Europe should be building domestic digital capacity regardless (and not just servers) but saying it needs to treat the US like China is a bit melodramatic given the economic and physical threat to Europe is 10X greater in the east.
The US is not anti-Europe. The US has just begun to start evaluating its relationship with Europe rationally and wants it to grow up beyond the post-WW2 training wheels.
The overreaction to this kind of gives vibes of slamming the door and screaming “you don’t love me!” because dad won’t buy a new toy.
The difference is, Europeans used to trust their US partners, and built a lot of infrastructure on US services. This trust has been betrayed, so things now need to change.
It never existed to begin with with China, so no change is necessary.
That's not "melodramatic".
There never was a relationship of mutual trust, it was always a relationship of Europe being under the wing of the US as a buffer against the USSR.
The US now wants to push Europe out of the nest, but most Europeans have only ever known life "living in their parents house".
Building an independent Europe is not compatible with the current European ethos of work/life/life/life balance, and will likely result in Europe either coming back to the US, falling into economic chaos, or moving into daddy Xi's house. They are a socialist country after all...
>> The difference is, Europeans used to trust their US partners
> There never was a relationship of mutual trust
Technically, you're not disagreeing with GP. :)
Or :( I guess.
How much do you guys suffer about this work life balance, I can't wrap my head around the level of brainwash you guys have been through to use concepts as socialised wealth and wellness as a bad thing
these evil europeans wanting to have a break from work! how dare them!
And productivity per head is much higher in many more socialist economies. Which makes sense as it's basically GDP/hour.
are you sure you're working? There is no one from europe in the top net worth
/s
Neither the European welfare state nor China's authoritarian leftism are socialist. They are, respectively, welfare-state capitalism and nationalist "socialism" (aka Naziism).
On the European side, socialism is a question of who owns businesses. If the majority of businesses are owned by the people who are working at those businesses, you have a socialist economy. Welfare states, regulatory regimes, and high tax rates do not change the ownership of businesses, they are about who provides the infrastructure around those businesses. If you have an economy where infrastructure is owned by a liberal nation-state, and businesses are owned by whoever gambled capital on the venture, then you get a capitalist economy. If your infrastructure is privately owned by individuals, then those owners become feudal lords and you get feudalism.
On the Chinese side, you might point out that there are laws that require CCP ownership of all businesses, eat the party line that says the CCP is the representative of the working class, and say, "hey that's a socialism". But this ownership and representation is purely nominal. The average Chinese worker has more or less zero political agency; speaking out gets you censored and harassed. How is that worker ownership? If, say, America started punishing individual shareholders who voted against Trump-aligned board members, we'd correctly recognize that the shareholders do not meaningfully own their businesses anymore.
"Moving into Daddy Xi's house" would be stupid. The EU and China are not aligned on basically any core value; it'd basically be a surrender of one to the other. Actually, to be clear, the EU isn't even aligned on basically any core value with itself[0]. In fact, I would argue that's a way bigger headwind than European workers being used to a top-heavy welfare state. The EU has the resources to build a sovereign cloud, or run its own military, or source its own energy. But for each one there are challenges posed by the uniquely decentralized structure of Europe:
- Europe could build a sovereign cloud, but probably not one for each member state. So they're going to have to agree what country holds the data, and agree that that country can and will spy on all the others.
- Europe could fund its own military, tell NATO to pound sand, and re-colonize America for the trouble. But who runs that military? Given the history of EU politics, it would be France and Germany, and every other country in the EU has a history of being colonized by France or Germany. They are not trustworthy.
- Europe could fix its energy dependence, but Germany thinks nuclear power is Satan and wants to backstop renewables with the dirtiest-burning coal you can mine.
You'll notice a recurring theme here. The problem with Europe is not its fiscal deficit, the perceived laziness of its workers, or what have you. It's the lack of trust. The most trustworthy member state of the European Union was the United States of America, and so that's why everyone put their data on American servers, and let America dominate NATO, and so on. This is not Europe getting kicked out of the nest, it's the kids realizing their parent is a gaslighting asshole and that all their siblings, including themselves, are cut from the same cloth.
[0] Trump's current tariff actions and threats of territory annexation have galvanized the European public against America's government. However, prior to Trump coming back, Europe was full of far-right nutjobs that were just as cringe. Actually, a lot of them are still in power in Europe, and they're way more competent and cunning than Cheeto Mussolini.
It is US themselves that have decleared they are a hostile enemy to Europe now. China had made zero claims to annex parts of Europe. USA makes claims to annex parts of Denmark. China officially does not say their goal is to overthrow European democracies but US says their goal is to change the democratic govts of Europe.
They control Europe's digital infrastructure and are able to increase rent to usurous levels (tarrifs!) because Europe is dependent on their digital services. Without digital sovereignty, Europe has no sovereignty and will quickly become a modern colony from which wealth will be extracted.
The reason the US is able to raise rents (tariffs) has nothing to do with Europe buying US digital services.
The tariffs are on European exports. The problem is Europe has a weak domestic consumer market and is dependent on selling stuff to the US, not buying from them.
The EU has a services deficit compared to the US, the US has a goods deficit compared to Europe. Together, they are almost in balance, the difference is just 3% of total trade [1]. Put differently, the US and the EU need each other. This is why Trump is using footguns.
[1] https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
The problem is really that Europe has a few dozen weak consumer markets. If there really was a proper single market, I suspect the EU would be much more competitive in digital services.
Unfortunately despite their best efforts this isn't something Eurocrats can simply will into existence. The most important prerequisite is a common language, and there is zero political will to do the only sensible thing and establish English as the official common language of the EU.
[flagged]
> Nonsense. Unilaterial tarrifs are not how trade agreements work. This is pure extractive rent.
What do you mean by "unilateral tariffs"?
> The reason the US is not able to extract the same rents from China is that they have digital sovereignty and the US cannot just pull the cloud plug from them.
The US has higher tariffs against Chinese imports than European imports.
[flagged]
> want to annex a European territory
Greenland is not in europe. It may be a danish colony but that doesn't make it "european territory" any more than french guiana is. EU territory? Sure. But europe is a penninsula on the western flank of eurasia.
Edit: huh I had no idea how complicated the classification of eu territories is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_territories_of_members...
> Greenland is not in europe. It may be a danish colony but that doesn't make it "european territory" any more than french guiana is. EU territory? Sure. But europe is a penninsula on the western flank of eurasia.
You are right that Greenland is not in Europe (it sits on the Nort American tectonic plate).
It is also not an EU territory, however, it is linked to Europea through Denmark. European influence exists through governance, education, and trade.
Most Greenlanders identify primarily as Kalaallit (Inuit) and Greenlandic, not European.
Does that mean Hawaii isn’t part of US because it’s far away from mainland?
You got it baby, free hawaii
How do Hawaiians feel about this? Just in case: what would you consider a valid qualification for Hawaiians, for their opinion on this matter to be material? And how many of them support an independent Hawaii?
I looked online but didn’t find any hard numbers, only vague movements. Scottish independence for example seems to have substantial , if minority , support. If the same cannot be said for Hawaii, then this comment feels… like a cop out.
>How do Hawaiians feel about this?
As is the case when it comes to indigenous populations being displaced and slowly replaced over time: they don't get to have a choice. Hawaii was mostly Japanese in the early 1900s having already displaced previous arrivals, and today less than 15% of the population considers themselves native hawaiians. The remaining 85% are there _because_ Hawaii is not independent, why would they ever hold a vote for it ?
See similar cases in New Caledonia, the Falklands, and more.
Hawaiian land is being sold off regardless of democratic legitimacy.
Perhaps it is better to argue they should exercise indigenous control than wait until the concept is a farce
Its not a colony. Stop diminishing the agency of Greenlanders.
Of course it's a colony; this is just an observable fact. This is true regardless of how Greenland polls. Agency is immaterial.
It’s not more a colony than Purto Rico is. Would you say US would be OK if China annexes Purto Rico because they are a colony of US?
US foreign policy is nearly as dimwitted as european foreign policy is. Of course puerto rico is a colony.
But also, actually, if China did annex puerto rico? Snap snap snap. Good for them. They really made it out the hood. May god look upon the rest of us so positively
And Hawaii is not in America. Certainly neither is Guam etc.
What kind of argument are you even trying to make?
> And Hawaii is not in America. Certainly neither is Guam etc.
Sure, no argument here.
> What kind of argument are you even trying to make?
Mostly that characterizing Greenland as European is just as insane as characterizing French Guiana that way. Or the falknlands, New Caledonia, Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Aruba, Curaçao, Anguilla, Bermuda, the Virgin Islands, etc etc. These are colonies—not part of europe, and should have been made whole decades ago with the resolution of WWII, and their continued presence as "rightfully" part of European nations destabilizes our globe.
Europe is welcome to extend its economic privileges to all nations of earth, and I for one will continue to argue for kicking us out of Hawaii and Guam while ensuring we don't further engage in predatory trade agreements.
Of course, I don't expect any of this predation to cease anytime soon.
Would you say that US attacked Japan first because Japan never ever attacked US? Only Hawaii which is not American.
I don't spend my time holding opinions about which state jerked off on the other's face. But hawaii is certainly not american
[flagged]
Oh, so US is giving up their claims to Purto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii, etc? Or are American imperalists holding on to their colonies?
God willing? Absolutely.
Worst of all, they are holding on the most of North America
What a bizarre description of what the US did.
Greenland has been inching towards independence since the seventies, because that's the common ambition of greenlandic peoples and it's slow because there are rather deep ties between Denmark and Greenland. These ties are to some extent very negative for the greenlanders, they're generally discriminated against and have been viciously mistreated at times, but a quick clean cut would also be quite painful for them.
In the seventies Greenland joined the EU predecessor EEC with Denmark, quickly realised that europeans were emptying their fishing waters and in the early eighties left the union. It's the only entity to have done so. Then the independence process trudged on, they self-manage in many areas now, even more since a 2008 referendum where some 75% or so voted in favour of independence. Since 2009 there is a law that says that Greenland can become independent whenever they want, as long as it's approved by greenlander referendum and the danish parliament.
To the extent they're a colony international law also clearly gives them the right to unilaterally declare independence. A majority of greenlanders are likely still in favour, but a majority also would prefer to postpone it if it would result in worse living conditions, since that's what polls usually conclude.
Ignoring half a century of rather delicate politics and independence ambitions the US shat all over it and said that they wanted to buy it, and then several years later said that they might just annex instead. This is quite belligerent and nasty behaviour, which in my opinion should have caused european countries to start dumping US bonds and stop answering calls from the White House.
> if it would result in worse living conditions
Well nobody is forcing Denmark to be a dick about decolonization, nor a dick to all the people it never colonized. That's a choice.
> This is quite belligerent and nasty behaviour
So was colonizing, well, anywhere. Europe still hasn't been appropriately punished for this. And yes, the US deserves to be punished severely for its own brutal conquests.
Denmark isn't "being a dick about decolonization", it's just that they happen to be very kindly subsidising half of Greenland's budget, which causes even many enthusiastic about the idea of an independent Greenland cause to think that leaving might be a mistake.
Conversely, the leader of the present day United States threatens to colonising Greenland by force to show off how powerful he is. Ergo Europeans, particularly Greenlanders, have little reason to trust the US
> Denmark isn't "being a dick about decolonization", it's just that they happen to be very kindly subsidising half of Greenland's budget, which causes even many enthusiastic about the idea of an independent Greenland cause to think that leaving might be a mistake.
Brother, spread this pro-colonization propaganda elsewhere.
> Conversely, the leader of the present day United States threatens to colonising Greenland by force to show off how powerful he is. Ergo Europeans, particularly Greenlanders, have little reason to trust the US
Conversely? Brother, they are the same thing.
Fine, be that American whose ignorance of world affairs is exceeded only by faith that anything its government does, dastardly foreigns do worse...
I am no liberal
You know nothing about this, so stop spreading your made up lies. A roadmap for Greenlandic independence is in place. The Greenlandic parliament is controlling the speed of this process.
[flagged]
It is European right now. It's under European sovereignty.
No, it's a colony. Calling it european is an affront to everyone with the ability to read
A European colony is European.
You can call anything anything you want. Why not call greenland australian?
Of course you'll look ridiculous regardless
That's just silly. Is a Frenchman French, even if he lives in the US?
This is an asinine comparison. You need to inquire about the identity of the french man's slave
It's not. European is a descriptor of sovereignty here, not one of geography.
Is your wallet yours, even if you leave it somewhere?
So use the right words: "greenland is the property of denmark"
That's what the possessive descriptor "European" means, yes. Which is why it's weird you're so against it. I'm not really sure what you're arguing at this point.
"European" is a geographic adjective. It does not apply to domination of other places. No amount of willpower will make the places that europe chooses to rape "european".
It's not purely geographic. It's possessive, it's cultural.
A Spanish dish is Spanish outside of Spain as well, as is a French song or a Danish person (the relevant one in this case!).
> It's possessive, it's cultural.
So you admit that the relationship between denmark and greenland is one of violence, not affection?
It's one of ownership. That's what possessive means.
Yes. You're talking about a relationship born of violence. Who would ever endorse this?
Thats how literally all state sovereignty everywhere in the world works.
Ok, so why cry over greenland when you know how this works?
Who's crying? We're defending our interest.
Why do you want to punish the Greenlanders? They would rather be a Danish colony than an American.
Look the danish punished greelanders many generations before us. Pretending this is justice is just evil
Currently Denmark participates in financing Greenland, pulling the rug on it would likely not be pleasant for the greenlanders and if they did I'd count that as rather dickish unless the greenlanders had a near consensus on the issue and asked the danish parliament to do it.
Well, some justice have been sought and won, but a lot remains. To me it seems like an attempt at distraction to clump together the treatment of the Mau Mau and the nuking of Algeria with Denmark's relation with Greenland.
Besides economic relations, independence for Greenland would also mean that they would need to seek justice to a larger extent through international courts and in at least some cases it's likely easier for greenlanders to find justice in danish courts.
Ok, why doesn't denmark finance birundi?
> Well, some justice have been sought and won
And yet denmark hasn't burned. How do you remediate this contradiction?
> To me it seems like an attempt at distraction to clump together the treatment of the Mau Mau and the nuking of Algeria with Denmark's relation with Greenland.
Believe me, britain deserves far worse than just being burned down. But denmark still must face justice
You make it sound that the brits were the bad guys, when it was an elite top % pulling the strings and the rest were mostly trying to make ends meet.
But yes agree, the elite extracting wealth from the colonies back in the days, and still are extracting wealth from your average Joe, deserves far worse.
Colonies can only address this at the granularity of the nationalism with which they were presented. If every-day brits don't want to be blamed, they need to make their own rebellion to show they aren't party to the evil done in their name.
I think this is true of my own country (the US), and it's hopeless. I think most americans are ok with the evil done in their name. I wish I had better advice or insight.
But pretending like two imperial powers arguing over greenland is some great injustice just spits in the face of humanity. Have some fucking dignity. Greenland deserves better than to be treated like a piece of property
It does, through NGO:s, humanitarian aid and african development and investment funds.
If you think a war for liberation is appropriate for the greenlanders I suggest you move there and agitate in local languages for this.
> It does, through NGO:s, humanitarian aid and african development and investment funds.
Oh? so you're pro continued rape of africa? How has that worked out? Which african peoples are asking for this at this point?
Christian charity failed generations ago and it's pathetic to see people still voicing support for it
[flagged]
And then Americans wonder why they are being viewed as a hostile enemy of Europe…
> It was supposed to be something akin to United States of Europe
No, it never was.
> but instead in devolved into a bureaucracy
No it hasn't:
"There are two striking aspects of this rejection of EU bureaucracy. First, in comparison with other, comparable entities, such as the US federal bureaucracy, the EU’s administrative apparatus has a marginal size. Specifically, the EU, which is responsible for more than 440 million citizens, employs only around 60,000 people, while the US federal bureaucracy has more than two million employees that govern a territory with about 330 million inhabitants. Accordingly, the EU bureaucracy is comparatively small and far from being the “bureaucratic monster” which it is frequently portrayed as."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/09/04/why-do-so-many...
> that regulates the shit out if everything,
I'm thankful for that. That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.
> is incredibly socialist and the EC thinks it is above everyone else.
LOL. No it's not "socialist" and the European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. If you really think the Commission behaves as if they are above everything else (they do not!), I pull an American president.
> That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.
The US optimized for convenience, affordability, and variety.
You can eat very healthily in the US, but it requires more intentional choices. In many (not all) EU countries, the default option is closer to healthy.
> You can eat very healthily in the US, but it requires more intentional choices.
It requires money too. If you are poor your choices are naturally limited and in the end you are dependent on government regulations to eat at least somewhat healthy.
> It requires money too. If you are poor your choices are naturally limited
Yes, because the US optimizes for convenience, price, and variety, so you see more industrialized food.
On average, poor people in Europe eat healthier than poor people in the US, but still significantly worse than wealthier Europeans.
> On average, poor people in Europe eat healthier than poor people in the US, but still significantly worse than wealthier Europeans.
Sure. But in the end the EU feeds it's citizens healthier food than the US does. That's all I'm saying. I'm glad we have those regulations.
We agree.
What's interesting is JFK Jr. (our Secratary of Health and Human Services) has a stance that Americans eat too many ultra-processed foods. He wants people to eat more whole foods and fewer additives. He questions conventional warnings about saturated fat and supports dietary changes than include more full-fat dairy and meats. He prefers education over bans or mandates.
> He prefers education over bans or mandates.
And that is not working for the poor of which the US seems to have plenty for a developed country.
The poor have no choice, even if they are educated, and the food industry is fine with selling them garbage. It's legal to do so after all. AFAIK food is generally even cheaper in Europe than in the USA. Even with those regulations.
Regulation is about setting minimum standards for acceptance, not specifying exactly how.
This means that if I walk into a random croissant shop and buy a croissant, I don't subsequently have 2 days of food poisoning.
Arguably, healthier being the default is also good. The less I personally need to think about this, the more I can think about other more useful things.
> There are two striking aspects of this rejection of EU bureaucracy. First, in comparison with other, comparable entities, such as the US federal bureaucracy, the EU’s administrative apparatus has a marginal size. Specifically, the EU, which is responsible for more than 440 million citizens, employs only around 60,000 people, while the US federal bureaucracy has more than two million employees that govern a territory with about 330 million inhabitants.
that's because the EU co-opted existing member state agencies instead of creating its own
e.g. the german federal department of agriculture effectively is controlled by the EU (almost all of its duties are an EU competence), but 100% of its costs are attributed to germany
this makes the EU look much more efficient than it is
It makes them lool as efficient as they actually are. Being able to use existing infrastructure is good.
Socialist is a very weird term to use here. The eu is the epitome of neoliberalism, even more so than the us
Tge EU is liberal just as much as I’m asian…
The EU in its current form is mostly about markets. It routinely pushes for the sacrifice of government monopolies to the altar of the free market (see for a recent example the french train network). Most of its regulations are to ensure a level field for a balanced market.
Hell it pushes for free markets even when it makes very little sense (the eu electricity market and its weird idiosyncrasies are an artifact of that)
It basically bans member governments from printing money and imposes very strict limits of 3% GDP on government deficits. For reference the US deficit was 5.9% gdp this year, Almost twice as much. this greatly limits government control over the economy.
> imposes very strict limits of 3% GDP on government deficits.
You might want to check that information. This very strict limit is only enforced on selective EU countries like Greece for example.
France has had routinely yearly deficits above 3% in the last 10 years and has never been worried one bit about it.
For the record the French deficit was around 5.4% this year and it is set to increase again next year as the parliament is completely blocked and a budget compromise cannot be reached.
Even the so called debt ceiling defined in the pact of stability is mostly ignored. Italy and France are both well above the 100% debt to GDP ratio when the treaty says that every country within the EU should be at or below 60%.
> It basically bans member governments from printing money
It only bans the ones that have adopted the Euro. The countries that have declined to adopt the euro are free to do as they please more or less.
The euro countries though may not be able to print money, but they just get the ECB to do it for them via quantitative easing which has been used since 2008 and only recently stopped when the interests rates started climbing after the pandemic.
You get that EU mostly is a free trade union? You know free trade that MAGA hates (I heard Americans today love tariffs).
Then you are very Asian.
[flagged]
> Even Zelenskyy acknowledged that the US provides more aid than the EU. And this is despite the fact that Europe has twice the population and doesn't have a vast ocean between it and Russia.
Why does the population matter at all? The US GDP is $30T and the EU GDP is $21T.
Why does location not matter at all? We're halfway across the world, why should we be the ones contributing the majority of the funding?
> Isn't it exactly the opposite, and it was the EU that attempted to overthrow democracy in the US (and failed)?
What are you talking about? According to US intelligence agencies, bipartisan Senate reports, and federal prosecutions, Russia, China, and Iran have been singled out at running disinformation campaigns. The EU has never been accused by the US of trying to topple democracy in the US.
>the EU has LITERALLY provided less aid to Ukraine than it has given to Russia
The EU is buying resources from Russia, not providing aid to it.
Potato, Potato. Whether giving money with no strings attached or some strings attached, guess where that money is going to go.
They are not "giving" money. They are exchanging them for resources. Russia gets the money but loses resources which it could've sold to other countries instead.
Ah, you're totally right. Europe is getting the better end of the deal Russia is practically getting scammed, exchanging goods for profits they can redistribute to fund their war.
They did not, this is all political ragebait journalism and memes.
Disbanding the EU is an official goal of the new US security strategy.
Divide and conquer is working well it seems.
There is no conspiracy, sorry.
It is not. I know the media has pushed this ragebait to get engagement from you, but you can literally read the official policy document.
I have read the document, it certainly implies that the EU is a problem and that the US should support 'patriotic' parties in pulling away from it.
It's a short read (30 pages, large font) so it's well worth looking at.
A majority of Europeans also think the EU has major issues. This does not constitute being anti-Europe.
The EU is not Europe. I never see any pro-EU sentiment anywhere besides on HN and Reddit. Talk to Europeans and they hate the EU and see it as an oppressive foreign power. Except for the Germans.
> Talk to Europeans and they hate the EU and see it as an oppressive foreign power.
Your framing is off, I'm afraid.
Across Europe, most people see the EU as more good than bad, especially compared to the alternative of countries acting alone. At the same time, support is often cautious rather than enthusiastic.
Voter turn out is extremely low in certain central and eastern Europe for EU elections. I think it was down to under 20% in some places a few years ago.
I had hoped that the UK would vote to remain and Europe would move away from a centralist, authoritarian model, but it's got worse especially since 2020. The EU is its own worst enemy.
> move away from a centralist, authoritarian model,
EU is authoritarian? Why do you think that?
It is restricting freedom of expression, and increasing public surveillance.
The EU is what held back the surveillance in the UK. Post brexit they went all in on surveillance.
Both the UK and the EU are rolling in censorship, surveillance and digital ID.
You've literally just contradicted your own post in this thread.
No, I haven't. Both the UK and EU are doing many of the same things. You can argue that the EU is bureaucratic without supporting bureaucracy within the UK. These are not contradictory positions.
You claimed that the UK leaving was bad as they were more liberal, and then noted that they were also doing lots of anti privacy stuff. Seems a little contradictory to me.
One definition of authoritarian is "enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom".
It would seem to me that the recent spate of sanctioning individuals - e.g. for 'disseminating misinformation' without a legal definition of what that actually is would be an example of authoritarianism. A direct attack on freedom of speech and thought.
It insists on things like "corruption is bad", "human rights are for everyone including gays" so naturally certain conservative groups find that authoritarian.
Human rights are for everyone, not just people you agree with. If you bring in censorship, surveillance and smother protest for people you disagree with, you will find it getting used against you yourself at some point. Europe has imported this false binary from the USA, and it is not benefitting it either.
The EU has its fair share of corruption, but it is is better at hiding it than developing countries. Its current president Ursula Von Der Leyen is a fraud who appears to have cheated at university, and only got to where she did due to wealth and aristocratic family connections.
also things such as chat control and surveilling the entire populace, but I'm sure you must be right that the problem people have with it is that they say "corruption is bad"
Chat control is a Swedish proposal that has consistently lost in the Parliament. We should of course keep fighting it but at least as a Swede I know things would have been much worse without the EU.
> Chat control is Swedish proposal.
It was pushed by Sweden but also by many other countries including France (which loves to give lessons of democracy to the world by the way and is very much at the forefront of human rights or so they say) and Hungary amongst others.
> has consistently lost in the Parliament.
It has consistently lost so far. Secondly the reason it has lost is because people like me took the time to actually reach out to any MEP who would take my call to tell them to oppose this law. If we had waited for the EU to react and put a stop to this madness, we would still be waiting.
This law should never have been proposed in the first place anyway. The fact that it was proposed and debated is a shameful action in itself.
> I know things would have been much worse without the EU.
How can you know for sure? You can't. Since it originated from the EU commission, it stands to reason that without the EU commission it would not have happened.
You believe that the EU is good because that is your belief. The European countries existed for 100s of years before the EU. There is no reason to think that they can't go back to this state in the future.
I've never seen any pro-EU attitude in the European countries I've lived in. Except for among the political and media class. But those aren't representatives of the general population.
But I haven't lived in central Europe, like Germany, Belgium, etc. Where the attitudes seem to be quite pro-EU.
The original statement still stands. Europe is not the EU. The EU is not Europe.
Which Europeans have you "talked" to? Discord and twitter don't count. People moan about the EU like they moan about their own national government.
Opinion polls on actually leaving the EU show a minority in favour. Most Europeans saw Brexit play out and realise sticking the finger up at your neighbours is not a winning strategy.
Brexit was ironically mostly an anti immigration vote. It has thoroughly demolished the involved parties that the one thing promised has not come to pass.
I guess real life doesn't count either? Good that we can rely on HN and Reddit, where the pro-EU sentiment is strong. I just haven't seen that in real life, which is why I suggest maybe it might be particular to Germans and probably Belgians and Dutch.
Where have you lived in the EU? I think that the EU is mostly mediocre rather like our national governments.
That is more indicative of the company you keep than the actual reality on the ground.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/657860/member-states-show-stron...
Spanish guy here: no, we don't hate the EU, quite the opposite. Please stop feeding on right-wing propaganda that wants to destroy us.
Unfortunately you live in the wrong time and age. You'd like to report to your local commissar when somebody expresses opinions and ideas against the cherished government - "he's a right wing propagandist who seeks to destroy us!". But it's not the 20th century anymore, and all you can do is scream into the cyber void.
Dude please, my country endured 40 years of a fascist government, we know a few things about right wing propaganda...
Accusing anybody who doesn't love the government of "spreading propaganda" is not a sign of knowledge. It's a sign of an obsolete 20th century mindset and perspective on life.
Next perhaps you're going to accuse me of "Staatsfeindlichkeit", which the German leadership was screaming in their denouncements, before the people tore down their walls.
"Verunglimpfung des Staates" - "Insulting the State", this awful, awful crime, is something I'm going to continue doing however I fancy. Millions of people were killed for that right, so it's not something I'm ever giving up.
Not loving the government is OK. Heck, hating the government might also be OK.
Insisting that we European citizens hate the EU when it is not true, and then doubling down with accusations of censorship when the whole thread points out your mistake, is downright stupid. But hey, if that makes you happy as some kind of freedom fighter, go for it.
When you start talking about "right wing propaganda that will destroy us", then I only hear echoes of the government worship of the 20th century. As I said, the EU is not Europe, nor the other way around. And that's mainly what's upsetting hackers. They live in a fantasy that the EU is in some way like the USA. I know that quite a lot of Germans, Dutch and Belgians consider themselves "EU citizens". And maybe Spaniards as well. Nobody in Northern Europe considers themself an "EU citizen" or gives any value to the EU. They consider themselves people of their own nations only, and the EU as a foreign influence.
> Talk to Europeans and they hate the EU and see it as an oppressive foreign power.
Maybe you should get out of your right-wing bubble.
- EU approval among its citizens hits record high as security fears grow, poll shows (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-approval-among-its-c...)
- Nearly three quarters of EU citizens (74%) say that, taking everything into account, their country has benefited from being a member of the EU. (https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3378)
The EU is busy clamping down on freedom of expression and forcing through Digital ID. It isn't some paradise.
There are things I like about the EU, but it also has some things horribly wrong.
> It isn't some paradise.
Compared to the USA it still is.
The EU has better healthcare and welfare overall, but fewer individual rights in other areas. Less gun crime (although this depends on region). Poverty levels vary a lot across the EU.
Americans take homeschooling for granted, for better or worse, but it is banned in some European countries like Germany.
Also the USA allows groups such as the Amish their liberty, which would be extremely unlikely in much of the EU where state interference would either force them out or destroy them.
The US has umpteen issues but is much better for freedom of expression frankly, although it is being steered away from that.
I've read somewhere that Americans understand freedom as "freedom TO", shiny Europeans understand freedom as "freedom FROM". This is extremely visible in this thread and probably a cause of many misunderstandings.
This is definitely the case.
There's philosophical terms for this: America emphasizes negative liberty ("freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint") , while Europe emphasizes positive liberty ("the possession of the power and resources to act in the context of the structural limitations of the broader society which impacts a person's ability to act")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
Right now EU is not arresting own citizens for failure to provide ID card while america does that even when said people have id card.
EU is not demanding 5 yeara of social media public from kids entering in.
EU is not killing fisherman to feel manly.
EU is overall more democratic and more free. The parts that sux Hungary and Slovakia dont sux because of EU, but despite it.
It is ok for Germany to not have homeschooling.
The EU is not more "free". There are a lot of things you can't say or will get shut down for. Most of the EU does not have the same freedom of expression or religion that the USA guarantees in its founding documents. The collective cannot have freedom if the individual does not. That includes the right to disagree.
The EU and USA are going down the same road. Social media is a part of this censorship of open discussion and is usually American based, but works hand in hand with the European governments. Both European and American governments seem happy to deceive citizens into a surveillance state.
It is unacceptable to ban homeschooling. Some children need to be homeschooled, because of disabilities, or even high intelligence. Given the fact that Germany has suffered from both far right and far left dictatorships within living memory, anything that does not promote blind obedience to the state should be encouraged.
Many parts of Europe retain a feudal mentality, which includes constant deference to authority.
I've seen what a complete crapshoot state education is first hand. My god daughter came out of school recently and can barely read and write. I had to suffer through it myself...
I find it amusing that homeschooling is so vilified and stereotyped. All the homeschooled children I know are BETTER educated not worse. Contrary to the stereotype. Schools have massive bullying issues and are often bad environments for neurodiverse people. Schools are very Lord of the Flies.
Home schooling is of course only as good as the people teaching but the same is true of schools. Most state curricula prioritise the state and adoration of the state... funnily enough
> Such as?
Well, we can't say them.
(but it involves nazies, denying genocides, hate speech, and this kind of stuff. It also depends on the country)
> Such as? I honestly can't think of anything.
Jacques Baud, recently sanctioned by the EU for promoting conspiracy theories. https://data.europa.eu/apps/eusanctionstracker/subjects/1802...
He is not an EU citizen and, as a foreigner, acts as a mouthpiece for a hostile dictatorship. The US has sanctioned similar people too, most notably Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of Russia Today: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2559
Not all European countries have banned home schooling. Not even all members of the EU.
As for neglect and abuse of children, the public schools is where you will most readily find it. Including bullying until children commit suicide. And school shootings. Which is a lesser risk at home. No matter which continent.
No one said all EU countries have banned homeschooling. That is just one issue.
Schools are a haven for bullying, both by students and teachers. I did have some good teachers but some of them were also the most cruel and abusive people I've ever met.
Please tell me more about the daily school shootings in Europe.
the eu is better for online freedom of expression, with its GDPR regulations
GDPR is decent, but the governments themselves are pushing surveillance so it is two steps forward and one back.
I don't give very much for statistics and opinion polls. People tend to give the answer they think they're "supposed to give" in those. I base my assessment on my experience from talking to people in real life.
> Maybe you should get out of your right-wing bubble.
Your comment is nasty, but I don't think you're this nasty in real life. Probably you're just blowing off some steam online.
I'm from the EU. I don't know a single person that is against EU. Everyone among my friends and colleagues, including me, is strongly pro-EU.
At least I know that's a bubble, because I know anti-eu people exist in my country too. Get out of yours.
Likewise, I've never met a person who has said they are for the EU or even strongly pro-EU. So it must be a question of which of the EU member countries you are in or other kind of bubbles.
> Get out of yours.
I suggested in my original post that Germans seem to be pro-EU. And probably neighbouring countries too. Here in this thread also appeared a fanatically pro-EU Spaniard. In Nordic countries, I've never met a person who would admit they were pro-EU. Of course they must exist, since presumably half the people voted yes to join, a few decades ago.
In the end it seems to be no more complicated than people who benefit financially from EU redistribution of money are pro-EU and the people who have to pay the bill for it are against the EU.
Every single EU countries population prefers EU leadership over their own national leadership.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/657860/member-states-show-stron...
fwiw: I definitely am paying the bill. But I'm also strongly pro-EU. Taxes are a membership fee for a functioning society.
As I said, I don't give much for opinion polls. And comparing two sides as you do now, doesn't mean that people are fond of either side.
You can prove anything with statistics. The last opinion poll I saw for my country of birth was both the EU and the national government at a less than 50% approval rate.
Ok so you trust your gut and lived experiences more that population statistics. That's a totally valid approach but it's very easy to misread the popular opinion as your friends are not a random sample.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop generalising. You don't know what Europeans think at all "except for the Germans"
I have an idea of what I'm talking about. I say that the EU is not Europe. Nor is Europe the EU. People in these conversations need to understand the difference, because it is significant. Norway, Great Britain, Iceland and Switzerland aren't in the EU.
All of those bar the UK are in the EEA though.
Yes, but those are only trade and border agreements, and don't give the EU influence on internal political matters. Compare similar trade agreements between other nations, such as between the United States and their neighbours.
[flagged]
> The US literally wrote a national security strategy describing that it wants to dismantle the EU.
The official 2025 NSS document does not explicitly state a US goal to dismantle the European Union.
The strategy is highly critical of the EU's direction and Europe's trajectory in ways that critics could say could indirectly undermine EU cohesion, but there's no formal language saying the US wants to dismantle the EU.
Critics interpret the tone and strategic shift as potentially indirectly weakening EU cohesion if taken as encouragement to nationalist or Eurosceptic political forces.
Heh there's two versions, the one with the spicier additions has not been officially published.
https://archive.ph/eT1FY
> Heh there's two versions, the one with the spicier additions has not been officially published.
I hear there's a third version.
Let me know once papers of record start reporting about it then.
[flagged]
What socialism? What are you talking about?
The EU parliament has a conservative majority [0], as does the Council. [1]
It's a right-wing organization. I wish there was socialism, mate.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_European_Parliament#Curr...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union#...
So this is why they give out subsidies left and right? Is this why they are working on increasing taxes?
Right now in politics you can claim to be whatever you want and your policy stance to be opposite: I am on the right but I vote left wing measures.
in what was is subsidies socialism?
what ownership control does the state have over the means of production?
Every year the percentage of European GDP driven by government spending rises by roughly 1%. We just hit over 50% on average in the Eurozone.
So they have over 50% control, and this will only rise as the population further ages, eating all productive activity in the economy.
It doesn't matter who 'owns' the means of production if the government is post-facto seizing a controlling stake in all economic activity via taxation and deficit spending (phantom taxation via inflation). Europe is quite literally eating its private sector like saturn devouring his son.
All of those are right wing policies, designed to support an inherently broken system of capitalism.
Left wing would be the state owning the means of production.
[flagged]
This article is about FAFO for MAGA loyalists in the USA. Well, MAGA has FA'd with US-European relations. Now they get to FO where it takes us (i.e. over the waterfall, isolating the USA from everything good in the world.)
I doubt there's ever going to be an FO. What does Europe have of any value? What was the last thing of relevance they've done? Help with WWII?
What was the last thing the US did of any relevance? Help with WWII. Just as stupid claim.
I mean, we still borderline run the world, so there's that. In this very OP it's major news that Europe is trying to move off of US technology, because we're just so dominant.
only for the remaining part of the decade, if the US is lucky
trump pissing away a century of hard-won soft power handed the century to China
> trump pissing away a century of hard-won soft power handed the century to China
Right, it's all Trump's fault, not the fault of the boomers that sold our country's manufacturing base out to China in the 60's onward which gave them their start, and that we've never recovered from.
But no, I'm sure it's the orange man who still hasn't done 1/3rd of the things we voted him in to do, that is the problem. Average deportation rates are still below Obama's terms, "Mr. President, there's too much winning!!". What a joke, I wish he did half the things you all claim he does, we'd be much better off.
Americans really need to consider stuff outside their little bubble sometimes and think about how their country is just a gear in a much larger system.
Of course American power is being pissed away by the guy hurting the transatlantic alliance American power was built on in the first place.
Your internal generational squabbles don't concern us. How you present yourself externally does, and that's worse than it's been in a long time.
Project 2025 was just political rage bait and rumors too, until it wasn’t.
It can be both. The document is massive, very contradictory and incoherent, and most of the people hysterical over it haven't even read it. Look I'm no fan of the trump administration but people should have concrete concerns, not waving around "project 2025" like some symbol of the country's imminent collapse. Unfortunately, our country is nowhere near collapse and this administration is not going to be the thing to bring it down. Though they're trying their hardest, i will admit.
Talk of how it might be interpreted is rather beside the point when the administration appears to be implementing a particular interpretation and SCOTUS appears to be fine with that, whether or not it is a selective one. Those are the concrete concerns of which you speak.
It is helpful to have the document publicly available, but only if enough people heed its implicit warning.
I would argue the concrete concerns we should have is the fact that we seem to be committing economic suicide, which will have decades of economic and sociopolitical fallout. If you think people have an appetite for fascism today, wait until you see what decades of deflating economies will do.
Their VP and one of their government-linked oligarchs is meeting with literal Neonazis in Germany that are trying to topple the constitutional order: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/14/jd-vance-afd-meetin...
To say they're not anti-Europe is either hopelessly naive or cynically ideologically aligned with their goals.
If the #2 or #1 most popular political party in Germany are "literal Neonazis", I think Germany and likely Europe as a whole has a much bigger problem than whatever America is doing.
Those two are not unrelated.
It's a result of deliberate media manipulation and hybrid warfare by the US and Russia.
Let's not forget Israel.
I see.
Well, foreign intervention and propaganda in democracies is nothing new. It is well documented all the way back to the time of ancient Greece.
So your contention is that in Germany and perhaps other countries (France?) some of the most popular political parties are popular only because their partisans are uneducated dupes or worse, in thrall to foreign powers. Perhaps you would be better off ideologically not supporting democracy - it sounds like it is not for you. Of course democracy has its problems - and people voting for dumb ideas is one of them!
You can either accept that it's your duty to convince your citizens you are right to win their votes, or you can insist that everyone else is wrong and democracy means they should shut up and vote only the "right" way in accordance with establishment approved opinions and go about what Europe has been doing, which is to continue to pursue unpopular policies and blame Russiia/nazis/America/the Internet/free speech for their problems.
European center and left parties could suck all the oxygen out of the room and starve the far-right overnight if they simply introduced and enforced major immigration restrictions - but it's precisely this which is not a Establishment Approved Idea and deemed Unthinkable Hate. Democracy, as long as your opinions are allowed.
> So your contention is that in Germany and perhaps other countries (France?) some of the most popular political parties are popular only because their partisans are uneducated dupes or worse, in thrall to foreign powers. Perhaps you would be better off ideologically not supporting democracy - it sounds like it is not for you. Of course democracy has its problems - and people voting for dumb ideas is one of them!
I don't! I think authoritarian leftism is the way to go as most people are too stupid for their own good tbh.
> European center and left parties could suck all the oxygen out of the room and starve the far-right overnight if they simply introduced and enforced major immigration restrictions
Economic suicide. Why would anyone argue for this? Europe might as well just nuke itself.
Granted, if I were a conservative European, I would also be pro nuking myself.
[flagged]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany
AFG are Neonazis?
Indeed.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/turmoil-in-ger...
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dangerous-liais...
[flagged]
From the wikipedia article you just linked to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#Neo-Na...
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#German...
[flagged]
geberation there will be no more real germans
I would be very surprised if this type of speech is allowed/tolerated on HN.
Heavens to Betsy, someone online just disagreed with the Correct Political Views! Better ban their account and send an officer to their door to arrest them now, before they can further poison our beautiful free democracies with their right-wing propaganda.
The Trump administration really does have a point about anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe. You'd be very surprised because you're used to European censorship regimes reaching beyond the continent and limiting free speech online.
[flagged]
It's not tolerated because it's not the truth, even if your feelings are hurt by that.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
We've had to ask you several times before to avoid commenting like this. Once again, please stop. We'll have to ban the account if this continues.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter who or what you're replying to. You've taken a flamewar 15 comments deep. That's exactly what we're trying to avoid here.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.