Reawakening Europe

 "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." — Winston Churchill.

This quote from Winston Churchill encapsulates the resilience and resolve that Britain has historically brought to Europe’s turbulent periods. Without Britain’s steadfast leadership, Europe often appears rudderless, lacking the decisive direction needed to navigate crises. History bears witness to this: Britain’s resolve during European Wars, from the Napoleonic Wars to the World Wars, whether through warfare, diplomacy, or economic pressure, has played a pivotal role in stabilising Europe at its most critical moments.  In the absence of this anchor, Europe will remain an archipelago of disparate interests and indecision. American unpredictability is a wake-up call from a prolonged heavy slumber and a time to resuscitate an ebbing influence that Europe once enjoyed. The recently signed Kensington agreement may yet be the Trojan Horse for renewed ties to revitalise a moribund relationship with the EU, which would prove vitally beneficial for both Europe and the United Kingdom.

In the eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, Britain, at the height of its imperial power, had a foreign policy that was essentially predicated on preventing any single continental power from achieving hegemony over Europe. A strategy for achieving balanced military tranquillity involves forming alliances and, if necessary, resorting to military intervention to maintain equilibrium.  A somewhat paranoid Britain feared that any single power in Europe could impose a direct threat to its security and trade interests.  In 1815, following the Napoleonic wars, at the Congress of Vienna, Britain, with Palmerston at the helm, actively shaped the European order while opting for what it termed ‘splendid isolation’, allowing it to observe and intervene when and where it mattered. Indeed, today’s weakened Britain, across the wild waters of the English Channel, particularly post-Brexit, significantly still has the capacity to alter this dynamic. “Never give in” was the conviction that Winston Churchill carried with him throughout his life, a significant factor in his determination and resilience in overcoming the overwhelming odds Britain faced in saving Europe from Nazi Germany. 

A throwback to seventeenth-century Europe, when France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic were at loggerheads, and Britain had to make sense of their religiously inspired wars and colonial dispositions. History is at a crossroads, and Britain's role is needed once more if this awful following experience is anything to go by:  In the glaring lights of world media, in focus, Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, appearing weak and hapless, in her reactive impulse allowed the United States to bulldoze through a one-sided trade agreement that would be impossible to fund through public taxation, and neither what is hoped for private enterprise.  A reactive surrender that further exposes Europe’s inability to assert itself on the global stage. This, coupled with internal fragilities within Europe itself, raises profound questions about the continent's ability to maintain its international standing. In light of this show of weakness, French PM François Bayrou wrote on X that it was a “dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to assert their values and defend their interests, resigns itself to submission.” Indeed, a capitulation at the first sign of resistance. 

Pax Britannica, meaning "British Peace" in Latin,
refers to the period of relative peace and stability in Europe and the world, particularly between 1815 and 1914

I claim that Europe shaped Britain, and Britain, in turn, shaped Europe.  But today, both stand alone.  Europe without Britain at the wheel is a failed Europe. Against this backdrop, though, and with Brexit now at a distant, there is a tendency for Britain to come into the fold and perhaps regain the reins. If I am not mistaken, a Grand Alliance is gradually being put together between Britain, France, and Germany. A pull away from and increasingly unreliable and unpredictable US administration gave reason to a recent signing of the Kensington agreements between President Macron of France, Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, and our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, focusing on economic and Military cooperation aimed at strengthening their defence programs, AI technology developments, and other areas.

Unfortunately, Britain's political and economic stature is not what it was; Brexit has seen to that.  Britain’s ability to mediate between the US and European countries has diminished, and its influence on EU foreign policy has weakened considerably, leaving the continent with a new geopolitical landscape.  Many would not argue with the presumption that Britain has transitioned from a significant power to one of many middle powers globally.  Possible coming back into the fold makes a lot of sense. Britain has considerable hard and soft power.  Its defence capabilities are formidable, with an immense nuclear arsenal, and in conjunction with the US, feintly still there, it redefines its old global role. Now, through the political fog, we can just about see the outline of Britain’s influence extending beyond Europe. 

Without Britain's balancing influence within the European framework, its infrastructure would be rendered fragile.  Europe’s union struggles to remain a cohesive unit, which negatively impacts its global standing. It does not help that these weaknesses are starkly exhibited during trade negotiations with China and the United States. Especially, when we need to recognise that there is a trend of fissures arising within member states, stemming from their independent opinions. This is reflected mainly in a lack of cooperation with the commission, which contributes to the fraying of the union’s collective resolve. The absence of Britain’s pragmatic leadership has created a void, allowing internal divisions to deepen and external powers to exploit Europe’s disarray, further undermining its global standing.

There is also an increasing saliency of Populism and Right-Wing attitude by some EU members, which runs against the Liberal grain of majority members.  We end up with an archipelagic disintegration of membership where national interests and ideological divides threaten to widen the fragmentation of the bloc.  This grossly undermines the EU's ability to present a united front on global issues and can lead to slower or less decisive action on the world stage. And with Brexit out of the bag, an arguably unilateral action, the remaining 27 member states are pursuing a strategic autonomy on defence, economics, and immigration.  An ambition that encourages a constitutional polycrisis of internal divisions. 

Backed by the American administration and the press's loud cheers and glee, the recent trade agreement between the US, which was recently signed in Scotland, as I earlier referred to, was viewed by many in Europe as a capitulation rather than a balanced agreement. The agreement imposes a 15% tariff ceiling on most EU goods exported to the US, including cars, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. While this was a reduction from the 30% tariff threatened by the US, it represents a significant increase from the average 4.8% tariffs faced by European goods before the Trump administration. In contrast, the US will not face higher tariffs for exporting to the EU, and the EU has committed to eliminating existing low-level duties on US industrial goods. The EU has agreed to purchase an additional $750 billion in US energy products by 2028 (approximately $250 billion annually) and to invest $600 billion in various sectors in the US by 2029. Furthermore, the EU has pledged to purchase "hundreds of billions of dollars" in US military equipment. These are significant financial outflows with little direct, reciprocal economic concessions from the US side.  In a nutshell, a classic asymmetrical tariff imposition where the winner takes all, a surrender driven by fear.  A particular concern arises where strategic autonomy has been replaced with strategic vulnerability. 

Such vulnerability sets the stage for independent resolves. The Kensington Treaty is one such resolution; the emergence of the Grand Alliance is also a pull away from US unreliability and unpredictability, a catalyst for absolute European strategic autonomy. For example, we are not yet finished with Tariffs; anything could still happen from our fair weather friend across the pond.  To counter this, where it matters, there is indeed an uncompromising, gradual, yet significant buildup of cooperation among Britain, France, and Germany. This "E3" format (UK, France, Germany) is re-emerging as a crucial pillar of European security and economic diplomacy as well as a broader shift in transatlantic relations.  The “never give in” factor kicks in; the show must go on, driven by courage and resiliency.

The Grand Alliance, Architects of the Kensington Treaty
France, Germany and The United Kingdom.

The primary motive for the Grand Alliance is to revive the old innate spirit of greater European self-reliance. A need for a stable Europe in the face of a turbulent and agitated world, and the need to step out of the shadow of America, Russia, and China. For the first time since World War II, this agreement includes mutual assistance in the event of an attack, thereby reinforcing NATO and facilitating broad cooperation across diplomatic, defence, internal security (including migration), economic, scientific, research, energy, and climate policy. It also explicitly aims to intensify trilateral cooperation with France.  An agreement that promises to coordinate their independent nuclear deterrents and joint efforts in nuclear research. It also focuses on enhancing cruise missile capabilities and developing new air-to-air missiles.  Notwithstanding this, they agree to continue making efforts to scale computing power, share AI best practices, and collaborate on frontier research related to national security. Germany's new treaty also includes cooperation in science and research. These initiatives aim to boost European technological sovereignty and competitiveness, reducing reliance on external powers in critical sectors. The UK and Germany are now co-leading the Ramstein base ( US Air Force installation and a NATO hub) format for coordinating weapons delivery to Ukraine, taking over from the US, while the UK and France lead a "coalition of the willing" for potential ceasefire reassurance in Ukraine.

Like most diplomatic terms, the innocuous-sounding name, The Kensington Treaty, often belies the depth of its underlying intentions and potential long-term impacts, despite its diplomatic title. The agreement bears the hallmark of more than just a symbolic gesture; it lays out a comprehensive framework that, by design or evolution, could pave the way for significantly deeper economic cooperation, catching us and the media looking the other way, the road map is gradually set on mutual defence and security cooperation. This isn't merely a vague aspiration; it commits both nations to "strengthening bilateral trade within the framework of existing EU-UK agreements." This phrasing is crucial. It acknowledges the existing post-Brexit realities but signals a clear intent to maximise economic engagement within those parameters.  Reversing Brexit is unlikely, but a reset is certainly on the cards.  The Kensington Treaty explicitly includes "economic ties, science and research cooperation" as one of its six core pillars. It provides a backdoor for the UK to re-anchor itself economically with the major European powerhouses outside the direct EU single market and Customs union. A clever perception which can lead to a gradual, sector-by-sector alignment of standards and regulations. A "managed divergence" or "dynamic alignment" could facilitate smoother trade and investment without the need for formal institutional ties.   

Chancellor Scholz, in 2024, welcomes Starmer's desire for a reset in relations. 
Starmer says 'ambitious' reset with Europe will not mean reversing Brexit.

The E3 as an Economic Catalyst is a definite perception. The Kensington agreement and the deepening UK-France ties reinforce the E3 (UK, France, Germany) as a significant economic bloc within the European Union. These three nations collectively represent a substantial portion of Europe's economic output and innovation capacity. They could act as a powerful magnet for other European states if they could effectively coordinate their economic policies, investment strategies, and technological development. This isn't about replacing the EU single market but creating a dynamic core that can drive economic growth and competitiveness across the wider continent. Other states might be drawn to align with E3 initiatives to participate in these economic benefits and technological advancements. 

A Proactive Europe is indeed on the horizon. I am convinced the economic dimension of the E3, driven by agreements such as the one in Kensington, will directly contribute to the idea of a more proactive Europe. Instead of merely reacting to global economic shifts or the actions of other powers, the E3 can collectively set agendas, invest in strategic industries, and advocate for common European interests on the global stage. This economic strength underpins their geopolitical ambitions, allowing Europe to "speak the language of power" militarily and economically.

The E3 will provide the economic catalyst for a de facto closer alignment in several ways. By covert regulatory alignment on science and research, reducing non-tariff barriers, and strategic sector collaboration.  Placing greater emphasis on AI tech developments, energy, and climate policies.  Such collaboration will undoubtedly foster deeper economic ties, shared supply chains, and joint ventures that could easily weave the E3 economies closer together, leaving intact the existing trade relationship, but an eventual removal of the broader obstacles to business transactions under such a scenario is a given. It is imperative that the E3 eliminates fault-lines along which the EU alliance threaten to fracture.

In essence, despite its seemingly modest name, the Kensington Treaty represents a significant step in the post-Brexit recalibration of European power dynamics. Such a trilateral agreement also signals a pragmatic recognition that while formal EU membership for the UK remains off the table, deep bilateral and trilateral cooperation, particularly in the economic and technological spheres, is not only desirable but essential for the future prosperity and influence of all involved European nations. Whether this leads to a "full economic cooperation" akin to EU membership is unlikely, but it certainly points towards a much more integrated and interdependent economic relationship than might have been anticipated immediately after Brexit. 

The government’s “secretive” approach to negotiations with the EU.
Public support for closer relations with Europe meant the government had space to be “bold in its offer to the EU”

The success of this "grand alliance" will largely depend on its capacity to integrate with, rather than alienate, the broader European project. Indeed, this Kensington agreement and the broader E3 dynamic may draw in other states for a better, more active Europe, rather than the reactive Europe of today. There is fear that the deepening of E3 ties could also inadvertently exacerbate the "archipelagic disintegration" within the EU if it is perceived as an exclusive club or if its actions do not align with the broader interests of all 27 member states. Notwithstanding language differences, there is a need to recognise that the porosity in border agreements allows space for the entire archipelago to act collectively, hopefully with less self-conscious nationalist thinking. The challenge will be for the E3 to ensure its efforts complement and strengthen the EU's overall strategic autonomy, rather than creating new divisions or undermining the EU's own institutions and initiatives. 

It is conceivable that neither time nor political or economic coercion would cause the power of Europe to erode.  Innovation, entrepreneurial daredevil, and the pioneering spirit of the ideological drive intrinsic to the European avant-garde are never far away.  The reawakening of Europe is long overdue; it's time to revive its potential strength from a prolonged slumber, and the E3 is likely to be the spur to dispel that aforementioned fear.  The Marshall Plan is long dead, and it's time to realise the transatlantic bridge was an artificial symbol. Living on US Welfare has come to an end, as has the transatlantic friendship.  Time to provide the framework of unity, embracing the UK, to add strength to the European landscape and build a strong, competitive, and proactive Europe. Time to rejuvenate the tired cliche, “standing on the shoulders of giants,” giants of its own making, a Europe standing firm to challenge hurdles put out by the new global order mapped by China and the United States.  

Sometimes, mining the past, we can look to the future. A vantage point from which an unwavering conviction for success is formed.