Is David Cameron right that leaving EU could increase the risk of war?

David Cameron has raised the spectre of war in support of the case for the UK remaining in Europe, insisting that continued membership could help avoid future conflicts.

The prime minister drew on examples from history in his argument, talking of the consequences of conflict, with emotional images that included reference to the rows of white crosses on Commonwealth war graves.

The speech, parts of which were released in advance, prompted a backlash from the leave campaign that his argument amounted to hyperbole and scaremongering.

Even as Cameron was delivering his speech, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, was clarifying the prime minister’s comments, saying he was not suggesting that UK withdrawal would lead to wars between western countries but that the EU without the UK would be less effective.

But if the prime minister was not suggesting Brexit would result in German tanks rolling across the French border – as Boris Johnson caricatured it in a speech that followed Cameron’s – is he right to suggest that leaving the EU could result in a less secure world?

Is the EU responsible for European stability?

In his speech Cameron argued that the EU has helped to “anchor peace and stability across the European continent” by binding the continent together.

“The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries,” the prime minister said.

View image in fullscreen

It is an argument that has been made before by the Nobel committee. When the EU was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2012 the committee president, Thorbjørn Jagland, praised the EU’s role in transforming a European “continent of war” into a “continent of peace”.

“That should not be taken for granted – we have to struggle for it every day,” he told assembled European leaders (although not Cameron who sent his deputy at the time, Nick Clegg, instead).

Decades of trade and political cooperation on the continent through the EU and its predecessors have undoubtedly helped to make war between the major European powers less likely – unthinkable, even. But the the key word is “helped”.

How important is the EU to European defence?

A key weakness in Cameron’s argument is that security in western and central Europe, and parts of eastern Europe, is not, for the most part, within the remit of the EU. It is mainly a matter for the US-led transatlantic alliance that has existed since the end of the second world war, Nato.

Nato is a military alliance, with a HQ in Brussels, a central command and control structure, running a huge force of soldiers and equipment from more than 20 countries. They conduct major training exercises annually throughout the region. The EU has no army, no common defence policy and no common foreign policy.

If Russia was to mount an aggressive campaign in the Baltics or along the Polish border, it would be Nato troops that would be confronting them.

If the UK was to leave the EU, it would not make the slightest difference to its membership of NATO.

How important is the EU to intelligence sharing?

Cameron is also weak on intelligence sharing, making a comparison with Iceland, saying that it is still negotiating to participate in the European intelligence community.

The UK is a major intelligence-gatherer, partly because of its close relationship with the US intelligence services, in particular the partnership between GCHQ and the National Security Agency.

Other countries in Europe, including France and Germany, rely on the UK sharing intelligence and that will continue whether the UK is in the EU or not.

Where the EU does play a role is in sharing basic data such as air passenger lists. But, given the extent to which other countries rely on the UK for other intelligence services, the idea that the UK would be treated along the lines of Iceland is preposterous.

What are the chances of war in western, central or eastern Europe?

A Conservative defence minister, speaking after the fall of the Berlin wall, predicted there would be conflict in some corner of Europe as a result of the end of the cold war and reeled off about half a dozen names, including Sarajevo.

That was prescient. But there are few politicians or defence analysts who would make such predictions now. The only threats at Nato headquarters mentioned these days are from the instability created by migration in south-east Europe from the Middle East conflicts and from Russia.

There is already conflict in Europe, in Ukraine, between pro- and anti-Russian forces. In spite of sanctions, no one at Nato is prepared to go to war over the Ukraine.

The US, having started a pull-out of troops and equipment from Europe, is now hurriedly sending them back. This is intended to deter Russia from interfering in countries such as those in the Baltics. In spite of the rhetoric, there is no serious expectation of a conflict between Russia and Nato states.

Although Russia has tested the air defences in the Baltics and elsewhere – just as the UK and other Nato countries test Russian air defences – it held back from interference in the Baltic states or any other Nato country. Ukraine is not a Nato member.

Security elsewhere around the world?

Cameron mentioned the fight against Islamic State and other potential confrontations around the world.

But the fight against Isis is being conducted in Iraq and Syria not by the EU but a coalition of US, European and, to a much lesser extent, some Middle East countries. If there is an intervention in Libya, again it will be by another ad hoc coalition, not the EU.

Cameron said that UK influence is greater these days than at any time since the low point of the Suez crisis in 1956 and attributes this in part to Europe. Not true. The UK does not have military forces remotely comparable to what it had in 1956 or even 10 years ago.

It has influence through being a permanent member of the UN security council and leaving the EU would not affect that.

But as always the dominant force in western security is the US. All other countries, including the UK, are by comparison bit players. Whether the UK is in or out of the EU would not alter that fact.

The US would rather the UK remains in the EU but the close military and intelligence sharing will continue even if the UK leaves the EU.