If anything, EU would create a generic fund to subsidize any such investment coming from any company interested, but at EU level, it would definitely take time.
Or they can talk to individual countries about subsidies, just like they do with the US. Plenty of them can afford it.
While other US states encourage their own tech centers' growth, Floridians and New Yorkers and Texans are all aware of, benefit from, and are proud of Silicon Valley being in the US.
we can chose to live in Rome, Berlin, Paris, Prague, Barcelona, Vienna, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Bruxelles, Lisbon etc. etc. and find something meaningful to do, we don't need to move to the only place where all the things happen.
In my opinion Europe needs to go about it via policy, and maybe even culture, rather than funding. Get rid of non-competes. Make financing less scary for founders and make bankruptcy less punishing - my understanding is that in the EU, a startup failing can destroy a founder's life financially. Controversially, roll back overly permissive or complex labor laws that make it difficult to fire and hire.
None of this involves throwing money at the problem. It's about incentives. There's little reason for someone who wants to grow a large technology company to do it in the EU. There's little reason for someone who wants to be an employee of a startup to do it in the EU either. Obviously people still do both, but it's at too low of a rate and density for it to sustain a chain reaction leading to something like SV.
It's what happens when you redirect so much money to politicians and bureaucrats. Creating jobs is how they get reelected. That's also how you get labor laws that make it difficult to fire and hire: the slacker's vote is worth just as much as the startup founder's.
Every type of company other than the very basic person-level companies are of a limited liability type, so i don't see how that'd be the case, but haven't done it so maybe I'm missing something.
> Controversially, roll back overly permissive or complex labor laws that make it difficult to fire and hire
Do you think the majority of the population would accept to be worse off, on the chance that there might be some more innovation and money in tech? Why would they? People like not having to worry if their boss is an asshole and makes them do a dangerous job on the fear of getting fired, having affordable healthcare, paid vacation time. Few people would be willing to sacrifice such comforts and the lack of stress associated for the potential benefit of few.