Those in Britain who supported Brexit are often accused of nostalgia for a past in which the country was powerful, but I do not think this nostalgia, if it ever existed at all, was very widespread. One might well say that nostalgia, on the part of France, was and is a driving force in the European Union, since it is only by union with Germany than France can aspire to a semi-Napoleonic role in Europe.
The irony is, of course, that Germany is once again by far the strongest power on the continent. Its interests are complex and no doubt contradictory: it wants the rest of Europe to continue to import its goods, but it does not want to fund, or mutualise, the debts that allow it to do so. The southern countries would like to either to mutualise the debts, or inflate them away by debasing the currency, but Germany will allow neither of these solutions to the imbalances within Europe. There would be no better way to re-awake German nationalism than follow the prescriptions of the southern nations; on the other hand, resentment of Germany will grow if they are not followed.
The author acknowledges the problems within Europe in his last chapter, up till which he has treated Europe as if it were one big happy family with a population gaily marching in unison behind its leadership. The truth is quite otherwise, which is why an example must be made of Britain. But the likelihood is that the more integration there is, the greater will be the tensions, both between and within countries. There is a class within countries that benefits mightily from the present arrangements, which in my opinion explains the paradox of Catalan, Flemish, and Scottish nationalism: for all these nationalisms are firm adherents to the ideal of European Union, namely a dilution of national sovereignty even greater than that which their nations already possess. Again to put it crudely, the leadership of these movements want their place not in the sun, but at the trough. They are pied pipers to their populations.
The book ends by quoting that old Mephistophelian, François Mitterand, to the effect that “Nationalism means war”. And of course this is true if by nationalism is meant an exaggerated and militant love of one’s own country and a hatred of, or disdain for, all other countries, particularly neighbouring ones. Yet at the same time, nation states — at least some of them — have been the only large-scale states able durably to protect the freedom of their populations. Moreover, if nationalism means war, it does not follow that supranationalism means peace. The European Union may be a Yugoslavia in the making, without a Tito to hold it together. As José Manuel Barroso, once President of the European Commission, former Maoist student leader and then Goldman Sachs executive (the thirst for power being the golden thread that runs through this diverse career) put it, Europe — using the word to mean the European Union, which is now more or less standard — is an empire, though of a new kind.
Perhaps not so new, in fact: a kind of Habsburg Empire without the charm and aesthetic sensibility. From the right it is attacked as a socialist enterprise, from the left as a neo-liberal one: corporatist is the word for it, that happy union between regulatory bureaucracy and large corporations.
Theodore Dalrymple, “European Empire, Fractured”, Law & Liberty, 2020-11-10.
September 23, 2026
QotD: The EU as a modern Habsburg Empire
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“…an exaggerated and militant love of one’s own country and a hatred of, or disdain for, all other countries, particularly neighbouring ones.”
Hmm. Now where else might one find that attichude these days? Americans thinking that patriotism is great when it’s American patriotism and discreditable or risible when it’s any other kind?
Or its mirror image here, that Canadian fake-identity of “not-American” (unarmed and with health insurance)? I’ve suggested before that the most militantly anti-American Canadians are always the ones most steeped in American social and political ideas.
A prairie lawyer, one J. Diefenbaker, taxed with a charge of anti-Americanism, drew a distinction between that and pro-Canadianism. I know he’s terribly, terribly unfashionable, but that don’t mean he’s wrong.
Comment by Jim Whyte — September 23, 2026 @ 11:09
I’ve lived here in Canada for nearly 60 years and I’m still boggled at just how quickly the media managed to weaponize boomer anti-Americanism. If Trump had just waited until after the Turd was flushed, we’d probably have a trade deal in place without all the tariffs and artificially raised elbows (and the media would hate it, but our economy wouldn’t be looking down into a chasm as it seems to be now …)
Comment by Nicholas — September 23, 2026 @ 16:52
And I must say I love that avatar your site has assigned me. Looks sort of like some TV antenna designs I’ve seen. I’ll try and build one and let you know how it goes…
Comment by Jim Whyte — September 23, 2026 @ 11:13
Most people don’t bother trying to customize the random avatar they get, but I hope you find one you’re happy with.
Comment by Nicholas — September 23, 2026 @ 16:49