EU Beneficially Substitutes for Empire
False Assumption: The European Union emerged as an economically beneficial replacement for traditional empires because empires enriched their metropole economies.
Written by FARAgent on February 09, 2026
In the postwar era, as European states shed their overseas empires, historian Timothy Snyder and like-minded elites framed the emerging European Union as an economic successor project, premised on the notion that empires had been profitable engines of growth for the imperial cores. This view overlooked the conspicuous postwar booms in former metropoles like Britain, Portugal's neighbors, and even non-EU Japan, all fueled by access to the cheaper, more dynamic US-led maritime order rather than colonial tribute.
Decolonization freed resources previously sunk into military and administrative sinks, yet EU architects channeled state ambitions upwards into supranational bureaucracy, promising prosperity through integration while inheriting empire's extractive incentives without its territorial costs. Over decades, this manifested in regulatory sprawl, democratic deficits, and grandiose visions of 'Ever Closer Union,' turning the EU into what critics call an imperial overreach that burdens members with bureaucratic drag.
Today, with populist revolts from the working classes and stagnant growth relative to non-EU peers, mounting questions swirl around the EU's economic value; dissenters highlight its alienation of the less-connected, fiscal strains from mismanaged immigration, and failure to address Europe's true historical curse of unaccountable power, which the EU arguably replicates on a continental scale.
People Involved
- In the halls of Yale University, Timothy Snyder took to the podium in recent years. He argued that the European Union had stepped in as a prosperous stand-in for lost empires. Empires, he said, had fattened the economies of their home countries. The EU, in his view, offered a similar boon without the old baggage. Critics argue this overlooked deeper flaws in the analogy. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Historian Timothy Snyder makes an argument in various lectures and on his Substack that what became the EU was a replacement for empire. ... Prof. Snyder holds that what became the EU is an economic replacement because he appears to believe that empire was economically beneficial to their metropole economies.”— The EU as (imperial) substitute for empire
Organizations Involved
The European Union grew into a sprawling entity after the Cold War's end. State bureaucracies used it to climb upward, colonizing power from above. It pushed integration, layering on regulations that swelled administrative reach. Mounting evidence challenges whether this truly replaced empire's benefits. NATO, meanwhile, stood quietly in the background. It guaranteed borders, allowing the EU's shared sovereignty to flourish. Yet analyses praising the EU as an imperial successor often skipped over NATO's role. Growing questions surround this omission. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“What became the EU was an administrative replacement for empire. State apparats can colonise outwards (a territorial empire, whether maritime or land empire), inwards (the welfare state), or upwards (internationalisation: notably, the EU, the UN).”— The EU as (imperial) substitute for empire
“A conspicuous absence from Prof. Snyder’s analysis of what-became-the-EU is NATO. ... In order to pool sovereignty within the EU, states first have to have their territorial sovereignty guaranteed. This guarantee is precisely what NATO provides.”— The EU as (imperial) substitute for empire
The Foundation
The idea took root in the postwar era, as Europe sifted through imperial ruins. Experts presumed empires had lined metropolitan pockets, ignoring the hidden costs. This fed the notion that EU integration would drive wealth, much like old colonial systems. But critics argue metropoles actually thrived more after shedding empires, thanks to the American-led global order. Another pillar was the diagnosis of nationalism as Europe's chief ill, not unchecked power. This shaped the EU as a shield against national fervor, promoting supranational fixes. Mounting evidence challenges these foundations, suggesting they misread history's lessons. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“Every maritime imperial metropole got richer after it lost its empire. ... It is not clear that even Britain made a “profit” from its Empire, once you consider military and administrative costs. Portugal had the largest maritime empire—relative to the size of its metropole—for longest and is the poorest country in Western Europe.”— The EU as (imperial) substitute for empire
“the EU—including as originally conceived as a bulwark against nationalism—is a complete misdiagnosis of the central problem of European history. The key problem of European history is not nationalism ... The central problem of European history has been unaccountable power.”— The EU as (imperial) substitute for empire
How It Spread
The assumption gained traction in elite circles starting in the late 20th century. Timothy Snyder and others lectured on it in academic settings. Substack essays carried the narrative further, framing the EU's rise as a clever pivot from empire. Intellectuals in think tanks and universities echoed the theme. Critics argue this spread ignored counterarguments, letting the idea embed in policy discussions. The debate remains lively. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Historian Timothy Snyder makes an argument in various lectures and on his Substack that what became the EU was a replacement for empire.”— The EU as (imperial) substitute for empire
Resulting Policies
By the 1990s, the EU chased 'Ever Closer Union' with fervor. It harmonized rules across borders, demanding rule-of-law standards for new members. This built on the belief in beneficial, empire-like unity. Later, the bloc eyed online content, positioning itself as Europe's censor-in-chief. Talks even floated help from U.S. agencies. Critics argue these moves smack of overreach, rooted in flawed assumptions about supranational power. The policies persist amid growing scrutiny. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“the bureaucratic-drag effect tending to get worse over time. This effect can be expected to get worse the EU’s role became more grandiose (such as by seeking Ever Closer Union).”— The EU as (imperial) substitute for empire
“The way it (and member states) has attempted to be Censor-in-Chief of the online world—possibly aided by US security agencies using European regulation as part of a more general pattern of making end-runs around the US First Amendment—seems rather, well, imperial.”— The EU as (imperial) substitute for empire
Harm Caused
The EU's bureaucratic sprawl began weighing on economies in the 2000s. It dragged down growth in member states, a burden that critics say only worsened. Working classes felt the pinch, turning to national populists in frustration. Immigration rules tied to the EU added to the strain. Low-skill migrants drove up rents and taxed welfare systems. Mounting evidence challenges the idea that this setup echoes empire's enrichments; instead, it seems to immiserate the very people it claims to uplift. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“If the EU is upward colonisation, you would expect it to be an “imperial bureaucracy” that becomes an economic drag on its member countries, with the bureaucratic-drag effect tending to get worse over time. ... an imperial bureaucracy with weak or narrow feedback mechanisms to increasingly alienate the least well-connected folk. That would be the working class, which increasingly votes national populist.”— The EU as (imperial) substitute for empire
“In the UK, immigration has imported sectarianism and immiserated its working class by driving up rents ... According to a Dutch study and Danish figures, Middle Eastern immigrants are a net drain on the fisc overall ... a European Commission study found that immigrants from outside the EU were a net drain on the fisc.”— The EU as (imperial) substitute for empire
Sources
- [1]