[JumpCrisscross]

> such as making life difficult getting Schengen visas for all those US citizens you constantly read about on the CNN website who are flocking to Europe

Trashing your own tourism sector is a very European defense mechanism.

The truth is there is one and only one way Europe can try reclaiming sovereignty, and it’s the one that’s most painful—rebuilding its own military.

[embedding-shape]

> Trashing your own tourism sector is a very European defense mechanism.

Yeah, virtually unheard of in a certain North American country, where every tourist with a certain skin color never been very worried about being extra-judicially sent to an internment camp.

[JumpCrisscross]

No state in America is as dependent on European tourism the way Southern Europe is on American tourism. (And yes, the temporary blip in Canadian tourism sent a message.)

[embedding-shape]

> as dependent on European tourism the way Southern Europe is on American tourism.

We're mostly dependent on other Europeans, the US is not the single highest tourist/visitor in any of the Southern Europe countries. Italy is the country with the highest percentage of American tourists, but even they have more German visitors. Most southern countries have most tourists from the UK, Germany and France, kind of as expected.

If you think about it for a second that makes a ton of sense too, considering the distances involved here, and how cheap flights inside Europe are.

[JumpCrisscross]

> We're mostly dependent on other Europeans, the US is not the single highest tourist/visitor in any of the Southern Europe countries

Oh totally agree. But removing American tourism would require stabilizing policy interventions on the European side. It would not on the American side. That’s why threatening to cut off American tourists to Europe as a mooted retaliation measure is dumb. (I can also absolutely see Brussels doing it instead of any of the hard stuff.)

[traceroute66]

> Trashing your own tourism sector is a very European defense mechanism.

Please re-read my post .... in particular the first two words "IN THEORY".

As far as I am aware, the option I mentioned has never, ever been mooted as a possibility. It was something I invented as a random example of a non-sanction possibility.

> rebuilding its own military

Aah yes, because a strong military has been so awesome for the US in the US–Iran war where IIRC the Iranians managed to destroy lots of very expensive US military radars[1] and other expensive assets[2][3] in the region despite your president having claimed to have "destroyed 100% of Iran's military capability".

But let's not get in to politics....

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/05/middleeast/radar-bases-us... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/30/middleeast/us-air-force-a... [3] https://apnews.com/article/amazon-aws-data-center-uae-iran-b...

[JumpCrisscross]

> the first two words "IN THEORY"

It doesn’t work in theory. America reversing the move and banning its own citizens from traveling to Europe would bankrupt multiple EU members [1].

> because a strong military has been so awesome for the US in the US–Iran war

Uh, the Iran war was an exercise of American sovereignty. Rules be damned.

> where IIRC the Iranians managed to destroy lots of very expensive US military radars

And they didn’t do it with soft power!

Europe has a good deal. America guarantees its security. It gives up sovereignty in exchange.

“In theory” discussions about self immolation through tourism bans and money giveaways on strategically-useless “sovereign clouds” are finger paint on turds. Messaging exercises. They afford Europe zero marginal sovereignty vis-à-vis the U.S.

Europe is not going to be sovereign unless it commits to an independent security posture. And the simple truth is that isn’t politically possible right now.

> let's not get in to politics

Exactly.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ europe-tourism-economy-american-tourists-f6112f78

[traceroute66]

> America reversing the move and banning its own citizens ...

You sit there lecturing me on "in theory" discussions and you come up with that line.

I think you will find many European countries would celebrate yanks being told they can't visit Europe. Nobody will miss the loud Karens who make no effort in relation to the local culture.

It might have escaped your notice but the present US administration has not exactly done much to encourage Europeans to welcome yanks what with threatening to invade a European country and all that.

Get your own house in order before lecturing others.

[JumpCrisscross]

> You sit there lecturing me on "in theory" discussions and you come up with that line

“In theory” requires it work in theory. I’m pointing out that your proposed “retaliation,” banning American tourists from Europe, hurts Europe more than it does America to the point that it would be a potential (albeit over the top) tactic the U.S. would itself deploy.

> the present US administration has not exactly done much to encourage Europeans to welcome yank

Correct. I agree with the notion of European sovereignty. I’m saying “sovereign cloud” BS is performative nonsense. So long as Europe is dependent on American F-35 parts, LNG and banking rails, Washington has a de facto veto on European policy.

Like, what policy position could Europe take with a sovereign cloud but with the above dependencies that it can’t take today? I’m not thinking of anything. In contrast: if Europe decoupled from American LNG, what geopolitical options open up?

> Get your own house in order before lecturing others

I vote in America and Switzerland. I’m talking about my own houses.

[esseph]

> It might have escaped your notice but the present US administration has not exactly done much to encourage Europeans

That's because the right wing faction hates Europe. :(