Trump’s team sees Europe’s ‘erasure.’

[RamiC]

Or the other option would be to stick it in a neutral spot like Geneva Switzerland (a place with a long history of playing host to neutral summits and diplomatic discussions, and that doesn't have a dog in the fight)

I really think the HQ of the EU is best inside the EU.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Europe is just a failed dystopia Islamic Caliphate made up of freedom squashing socialist micro states run by atheist dictators who want to be like the great cultural beacon of freedom known as Mississippi.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I think the EU should stay together to protect American interests. But will they? I dont know. I mean, if Europeans are ethnically replaced by foreign immigrants, is it really the same Europe anymore?

If you consider it carefully, you'll realize that none of these immigrants to Europe are actually foreigners. They are just coming home.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I voted yes...but with a disclaimer lol.

Given the fact that the EU occupies a landmass that's smaller than the US, it makes perfect sense for them to "team up" on certain shared services.

For instance, it doesn't make sense for them to have 27 different versions of the FAA. It makes sense for them to team up on some defense capabilities. 27 disjointed air forces are less effective than 2 or 3 bigger ones that are the result of collaboration with a few decision makers steering the ship.

And given the close proximity, certain border travel agreements make sense. (I wouldn't want to go through a lengthy customs process every time I went to Pennsylvania)


But I do think it should be more of a federalist model, where there are certain "infield" and certain "outfield" aspects.

Structured more like a federalist system like we have in the US, where the certain "key" initiatives are mandatory buy-ins (the infield), but where each member nation/state still maintains the right to "go their own way" on stuff that's not of international concern (the outfield)


The one potential flaw I see... Their HQ needs to be in London or Berlin, not Brussels.

The seat of any international organization needs to be in a place that embodies a more diverse set of viewpoints that would be more likely to be amicable to all parties involved. When you place the HQ in an ideological bubble (within the Overton window you're working with), that leads to contention. The UN HQ being in NYC would be an example of that.

As an American with traditional conservative values, I hope the European Union remains united. A stronger Europe that maintains close ties with the United States benefits both regions and the world as a whole. I still wish that after 2028, we can restore our relationship with Europe to what it was over the past eighty years—marked by America's unwavering support for defending Europe and upholding the NATO alliance.

One challenge for the EU is that its countries have a long history of rivalry and conflict, with less than a century since the last wars over land and power. Achieving greater cohesion is likely to take more time, possibly another hundred years and new generations.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I still wish that after 2028, we can restore our relationship with Europe to what it was over the past eighty years

Wait, why would President Trump charge his view during his third trem?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I realize the Brexit thing of 2020 kneecapped it.

I guess I should've added the disclaimer (**if they could get the UK back into the fold in a perfect world scenario).

The idea I was conveying was that if Europe is going to band together and collectively tackle issues, having the HQ in a place that would likely be shouldering larger shares of certain "burdens" makes sense so that representatives from those nations are closer by the operations. Any security agreements would obviously disproportionately fall on the Brits (if Brexit hadn't occurred), and any sort of financial backing/bailouts would fall on the Germans.


I don't think it's any coincidence that the place that happened to be the HQ ended up being one of the larger net beneficiaries.

View attachment 374293


Or the other option would be to stick it in a neutral spot like Geneva Switzerland (a place with a long history of playing host to neutral summits and diplomatic discussions, and that doesn't have a dog in the fight)

Take this with a giant grain of salt, but to my recollection the only reason Belgium is a net recipient is because Brussels are one of two main cities for the EU. If this is the case there is no reason to move the EU central administration (you would only move the money flow somewhere else). If you take away the money the EU is putting into itself in Brussels, my guess Belgium would also be a net contributor.

 

[Landon Caeli]

As an American with traditional conservative values, I hope the European Union remains united. A stronger Europe that maintains close ties with the United States benefits both regions and the world as a whole. I still wish that after 2028, we can restore our relationship with Europe to what it was over the past eighty years—marked by America's unwavering support for defending Europe and upholding the NATO alliance.

One challenge for the EU is that its countries have a long history of rivalry and conflict, with less than a century since the last wars over land and power. Achieving greater cohesion is likely to take more time, possibly another hundred years and new generations.

Do you feel like the current mood of Europe has had any negative impacts as far as other regions, including our own, since Nov. 1993, which marks the beginning of the EU?

Or has the EU been a consistent boon for the rest of the world?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Take this with a giant grain of salt, but to my recollection the only reason Belgium is a net recipient is because Brussels are one of two main cities for the EU. If this is the case there is no reason to move the EU central administration (you would only move the money flow somewhere else). If you take away the money the EU is putting into itself in Brussels, my guess Belgium would also be a net contributor.

How about a more Western inclusive location, say, somewhere in the United States? What about Italy even? What would it take to revamp the whole thing to the entire northern hemisphere?

...Or is this an exclusive thing, where only specific people can take part? Because honestly, it looks a little overly Germanic from the outside looking in.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I really think the HQ of the EU is best inside the EU.

I think the United States is being excluded from all the fun. Why not go with the entire northern hemisphere, and invite Russia in too?

...Now that's being inclusive! And much more balanced. Just imagine it for a minute. Explore it in your mind.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

How about a more Western inclusive location, say, somewhere in the United States? What about Italy even? What would it take to revamp the whole thing to the entire northern hemisphere?

...Or is this an exclusive thing, where only specific people can take part?

Italy wouldn't be a problem, they are already part of the EU. With a name change I guess the US, Canada and any country could be included and the location of the main administrative center doesn't matter, if they want and can convince the other other countries (me personally don't see a problem).

 

[Nithavela]

I think the United States is being excluded from all the fun. Why not go with the entire northern hemisphere, and invite Russia in too?

...Now that's being inclusive! And much more balanced. Just imagine it for a minute. Explore it in your mind.

We already have such an inclusive organisation. It's called the united nations.

 

[Landon Caeli]

As one, consisting of the entire northern hemisphere, with free travel throughout, the scale of possibilities seem almost glorious.

...I could buy a house in Sochi Russia for a fraction of the price I pay here. With all.the modern amenities.

 

[Landon Caeli]

We already have such an inclusive organisation. It's called the united nations.

But that doesn't operate the same way. I'm talking about a true partnership. Like a marriage.

 

[7thKeeper]

Wait, why would President Trump charge his view during his third trem?

Because the third time is a charm?

 

[7thKeeper]

I think the United States is being excluded from all the fun. Why not go with the entire northern hemisphere, and invite Russia in too?

...Now that's being inclusive! And much more balanced. Just imagine it for a minute. Explore it in your mind.

How about you stay on the topic? You still haven't once addressed or talked about the reasons for X's fines that's caused Elon to whine so.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

But that doesn't operate the same way. I'm talking about a true partnership. Like a marriage.

That doesn't describe the EU. For Russia to be a prospective partner they would have to back off Ukraine and become a democracy in more than name.

 

[Landon Caeli]

How about you stay on the topic? You still haven't once addressed or talked about the reasons for X's fines that's caused Elon to whine so.

Don't tell me what to do in my own thread.

 

[Landon Caeli]

That doesn't describe the EU. For Russia to be a prospective partner they would have to back off Ukraine and become a democracy in more than name.

A lot of people have been saying that Russia has been trying for years to get good with the West. Word is, they started this Ukraine war out of anxiety from being excluded.

 

[Nithavela]

But that doesn't operate the same way. I'm talking about a true partnership. Like a marriage.

If you think the EU is anything like unified, you should learn more about it. It really isn't. It's more of an alliance of convenience based on the lowest common denominator. That denominator would become even lower if the USA and Russia were in the mix.

So, no thank you. The EU and the USA, and much more the EU and Russia, are much too different for that kind of coalition.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Italy wouldn't be a problem, they are already part of the EU. With a name change I guess the US, Canada and any country could be included and the location of the main administrative center doesn't matter, if they want and can convince the other other countries (me personally don't see a problem).

Not sure that would make a ton of sense... at what point would it just become a parallel (somewhat watered down) UN?

Some of the aspects is some shared services (like flight traffic control and defense agreements), border reciprocity, healthcare reciprocity, a parallel shared currency.

I don't know that having US and Canada added to that would make a lot of practical sense.

For Europe and the EU zone it makes a ton of sense, it's a bunch of close-together countries where you could potentially be on a 3 hour car ride and be in 3 different countries.

In looking at some some of the cross border travel patterns within the EU,
About 65% of EU residents aged 15 or over made at least 2 personal trips to other EU member nations in 2023.
(and roughly 3 million are "cross-border workers")

As where "across the pond" trips are much less common.

So it would be a lot of additional negotiating and building regulatory and reciprocity frameworks for scenarios that will be far less common (Americans and Canadians going to any European country - outside of work reasons - is one of those rarer expensive trips that people have to save up for, and it's one of those special "once every 5 years" types of vacations)