I'd like to sound off on a few of these:
1) Why not compartmentalize our forum to address this? We can keep RP and GP separate sections of the website, where the RP section organizes storylines and how nations interact with each other traditionally on these forums, whereas our GP section deals with practical coordinating (defending the region or regions, endorsement of any proposed WA Delegate, recruitment, etc.). The GP could also have different settings so only verified EU members can view it and participate in potentially sensitive discussions.
2) We may not necessarily need a separate GP government: RP roles could be used for RP purposes within that particularly section, but could carry over to specific GP roles. In crisis scenarios, we could also implement an "all hands on deck" philosophy and immediately onboard trusted EU/TEU members.
3) Delegates, as far as now, really only have voting power at the WA and take their endorsements with them. Honestly, I don't mind this model. I think that the Security Officer model worked well.
4) This is something I'd be interested to discuss with a full crowd. Between each region we have about 120 nations (give or take). I'm currently WA Delegate in The European Union and have about 16 endorsements (more than EU), but the EU has more nations. It may make sense to try to relocate all active nations to EU, and keep TEU on lockdown as our tactical retreat region in emergency scenarios.
5) See above. We could also bring back an old system of governance, the "European Union Security Council." We could elect a handful of nations that have been around the longest to serve (better as an odd number). They can vote simple majority to settle any issues and can also be utilized in RP scenarios for peacekeeping missions and regional governance (sort of a UN model).