[AlanYx]

This is an astonishing document in the sense that you rarely see frankness like this coming out of the EC. It raises strong criticisms of a number of high-profile "core" regulatory initiatives, including the GDPR, DSA, and EU AI Act. There clearly is a fight building between the Thierry Breton camp and the Mario Draghi camp.

For a taste of what is in here, see e.g., page 26 of the first document:

>Regulatory barriers constrain growth in several ways. First, complex and costly procedures across fragmented national systems discourage inventors from

filing Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), hindering young companies from leveraging the Single Market. Second, the EU’s regulatory stance towards tech companies hampers innovation: the EU now has around 100 tech-focused

lawsxi and over 270 regulators active in digital networks across all Member States. Many EU laws take a precautionary approach, dictating specific business practices ex ante to avert potential risks ex post. For example, the AI

Act imposes additional regulatory requirements on general purpose AI models that exceed a pre-defined threshold of computational power – a threshold which some state-of-the-art models already exceed. Third, digital companies are deterred from doing business across the EU via subsidiaries, as they face heterogeneous requirements, a proliferation of regulatory agencies and “gold plating” of EU legislation by national authorities. Fourth, limitations on data storing and processing create high compliance costs and hinder the creation of large, integrated data sets for training AI models. This fragmentation puts EU companies at a disadvantage relative to the US, which relies on the private sector to build vast data sets, and China, which can leverage its central institutions for data aggregation. This problem is compounded by EU competition enforcement possibly inhibiting intra-industry cooperation. Finally, multiple different national rules in public procurement generate high ongoing costs for cloud providers. The net effect of this burden of regulation is that only larger companies – which are often non-EU based – have the financial capacity and incentive to bear the costs of complying. Young innovative tech companies may choose not to operate in the EU at all.

[izacus]

Note also how all of that relates to *fragmentation* of enforcement for those regulations and not the regulation itself.

Which is kind of a disaster for at least GDPR - depending on the country, the enforcement and interpretation varies wildly and the lack of central authority is a (common) issue for these kind of directives.

[AlanYx]

The report is critical of both actually (the regulations themselves as well as fragmentation in compliance and enforcement).

[izacus]

It is, but pretty much every single takeaway from even other points (energy, defense, etc.) comes back much strongly to the fragmentation of interpretations, enforcements and laws across the member states than the existence of regulation itself.

Of course, haters of regulation will probably ignore this part and focus on the "GDPR bad" narrative :)

[AlanYx]

That's a strong theme, but it's not the only one. For example, there are three main points made about the GDPR in the second document:

- frequent changes in interpretation over time;

- the extra burden added by national transposition and enforcement, including local "gold-plating"/divergence; and

- the proportionally higher regulatory burden faced by SMEs and small mid-caps compared to larger companies.

The second point is squarely about fragmentation but other two touch on more core issues. Fragmentation does affect the other two, e.g., with multiple local DPAs there will be an inevitable ratcheting effect of what's required by the GDPR if an org wants to operate across the EU, but some of it is not related to fragmentation. Privacy Shield was supposed to provide a pan-EU GDPR-compliant framework but got killed, now people are saying that the EU–US Data Privacy Framework is going to get shot down too, leaving data architects in the dark on how to comply. That uncertainty is going to exist even if all the DPAs get coalesced into a pan-national entity.

[wiz21c]

> Regulatory barriers constrain growth in several ways

I fail to see why it is a bad thing. We need to curb CO2 emissions which, in some wya or another, implies consuming less energy. Limiting the growth would certainly beneficial and would allow us to transition to world where growth is less central.

[blackbear_]

> I fail to see why it is a bad thing.

First page of the foreword:

> If Europe cannot become more productive, we will be forced to choose. We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage. We will not be able to finance our social model. We will have to scale back some, if not all, of our ambitions. This is an existential challenge. Europe’s fundamental values are prosperity, equity, freedom, peace and democracy in a sustainable environment. The EU exists to ensure that Europeans can always benefit from these fundamental rights. If Europe can no longer provide them to its people – or has to trade off one against the other – it will have lost its reason for being. The only way to meet this challenge is to grow and become more productive, preserving our values of equity and social inclusion. And the only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.

The report also discusses how to do this while limiting CO2 emissions.

[wiz21c]

From your own citation:

> We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage.

Important words here are "at once" == simultaneously. We'll have to choose. So I choose: "beacon of climate responsibility". In particular, I don't care being a leader in new technologies. Being and independent player is something where I can understand the need to compromise on carbon emission...

[SpicyLemonZest]

But you're dodging one of the big tradeoffs the quote describes. If there comes a time when you have to choose between climate responsibility and funding the European social model, would you cut pensions or medical benefits for the sake of the climate? Or are you working under the implicit assumption that the European economy will remain strong enough to do both?

[pokerface_86]

enjoy being the beacon of climate responsibility in your 35C homes

[throwaway48540]

That isn't related at all. Please don't try to sell de-growth as some green strategy, you're only going to antagonize people.

De-growth will most likely lead to more CO2 emitted per person. Only high technology can change this.

[wiz21c]

I understand growth as more economic activity and there I fail to see how they are disconnected. I mean, the more you move stuff around, the more you produce AI generated images, the more you consume energy ??? Of course we could as well produce energy without carbon emissions but we are not there yet.

I'd be happy (honestly) to hear an example.

[throwaway48540]

I live near 2 nuclear power plants producing practically zero CO2 compared to the energy output. We are there and have been for decades.

You're basically saying "I don't want to consider other ways to produce energy so you should stop doing all the fun stuff you do". Nobody is ever going to agree with that, and you're going to antagonize people from even trying to be environmentally conscious.

[wiz21c]

> Nobody is ever going to agree with that

I certainly agree with that sentence. I know I'm on a pretty radical side of the question.

[Aerroon]

Wouldn't AI generated images save energy?

AI generates a 10 images in 10 minutes. You pick one. A human would take hours to create one of them.

[throwaway48540]

Ah yeah, I have a friend who's working on an online grocery store. He generated all his images - instead of driving hundreds of kilometers for weeks to take all the pictures. Definitely a huge win for the environmentally friendly.

[wiz21c]

OK, I take it as a good counter example to what I have posted. Thanks for sharing.

[htk]

That's the mindset that created the problems highlighted by the report.

[eastbound]

Indeed.

While I’ve always counted water drop by drop, washed my hands with a tiny strip of water, I’m traveling through the Russian/Middle East and there is no such water shortage visible. Pipes leak everywhere on the street, and there is still tap water everywhere, unlike Europe where I lack pressure to wash in the mornings.

Petrol is 1.10€ a liter here, far from the 2.00€ in France. Going 500km is easy, in France it’s unaffordable for students.

I feel like I’ve been lied to. In fact, on every topic restraining growth, I’ve been lied to. The over sensitization that EU does for feel-good reasons, satisfying the soul of young adults, is leading us into a green soviet situation.

If it solved problems, I’d be all in. But it’s only reinforcing green sovietism, aka poverty for the glory of a green ideal that is never reached.

Sorry but the garbage patch in the Pacific is bigger than ever, and the rest of the world is still using air conditioning. It’s only the Europeans who are deprived.

[tormeh]

Pretty much. It's all feel-good stuff. We cannot stop global warming unless the entire globe plays along. Individual action is completely nonsensical. Even action on a national level (in, say, Germany) hardly moves the needle and is mostly feel-good. We should focus on adaption strategies and on making renewables more appealing for developing countries. Happily, solar has incredible momentum on the latter front.

[actionfromafar]

We could have growth without CO2. It's "just" a coordination problem.