What if Brexit had never happened?
Facing tricky US and more aggressive Russia, could Europe have been better off without Brexit?
By Sanjay Dubey
.jpg){kind=link}
When the G7 last gathered in Canada in June 2018, President Donald Trump stunned America’s allies by refusing to sign the joint statement and calling for Russia’s readmission to the group, despite its 2014 annexation of Crimea. That moment marked the beginning of an uneasy phase in US-Europe relations which eased during Joe Biden’s presidency. But Trump’s return to the White House in 2024 brought back familiar tensions — and perhaps made them worse.
At the 2025 G7 Summit, again in Canada, Donald Trump reiterated that removing Russia from the group was a mistake and argued that its presence in the G7 could have prevented the war in Ukraine. He skipped key meetings including with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and suggested that Vladimir Putin might serve as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. Throughout the Summit, Trump openly showed his friendly feelings toward the Russian leader, and played down allies' plans for tougher sanctions on Russia.
Just a few weeks before the 2025 G7 Summit, on the issue of tariffs, Trump treated his strongest allies—the European Union and Canada—with the same transactional hostility he often directs toward adversaries.
This makes us ask: would Europe have been in a stronger position to navigate Trump’s unpredictability and Russia’s war in Ukraine if the UK had remained in the EU?
Here are five reasons why many analysts believe the answer is yes:
1. Amplified diplomatic & economic leverage
An European Union including the United Kingdom could have formed a stronger, more cohesive bloc. This enhanced diplomatic and economic influence would have provided greater leverage to counter Trump’s unilateral actions and Russia’s aggression. A more integrated European market would have been less reliant on the United States for its stability and for providing military and financial support to Ukraine.
2. Internal distraction and economic uncertainties
Brexit negotiations consumed immense political capital, time, and resources for both the UK and the EU for several years. This prolonged diversion weakened Europe’s ability to address rising global challenges. Unburdened by Brexit's economic uncertainties and costs, the European economy would have possessed greater overall resilience to absorb shocks from events like the pandemic, tariffs, and the Ukraine crisis.
3. Enhanced transatlantic coordination
The UK traditionally acted as a bridge between Washington and Brussels, helping mediate transatlantic tensions and harmonize positions on security, trade, and diplomacy. Its absence from the EU arguably removed a key intermediary, making coordination between the US and Europe tougher. If the UK had stayed, it might have softened the impact of some of Trump's actions, or at least helped his allies stand stronger together at meetings like the G7.
4. Ideological balance and strategic direction
The UK’s presence within the EU added an important balancing force, often championing economically liberal policies, assertive foreign policy, and EU expansion. Its departure disrupted this balance, subtly shifting the EU’s strategic posture at a time of rising global threats. Had Britain remained, Europe might have maintained a more cohesive, assertive, and geopolitically agile approach — better equipped to manage both Trump’s unpredictability and Russian aggression.
5. Counterarguments, but…
Some argue Brexit nudged the EU toward expanding its independent defence capabilities, since the UK often preferred NATO over a stronger EU military role. That could pay off in the long run. But in the short term, losing Britain meant losing one of Europe’s strongest military and diplomatic players — precisely when it was needed most. True, being outside the EU allows the UK to act faster on certain issues. Still, history shows that when it comes to managing major crises, a united European front is almost always more effective than going it alone.