[dalbasal]

I don't think it's protectionism.

Europe doesn't have that much of a directly competing industry. Also, since we're not unified in terms of political culture, most people outside of (eg) Poland wouldn't consider a Polish company to be any more local than and American one. The EU is protectionist in some regards (especially agrifood), but these are structural and foundational.

I think it's motivated by anti tech-monopoly sentiment, which has been growing everywhere in the West.

In the sense that it's protectionist, I think the "TikTok affair" is a low-key tidal shift. It essentially the US taking a position similar to China's. An Chinese entrant into US media is seen as a political and intelligence threat, like China sees western media. Also, "*why should we allow their stuff when they don't allow ours."

The EU still operates within the US' "Overton Window." It doesn't do things outside the pale of US policy norms. That window now allows social media to be treated differently.

[atoav]

It is decidedly not an anti tech sentiment that leads to this in my eyes. If I had to pinpoint it, I'd say it is a combination of these three points:

1) Europeans realised US corporations and special services won't stop spying on their allies and they will just ignore law and order

2) As the biggest single market on earth the EU has a strong leaver. A leaver which might be to the benifit of other smaller nations as well, so they feel morally obliged to use it

3) Contrary to a common image in the anglosphere the EU is not soley a economic pact, but there is a strong precence of shared values. So human rights, privacy rights of individuals, all that jazz. Not saying this is perfect or even at the level it should be, but it is more than a purely economical pact.

The idea that the EU was purely an economical alliance was a misconception that bit the UK as well during the Brexit negotiations. The UK negotiators couldn't get that there are ideas the EU isn't willing to sacrifice on the altars of commerce and capital.

[dalbasal]

I agree with the last point. On the first 2, I don't disagree, but I weight these lower than you in terms of what is driving this effort.

It's hard to know though. The way EU political culture works currently doesn't have "domestic politics" norms... which makes motivations hard to understand. That said, there is far more political attention on corporations spying or manipulating us than foreign countries spying or manipulating us.

In terms of the EU being powerful... I agree on paper. But, political culture isn't there atm. See the EU's handling of border issues: Ukraine and Belarus. There has been exactly zero "great power" MO on these. Imagine either of these if it was the US, China or Russia(1) border.

(1)You need to imagine Russia on both sides.

For good or ill, the EU doesn't have this kind of a political culture in 2020. Maybe it will. The material conditions exist. Currently though, it's a totally different beast to the US or China politically.

[growlist]

> The UK negotiators couldn't get that there are ideas the EU isn't willing to sacrifice on the altars of commerce and capital.

Well that's a very Brussels-centric picture that you paint, i.e., the glorious, righteous warriors of the EU leadership bravely defending Europe's morality against the terrible, beastly greed of perfidious Albion. However, from where I'm sitting it looks more like a demented quest for vengeance from an EU political leadership driven insane by the personal humiliation of losing one of the biggest members of the EU despite their best efforts and the stunning repudiation to their megalomaniacal globalist wet dream.

[cblconfederate]

There are many counterpoints to what you say. Why is agriculture deemed important enough to regulate it so heavily but IT isnt? Listen ,EU is far too disjointed to have one single strategy but it does harmonize the market on any sector that has strong lobbyists. Those sectors are, sadly, old money. It does harmonize banks, construction, shipping, foods, cars. It allows tons of leeway on international companies to evade taxes on its many tax havens (monaco, lux, whatever) but it somehow seems to be sensitive only on IT profits .

That's because there's nobody to lobby for IT, which is ... well chicken and egg problem. EU should allow member-states to create a stable , easy framework for tech companies to operate in EU (like ireland , cyprus, increasingly bulgaria and other countries try to do) the same way Delaware does that for the US. IT is inherently a virtual sector, and it needs this kind of constructs, not Kafkaeque VAT rules and constant charges and arbitrary taxation. This is what turns away people to greener, or just more stable pastures

> EU still operates within the US' "Overton Window.

Sort of. the north does, but eastern / southernn countries have done significant openings to china because they needed investment. They are also the countries who host the cheapest and most dynamic tech workers (who are sadly often forced to work remotely for the US)

[dalbasal]

It's not a question of importance. This just happens to be the history of the EU. I'm not saying it's good or bad.

The EU kind of started as a single agricultural market. Instead of the weird (complicated, and corrupt) protectionist arms race that existed before was gradually replaced with a single agricultural policy with protection from competition outside the block. Fishing is also a big deal, even though it is economically tiny.

Also, all the countries have an agri-food industry. Not many are likely to benefit from decreased competition vis-a-vis facebook.

Brexit/Banking stuff has been an eye-opener. On the face of it, a big chunk of the London financial market is up for grabs. It has not been a negotiating priority though. The Netherlands, and to some extent Belgium and Germany would be the likely benefactors barriers, but for most countries it would just be a minor inconvenience.

"Because more profits and taxes in Amsterdam" just isn't an operative reason for EU decisions, at least currently. I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

Regardless of dealings with China, European regulations don't tend to incorporate things that would be inconceivable in the US... at least thus far.

Breaking up or forcing the sale of a foreign media company was, until recently, out of the question. Now it's not.

[cblconfederate]

> was, until recently, out of the question. Now it's not.

Totally agree to that. I think a lot of people who supported the ban here have no idea of what Pandora's box they opened.

[vbezhenar]

It all comes down to war. Agriculture is important because when your country will be at war with another country, you might not be able to trade food. So if you can't grow your own food, you're lost. So it's important to keep some farms in your country to be able to scale if necessary.

IT was not as important until recently. At this point some things are almost as important as food. If your military infrastructure depends on some network equipment, you need to think what will happen when you'll be at war with a country that makes that equipment.

Of course it's not possible to build all equipment from sand to CPU in the country, unless that's a huge country like Russia or China. So there will be compromises. That's not the case for the food, though.

Facebook is not important. If US will be in war with EU and shuts down Facebook access, nobody will care.

[cblconfederate]

The CAP isn't promoting agricultural production in the EU. it's subsidizing old inefficient methods and keeping out cheaper food from nearby countries. The sole reason why this scheme has lasted so long is because it provides free money to politicians to buy voters.

> t as important until recently

This Recently is 20 years ago. It is arguably THE sector for growth and we all know it. Let alone that it's a security issue as well, and EU could learn a lot from Israel.