> Every EU politician who tries to subvert car safety should be dismissed and tried for endangering public safety.
The problem is coming from the other side, the Americans are threatening to start a new trade war if the EU doesn't permit their murdermobiles on the European roads.
IMO pedestrian safety should still come above all else, but this is not an initiative coming from some EU representatives who want to own a Cybertruck. Blocking these cars can have impact on the war against Ukraine and the prices of fuel and other import products on the short term.
As an European, I'd rather have a trade war, than bend 90 degrees.
But the EU commission will bend and sell us out, the same way it's selling european privacy to security and data companies lobbying it (just check how many times Thorn, Palantir et al have met with EU officials, lobbying is recorded and publicly accessible).
It's a tactic, agree to the deal, the US ignores us. Allow the deal to get destroyed in parliament and the courts and it has no effect. The deal was a means by which to get enough time to figure out the correct response. We've been doing this kind of thing for decades.
This is the way. The current US administration is a 2 year old with ADHD and shiny distractions abound. Agree to deals and let him claim wins, and then bury it in bureaucracy and common sense.
This is, essentially, how the US government survived Trump 1.0, and is why Trump 2.0 has been so concerned with gutting bureaucracy and placing vapid yes-men in the cabinet, but they can't really do that in Europe.
It's one of the few times where EU bureaucracy is a huge advantage.
I mean, the commission said it "intends to accept". Given the EC's legendary lightning-fast speed, that presumably puts the timeline long after ol' minihands is out of office, and thus irrelevant.
Even when the EC actually _wants_ to do something, it typically struggles to get it done in under a decade.
The EC is not that slow when it comes to the American trade wars. The timeline suddenly shrinks to months instead of years because this stuff could majorly disrupt the economy (and safety) across the European continent.
The EC may not fear the (mostly disinterested) European citizen body, but it does fear immediate actions by world powers.
> The EC is not that slow when it comes to the American trade wars. The timeline suddenly shrinks to months instead of years because this stuff could majorly disrupt the economy (and safety) across the European continent.
I dunno, like the last "deal" basically makes a load of promises that the EU has no legislative ability to enforce. So it's basically just performative.
And honestly, given that the US is gonna sell out Ukraine, then this (and most other) trade deals should be ripped up. This would hurt my country (and me) a lot, but it's probably still the right thing to do, as TACO is definitely a possibility if the US markets crash.
Yup, in general those "trade deals" are long on vague aspirational stuff, much of it totally outside the EC's power to grant, and short on promises. Notably the EU "trade deal" includes _private investment_ in the US; obviously the EU cannot direct or really influence private investment in the US, and indeed the figure quoted is about the amount of Europe-sourced private investment one would expect in US in the normal course of things.
Honestly I suspect Trump _knows_ this, too; the point of the trade deals is not to be substantive but to give Trump something with impressive numbers to boast about, and both sides are fully aware of this.
The problem with accepting yet another blackmail (or else trade war, or else NATO doesn't really exist anymore) is just a slippery slope. Not the first request that was made like this, not the last.
>lobbying is recorded and publicly accessible
As in the meeting dates or the actual talks? Mind dropping a link?
For each lobbying company/group you can download a pdf listing all their activities.
Of course, we don't know what happens beyond the official encounters, as there is no legal requirement to report "I bumped into X lobbyist in a restaurant and we had a chat".
Trade wars work both ways. So far the US export market is not doing so great. All those tariffs are raising the cost of exported goods as well. And those were already too expensive before the tariffs. If the US wants more US cars on EU roads, it needs to start making better cars. It's that simple. But in the EU, cars have to compete with domestic cheap cars and imported Korean and Chinese cars. It's a level playing field. Hence not a lot of US cars on the roads. A few Teslas (made in the EU mostly), a few Fords (some made on the VW platform), and a sprinkling of niche imports for things like muscle cars and pickup trucks. They are quite rare but you see one or two once in a while.
Maybe the legislation allowing their import should take their special status in to account.
I would suggest mandatory semi (or full) trailer truck drivers' license required for anyone who operates these. In addition, they should be indicated as a new category of "recreational trucks", with harsh penalties specific to them especially regarding road accidents.
For example, if found guilty of reckless driving, or causing accidents, the vehicle would be permanently confiscated. (On top of personal fines, loss of license etc as already sentenced by law.) Perhaps the law enforcement could then be given access to such confiscated vehicles, creating also some incentive to enforce the law.
> Perhaps the law enforcement could then be given access to such confiscated vehicles
That is… not how we do things around here. It sounds like a baked-in conflict of interest and a wonderful way of making them chase the money instead of doing their policing job.
Fuck it. Let the Americans start another trade war then. This nonsense has been going on long enough, if times need to get tough so be it then, start earlier rather than in 5 years when these misery machines are everywhere and the car arms race is in full effect.
It doesn't matter how much is this repeated by politicians: it's a lie to suggest that the EU does not spend enough for defense.
We spend multitudes of times more than our only realistic threat. And that threat can't even wage war with Ukraine, you expect Russia to be able to fight Poland, yet alone the rest of the European countries?
Also, just a reminder: US servicemen have not been sent to fight a war for European souls since almost a century. Whereas European soldiers are actively deployed even now in the middle East for wars that Washington started.
Please start looking more at facts and less about propaganda. Of course Europe should step up in being more independent defense-wise, but you'd be a fool if you think the US does not enjoy and leverage the current status provides.
> Of course Europe should step up in being more independent defense-wise, but you'd be a fool if you think the US does not enjoy and leverage the current status provides.
> it's a lie to suggest that the EU does not spend enough for defense.
Which is it? Is Europe spending enough, or does American have influence because Europe is still cripplingly dependent on the US?
I wouldn’t argue that the US isn’t abusing that dependence at the moment.
What I would argue is that the US spent 20 years telling Europe to get its act together, and finally in the last 3 years that has started to change, but notably that was years after NATO was publicly declared braindead. So it was pretty irresponsible of the Europeans to leave themselves beholden to the US for so long.
> So it was pretty irresponsible of the Europeans to leave themselves beholden to the US for so long.
> Which is it?
The answer is complex.
Europe's dependence on US is not much on the military front (again, there are no realistic threats in a conventional war that European countries have) as it is on a political and diplomatic one.
Europe is made of 27+ countries that have different foreign policies, goals, and whose word in a war of real defence has never been tested.
Under that situation US is an absolutely critical reference as in times of difficulties even countries with different interests will still realistically rally around US guidance.
You can thus understand why the group of Baltics and Poland are absolutely much more leaning into playing friends with Washington than they are with Brussels.
Europe is absolutely dependent as of now, and likely will be forever for these very reasons, on US.
The answer is complex, but it should never read as "Europe does not have enough weapons or soldiers to defend itself", rather than "Europe is not taking their own defence under its own responsibility".
It is difficult to tell Italians: "stop producing your own rifles, tanks, mines, etc, let's all agree on a single design". It is hard to tell the Portuguese "look, you're gonna deploy two brigades in Estonia for the next 10 years". It is hard to tell the Belgians they have to follow the command of an Austrian in a war fought in Eastern Europe.
Europe is plagued by differences that the common alliance with the US flattens out. Without US, it's a borderline disaster. It's not a matter of money being spent.
> there are no realistic threats in a conventional war that European countries have
You underestimate russia and clearly only glance over war news over past few years, if at all. They are not sending their maximum potential, nor sending their best equipment like tanks, Ukraine is rather a minor operation for them. Its true their conventional warfare capabilities have been damaged to certain extent, in some cases severely but China has stepped up and covered many holes, no reason to think they won't continue testing their equipment further (US did & does the same, its basic realpolitik).
Do you think they ran out of rather modern tanks and thus are sending 60-70 year old models? Far from it, they keep them aside and send on Ukraine the oldest tanks that can still move around, ~100mm cannon on wheels with HEAT rounds works fine even if old. They still didn't introduce mandatory draft because they didn't need to, folks dying in Ukraine now are all volunteers who get a massive signing bonus high enough to buy a flat or some smaller/older house. Their current drone capabilities would decimate any western Europe army in few weeks to the cinder, even Poland is not be completely up to the game, only Ukraine realistically is right now. These days, war is fought with 2 ingredients - drones and enough boots on the ground with nontrivial attrition.
Can they conquer all Europe? Nope, but they could easily take baltics for example. Thus they also subvert via bribes and corrupt exploitable politicians - look at Orban, Fico and failed attempt in Romania. Those countries would not fight them nato or not, they would roll on their back and invite them themselves, in (maybe not vain) hope that their corrupt highly criminal regimes can continue and thrive under new&old rulers in same vein as in Belarus.
Don't underestimate them, they are by far the biggest threat Europe as a whole has, it has been like that for past 100+ years. Their inferiority complex runs deep and western democracies are a direct threat to their typical corrupt dictatorship way of life. 2025 is really not the year to have such misguided & naive ideas.
Also as a proper mafia state they only understand power. Demonstrate you have enough and you will be left alone. Otherwise not so much.
I regularly follow the ISW reports, among other sources, and I'm quite sure I have a comprehensive view of Russia's ability to wage war.
I really struggle to see the logic where Russia could've won this earlier, but is holding back major resources, I don't see the evidence, yet we know that they've lost 1M people between deaths and severe injuries. Those aren't things you recover easily from.
You think that if Europe spend "enough" America would have not influence? You think that Europe would be allowed to spend "enough" but only in Europe companies?
They like to talk about the bad Russians influencing politics and people in Europe, but compared to the Americans they are flies in the wall. This people that is taking decisions now in Europe, finish later working in the Atlantic Council or something like that. That is the root of the European independence problem.
This is a bogus statement. EU countries have met or surpassed defense budget goals, usually the ones that don't have the contracts in progress but the full payouts not done yet since they are still in progress. Percentage of GDP to military spending has been criticized as a bad way to measure how much military spending is done and needed.
Additionally, the European countries are paying for the war while the US is taking that money and the optics of providing certain military supplies. This whole situation is just exploitation of the EU with the benefit of the US' companies.
Only about a third of European defense spending goes to the US. Europes struggles to ramp up production have been an ongoing story for many years now.
There is still about a trillion dollars of NATO defense spending to replace if Europe does not want to be reliant on America. Doable, but spending a third of that on American equipment wouldn’t help matters.
Perhaps if Europeans got an earlier start, instead of ignoring nearly two decades of warnings and a clearly deteriorating security situation, they wouldn’t need to care so much about US policy. Better late than never.
Of course the economist would say that. Of course that a trillion dollars have to be replaced.
Who is that enemy Europe is going to fight? The Russians? Makes not sense at all.
No they did not. Just a handful of countries are spending close to 5% of their GDP on defense, the rest are doing everything in their power to pay as little as possible.
The 5% GDP deadline is 2035. The 2% by 2024 was met. Not even the US spends 5% of their GDP on defense. Again as I've stated, it's been criticized as a bad goal to use this metric. In actuality, people who push the narrative that Europe is being bankrolled by the US will never be satisfied by any percentage.
> Just a handful of countries are spending 5% of their GDP on defense
Have you even read the comment in full before responding? I'm talking about this part of it:
> Percentage of GDP to military spending has been criticized as a bad way to measure how much military spending is done and needed
But since you wouldn't get it anyways:
The "5% of GDP" is a number that US politicians came up with, seemingly out of nowhere, because they figured they want to boost their military industry.
EU countries are already spending that or even more - just look at Ukraine spending by EU countries - but since it's spent on their own domestic defense industry, US politicians don't like it. That's the point.
They don't want us spending 5% of the GDP on defense unless we buy their stuff. So here we are.
The 5% number is fudged, much of the increase over 2% comes from civic infrastructure investment. They’re fluffing the numbers.
Most EU defense spending isn’t on US equipment (only ~35%); I don’t get where the European victim mentality is coming from here - Europe can and is building up its own defense industry.
There’s some Trump nonsense more recently about buy American, but the demands to take security seriously have been going on for nearly 20 years, and have been largely ignored until Ukraine round two.
> I don’t get where the European victim mentality is coming from here
It’s coming from the fact that we’re already in a difficult time with a slowdown in economy and then get bullied into spending the money we could be using to help our own people on new US weapons.
All for Trump to then sign half of Ukraine off to Russia.
So, your argument is that the US wants money no matter if it kills people with cars due to lower safety standards, nor if it gives up on allies and security guarantees the US promised? That just sounds like their greed is what's causing harm.
Ad hominem.
I did not create it to disagree with you specifically, your stance is not that unique, as you can see I've replied to similar positions. However, when you admit the quiet part out loud I feel like you have no rebuttal and are fine with the exploitation in favor of money standpoint, which should bring your other standpoints in question if this is your guiding principle.
A correct statement would be that the Europe didn't want to pay for US equipment for its own defense.
The US has previously discouraged Europe from building out its own defense industry, the current situation is due to that a dovish view of Russia therefore less of a need to spend money on equipment and troops for a land war.
The World Bank and IMF are providing loans to Ukraine, tied to economic reforms as usual (removal of workers protection etc). It’s not like there is an actual dependency on any purported nicety of the US.
Not to mention it's going to be the EU that will partially bear the cost of rebuilding Ukraine after war and Trump will not even let them have a say in how the land should be split.
> threatening to start a new trade war if the EU doesn't permit their murdermobiles on the European roads
The strange part is that those car can be sold in the EU markets already. They just have to comply with the same pollution and safety standards as other cars. What would justify an exception?
Decisions are still made by our local polititians, not by Americans, who should take responsibility for those, especially in such a serious situation as this.
Pressure from Americans - who have no say in how we live in Europe -, remote or suspected, transient consequences on costs and conflics, all have lower, much lower priorities than keeping the population safe and healthy. Dead people need no cheap fuel, need no prompt conflict resolution, need no short term tariff settlements, and do not care what Americans think. Dead people are just dead! EU polititians should let people stay alive foremost of all! The rest come aftre that.
And all because these stupid huge trucks. Not even close in importance! Does not worth it.
As an American, I have plenty of disappointment in government right now with my own. But it's also incredibly disappointing how many other world leaders are letting Trump roll over them.
The trade wars go both ways. Certainly it can be a bit of a collective action problem when it comes to individual countries that are smaller than the US, but the EU as a whole should be able to negotiate on even-enough footing with the US on these kinds of issues.
Any war goes both ways, but that's not the point. The point is: can you win a war against your adversary? Can the UK win a trade war against the US for example?
The thing is, nobody else wants trade wars. Both sides of a trade war lose in a system of otherwise free commerce, the "winning" party is the party that is willing to sacrifice the most to make a point. Everyone but maybe the super wealthy are worse off. Americans are paying the price for their government's idiotic tariff game, but the real cost will come over the following years, and in some cases decades.
The EU is trying to minimize the damage for its constituents, they're not interested in a stupid power play. Threats of reciprocating in trade wars are meaningless if the leadership you're threatening doesn't care if their people starve.
Playing tough doesn't matter anyway, the American voting public will just blame the EU for all the bad things that happen if the EU's actions do have an impact, laugh at the EU if a diplomatic solution is found, and the American leadership will repeat whatever the last guy to verbally jerk off Trump said for at least the coming three years.
In a way, it's kind of impressive. The EU was not ready for America to devolve into this level of clown politics this fast, and that left them unprepared.
The problem is coming from the other side, the Americans are threatening to start a new trade war if the EU doesn't permit their murdermobiles on the European roads.
IMO pedestrian safety should still come above all else, but this is not an initiative coming from some EU representatives who want to own a Cybertruck. Blocking these cars can have impact on the war against Ukraine and the prices of fuel and other import products on the short term.