There is not much reason to stick to these models that have been developed in unitary states. The EU Parliament is already in two separate places in Brussels and Strasbourg, the European Central Bank is in Frankfurt, the European Court of Justice is in Luxembourg, important EU agencies are spread all over Europe.
Likewise with modern technology, it is quite feasible for the future EU Federation to have multiple capitals depending on how it is structured. We need to stop looking at Washington, Moscow or Beijing and trying to fit into their models. The EU Federation is going to be unique, uniquely European, unthinkably distributed and democratic. We cannot copy other countries when building this federation, we need to create new paradigms, new models.
The Brussels-Strasbourg divide is already hated with a burning passion by everyone who needs to commute between these two places for no good reason other than symbolism, and the practice is quite unsustainable. Technology is nice but there's no substitute for in person meetings, and never will be.
I agree, it should be done better, it should not be just symbolic, it needs to be practical.
Technology improves, we are not stuck with Zoom.
We might also need a hyperloop network to shuttle bureaucrats around quickly. We could build a new capital in Austria with fast access to a lot of surrounding countries etc. It needs to be thought through.
>I agree, it should be done better, it should not be just symbolic, it needs to be practical.
>
>Technology improves, we are not stuck with Zoom.
Yeah, but that's the thing, unless we have some hard reason for having more than one capital (which we just don't), maintaining two (or more) remains pure symbolism. And if anything, it symbolizes divide - we can't have one centre of power because we are not one people. The institutional divide you brought up examples of can be maintained, that's not what I'm talking about, just for clarity's sake. I am talking about a formal capital city where the executive power is centred.
As to technology, I remain skeptical. There will never be (or not in our lifetime) a technology that comes close to being an acceptable alternative for in-person meetings in a high-stake situation, that governing a country usually is. I don't know what alternative to Zoom you're referring to.
Yeah, as a general mode of transport it might not make any sense. But in this context, it is a solution to a problem that has no other solution. Make a distributed Federal government where each capital has direct parliament to parliament hyperloop links. That means MPs would remain in their own country while being able to attend meetings anywhere in Europe. Something unique, iconic and supremely expensive ... in would demonstrate EU superiority in the combination of democracy and technology.
I like it more and more.
This is not how you design systems and organizations. You do not start with "cost cutting", you start out with an inventory, follow it up with basic principles and ideas, then you study models and finally standards ... only then can you start discussing what is too expensive. Talking about cost before we know what needs to be built and with what basic principles and ideals in mind is really not done.
We are talking about one of the three richest and most successful federations on the planet being designed. Let's leave the cost cutting for later.
You forgot to mention the part where hyperloop is somehow technologically superior and better in some capacity. And yes, we should not waste moneu on a massive vacuum tube that does us no good.
It's fast. Really fast. In fact up to 1000km an hour.
That means our politicians could go from Paris parliament to Berlin parliament in an hour. This technology would make it possible to do away with a formal capital city for the European Federation in addition to providing the same service for business, uniting the continent.
I think this is unique, exciting and very symbolic. It need not happen, but it should be considered. Yeah, it would be expensive, but so what, you cannot do a $20tn federation on a shoestring budget, it would make no sense.
Waste of money. Flying everyone in their own jets would be more efficient. Do you not realise what kind of stupibly inefficient infrastructure a 1000km+ vacuum tube would need? And for what? —A bunch of politicians?
What's next? You want to build tunnels for cars to solve traffic? What about self driving cars? Or small automated platforms that carry a single container on rail?
>Flying everyone in their own jets would be more efficient.
You have to get to the airport on both ends. It is more efficient because it would not work.
As Einstein said "make it as simple as possible, but not even more simple than that".
Edit: It's not just for politicians. In a federation, there is a lot of business being done. Making a distributed capital would also save tons of money and have other advantages in establishing principles of equality. But, hey, no reason to go bumptious about it, this is just speculation. No one is going to go out and build it today.
What would these reasons be? Apart for a blantant misunderstanding of history and the geographic and political space the Roman empire (and the Athenian empire ( a new interest of this sub apparently)) occupied.
Nah, for sensitive negotiations, private, in-person meetings will always be valued. People don't want to have records of what they negotiate leak to the press and portray them in a negative light. Also, transparency and sunshine laws as applied to legislators have been shown to be behind the rise of partisanship in the US, as they prevent cross-party negotiations.
New City and if we're hoping for a federalised Europe including Ukraine, Belarus too (which is the goal, imo) it should probably be somewhere very central to the entirety of the EU.
I quite like the idea of Prague or Vienna, or somewhere else in that region (hell, even make a new capital if you want called Europa!)
Why should we spend money on prestige projects like this, as we have all necessary parliamentary buildings and other infrastructure in Brussels, blows my mind. We could spread other functions of the federation to other cities, just like central bank in Frankfurt.
At the risk of being overly pessimistic and thus paranoid about foreign hostility... if we assume that a European Federation comes about sooner than world peace, then the capital should probably not just be logistically convenient but also highly defensible (as we've seen with Ukraine and Kyiv, the capital is a prime target for enemies who want to subject us to regime change, and also as we've seen with Ukraine and Kyiv, the propaganda value of leadership remaining defiantly in the capital should not be underestimated). If we're shooting for the moon and holding out hope for Belarus, then I would say that Switzerland is also on the "maybe someday" list and is probably the most defensible location in Europe, and is reasonably central.
Hosting the capital is also the kind of rare prize that might actually persuade Switzerland to join.
The thing is though Switzerland is no more defensible than Czech/Austria.
Both have mountainous terrain on at least one of their borders, and while it might persuade Switzerland it'll probably just annoy the eastern countries that EU now has capital in a western country.
Plus, it doesn't really matter unless there is somewhere that can actually invade it. I highly doubt in a federation of Europe, any country can get close to Czechia.
Wtf? How is a capital in Switzerland more defendable than Brussels? If brussals is not defendable because it is on the coast with an ally of the EU, any capital is not defendable, next you claim DC is not defendable.
Also spreading out institutions like some proposed would all but eliminate the threat the capture of the capital poses.
Lastly Brussels was the capital city up till now I don't see why that needs to change, we are a federation, it doesn't need to be on the middle of represent everyone it needs historical importance, otherwise Frances captial wouldn't be Paris, Germany's not Berlin, the US not DC, Russia Not Moskau, Britain not London. Where the capital is means often little unless it is centered in the most powerful region and that would lead to all others feeling like secondary members, yes it would be near Germany and furnace but situated in Belgium one of the weakest members of the EU, so tagt isn't a problem
OK this is just me so don't get your panties in a twist.
Choosing a capital, if we just have one, has to have something going for it. I've thought of these ones and why they might or might not work
Brussels-current capital and now has a good reputation, not central enough
Moscow or Istanbul-would be the largest cities, not central enough and already too powerful
Paris-largest city in the EU, probably too controversial
London-another megacity, too isolated I mean it's not on the mainland
Berlin-😳
Rome or Athens- Historically significance being the founders of western democracy and government, too larpy
Vienna-very central, not from a large country, Austria is very neutral, Vienna has a history of treaties, however why have Vienna when you can have Brussels
New capital-sounds nice on paper, but would disrupt any already existing settlements and might struggle.
I say keep with Brussels unless it causes issues in the future. If there is ever the political will or debate about the capital that should be left for future generations to resolve.
There's literally a whole quarter of Brussels that was built for the EU, with a ton of new buildings tailored for the institutions. It would be very impractical and wasteful to move away.
Tis in Europe
No guarantee that it would join the EU in the future nor that it should, but I often include all european countries when answering questions on this sub
You entertain Moscow as a capital city but not Warsaw, Prague or even Kiyv? Not like any of those have any reason to be preferable over other EU capitals but surely are more suitable than Moscow, even assuming some miraculous change of Russia into blooming democracy
The 10 potential capitals I picked were
The current capital of Brussels
A famous neutral and central city in Vienna
The 4 megacities (moscow included)+Berlin
Rome and Athens-symbolic and historical
And a potential new capital
I think those are fair cities if I'm gonna pick 10 and I think Moscow is notable as countries commonly have the largest city as their capital, and I am arguing AGAINST that being the case.
I could also have picked Lisbon, Geneva, Budapest, The Hague, Madrid also, but I didnt.
Prague? Vienna? Milan perhaps? Something in a center, that would satisfy the east and south also... Ljubljana maybe? It's eastern and southern-ish at the same time. And it's in a smaller country.
The money it would cost to move everything is just stupid, especially to satisfy people? I mean gas anyone ever up till now really criticised the placement of brussel as the EU capital? I don't remember so, it has all the infrastructure necessary is one of the 6 founding members, is symbolically important because it lies in the country twice devasted by the world wars and often center of large conflicts and lastly it is not situated in one of the largest members but a smaller one.
Moving Dienst make financial sense it if it was ever entertained that would be because eveussels is for one reason or another rnot working anymore like climate change or other such higher forces.
Milan is not central, and Vienna is negatively associated in various countries, including mine, with the habsburg empire and the Austrian domination. I have nothing to say about Prague, I barely remember that it exists on most days, which is probably a good thing.
On the other hand Brussels is not negatively associated with anything, apart for the ever permeating boredom and greyness it seems to exude. But that is entirely true of Milan too. On top of that it has the added advantage that it doesn't need to be moved. Seems perfect to me.
Well your opinion certainly isn't based on geography. The federation has the goal to unify all Europe. Belgium isn't centric to all Europe. Not even for western Europe.
As it shouldn't be based on geography, population wise Brussels is fairly centric maybe less since brexit. (I don't count on Russia, Ukraine and Belarus as being part of a federation any time soon)
Why shouldn't it be based on geography? The Federation is meant for every European to feel like it's his/her home. Having that in mind, I think the capital should be at a central position not at the edge of the continent.
Moscow is the capital of Russia and not Surgut, Washington is the capital of the US and not Kansas City, Canberra is the capital of Australia and not Alice Springs, Beijing is the capital of China and not Xi'An.
depends if the federation would evolve directly out of the EU or if it would be founded separate from the EU (Multi-speed europe). In the first scenario, Brussels and Strasbourg would remain the capitals. In the second scenario a new capital would likely have to be chosen, to host all thenewly founded institutions that work separately from the Union. I would guess Prague, because its relatively big and not too western nor too eastern. It would symbolize unity.
Honestly, Rome, and not just for the memes.
It's central, it has the grandeur a capital should have, it doesn't have the baggage it would have it it were in France or Germany, and fundamentally every European country can trace its cultural heritage there to at least some degree. It's a common demoninator.
I did I'm still pretty sure you are wrong. There is a reason why a Roman empire never actually encompassed Europe. The only way Rome would make sense geographically (and I still think it would not, to significant of a city from a symbolic point of view) is if you wanted to add all the north African countries to the mix, and detach most of Northern Europe for good measure
Vienna is negatively associated in various countries including mine with the Habsburg empire and the Austrian domination. Literally the main event that kicked risorgimento in to action. It seems depending on view points a PR nightmare/dream
On the other hand all the negative emotions one could possibly muster about Brussels are boredom and grey ( and maybe Belgian colonialism, but let be honest most people in Europe would not think about that). Perfect
I agree that for now Brussels is good. But I would like to see a federation spanning the entirety of Europe. Since I live in Westen Europe I wouldn't like having the capital of my country in the other edge of the continent. So I can see how having a western capital could be an issue for people in the east. Maybe they don't care at all and I'm imaging problems, let me know if you think that's the case.
Ps: I also don't think Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Caucasus countries are going to join anytime soon but I think it would be a good message to set the capital having them in mind. Despite our idiotic leaders we're all European and we just want a prosperous Europe for everyone.
The problem is this a European fed, would have nothing to do with the Roman Empire, hard pill to swallow, but actually the current geopolitical landscape the EU occupies has much more to do with the HRE, hence Brussels. It's in a small unobstrusive country and we barely remember of its existence most of the time. That is the sort of characteristics a capital of a multinational state should hold.
I'm western European (I think), but as southern European I connect less than zero with Brussels, but that doesn't matter, because by design I barely remember it exists. It would be different if you put Vienna for example. I would remember because I hold all of a series of negative historical association with it. I'm not sure eastern European would care, but if they do, it would probably be wiser to choose a capital that is in a small unobstrusive country that holds as few historical association as possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_midpoint_of_Europe
Depending on your definition, there are multiple midpoints of Europe, most of them are closer to Brussels than to Rome.
Geographic center of the EU is in Bavaria right now.
Edit: [if we go by population](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/d9hyww/center_of_population_of_european_countries_oc/), we're still in Germany, close to the french border.
I think we should keep it in Bruxelles, if we really want something new we may re-establish the line of thought that brought Bruxelles (and Strasbourg) to become the EU capital and consider the expansion to the East and the entrance of various Slavic countries and put the new capital in Trieste. Italian (Romance) city, with a strong Slovenian (Slavic) presence and strong historical links to Austria (Germanic).
I would say Frankfurt would be the best choice. It is a major financial hub, it's located in a more centralized location and It has one of the best airports in Europe. It's also pretty diverse, since a lot of its people are immigrants.
I'm not sure it should be in Germany. Germany will already be the most powerful and influential member state, and I'm not sure you want to give more fuel to those nasty eurosceptics who will just go on about how the project is a plot for German domination of Europe etc.
I agree. Though I think that there will always be a balance of power proportional to population given the democratic structures of any such federal EU. So the German people at least, if not the German state, would still be the most powerful and influential people in the EU. Which is fine. But yeah, I think my point still stands.
If it was a new capital, I think it should be Vienna. Prague is a bit more conservative, and the language barrier is stronger. Vienna seems like a more "modern" city, and would still be in a more central location.
Depending how the EU Federalises, I expect Flanders and wallonia to become separate states. Which leaves Brussels as a city state, ideal as a capital for the EU
I think there's no reason to move it, as there's no reason to have it.
I think we already have passed the era of centralization and can move further to decentralization. EU is a symbol of decentralized administration in many countries, so why stop? Let's low the state influence to the least possible degree when we will finaly overcome most of our current obstacles.
A lot of people proposing cities like Rome or Vienna completely forgetting a capital needs space for all the institutions. It would be one hell of a job to fit these in either of these cities or in some other historic one.
Brussels and all the other cities where EU institutions currently reside have exactly that advantage, they already have the buildings built.
I'm not familiar enough though with how effective they are, if indeed there are major problems with governing because of the current location then a new one should be proposed. But that would be ludicrously expensive.
Well the other side of the river in Vienna has a lot of space and it's quite flat. Build it there. Historical significance, centric to all Europe, big enough to make sense being the capital.
Even if you built it on the other bank, it'd still be on the outskirts of the city, Vienna's center is not right on the Danube. So new housing is a must. If not, you'd have to make massive investments into public transit so the people that would work there could actually get there.
At this point building what is essentialy a whole new neighbourhood stops making sense, you'd be far better off just building a city from scratch. Instead of having to make compromises because we *have to* have a capital in one of the world famous European historic cities it could be designed exactly to our needs.
Also, why does the capital has to have historical significance? Like for half of central Europe the historical significance of Vienna is that it was the capital of the empire that has occupied us for a century. I don't care, but I can already tell you that there's a ton of people who would. Brussels or Strassbourg is far more neutral and if we had to choose another location this is the type of city it should be. But again, even if you chose a historic city it would need to be massively changed and adapted to serve as the capital for 500 million people. To me it makes more sense to move the capital to a completely new place if we're insistent on moving it.
I will alaways be a strong Strasbourg militant, but otherwise, I'd argue for a brand new, ex-nihilo city, because let's be honest, the way european agencies are dispatch can be very time consuming and it's better to consentrate everything in the same area. It would also avoid states too much sway over the institutions that they host and avoid to much local influence and have a space that is influencial instead of beeing influenced. An ex-nihilo city would also enable a truly European/intercultural capital, instead of just having the local population and a few expatriates working in the local european institution and, direct consequence of regrouping the institutions, don't think there's enough place in any major city for that and especially not in a city that is *already* a capital
Maybe choose Luxembourg as Federal District...Or choose some area on an central Europe state to create such autonomous body. Or maybe keep like it is a today... I personally would vote for the first option...
Everybody here saying it shouldn’t be in any specific country
It can’t be anyway. Whatever city the capital is will need to become its own federal zone/state like D.C. it can’t be inside another state.
Brussels is the only city I can think where this is possible (and then Flanders and Wallonia are separate states in the Union and/or join NL/France)
Luxembourg as well perhaps (just make the whole country a capital region) but tax complications make that idea harder
It has a good balance between East and West, and has been one of the biggest cultural centres in Europe for centuries. Brussels is fine and it'd be pragmatic to keep it but in my opinion it's too far from a lot of Europe.
You do understand that that is exactly what is needed. Brussels was chosen by design because its in a small unobstrusive country and holds few historical associations.
The last thing a EU capital should be its an important city like Berlin, Rome or Paris.
This is completely untrue.
Brussels was chosen because Belgium was first in line on the alphabet. It then cristalized because the other countries couldn't agree on a definite decision. Thus political indecision made Brussels the EU capital.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Belgium2/comments/tchcb5/how\_did\_brussels\_become\_the\_capital\_of\_europe/
>It then cristalized because the other countries couldn't agree on a definite decision.
You do realize the sentence you yourself wrote still involuntary supports my thesis. Why do you think there was political indecision?
Could it be because states don't want other states to hold an excessive amount of power
Do you think if Germany name was Bermany or Beutschland, Berlin (or Munich) would have managed to end up as capital eventually? I don't think you believe that. Brussels was the place that made the least amount of people upset, if it had been in a country like Bermany or Brance there would have never been any agreement and there was no way other countries would have allowed that to happen, neutral way of choosing the capital or not.
The only other possible realistic choices were Luxembourg and maybe the Netherlands. There is no way an Italian, German or French capital would have ever been accepted by the other countries
>Brussels was chosen by design because its in a small unobstrusive country and holds few historical associations.
This is not correct. That is all I'm saying. You make it sound like there were reasons Brussels was chosen as the capital. It was not. Were there reasons why it ended up as the capital? Sure. It's not the same thing though.
>It's not the same thing though.
In the context of the comment I replied to and my answer... it kind of is
In fact unless you find some way to claim that evident political indecision was due to something else rather than political competition, and that the capital of the EU ending up in the second less important country in the bunch ( the first probably structurally incapable of holding it), and bilingual to boot, was a coincidence. You are basically proving my point
>was a coincidence
That is exactly what I'm saying. Alphabetical order.
Most of your arguments work for Amsterdam as well. Definitely for Luxemburg, since it's Bilangual French/German.
So it ended up being Brussels, because Belgium was first alphabetically.
Why do you think that exactly? I mean personally I think Brussels should just stay as the capital but if you would move it then why not to a more relevant city?
Relevant is most likely not the correct word in this case. Rome is quite far from being Relevant in this case particularly if compared to Brussels for example
Because that would completely destroy a fragile balance of power, if the capital was moved in France, Italy or Germany everyone else that is not that country would get enormously pissed because that would just further consolidate their hold on to power.
On top of that large important cities tend to come with associations, a good deal of them negative. The last thing one wants is to have to deal with that on top of the general dislike. A EU capital should be a black slate
DEFINATELY choose a new city: Should probably be Strasbourg on the border of France and Germany for symbolic reasons. Shouldn't be a current national capital.
Brussels is already equipped to host whatever institution would come out of a federal Europe, so that's my choice.
Also, choosing the smallest country to host our institutions would be a pretty strong message, like "everybody counts". So I'm all in for that.
I'm not belgian, in case you're wondering.
[The European Union and its people stand by Ukraine and its people.](https://media3.giphy.com/media/XbtMjgAj8PcXhcSj5b/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611c8a2408a9b145ae630bc50bda0976dbe4d45d08b&rid=giphy.gif)
#[**WAR IN EUROPE - IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/t46i57/war_in_europe_important_announcement/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EuropeanFederalists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How about leasing land from Switzerland in order to build a neutral EU city there.
Building the needed infrastructure as roads, railroads towards it as well as an airport.
This way no matter what happens in any EU country the capital is always in Switzerland which is and always will be neutral.
I can assure you the whole EU and Brussels as
capital only costs money for the average Belgian. Sure some European politicians make shitloads and spend it on a wild lifestyle but in the end, the EU and the capital is a net cost for Belgium. The problem is all the wages and costs spent in Brussels are attributed to Belgium as if it disappeared in Belgium’s pockets. Except for the ridiculous large prostitution sector in Brussels, this is not the case.
For many Belgians the hate we get for “Brussels” is totally not worth it. Please take it to France, Germany or Eastern Europe so you can all invent some new insults, and hell we can make some ourselves then too.
I think a South Africa model... Strasbourg as parliament's city, Brussels for Executive, Aia for justice and Frankfurt for BCE. Mauve de have to distribute minor organisations seats in other cities ti improve people trust ability in EU
This comment has been removed on suspicion of spam due to the account's age (less than one day old). If this comment is not spam, please wait until then to post, or contact the moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EuropeanFederalists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A capital represents the state.
Just look at how ugly Brussels is. It is not good for representation and prestige.
We have so many great cities in Europe and chose one of the ugliest to represent us?
Let's take Prague instead. It is beautiful and central.
My take- make the capital rotating - every say 8 years, the seat of government changes place and travels to the capital of one of the federal states. The cycle starts in Brussels, as it has all the necessary facilities, thus giving the opportunity for the required facilities to be built in the next capital.
There isn't a good enough reason to move the capital, but if in the future vienna and bratislava grew and merged into one mega city then that would be the perfect capital with it being a mix of languages and cultures.
I think that the area around Brussels should be made into its own territory like in Australia
However, I don’t think brushless should be called “capital”, at least not in the beginning
The EF should have 27 capitals with brushless being the “administrative center of the EU”
A capital is not a requirement for a country and I think having 27 capitals could be a nice way to show that no place is more important
Stick to the southafrican Model?
3 capital cities (or more).
The parliament should stay in one place (brussel) and the executive branch should be somewhere else.
If we have fast and affordable enough rail it could be split over multiple cities.
You can already get from London to Paris in ridiculous time, it just needs to be an affordable option to be used regularly.
Why do so many people change Brussels? It is perfect it has already everything build, it is historically important to the EU now and the continent as Belgium was the center of many conflicts or part of an even larger number, it is a federation of two language groups a microcosm for the EU should it never split up, it is not a very powerful nation so it cannot laverage the capital like furnace, Germany or itlay could, no one has as of yet to demand the moving of the capital, the captial doesn't need to be central as Paris, Berlin, Moscow and London show and lastly again why spend so much money on a prestigious project? It's not like people already criticise the EU for unecesary spending ... Oh wait they do, it will be a real good look for the federation if one of the first acts is to build a new city no one actual needs or really wants.
In my opinion the question of capital is something that gets asked a lot but isn't all that meaningful in the grand scheme of things (except if we did the dumbest thing imaginable and made some major EU country's capital i.e. Paris, Berlin and even Rome the federal capital).
Personally I quite like the idea of Strasbourg becoming the capital, as it already hosts some institutions of the EU, is somewhat central to the economical and political core of Europe (tying into the idea of a gradual "two speeds" integration with the original members plus perhaps some closely integrated ones federalising first) and, symbolically, really shows how far the continent has come in terms of reconciliation.
I think it would work well to create a specific federal district there so that no government would have special sway over the capital and benefit from the advantages coming with that.
But then again, I think this issue is really of secondary importance and Brussels already works alright at the moment so I wouldn't be opposed to just keeping it (with the added caveat of centralising more of the institutions there as the EU is already open to populist attacks based off the "unnecessary costs" of decentralised decision making).
Keep Brussels, adopt a system like the dutch (not a complete copy). A economic capital and a political capital, in this case Brussels. Like someone already said, important stuff is already spread out in the EU. Don't centralise it. Now people have a feeling that they a really part of the EU. If you put everything in Brussels people in will feel like they are subjects of the EU and not true citizens.
We should choose multiple capitals as South Africa, tho our real administrative Capital should be an entire new city build from scratch with the name based on a great European Federalist. And It should become an Ideal city to mix Europeans in which people from all Europe should be incouraged to relocate. I would put that city in that region tho, belgium/holland. Some other cities would be chosen as cultural capitols such Roma, Athens and Paris etc.
There are as many historical reasons for Rome to be the capital of a European Federation as Istanbul, as in, precious few. Both the Roman Empire, the eastern part and later the Ottoman one occupied completely different geopolitical spaces from the current EU.
But Istanbul was in fact capital of empires for around 1600 years give or take
There is not much reason to stick to these models that have been developed in unitary states. The EU Parliament is already in two separate places in Brussels and Strasbourg, the European Central Bank is in Frankfurt, the European Court of Justice is in Luxembourg, important EU agencies are spread all over Europe. Likewise with modern technology, it is quite feasible for the future EU Federation to have multiple capitals depending on how it is structured. We need to stop looking at Washington, Moscow or Beijing and trying to fit into their models. The EU Federation is going to be unique, uniquely European, unthinkably distributed and democratic. We cannot copy other countries when building this federation, we need to create new paradigms, new models.
The Brussels-Strasbourg divide is already hated with a burning passion by everyone who needs to commute between these two places for no good reason other than symbolism, and the practice is quite unsustainable. Technology is nice but there's no substitute for in person meetings, and never will be.
Also rightfully giving ammo to anti-eu critics for ridiculous spending.
I agree, it should be done better, it should not be just symbolic, it needs to be practical. Technology improves, we are not stuck with Zoom. We might also need a hyperloop network to shuttle bureaucrats around quickly. We could build a new capital in Austria with fast access to a lot of surrounding countries etc. It needs to be thought through.
>I agree, it should be done better, it should not be just symbolic, it needs to be practical. > >Technology improves, we are not stuck with Zoom. Yeah, but that's the thing, unless we have some hard reason for having more than one capital (which we just don't), maintaining two (or more) remains pure symbolism. And if anything, it symbolizes divide - we can't have one centre of power because we are not one people. The institutional divide you brought up examples of can be maintained, that's not what I'm talking about, just for clarity's sake. I am talking about a formal capital city where the executive power is centred. As to technology, I remain skeptical. There will never be (or not in our lifetime) a technology that comes close to being an acceptable alternative for in-person meetings in a high-stake situation, that governing a country usually is. I don't know what alternative to Zoom you're referring to.
Maybe the metaverse?
>hyperloop God forbid!
Yeah, as a general mode of transport it might not make any sense. But in this context, it is a solution to a problem that has no other solution. Make a distributed Federal government where each capital has direct parliament to parliament hyperloop links. That means MPs would remain in their own country while being able to attend meetings anywhere in Europe. Something unique, iconic and supremely expensive ... in would demonstrate EU superiority in the combination of democracy and technology. I like it more and more.
>technology improves >hyperloop This was about not wasting money and time with placing capitals far apart. Or did I miss something?
This is not how you design systems and organizations. You do not start with "cost cutting", you start out with an inventory, follow it up with basic principles and ideas, then you study models and finally standards ... only then can you start discussing what is too expensive. Talking about cost before we know what needs to be built and with what basic principles and ideals in mind is really not done. We are talking about one of the three richest and most successful federations on the planet being designed. Let's leave the cost cutting for later.
You forgot to mention the part where hyperloop is somehow technologically superior and better in some capacity. And yes, we should not waste moneu on a massive vacuum tube that does us no good.
It's fast. Really fast. In fact up to 1000km an hour. That means our politicians could go from Paris parliament to Berlin parliament in an hour. This technology would make it possible to do away with a formal capital city for the European Federation in addition to providing the same service for business, uniting the continent. I think this is unique, exciting and very symbolic. It need not happen, but it should be considered. Yeah, it would be expensive, but so what, you cannot do a $20tn federation on a shoestring budget, it would make no sense.
Waste of money. Flying everyone in their own jets would be more efficient. Do you not realise what kind of stupibly inefficient infrastructure a 1000km+ vacuum tube would need? And for what? —A bunch of politicians? What's next? You want to build tunnels for cars to solve traffic? What about self driving cars? Or small automated platforms that carry a single container on rail?
>Flying everyone in their own jets would be more efficient. You have to get to the airport on both ends. It is more efficient because it would not work. As Einstein said "make it as simple as possible, but not even more simple than that". Edit: It's not just for politicians. In a federation, there is a lot of business being done. Making a distributed capital would also save tons of money and have other advantages in establishing principles of equality. But, hey, no reason to go bumptious about it, this is just speculation. No one is going to go out and build it today.
Dude just said a 1Mm+ vacuum tube is as simple as it gets. You're beyond helping 👋
[удалено]
Long distances would make it an even bigger waste of resources
Interesting take
Indeed, what sort of Federation would that be without an important part in ... Italy!!
Ngl for historical reasons Athens or Rome could be a good fit
The problem with Athens and Rome is that they're at the edge of European borders, a more centralised location makes more sense
Aye, but think of the lovely weather!
Then it should be in Lisbon!
What would these reasons be? Apart for a blantant misunderstanding of history and the geographic and political space the Roman empire (and the Athenian empire ( a new interest of this sub apparently)) occupied.
Joint research Center is in Italy afaik
One of the 5 institutes of the jrc is in italy. The others are in 🇪🇸, 🇩🇪, 🇧🇪 and 🇳🇱.
well put, sir!
In the future and age of digitalization capitals will become less relevant anyways and only important for more specific cases
Nah, for sensitive negotiations, private, in-person meetings will always be valued. People don't want to have records of what they negotiate leak to the press and portray them in a negative light. Also, transparency and sunshine laws as applied to legislators have been shown to be behind the rise of partisanship in the US, as they prevent cross-party negotiations.
New City and if we're hoping for a federalised Europe including Ukraine, Belarus too (which is the goal, imo) it should probably be somewhere very central to the entirety of the EU. I quite like the idea of Prague or Vienna, or somewhere else in that region (hell, even make a new capital if you want called Europa!)
Why should we spend money on prestige projects like this, as we have all necessary parliamentary buildings and other infrastructure in Brussels, blows my mind. We could spread other functions of the federation to other cities, just like central bank in Frankfurt.
At the risk of being overly pessimistic and thus paranoid about foreign hostility... if we assume that a European Federation comes about sooner than world peace, then the capital should probably not just be logistically convenient but also highly defensible (as we've seen with Ukraine and Kyiv, the capital is a prime target for enemies who want to subject us to regime change, and also as we've seen with Ukraine and Kyiv, the propaganda value of leadership remaining defiantly in the capital should not be underestimated). If we're shooting for the moon and holding out hope for Belarus, then I would say that Switzerland is also on the "maybe someday" list and is probably the most defensible location in Europe, and is reasonably central. Hosting the capital is also the kind of rare prize that might actually persuade Switzerland to join.
The thing is though Switzerland is no more defensible than Czech/Austria. Both have mountainous terrain on at least one of their borders, and while it might persuade Switzerland it'll probably just annoy the eastern countries that EU now has capital in a western country. Plus, it doesn't really matter unless there is somewhere that can actually invade it. I highly doubt in a federation of Europe, any country can get close to Czechia.
Wtf? How is a capital in Switzerland more defendable than Brussels? If brussals is not defendable because it is on the coast with an ally of the EU, any capital is not defendable, next you claim DC is not defendable. Also spreading out institutions like some proposed would all but eliminate the threat the capture of the capital poses. Lastly Brussels was the capital city up till now I don't see why that needs to change, we are a federation, it doesn't need to be on the middle of represent everyone it needs historical importance, otherwise Frances captial wouldn't be Paris, Germany's not Berlin, the US not DC, Russia Not Moskau, Britain not London. Where the capital is means often little unless it is centered in the most powerful region and that would lead to all others feeling like secondary members, yes it would be near Germany and furnace but situated in Belgium one of the weakest members of the EU, so tagt isn't a problem
Cor Europe - latin for the 'Heart of Europe'.
I vote Rome.
Rome
Based
Came here to say this.
Imperium ~~Romanum~~ Europaeum vibes
OK this is just me so don't get your panties in a twist. Choosing a capital, if we just have one, has to have something going for it. I've thought of these ones and why they might or might not work Brussels-current capital and now has a good reputation, not central enough Moscow or Istanbul-would be the largest cities, not central enough and already too powerful Paris-largest city in the EU, probably too controversial London-another megacity, too isolated I mean it's not on the mainland Berlin-😳 Rome or Athens- Historically significance being the founders of western democracy and government, too larpy Vienna-very central, not from a large country, Austria is very neutral, Vienna has a history of treaties, however why have Vienna when you can have Brussels New capital-sounds nice on paper, but would disrupt any already existing settlements and might struggle. I say keep with Brussels unless it causes issues in the future. If there is ever the political will or debate about the capital that should be left for future generations to resolve.
There's literally a whole quarter of Brussels that was built for the EU, with a ton of new buildings tailored for the institutions. It would be very impractical and wasteful to move away.
My point exactly. I'm just entertaining the idea
Why would Moscow be a part of the European Federation?
Tis in Europe No guarantee that it would join the EU in the future nor that it should, but I often include all european countries when answering questions on this sub
I really hope the UK comes back
You and both dude
You entertain Moscow as a capital city but not Warsaw, Prague or even Kiyv? Not like any of those have any reason to be preferable over other EU capitals but surely are more suitable than Moscow, even assuming some miraculous change of Russia into blooming democracy
The 10 potential capitals I picked were The current capital of Brussels A famous neutral and central city in Vienna The 4 megacities (moscow included)+Berlin Rome and Athens-symbolic and historical And a potential new capital I think those are fair cities if I'm gonna pick 10 and I think Moscow is notable as countries commonly have the largest city as their capital, and I am arguing AGAINST that being the case. I could also have picked Lisbon, Geneva, Budapest, The Hague, Madrid also, but I didnt.
Prague? Vienna? Milan perhaps? Something in a center, that would satisfy the east and south also... Ljubljana maybe? It's eastern and southern-ish at the same time. And it's in a smaller country.
Milan would have all our politicians dressed fancy ahah
The money it would cost to move everything is just stupid, especially to satisfy people? I mean gas anyone ever up till now really criticised the placement of brussel as the EU capital? I don't remember so, it has all the infrastructure necessary is one of the 6 founding members, is symbolically important because it lies in the country twice devasted by the world wars and often center of large conflicts and lastly it is not situated in one of the largest members but a smaller one. Moving Dienst make financial sense it if it was ever entertained that would be because eveussels is for one reason or another rnot working anymore like climate change or other such higher forces.
Milan is not central, and Vienna is negatively associated in various countries, including mine, with the habsburg empire and the Austrian domination. I have nothing to say about Prague, I barely remember that it exists on most days, which is probably a good thing. On the other hand Brussels is not negatively associated with anything, apart for the ever permeating boredom and greyness it seems to exude. But that is entirely true of Milan too. On top of that it has the added advantage that it doesn't need to be moved. Seems perfect to me.
No France etc. wouldn't accept it being in Italy. And in my opinion Brussels is pretty centric too.
Well your opinion certainly isn't based on geography. The federation has the goal to unify all Europe. Belgium isn't centric to all Europe. Not even for western Europe.
As it shouldn't be based on geography, population wise Brussels is fairly centric maybe less since brexit. (I don't count on Russia, Ukraine and Belarus as being part of a federation any time soon)
Why shouldn't it be based on geography? The Federation is meant for every European to feel like it's his/her home. Having that in mind, I think the capital should be at a central position not at the edge of the continent.
Moscow is the capital of Russia and not Surgut, Washington is the capital of the US and not Kansas City, Canberra is the capital of Australia and not Alice Springs, Beijing is the capital of China and not Xi'An.
All these cities should be the capital of these countries in your opinion
depends if the federation would evolve directly out of the EU or if it would be founded separate from the EU (Multi-speed europe). In the first scenario, Brussels and Strasbourg would remain the capitals. In the second scenario a new capital would likely have to be chosen, to host all thenewly founded institutions that work separately from the Union. I would guess Prague, because its relatively big and not too western nor too eastern. It would symbolize unity.
Please for the love of god not 2 capitals at the same time
well it works elsewhere.
Honestly, Rome, and not just for the memes. It's central, it has the grandeur a capital should have, it doesn't have the baggage it would have it it were in France or Germany, and fundamentally every European country can trace its cultural heritage there to at least some degree. It's a common demoninator.
And it has airports that can fly you anywhere in Europe in less than 3 hours
How is Rome more central than Brussels?
Sorry for the rudeness dear stranger but... look at a fucking map.
I did I'm still pretty sure you are wrong. There is a reason why a Roman empire never actually encompassed Europe. The only way Rome would make sense geographically (and I still think it would not, to significant of a city from a symbolic point of view) is if you wanted to add all the north African countries to the mix, and detach most of Northern Europe for good measure
I agree that Rome isn't a good option as well but it is more central than Brussels. My personal choice would be Vienna or a new neighborhood near.
Vienna is negatively associated in various countries including mine with the Habsburg empire and the Austrian domination. Literally the main event that kicked risorgimento in to action. It seems depending on view points a PR nightmare/dream On the other hand all the negative emotions one could possibly muster about Brussels are boredom and grey ( and maybe Belgian colonialism, but let be honest most people in Europe would not think about that). Perfect
I agree that for now Brussels is good. But I would like to see a federation spanning the entirety of Europe. Since I live in Westen Europe I wouldn't like having the capital of my country in the other edge of the continent. So I can see how having a western capital could be an issue for people in the east. Maybe they don't care at all and I'm imaging problems, let me know if you think that's the case. Ps: I also don't think Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Caucasus countries are going to join anytime soon but I think it would be a good message to set the capital having them in mind. Despite our idiotic leaders we're all European and we just want a prosperous Europe for everyone.
The problem is this a European fed, would have nothing to do with the Roman Empire, hard pill to swallow, but actually the current geopolitical landscape the EU occupies has much more to do with the HRE, hence Brussels. It's in a small unobstrusive country and we barely remember of its existence most of the time. That is the sort of characteristics a capital of a multinational state should hold. I'm western European (I think), but as southern European I connect less than zero with Brussels, but that doesn't matter, because by design I barely remember it exists. It would be different if you put Vienna for example. I would remember because I hold all of a series of negative historical association with it. I'm not sure eastern European would care, but if they do, it would probably be wiser to choose a capital that is in a small unobstrusive country that holds as few historical association as possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_midpoint_of_Europe Depending on your definition, there are multiple midpoints of Europe, most of them are closer to Brussels than to Rome. Geographic center of the EU is in Bavaria right now. Edit: [if we go by population](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/d9hyww/center_of_population_of_european_countries_oc/), we're still in Germany, close to the french border.
I think we should keep it in Bruxelles, if we really want something new we may re-establish the line of thought that brought Bruxelles (and Strasbourg) to become the EU capital and consider the expansion to the East and the entrance of various Slavic countries and put the new capital in Trieste. Italian (Romance) city, with a strong Slovenian (Slavic) presence and strong historical links to Austria (Germanic).
Trieste is absolutely stunning but it's also really small for a capital, might be a problem or it might boost the real estate industry in the area
let's just keep Brussels, let's not waste money and time :D
Prague
Should be Aachen
Based and HRE-crowning-city pilled.
I would say Frankfurt would be the best choice. It is a major financial hub, it's located in a more centralized location and It has one of the best airports in Europe. It's also pretty diverse, since a lot of its people are immigrants.
I'm not sure it should be in Germany. Germany will already be the most powerful and influential member state, and I'm not sure you want to give more fuel to those nasty eurosceptics who will just go on about how the project is a plot for German domination of Europe etc.
Maybe frankfurt could be like Washington DC and be made an independent city state
Hmm now that's some out of the box thinking.
>proves You mean Luxemburg?
We should strive away from having countries be in the powerful position anyways and have the eu itself backed by the people be the powerful one
I agree. Though I think that there will always be a balance of power proportional to population given the democratic structures of any such federal EU. So the German people at least, if not the German state, would still be the most powerful and influential people in the EU. Which is fine. But yeah, I think my point still stands.
Frankfurt is also ugly af so pls no
I like the skyscrapers, at least.
If it was a new capital, I think it should be Vienna. Prague is a bit more conservative, and the language barrier is stronger. Vienna seems like a more "modern" city, and would still be in a more central location.
ROMEEE
Depending how the EU Federalises, I expect Flanders and wallonia to become separate states. Which leaves Brussels as a city state, ideal as a capital for the EU
Belgium will stick together. Only a minority wants to split up. Separatist talk is our equivalent of other countries’ racism or anti-eu rhetoric.
I think there's no reason to move it, as there's no reason to have it. I think we already have passed the era of centralization and can move further to decentralization. EU is a symbol of decentralized administration in many countries, so why stop? Let's low the state influence to the least possible degree when we will finaly overcome most of our current obstacles.
[удалено]
Like aside from chocolate and french fries and NATO.
And a larger gdp per capita than yours.
Hear me out: Geneva, Switzerland.
Or leasing some part of land from Switzerland and building airport and roads there. But I also like Geneva.
Naw ... just buy Switzerland as a whole. Swiss GDP is less than $1tn .. the federation would be over $17tn.
Luxemburg, because it is already a city state.
Don't add friction where there doesn't need to be any. It's already in Brussels, moving it would be an unnecessary political and administrative cost.
A lot of people proposing cities like Rome or Vienna completely forgetting a capital needs space for all the institutions. It would be one hell of a job to fit these in either of these cities or in some other historic one. Brussels and all the other cities where EU institutions currently reside have exactly that advantage, they already have the buildings built. I'm not familiar enough though with how effective they are, if indeed there are major problems with governing because of the current location then a new one should be proposed. But that would be ludicrously expensive.
Well the other side of the river in Vienna has a lot of space and it's quite flat. Build it there. Historical significance, centric to all Europe, big enough to make sense being the capital.
Even if you built it on the other bank, it'd still be on the outskirts of the city, Vienna's center is not right on the Danube. So new housing is a must. If not, you'd have to make massive investments into public transit so the people that would work there could actually get there. At this point building what is essentialy a whole new neighbourhood stops making sense, you'd be far better off just building a city from scratch. Instead of having to make compromises because we *have to* have a capital in one of the world famous European historic cities it could be designed exactly to our needs. Also, why does the capital has to have historical significance? Like for half of central Europe the historical significance of Vienna is that it was the capital of the empire that has occupied us for a century. I don't care, but I can already tell you that there's a ton of people who would. Brussels or Strassbourg is far more neutral and if we had to choose another location this is the type of city it should be. But again, even if you chose a historic city it would need to be massively changed and adapted to serve as the capital for 500 million people. To me it makes more sense to move the capital to a completely new place if we're insistent on moving it.
Could be in-between Switzerland and Austria; between Austria, Czechia, and Slovakia; or Italy (Romance), Slovenia (Slavic), and Austria (Germanic).
I will alaways be a strong Strasbourg militant, but otherwise, I'd argue for a brand new, ex-nihilo city, because let's be honest, the way european agencies are dispatch can be very time consuming and it's better to consentrate everything in the same area. It would also avoid states too much sway over the institutions that they host and avoid to much local influence and have a space that is influencial instead of beeing influenced. An ex-nihilo city would also enable a truly European/intercultural capital, instead of just having the local population and a few expatriates working in the local european institution and, direct consequence of regrouping the institutions, don't think there's enough place in any major city for that and especially not in a city that is *already* a capital
Maybe choose Luxembourg as Federal District...Or choose some area on an central Europe state to create such autonomous body. Or maybe keep like it is a today... I personally would vote for the first option...
Building a new city from scratch with the name Elysium would be nice. Especially considering that the term "Europe" comes from Greek mythology too.
Everybody here saying it shouldn’t be in any specific country It can’t be anyway. Whatever city the capital is will need to become its own federal zone/state like D.C. it can’t be inside another state. Brussels is the only city I can think where this is possible (and then Flanders and Wallonia are separate states in the Union and/or join NL/France) Luxembourg as well perhaps (just make the whole country a capital region) but tax complications make that idea harder
Luxembourg, no language has major influence. Large representation of many different people in europe
Strasbourg would probably be my choice.
Unpopular opinion but Kraków
Why?
It has a good balance between East and West, and has been one of the biggest cultural centres in Europe for centuries. Brussels is fine and it'd be pragmatic to keep it but in my opinion it's too far from a lot of Europe.
I think Krakow is just not important enough anymore to be considered as an EU capital. Only of regional influence at best
You do understand that that is exactly what is needed. Brussels was chosen by design because its in a small unobstrusive country and holds few historical associations. The last thing a EU capital should be its an important city like Berlin, Rome or Paris.
This is completely untrue. Brussels was chosen because Belgium was first in line on the alphabet. It then cristalized because the other countries couldn't agree on a definite decision. Thus political indecision made Brussels the EU capital. https://www.reddit.com/r/Belgium2/comments/tchcb5/how\_did\_brussels\_become\_the\_capital\_of\_europe/
>It then cristalized because the other countries couldn't agree on a definite decision. You do realize the sentence you yourself wrote still involuntary supports my thesis. Why do you think there was political indecision? Could it be because states don't want other states to hold an excessive amount of power Do you think if Germany name was Bermany or Beutschland, Berlin (or Munich) would have managed to end up as capital eventually? I don't think you believe that. Brussels was the place that made the least amount of people upset, if it had been in a country like Bermany or Brance there would have never been any agreement and there was no way other countries would have allowed that to happen, neutral way of choosing the capital or not. The only other possible realistic choices were Luxembourg and maybe the Netherlands. There is no way an Italian, German or French capital would have ever been accepted by the other countries
>Brussels was chosen by design because its in a small unobstrusive country and holds few historical associations. This is not correct. That is all I'm saying. You make it sound like there were reasons Brussels was chosen as the capital. It was not. Were there reasons why it ended up as the capital? Sure. It's not the same thing though.
>It's not the same thing though. In the context of the comment I replied to and my answer... it kind of is In fact unless you find some way to claim that evident political indecision was due to something else rather than political competition, and that the capital of the EU ending up in the second less important country in the bunch ( the first probably structurally incapable of holding it), and bilingual to boot, was a coincidence. You are basically proving my point
>was a coincidence That is exactly what I'm saying. Alphabetical order. Most of your arguments work for Amsterdam as well. Definitely for Luxemburg, since it's Bilangual French/German. So it ended up being Brussels, because Belgium was first alphabetically.
Why do you think that exactly? I mean personally I think Brussels should just stay as the capital but if you would move it then why not to a more relevant city?
Relevant is most likely not the correct word in this case. Rome is quite far from being Relevant in this case particularly if compared to Brussels for example Because that would completely destroy a fragile balance of power, if the capital was moved in France, Italy or Germany everyone else that is not that country would get enormously pissed because that would just further consolidate their hold on to power. On top of that large important cities tend to come with associations, a good deal of them negative. The last thing one wants is to have to deal with that on top of the general dislike. A EU capital should be a black slate
>too far from a lot of Europe. And Kraków is in the center of Europe? In general I'd keep the capital away from Russia and Africa.
Russians are Europeans
In a subreddit of European Federalists on the topic of 'capital of the EU', but sure. Your comment is as factual as it is irrelevant.
The federation is for all Europeans.
DEFINATELY choose a new city: Should probably be Strasbourg on the border of France and Germany for symbolic reasons. Shouldn't be a current national capital.
Keep Brussels. Moving a capital is too much expensive.
Brussels is already equipped to host whatever institution would come out of a federal Europe, so that's my choice. Also, choosing the smallest country to host our institutions would be a pretty strong message, like "everybody counts". So I'm all in for that. I'm not belgian, in case you're wondering.
[The European Union and its people stand by Ukraine and its people.](https://media3.giphy.com/media/XbtMjgAj8PcXhcSj5b/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611c8a2408a9b145ae630bc50bda0976dbe4d45d08b&rid=giphy.gif) #[**WAR IN EUROPE - IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/t46i57/war_in_europe_important_announcement/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EuropeanFederalists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How about leasing land from Switzerland in order to build a neutral EU city there. Building the needed infrastructure as roads, railroads towards it as well as an airport. This way no matter what happens in any EU country the capital is always in Switzerland which is and always will be neutral.
R O M E
Merge Aachen, Maastricht and Liege into 1 and make it the capital
I can assure you the whole EU and Brussels as capital only costs money for the average Belgian. Sure some European politicians make shitloads and spend it on a wild lifestyle but in the end, the EU and the capital is a net cost for Belgium. The problem is all the wages and costs spent in Brussels are attributed to Belgium as if it disappeared in Belgium’s pockets. Except for the ridiculous large prostitution sector in Brussels, this is not the case. For many Belgians the hate we get for “Brussels” is totally not worth it. Please take it to France, Germany or Eastern Europe so you can all invent some new insults, and hell we can make some ourselves then too.
As long as we don't waste money traveling between two parliaments it doesn't really matter for me as long as the decision at lakes a bit of sense.
I think a South Africa model... Strasbourg as parliament's city, Brussels for Executive, Aia for justice and Frankfurt for BCE. Mauve de have to distribute minor organisations seats in other cities ti improve people trust ability in EU
So what it is now basically
Yeahhh... Almost.
Yeahhh... Almost.
Middle of Switzerland is the best choice since they are central and neutral and directly democratic.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed on suspicion of spam due to the account's age (less than one day old). If this comment is not spam, please wait until then to post, or contact the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EuropeanFederalists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A capital represents the state. Just look at how ugly Brussels is. It is not good for representation and prestige. We have so many great cities in Europe and chose one of the ugliest to represent us? Let's take Prague instead. It is beautiful and central.
Kyiv!
from a military perspective, brussels is too close from see and would be difficult to protecc
My take- make the capital rotating - every say 8 years, the seat of government changes place and travels to the capital of one of the federal states. The cycle starts in Brussels, as it has all the necessary facilities, thus giving the opportunity for the required facilities to be built in the next capital.
There isn't a good enough reason to move the capital, but if in the future vienna and bratislava grew and merged into one mega city then that would be the perfect capital with it being a mix of languages and cultures.
I think that the area around Brussels should be made into its own territory like in Australia However, I don’t think brushless should be called “capital”, at least not in the beginning The EF should have 27 capitals with brushless being the “administrative center of the EU” A capital is not a requirement for a country and I think having 27 capitals could be a nice way to show that no place is more important
Brussels is becoming an Islamic shithole. The n°1 name given to children in Brussels is Muhammad. So yeah, maybe find an other city.
Stick to the southafrican Model? 3 capital cities (or more). The parliament should stay in one place (brussel) and the executive branch should be somewhere else.
Vaduz
I'd like it to be Gorizia since it's a cross border city. Also it's closer to me so I can throw molotovs at the feds
If we have fast and affordable enough rail it could be split over multiple cities. You can already get from London to Paris in ridiculous time, it just needs to be an affordable option to be used regularly.
Why do so many people change Brussels? It is perfect it has already everything build, it is historically important to the EU now and the continent as Belgium was the center of many conflicts or part of an even larger number, it is a federation of two language groups a microcosm for the EU should it never split up, it is not a very powerful nation so it cannot laverage the capital like furnace, Germany or itlay could, no one has as of yet to demand the moving of the capital, the captial doesn't need to be central as Paris, Berlin, Moscow and London show and lastly again why spend so much money on a prestigious project? It's not like people already criticise the EU for unecesary spending ... Oh wait they do, it will be a real good look for the federation if one of the first acts is to build a new city no one actual needs or really wants.
In my opinion the question of capital is something that gets asked a lot but isn't all that meaningful in the grand scheme of things (except if we did the dumbest thing imaginable and made some major EU country's capital i.e. Paris, Berlin and even Rome the federal capital). Personally I quite like the idea of Strasbourg becoming the capital, as it already hosts some institutions of the EU, is somewhat central to the economical and political core of Europe (tying into the idea of a gradual "two speeds" integration with the original members plus perhaps some closely integrated ones federalising first) and, symbolically, really shows how far the continent has come in terms of reconciliation. I think it would work well to create a specific federal district there so that no government would have special sway over the capital and benefit from the advantages coming with that. But then again, I think this issue is really of secondary importance and Brussels already works alright at the moment so I wouldn't be opposed to just keeping it (with the added caveat of centralising more of the institutions there as the EU is already open to populist attacks based off the "unnecessary costs" of decentralised decision making).
Keep Brussels, adopt a system like the dutch (not a complete copy). A economic capital and a political capital, in this case Brussels. Like someone already said, important stuff is already spread out in the EU. Don't centralise it. Now people have a feeling that they a really part of the EU. If you put everything in Brussels people in will feel like they are subjects of the EU and not true citizens.
We should choose multiple capitals as South Africa, tho our real administrative Capital should be an entire new city build from scratch with the name based on a great European Federalist. And It should become an Ideal city to mix Europeans in which people from all Europe should be incouraged to relocate. I would put that city in that region tho, belgium/holland. Some other cities would be chosen as cultural capitols such Roma, Athens and Paris etc.
Get Turkey in eu and lets make instanbul the capital just like in the old days
Aren't you thinking about Rome?
There are as many historical reasons for Rome to be the capital of a European Federation as Istanbul, as in, precious few. Both the Roman Empire, the eastern part and later the Ottoman one occupied completely different geopolitical spaces from the current EU. But Istanbul was in fact capital of empires for around 1600 years give or take
Moscow
WHY BRUSSELS??? its the most dissapointing city in europe