[skippyboxedhero]

It is difficult to think of an economic region that is more opposed to free trade than Europe (that isn't a comedy country). Possibly some countries in South America?

Trade within Europe has massive restrictions. I have no idea why, given the stated aims of Europe...we are posting this on a post about the Netherlands trying to protect office software ffs, people think this isn't the case. One of the reasons why the EU created a trade bloc, and the same reasons why you see the same attempts in areas of the world like South America, was to limit the impact of free trade. This should be completely obvious given that the EU is not competitive in areas where they lack the ability to limit competition.

Also, I will point out: US policy is for the EU to do exactly the thing that you are suggesting. This has been the consistent position of Trump since 2016. The main blockers for this have been politicians in the EU. I am not sure how you equate being unreliable with subsidising EU defence spending to the tune of multiple trillions so that EU countries can spend on welfare either.

The EU self-image is totally bizarre, it is so out of touch with reality. Hostile to all forms of change and innovation: actually one of the greatest free traders there has ever been. Xenophobic and hostile to certain countries: possibly one of the greatest allies to these countries ever. Never gets any support on Ukraine, would be a leader if the US weren't such bastards: spent multiple decades fuelling Putin's state.

[inglor_cz]

There are still some protectionist issues on the single market itself.

For example, Poland defends its rail operator, PKP Intercity, against foreign competition by a series of dirty tricks, including "just never registering a sale of a depot to a competing corporation in the land registry".

[joe_mamba]

Almost every major EU country, has implanted some domestic protectionist rules to protect some of its politically well connected lobbyist industries or jobs from cheaper or more efficient intra-EU competition buying them out. The restrictions almost never are in reverse.

[dgellow]

> Hostile to all forms of change and innovation

I don’t understand how you can believe that about the EU. The union has been evolving so much since its creation. It is itself one of the greatest innovation in governance ever created. GDPR is an innovative framework making the EU leader in privacy protection. European open banking initiatives/frameworks are unique and have been leading the way forward for the past 20 years, and we are now reaping all the benefits with the latest payment system developments (PSD2 and others were already awesome but the payment standard is what makes the day to day citizens actually see the results). The 28th regime[0] in development is innovative. Schengen/TFEU Art. 45 is such an innovative policy. Where else can you move freely between so many countries?

That’s only from the top of my head and the few examples I’m familiar with

0: https://the28thregime.eu/

[karmakurtisaani]

These innovations don't count, since they didn't create any new oligarchs.

[skippyboxedhero]

GDPR is innovation...

I assume you don't live in the EU either...yes, there is an absolutely huge industry behind it, that is why it passed. Companies have to employ data protection officers, effectively a no-show job, and there is a whole industry of people connected to governments that facilitates this. And that also protects existing companies from competing because it is so expensive to handle customer data...as you need to employ an EU bureaucrat who is the equivalent of a CCP party official...that you have to pay for.

The weirdest thing is that the EU is maximally corrupt, and people are unable to see it because they are so enured to the corruption. It is all corruption. GDPR does not increase productivity, it is tax on consumers to produce something that is required by government with the surplus being passed to insiders (civil servants, unions, and billionaires).

Also, the per capita rate of billionaires in countries like Germany is higher than the US...this is whilst they have a population that has the same net financial wealth as Greece. In Sweden, 60% of total GDP was produced by companies controlled by one family until the 70s. The whole system is based upon large government in concert with large businesses and large unions. If you are in the club, you get a lifetime of free money. If you are out of the club...well, good luck competing with the migrants they are flooding into the country.

[throw-the-towel]

> GDPR does not increase productivity

Of course it doesn't, because the whole point of having GDPR is preventing companies from doing some productive stuff that would involve collection of personal data.

[karmakurtisaani]

> well, good luck competing with the migrants they are flooding into the country.

Just couldn't have a rant without bringing up immigrants. Classic.

[dgellow]

> Companies have to employ data protection officers, effectively a no-show job

No… an employee of the company can be designed as the data protection officer. Do you have literally no experience working in the EU? If yes you have really strong positions for someone that misinformed. Where are you getting your information from?

I can tell you that if you work in a large company with sensitive data it’s definitely not a no-show job, that can for sure be a full time position

> .as you need to employ an EU bureaucrat who is the equivalent of a CCP party official

Either complete lie or you are delusional. Wtf are you talking about

> GDPR does not increase productivity, it is tax on consumers to produce something that is required by government with the surplus being passed to insiders (civil servants, unions, and billionaires)

Ok, I think you’re completely out of your mind. The thought process makes absolutely no sense. Now I feel bad I have wasted my time engaging.

[phatfish]

The only people that think global free trade is a good thing are the top .001% net worth individuals which use it to wield power.

Trading blocks (like the European single market) are specifically designed to protect their members from shit that global corporations or other nations attempt to get away with.

I'm not sure what "Trade within Europe has massive restrictions." means without context. Compared to some Randian capitalist utopia where there are no rules and no governments? Or compared to before the creation of the European single market?

[dgellow]

> I'm not sure what "Trade within Europe has massive restrictions." means without context.

We actually do have a good amount of issues regarding internal trades, according to https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7792....

“The International Monetary Fund estimates that the persistent barriers to the EU single market still represented the equivalent of a 110 % tariff on services.”

There is a good amount of work to be done to complete the single market, what we currently have is way too fragmented

[skippyboxedhero]

That is politically impossible. Everyone knows it is impossible because if you open up some countries to free services trade then the political basis for the EU and the traditional governing countries would collapse.

The limitations on trade within Europe are intentional design. The attempts to stop the economy from collapsing with these massive government spending packages are the death throes.

[dgellow]

I mean, it is extremely difficult, but the whole union was seen as impossible the last century. With strategic developments over decades I don’t think it’s impossible

[graemep]

The European Coal and Steel Community was established over 74 years ago.

The idea of Europe as a nation goes back to the early to mid 20th century, at least. One example i can find a citation for (but it was far from the first): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_a_Nation

[skippyboxedhero]

What you said comprises the exact error in logic that people make. Because we did this, this other thing is possible.

The EU was a certainty in a region that is hostile to change, wants big government, wants centralization, is suspicious of democracy, etc. Free trade would be a massive change, that is why it hasn't happened. The EU is basically the logical conclusion of European forms of governing.

[dgellow]

> The EU was a certainty in a region that is hostile to change, wants big government, wants centralization, is suspicious of democracy, etc

I don’t understand how you can say that with a straight face, it’s such a contradictory statement

[watwut]

Frankky, you have no idea about how Europe before the EU looked like.

[skippyboxedhero]

Services trade within Europe is often less free than services trade outside of Europe. The reason why is because there is a strong political constituency within Europe to ensure that certain kinds of sinecure jobs are not impacted by competition (and yes, as you helpfully point out, to blame that on "global corporations"...and people wonder why Europe had such a long period of dictatorships in the 20th century, "globalism", right? wink, wink).

[graemep]

> Trading blocks (like the European single market) are specifically designed to protect their members from shit that global corporations or other nations attempt to get away with.

Most of those global corporations are in favour of these trading blocks - they are the best placed to take advantage of them.

The EU is far more than just a trading block. The trading block is the countries they have free trade agreements with - the EEA,, plus the UK, plus Turkey. The EU is a political union.

Global corporation can lobby far more effectively than anyone else at the EU level.

[WarmWash]

They're letting Chinese cars in when automobiles are there last remaining mega industry.

How can you take them seriously?

[dgellow]

FWIW our local car industry had decades to prepare to compete in the EV sector and decided to do pretty much nothing + train China how to take over their market. We’ve been way too protective of that industry, I’m personally happy they finally have to face some real competition. Protectionism has its place in global trade but it should be with a very specific goal in mind, such as giving the companies some room to breath while transitioning to new technologies and avoid a complete disruption of your economy. You cannot do it just to keep a dying industry alive. But you’re supposed to replace the external economic pressure with internal political pressure (or similar), otherwise corporation just go with the status quo

[WarmWash]

Giving industry "room to breathe" means cutting regulations, including what many view as worker protections.

I don't know if there is the social inertia yet on the ground for "screw the benefits, I want to save the ship".

[dgellow]

That’s just one approach, you have others. Removing competition is another