3 ms·

I'm not saying they have top-down control. I'm saying they are trying top-down initiatives - the difference is subtle but important. This is about attitude an

I'm not saying they have top-down control. I'm saying they are trying top-down initiatives - the difference is subtle but important. This is about attitude and how attempts are made - not how successful they are at it. This isn't central planning - this is just plan ineptitude that's sabotaged by inter-country conflicts of interests, with extremely bloated beaurocracy - sometimes just to have enough representation from each party. EU is stuck between worst of both worlds, and i don't see anything changing for better in here without a shift - either towards more looser union akin to trade union(original idea) or a federation.

mrtksn 1y ago
They aren't try, they don't have tools to even try doing these things. But I agree, it needs to shift to a new format. Ideally federation because as we see with Greenland and Switzerland being a small independent country comes with significant risks in this new world order.
- Xelbair 1y ago
  Personally i would prefer trade union, as EU countries have shown themselves already incapable of offering support in case of any real threat due to conflicting interests, and federation would most likely end up being run by Germany/France duopoly. also look at energy and AI initiatives for examples of top down initiatives. In most non-western EU countries the only realistic way to get a tech startup going is via EU grant process which is extremely top down with keywords they want for specific year, and basically prevents any form of pivoting as a business. It's not some top brass of party, soviet style, making top-down decisions. Its the whole system that's designed to operate that way - bureaucrats here and there incentivized to do so, committee here and there setting up guidelines for results. what they should do is to setup a framework in which results emerge.
  - mrtksn 1y ago
    Whatever it becomes, IMHO it needs to have much more clear set of responsibilities and adequate tools to fulfill those duties. Currently everything is too patchy, the currency the passport the agencies like ESA, the trade barriers within itself - everything needs a re-do in the integration or scaling down the scope.

mrtksn 1y ago

They aren't try, they don't have tools to even try doing these things. But I agree, it needs to shift to a new format. Ideally federation because as we see with Greenland and Switzerland being a small independent country comes with significant risks in this new world order.

Xelbair 1y ago
Personally i would prefer trade union, as EU countries have shown themselves already incapable of offering support in case of any real threat due to conflicting interests, and federation would most likely end up being run by Germany/France duopoly. also look at energy and AI initiatives for examples of top down initiatives. In most non-western EU countries the only realistic way to get a tech startup going is via EU grant process which is extremely top down with keywords they want for specific year, and basically prevents any form of pivoting as a business. It's not some top brass of party, soviet style, making top-down decisions. Its the whole system that's designed to operate that way - bureaucrats here and there incentivized to do so, committee here and there setting up guidelines for results. what they should do is to setup a framework in which results emerge.
- mrtksn 1y ago
  Whatever it becomes, IMHO it needs to have much more clear set of responsibilities and adequate tools to fulfill those duties. Currently everything is too patchy, the currency the passport the agencies like ESA, the trade barriers within itself - everything needs a re-do in the integration or scaling down the scope.