has no clear role in this new age – at least not in its current form.
America wants the EU as it currently stands to be effectively disbanded. The EU has evolved, largely by accident, from a peace-preserving free trade bloc into the world's regulatory superpower. The EU's clout today is rooted in its ability to leverage restricted access to the single market – the largest in the world – in order to compel companies to comply with its regulatory standards. This makes it often easier for companies to adopt European standards across the world. Europe has been able to colonise the regulatory systems of foreign countries, shaping much of the world in its own compliance-driven, innovation-stifling image.
This dynamic is incompatible with the world order that America is now attempting to erect. The US wants to transform itself from a power rooted in dominance of global finance and technology to one that is also anchored in the kind of manufacturing prowess that can provide ordinary American workers with well-paid jobs. This demands a huge jump in US exports.
Yet, as it stands, many US products do not meet red tape thresholds that exist not just within the EU's borders but across the world. America thus wants radical deregulation on a global scale.
Pro-EU scholars concede that the Brussels project is threatened. Professor Anu Bradford, the leading expert on the EU's regulatory power, told me that US pressure combined with internal panic over European tech stagnation could cause the EU to lose its nerve and dismantle voluntarily:
'We need to rethink everything now. I'm most worried about the Europeans' own inability to defend the regulatory agenda; that the EU will come to think its path to tech competitiveness is walking away from its regulations.'
Some Europhiles seek solace in the notion that the EU is a self-made power that can face down American bullying. They are wrong.
America holds most of the cards in negotiations. The EU's trade surplus with the US means it is vulnerable to tariffs. The idea that Europe is an independent civilisation created by visionary European elites is also a romantic myth. The EU is a failed American experiment. Since George Washington, Stateside politicians have been captivated with the idea of a 'single republic' in America's mirror image across the pond. After the Second World War, the US vigorously pushed the dream of a united Europe, viewing it as a way to both contain Germany's militancy and hold the line against communist Russia. The harsh reality is that America birthed the EU.
It is not just economic but also military shifts that threaten the EU. Russia's rampage against Ukraine has demolished the myth that globalisation alone can secure world peace. It is clear that Europe must operate as a defence bloc first and a trading outfit second.
This will almost certainly require the EU to reverse course on integration. True, a defence turn demands integration in highly specific and vital areas. The Continent urgently needs to standardise its weapon systems. Still, the political and fiscal integration envisioned by the EU's most ambitious champions is clearly obsolete.
Europe lacks a common set of defence interests. Southern Europeans don't feel the Russian threat in the same way as their northern counterparts. Eastern Europe is ripping itself apart over whether Russia is a friend or a foe. It's hard to conceive a European nuclear weapon capability for the simple reason that member states would never be able to agree on when to use it. As Dr Neil Melvin of RUSI told me: 'This is not a kind of Brussels ecosystem. It's much more like the Europe of the old days where you have strong nations as core actors. The question is whether Europe can find a new kind of structure to manage the re-emergence of nation states as the main drivers of European agendas.'
The PM's eagerness to align with Brussels is illogical. Whether the EU can reinvent itself for a new epoch is uncertain. For now then, we should focus on nurturing relations with the world superpower, while keeping a cordial distance from a European project in existential crisis.