4 ms·

I get that but just because they use licensed IP doesn't mean that they have to sell it to the USA. >And it's individual nation states (in this case Netherland

by mrtksn 2y ago

I get that but just because they use licensed IP doesn't mean that they have to sell it to the USA. >And it's individual nation states (in this case Netherlands) that makes this decision, not the EU. That's the current state of affairs, it doesn't have to be the same in the upcoming months or years because "decades are happening in weeks" lately. The sovereignty stuff is what kept EU from becoming like USA but things are on move now. Check the approval ratings and trust of Europeans about EU and their local government and you'll see that Europeans tend to trust EU much more than the national government. EU is actually very popular with the general public, its the far-right and the far left that demonize it(they see it as an obstacle towards libertarian utopia or communism). Also, what if they just don't care about the license or replace the licensed IP with something from Korea/Japan? What if they just clandestinely sell those to China?

alephnerd 2y ago
> I get that but just because they use licensed IP doesn't mean that they have to sell it to the USA If ASML loses access to the IP they cannot sell it in any market that respects IP laws, nor can it raise capital as it now has extremely legal liability. And if the Netherlands is ready to tear up it's IP laws, it's going to be de facto sanctioned by the US and the rest of the EU, because IP Law is one of the few things European nation states devolved to the EU. Also, around 20% of ASML's headcount is in the US, and much of that is R&D and manufacturing specifically for EUV Lithography. > The sovereignty stuff is what kept from EU becoming like USA but things are on move now. Check the approval ratings and trust of Europeans about EU and their local government and you'll see that Europeans tend to trust EU much more than the national government The EU has a better reputation amongst the population, yet at the end of the day, no actual power aside from single market and norms alignment has been devolved to the EU. As I have mentioned multiple times at this point, politicans and businesses do not want to reduce their power by handing it to the EU. It might be good for the EU member states at a macro level, but it creates a lot of losers at the national level. And those losers can vote for the AfD, RN, etc. For example, for a unified European army, either France, Germany, or Sweden is going to have to sacrifice their aerospace giants because Dassault, Eurofighter, and Saab compete directly and ferociously, and always undercut each other. And for tanks, Germany has to either sacrifice the entire chain for Leopold or France has to sacrifice the entire chain for Leclerc. All of these are tens of thousands of jobs in France, Germany, and Sweden, and no party wants to become toxic for a generation by become the party that sacrificed their voters with mass layoffs for the benefit of the EU as a whole. Individual European nation states need to align, and they just are not because Defense, Foreign Relations, and Internal Security has always been the mandate of individual states. > That's the current state of affairs, it doesn't have to be the same in the upcoming months or years because "decades are happening in weeks" lately It definetly is, but not in a good way. The major EU states had an emergency conference after Vance's horrid comments at MSC to try and align on a boots on the ground policy in Ukraine, but it was shot down by Poland and Germany [0] [0] - https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-leader-donald-trump-ukraine-peace-deal-emmanuel-macron-presidential-palace-donald-tusk/ https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-leader-donald-trump-...
- addicted 2y ago
  > For example, for a unified European army, either France, Germany, or Sweden is going to have to sacrifice their aerospace giants because Dassault, Eurofighter, and Saab compete directly and ferociously, and always undercut each other. And for tanks, Germany has to either sacrifice the entire chain for Leopold or France has to sacrifice the entire chain for Leclerc. This is absolutely correct. That’s why the common EU military cannot be an EU equivalent of the U.S. military. However, the EU itself is a novel and unique structure that was invented out of thin air. A common EU policy would also have to be a completely new model. One that’s closer to NATO but also has an actual common command with actual teeth that can call upon its French or German division to take certain steps that those divisions cannot refuse.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    I agree. I think Macron's proposal for a tiered EU membership model might work as well - give some states the unified market and contracts enforcements, give other states that plus unified military posture under a single command, give other states almost complete devolution of powers to the EU > that can call upon its French or German division to take certain steps that those divisions cannot refuse A major additional issue is national constitutions as well. For example, Germany's constitution doesn't allow an expeditionary force outside of NATO territory, which pisses off France and Netherlands because they both have dependencies outside of NATO that face pressure from China (French Polynesia, Mayotte) and Venezuela (Dutch Antilles). -------- And the question of Turkiye remains, becuase it's the only NATO state that has direct combat experience against Russian forces (Libya, Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2016) and mass deployment. Turkiye needs to be integrated as part of the EU's structure, otherwise the EU will continue to lack the heft needed to defend itself. But Greece, France, and Cyprus will continue to veto Turkiye because of North Cyprus (Greece, Cyprus) and business+geopolitical conflicts (France) Ironically, Germany has been quietly receptive to including Turkiye in the EU as German businesses and MICs are closely aligned with Turkiye.

by mrtksn 2y ago

alephnerd 2y ago

> I get that but just because they use licensed IP doesn't mean that they have to sell it to the USA If ASML loses access to the IP they cannot sell it in any market that respects IP laws, nor can it raise capital as it now has extremely legal liability. And if the Netherlands is ready to tear up it's IP laws, it's going to be de facto sanctioned by the US and the rest of the EU, because IP Law is one of the few things European nation states devolved to the EU. Also, around 20% of ASML's headcount is in the US, and much of that is R&D and manufacturing specifically for EUV Lithography. > The sovereignty stuff is what kept from EU becoming like USA but things are on move now. Check the approval ratings and trust of Europeans about EU and their local government and you'll see that Europeans tend to trust EU much more than the national government The EU has a better reputation amongst the population, yet at the end of the day, no actual power aside from single market and norms alignment has been devolved to the EU. As I have mentioned multiple times at this point, politicans and businesses do not want to reduce their power by handing it to the EU. It might be good for the EU member states at a macro level, but it creates a lot of losers at the national level. And those losers can vote for the AfD, RN, etc. For example, for a unified European army, either France, Germany, or Sweden is going to have to sacrifice their aerospace giants because Dassault, Eurofighter, and Saab compete directly and ferociously, and always undercut each other. And for tanks, Germany has to either sacrifice the entire chain for Leopold or France has to sacrifice the entire chain for Leclerc. All of these are tens of thousands of jobs in France, Germany, and Sweden, and no party wants to become toxic for a generation by become the party that sacrificed their voters with mass layoffs for the benefit of the EU as a whole. Individual European nation states need to align, and they just are not because Defense, Foreign Relations, and Internal Security has always been the mandate of individual states. > That's the current state of affairs, it doesn't have to be the same in the upcoming months or years because "decades are happening in weeks" lately It definetly is, but not in a good way. The major EU states had an emergency conference after Vance's horrid comments at MSC to try and align on a boots on the ground policy in Ukraine, but it was shot down by Poland and Germany [0] [0] - https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-leader-donald-trump-ukraine-peace-deal-emmanuel-macron-presidential-palace-donald-tusk/ https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-leader-donald-trump-...

addicted 2y ago
> For example, for a unified European army, either France, Germany, or Sweden is going to have to sacrifice their aerospace giants because Dassault, Eurofighter, and Saab compete directly and ferociously, and always undercut each other. And for tanks, Germany has to either sacrifice the entire chain for Leopold or France has to sacrifice the entire chain for Leclerc. This is absolutely correct. That’s why the common EU military cannot be an EU equivalent of the U.S. military. However, the EU itself is a novel and unique structure that was invented out of thin air. A common EU policy would also have to be a completely new model. One that’s closer to NATO but also has an actual common command with actual teeth that can call upon its French or German division to take certain steps that those divisions cannot refuse.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  I agree. I think Macron's proposal for a tiered EU membership model might work as well - give some states the unified market and contracts enforcements, give other states that plus unified military posture under a single command, give other states almost complete devolution of powers to the EU > that can call upon its French or German division to take certain steps that those divisions cannot refuse A major additional issue is national constitutions as well. For example, Germany's constitution doesn't allow an expeditionary force outside of NATO territory, which pisses off France and Netherlands because they both have dependencies outside of NATO that face pressure from China (French Polynesia, Mayotte) and Venezuela (Dutch Antilles). -------- And the question of Turkiye remains, becuase it's the only NATO state that has direct combat experience against Russian forces (Libya, Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2016) and mass deployment. Turkiye needs to be integrated as part of the EU's structure, otherwise the EU will continue to lack the heft needed to defend itself. But Greece, France, and Cyprus will continue to veto Turkiye because of North Cyprus (Greece, Cyprus) and business+geopolitical conflicts (France) Ironically, Germany has been quietly receptive to including Turkiye in the EU as German businesses and MICs are closely aligned with Turkiye.