Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "TLDR News EU" channel.

  1. 169
  2. 168
  3. 120
  4. 91
  5. 72
  6. 71
  7.  @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
  8. 60
  9. 55
  10. 53
  11. 51
  12. 48
  13. 43
  14. 42
  15. 36
  16. 35
  17. 34
  18. 31
  19. 28
  20. 25
  21. 24
  22. 19
  23. 17
  24. 16
  25. 16
  26. 15
  27. 15
  28. 14
  29. 14
  30. 14
  31. 14
  32. 13
  33. 13
  34. 12
  35. 11
  36.  @rphb5870  Not sure where you get these numbers from. The support to join the Netherlands isn't even in the double digits in most polls and pretty disliked by most (both pro- and anti-independence supporters). It is currently either independence or Belgium for most Flemish. Hell, some polling has found that there are more flemish people in favour of returning to a unitary state than there are in favour of independence. I've met people who want to go back to a unitary state (usually young people), I've met people who want an independent/more autonomous flanders and I have met people who are fine with the status quo (most people weirdly despite the often critique). But I have never met anyone in favour of joining the Netherlands. Pro-independent people see it as just exchanging wallonia for the dutch lands, in which structure Flanders will have even less power than it has now. Pro-belgian people see no reason to split belgium to join the netherlands for different reasons (less power, don't like the dutch enough, like belgium as it is/can be, historical reasons, ...). There isn't really an upside to joining the Dutch except for the shared language which doesn't really matter at all. Further cross border cooperation, now that is overall quite liked by many. And it really sounds like you have little clue about what the EU really entails. The EU has nothing against enlightment ideals (these are even part of the EU treaty), it isn't opposed to christianity (it is non-religious since church and state are seperate or is national sovereignty) and it is definitely not opposed to the people of Europe.
    11
  37. 10
  38. 10
  39. 10
  40. 10
  41. 10
  42. 10
  43. 10
  44. 10
  45.  @mattayele1906  The war in Afghanistan cost the US around $2.3 trillion, while the entire war on terror apparently $8 trillion. It is ridiculously naive to think the US would spend much much less when they can cripple one of their main rivals (after which only China is a relevant rival). Hell, the US defence budget is around $700-800 billion, using a part of that to support Ukraine would be a much better return on investment than almost any other military investment. The aid currently given to Ukraine is actually still fairly low and overall public support for Ukraine hasn't really gone down much. Moreover now with the falling oil and gas prices, inflation should also lower again. It is very possible that the worst impacts of the Russian invasion are already behind us (for the western economies that is). Important republican leaders also already made clear that support for Ukraine is important and should even be increased or at least delivered faster. That lesser republican members are trying to get some anti-ukrainian/war weariness support isn't necessarily indicative of the general US government plans. Trump never cared about responsible fiscal policies. Sure he might use the 'fiscal responsibility' republican talking points, but under him deficit grew to high levels, despite Obama before him systematically lowering the deficit putting it on a path that should have led to a surplus eventually. In fact the republicans overall have been the most fiscal irresponsible party in the last 40 years. Also European countries systematically are upping their defence budgets, so that isn't a good excuse either (wasn't even one before this).
    10
  46. 10
  47. 9
  48. 8
  49. 8
  50.  @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