|
|
|
|
|
by cblconfederate
2093 days ago
|
|
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) |
|
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.