Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
169
-
168
-
120
-
91
-
72
-
71
-
@theodoresmith5272
You are overestimating the US tourist influence on overall european tourism. Will a lot of income be lost? Yes, but compared to the overall tourism industry it will be limited. In this video it is clearly said that around 7 million americans visited the entire EU in the summer last year. Compare this to just France receiving 80 million tourists every year (or spread out over the all the months 20 million in the summer months).
Now even if the US makes up 10-15% of European summer tourism, it will not be so bad that it will starve or be pushed to allow US citizens in. Most of EU tourism is still internal tourism. And these kind of safety measures have a lot of support in the EU nations, many people would even have accepted a complete closing of borders (even internally) probably.
Oh, and many Europeans would love to see NATO be disbanded in a controlled way, it might even push the EU to form it's own proper united army, maybe even similar to that of the US (federal and national guard). And even without Nato we could still have a regular alliance. The thing is that NATO is a political game and is mostly beneficial for the US to keep pressure and soft power in Europe and to use bases as a staging ground for military actions elsewhere, like the middle east and africa. And European leaders go with it, because it keeps them from having to divert extra resources and attention to a closer military co-operation in the EU itself and moreover they overall don't want to be responsible for souring US-EU relations too much.
As for money from military bases, I don't really see how this matters. The host countries in Europe pay around a third of the cost for these bases. Even if the economical outcome afterwards is still positive, we're talking about around a billion dollar at most.
65
-
60
-
55
-
53
-
51
-
48
-
43
-
42
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
31
-
28
-
25
-
24
-
19
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
@ianbirchfield5124 Several of these empires actually lasted a pretty long time and did fairly well, the problem is any empire (and even nation) eventually comes to an end regardless.
The oldest nations currently probably exist for a thousand years, having gone through a lot of changes in that time (for example France today vs France 500 years ago or France 1000 years ago, big difference). Some empires (like the Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans, ...) lasted for several hundred years, longer than several large nations today (US +-250 years, modern China +-70-100 years, Russia +-500 years, ...).
Now, if we look at why these nations fall, it usually is more due to corruption and internal powerstruggles together with outside pressures then ethnic and cultural differences, these usually started to really cause trouble once the empires already were in decline (essentially when things go great/fine, people don't really care, but when things start to go more difficult/badly, they start to look at reasons and often they use culture and/or ethnicity as a possible solution, even if this is not the best thing to do).
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
@six2make4
Your average person don't care for modern art
Exactly, so why the f°ck do you mention this in shared culture. Modern art is the culture of none.
Nothing of what you said about culture is unique to the EU or being pushed by the EU, it is more of a general Western trend.
The EU mostly doesn't engage in cultural affairs, or if it does it is usually to support cultural things with funding. Honestly the US doesn't have one unified culture either, they have a unifiyng thread for sure, but if you start comparing New York, California, Florida, Missisipi, Mexico, Nebraska, ... you'll find quite some differences between them too.
No unified or reliant military power. Most of EU members rely on the US for military protection due to low spending and no real unified command except for NATO which is none EU specific
The reason there isn't a unified EU military is because it is controversial, especially if you don't have an efficient EU government to actually lead it yet. However NATO countries have agreed to spend at least 2% of gdp annually by 2024 and it isn't like the EU isn't strong either, all in all they are even now the 3rd biggest military spender in the world and if they all reach 2%, it could become the 2nd behind the US. The division does make the EU military weaker than is can be, therefor it most likely will eventually form one unified structure eventually.
And there are already programs for closer EU military cooperation, which overtime are being expanded.
Weak borders: By not setting a proper border a massive strain is put on the "border regions"
There is/was no real EU outer border program, because this was a demand from members, they wanted to keep control over these outer borders. Since the 2015 crisis, the EU has been strengthening Frontex to aid the border nations when asked for help.
*Foreign focus
By prioritizing foreign investments and not incentivizing "local" growth it will eventually make people question what the point of such a union is if they can get better deals outside, this is further exacerbated by point one.*
Are you here refering to the EU budget? If so, this in nothing different than is already being done in countries overall.
Nothing you mentioned here proved the EU won't last, all it showed is that the EU is still in its early stages, between an international organisation and a federal state, which is nothing new, everyone with a bit of knowledge about the EU knows this. The EU is slowly moving towards further integration.
8