Remix.run Logo
jeroenhd 2 hours ago

> 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.

epolanski an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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).

mrdevlar 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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.

rsynnott 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

jeroenhd 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

> long after ol' minihands is out of office

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.

jillesvangurp 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

taneliv an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

RedShift1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

n8cpdx 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s tough when there’s a war going on and the EU countries don’t really want to pay the true cost for their defense.

epolanski an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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.

n8cpdx 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

> 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.

RobertoG 5 minutes ago | parent [-]

[delayed]

witheredspirit 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

n8cpdx an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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.

https://economist.com/europe/2025/12/01/europe-is-going-on-a... from The Economist

ExoticPearTree an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

witheredspirit 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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.

LunaSea 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Just a handful of countries are spending 5% of their GDP on defense

And the US is not one of them

trinix912 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

ExoticPearTree 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Here, so you get it, as I was a bit wrong: https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/fin... - page 3.

Poland spends 4.5% and that is the highest number, the rest are spending much much less.

Tell me again how they're spending more???

trinix912 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

By sending stuff and people to Ukraine. But that doesn’t end up in the Nato GDP spendings, because it goes through their governments not NATO.

n8cpdx 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

trinix912 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

> 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.

nutjob2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
lawn an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The European countries are already paying more than the US, both in therms of money and lives.

iso1631 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

America doesn't want Europe paying for its own defence. It wants Europe paying American defence contractors.

The entire strategy for the last 80 years has been built around this edict.

Bengalilol an hour ago | parent [-]

Not only defense may I add.

watwut an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It is even tougher when America is helping the enemy as much as it can. Like, Trump is literally helping Putin at this point.

trinix912 an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

kelnos 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

ExoticPearTree an hour ago | parent [-]

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?