In the early hours of December 19, a historic battle has been fought in the halls of the EU’s ivory tower. Leaders of the European consensus, representing the Empire had taken up arms against outsiders, the barbarians. The barbarians won.
The Imperial EU, at the behest of Germany, wanted the EU to approve its plans on the frozen Russian assets and on the Mercosur trade agreement, two controversial subjects that would benefit Germany but risked harming many barbaric member states. The member states rose in resistance and halted the Germans. This will prove highly consequential.
Commentators love to use analogies referring to the Second World War, mostly due to a lack of imagination, historical knowledge and taste. More broadly, historical analogies are often forced and contrived, missing nuance, context and insight. But because of the results of the Council meeting of December 18 and 19, a comparison with the disintegration of the Roman Empire merits a thought.
What happened at the eve of the Christmas celebrations could be the nail in the coffin of European Commission and of the German hegemony over the European Union, as the elites overplayed their hand.
Ursula von der Leyen and Friedrich Merz wanted to ram through highly contested and extremely controversial solutions to their problems, one on the frozen Russian assets, another on Mercosur, a broad trade agreement with a South American bloc.
Just as Rome’s defeat in Adrianople revealed structural weaknesses, the Council meeting exposed Germany’s overreach.
Both protagonists can be seen as the embodiment of the European establishment, the Empire.
Germany is the leading economic power that in essence has determined most of the European trajectory since its inception and even more so since the introduction of the Euro, the currency of 20 EU countries leaning on the back of Germany.
The European Commission has similarly over time become ever more political and activist, working on the ever closer union as envisioned by German elites, more intense than ever under von der Leyen, parachuted into her position as a political asset of Mutti (Angela) Merkel, known for single-handedly removing Europe’s external borders.
This axis between Brussels and Berlin also was the guide light during the Eurozone crisis, the early days of the breakdown of relations between Ukraine and Russia and the Covid-Pandemic.
The battle of Adrianople in ancient Thrace in 378 A.D. proved to be a definitive turning point in the history of the Roman Empire, the clearest military turning point which demonstrated that Roman infantry could be decisively beaten by “barbarian” forces.
It forced Rome to settle large barbarian groups inside the empire as semi-autonomous foederati and marked the beginning of Rome’s loss of monopoly on organised violence.
The defeat of the Roman troops reflected political paralysis at the heart of the Empire, which made it unable to realise its political wishes.
Not much later, the Brits were out.
Now, we see the same unfolding in modern Europe. The powers that be are no longer capable of demonstrating their power, because of increasing weakness. That weakness makes it more desperate, forcing them into mistakes and bad deals that make everything unravel even further.
Illustrating this point is that Paris hasn’t been mentioned even yet, as it was already taken a peg down due to its permanent economic troubles. France has worse and worse problems to make a credible budget and this in turn is causing political fragmentation, to the point that the hard-right Jordan Bardella is in pole position to become the next French President, an unimaginable feat until very recently.
Illusions that historic founding and Europhile members had some say in the EU were chattered ahead of the most recent Council meeting, as Berlin had no problem whatsoever in throwing Belgium under the bus to get its hands on the frozen Russian assets.
The seriousness of this cannot be understated. Berlin demanded for the EU risk blowing up Europe’s credibility in the international financial system and possibly shove at least €200 billion of new debt in the lap of Belgium because it wanted to confiscate Russian money, stationed in the financial clearing house Euroclear. It was a desperate move animated by the fact that the German economy is in an existential crisis, with its industry melting away, its infrastructure lacking and its demographics collapsing.
The same economic baseline lies behind the willingness to throw many European farmers under the same bus, desperately searching for new growth markets for its industrial exports, with strong demands for cars, trucks, machinery and chemicals. Mercosur would remove or reduce tariffs on German products and give their firms a competitive edge over US and Chinese rivals in a WTO-style multilateral deal that has been championed for so long.
Germany itself doesn’t even have that many farmers, so it’s a clear net gain for Germany.
However, German desperation caused tunnel vision and blindness for all the downsides. The same blindness does not exist with other member states, where many leaders also think in their national interest.
And where historically, national interest and European ones tended to reinforce themselves, is the ideal case. At worst they had to be bought for the greater good, or the greater country, something many countries have experienced when their political leadership prioritises other interests.
This no longer holds true, with the battle of December 19 as symbolic date. A first skirmish was already fought this summer, when the European Union agreed with a highly unfavourable trade deal, being steamrolled by the US administration and showing in what a predicament into which Brussels had steered itself.
Brussels also is tasting the sour fruits of its own work on the green deal and overregulation, with the many European industries suffering and unable to recover.
The blowout of the EU defeats are now consistently taking shape. On one side we see Belgian PM Bart De Wever, who unlike most of his recent predecessors — Alexander De Croo, Charles Michel, Herman Van Rompuy, Yves Leterme, Guy Verhofstadt whose governments turned out to be stepping stones to internationalist top jobs — chose to fight in a credible way for the national interest.
The European stance was the extreme one, causing damage for most other members. The particular one (one might even say nationalist) carried the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
Another innovation is the expanded political use of the “opt-out”, very conspicuously demanded – and obtained – by Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic regarding the common loan for Ukraine.
Opt-outs have been an explosive political demand in the Patriot faction in the European Parliament, in particular for migration policies, opening a whole new dimension into European decision making that for a long time was unthinkable as well.
In theory, it also opens the door to a two-speed Europe where greater integration is possible, but let’s be realistic, even if that happens somewhere, it will be exceptional and marginal, as the EU is losing its economic and political centre.
Adding to all this is that Germany not only lost on these important issues, it also got more common European debt, as Ukraine will never be able to pay this back. So Germany’s burden has only grown.
With a German-led Europe struggling to function, we must confront the possible outcomes. Germany could stabilise its economy and politics, but this seems increasingly unlikely. Likewise, pushing for ever closer integration—at a time when global liberalism is fraying and powers like China and Russia are testing the EU’s weak points—appears even more improbable.
Paradoxically, attempts to deepen integration under these conditions may only accelerate fragmentation. The empire’s logic is collapsing under its own weight.
But what if we considered the inverse? Perhaps strategic, “smart” fragmentation offers a solution. Rather than risking the break-up of large parts of the Union—as happened in the Roman Empire, when local kings seized sovereignty—why not focus on the philosophical core of the EU, which still enjoys broad support across ideologies and borders?
I am speaking of subsidiarity: Allowing those who can govern effectively at the local or national level to do so, provided it does not harm the greater good, or at least, once the greater good has been carefully defined.
This approach demands insight and a deep understanding of why the European Union could, and should, succeed. Ironically, perhaps this time the answer might come from Rome itself.
