upvote
No, it is not quite the same as Moscow and Washington are capitals of centralised states who give orders to the whole nation.

The EU on the other hand does not have a common constitution, army etc. so is not a real state (yet). It is made up of soveraign nations who come together debate and decide there, but then it is still up to the members to implement that.

So the transition to the EU as one state is happening, but might never complete.

reply
The European Commission is in fact empowered to boss member states around, it's one of the things that give EU law teeth rather than it being like "international law" (unenforceable anarchy). It also acts much like a government (in the sense of executive, not in the sense of state) when it comes to EU lawmaking, and has various government-like powers in fields like competition law for example. And the European Commission is based in Brussels. Saying "Brussels" to refer to Commission activity is as natural as saying "London", "Downing Street", "the Cabinet Office", "Whitehall" etc to refer to British government functions. And that's without getting into all the other EU institutions that are based there!

It is true that the EU institutions are ultimately subordinate to the member states in a way that, say, the US federal institutions are not, but the EU is still very much is its own thing. It even has legal personality these days: you can sue the EU and the EU can sue you.

reply
It doesn't imply that the EU is one state. It's just the place where the decisions are made. If Brussels didn't like anyone knowing that, I'm sure other cities in the EU would happily take the gobs of free money showered on wherever the EU is headquartered.
reply
You mean like Strasbourg?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_of_the_European_Parliamen...

Spoiler, the parliamanet moves once a month between Brussel and there. That's how centralized the EU is, we cannot even decide on one fixed place to meet and decide.

reply
Yes indeed - the gobs of money know no bounds.
reply
I’m not sure you realise that this is a far more generic rhetorical phenomenon that encompasses all kinds of situations. Like referring to the FBI as Quantico.
reply
Or Scotland Yard for the metropolitan police in london. They were commonly known by that name almost immediately after their founding in 1829.

Perhaps the earliest example is Pharaoh. It originally referred to the royal residence.

reply
Oh, or using building names like White House and Kremlin?

Yes, I heard of the concept. My point was just that many have a misconception about the nature of the EU.

reply
The problem here, and the source of OOPs annoyance I think, is that the governments of the constituting member states have the habit to present unpopular regulations as 'from Brussels' while taking credit for the popular things as from 'Den Haag','Berlin' or 'Paris' or whatever the local capital is. This habit is the main driver of anti-EU sentiments across the whole of europe. Which is a pity, mainly because it takes the attention away from highly needed reforms in the EU structures because people who could drive the reforms now just want out.

So while linguistically it's the same system as using 'Washington' or 'Moscow', Brussels is specifically in the bad spot where it gets blamed for impopular stuff but never praised for popular things.

reply
It's more a metonymy than a synecdoche
reply
If there was a major event in Belgium, which city would the news outlets refer to in order to avoid ambiguity?
reply
It's usually used in place of a person/active participant in something.

So ‘Brussels suffered a deadly fire’ will always refer to the city. ‘Brussels decides on new aircraft regulations’ will almost always refer to either the city government, the Belgian government, or the EU Parliament headquartered there. Brussels is just an exceptional case because there is so much based there, as opposed to the Hague or the Vatican.

reply
They might say "The city of Brussels".
reply