If this comes to pass as described, this is a landslide shift in mentality. Paying fines for shady practices will no longer simply be the cost of doing business, but there's a real risk of being locked out of a major market.
The risk is that too large fines are bankruptcy events so companies gamble on polluting and then shut down after making a few years of profit. Companies that get environmental permits such as mines or chemical industry, should have to deposit the money required to restore the environment - even after bankruptcy.
It didn't happened like that. And it was not a fine, big or small. It just has to shutdown operations until the problem is fixed. So, it auto-scales with the size of the factory.
It works, it's proven, why not use it for tech ?
For tech there is obviously no environmental “cleanup” after bankruptcy.
It'd be interesting to see if the tech giants could use the same approach - create a child company in Europe, funnel the profits and user data back to the parent (offshore, of course), then let the regulatory fines bankrupt the child company. Repeat at will.
The EU doesn't seem willing to play along, and branding is important for tech companies. We'll never see a search engine that's secretly Google.
Yes! And that's how it should be.
A fine is just a permission slip for rich people.
Since e.g. Apple holds something like $200b in cash, fines are anti-competitive in this field. A small player can't afford to risk a fine; Apple can pay any level of fine, if it ultimately needs to.
If (in the US) corporations are people, then clearly corporations should face the prospect of ending their existence if they make an egregious-enough violation: the corporate death penalty.
That being said, of course Google and FB are never going to be banned in the EU. They'll lobby to death to get the regulation to be "reasonable", and they'll mostly comply because they want their part of the advertising market, and they'll pay the fines when they get caught.
Good luck influencing Google or Facebook's policy.
That's how representative democracy works, and it's the kind of democracy 95% of the world uses.
Given that Brexit is looming, this doesn't sound very sustainable. If the people feel the EU's power is no longer legitimate, there may be consequences.
But the transition arrangements mean everything of importance changes at the end of 31.12.2020.
So far it's just a lot of government adverts telling us how things are going to be worse and to prepare for it. How much extra paperwork, tariffs, expenses, licenses, applications-for-permission etc there will be come 31st December, how we can no longer conduct some kinds of business, how professional qualifications cease to be valid in Britain after 31st December, and how some people who are currently employed can no longer be employed from 1st January.
All the adverts and policy effects that actually affect people are focused on 31.12.2020.
(Reading between the lines it also means some people will no longer be permitted a bank account or the ability to rent a roof starting in the middle of next year, though the government prefers not to headline that unpalatable truth.)
On 31.12.2020 things will change in a way that affects some of us harshly indeed.
I'm British.
As far as I'm concerned, Brexit proper happens for me on 31.12.2020 because that's the day I'm deprived of my previous life-long right to work, study and move my life to the other EU countries, which I have previously used, and hoped to use again :'(
I absolutely hate that such a major freedom, and my family's freedom, and my EU citizenship, is being taken away so forcefully against my consent and without me breaking any laws.
I was considering leaving Britain and emigrating to another EU country this year under EU-citizenship-grandfathering terms, but Covid made it infeasible. If the Brexit transition period had been extended I might have been able to do it next year, but it will cease to be possible after 31.12.2020.
What a Christmas present.
On 31st this year, around midnight, many of us will mark a day of darkness and sadness, as doors close on our life choices, and the Britain some of us had some sort of love and pride in some years ago finally ceases to exist.
I'm not from the UK but let's face it, the EU cannot afford to lose another big member like Germany or France. Smaller members can be Euro skeptics all they want as they'll just talk the talk but can't afford to walk the walk as they benefit the most from the EU.
Sure, the UK never did like to play ball with the rest of the EU and had to be let go but that doesn't mean it's a win for either side. A weak and divided EU only benefits China and Russia and to a lesser degree, the US.
Leaner is meaner and the UK leaving - sure if it was just for the money then that wasn't a relationship and the children have already grown up so to speak.
What does worry me a bit is that tech/large companies have become in effect their own political parties with the amount of influence and impact they have had over the years. So any move by the EU now to rein them in, is a good thing and honestly, good to see that political lobbying by companies has some limits.
2021 is going to be a whole better year for all.
As a reminder, Montreal was the biggest and most influential city in Canada before the independence movement and it lost a big chunk of influence even when the referendum went for No.
Brexit is just the latest chapter in a long European history. The same is true for the Union and the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. European history isn't finished as long as there are Europeans.
The U.K. wasn't a founding member of the E.U. nor has it ever been a stalwart partner of the E.U. ever since it joined the Union back in There has always been contention in the U.K. about being a E.U. member ever since it joined through the 1972 Treaty of Accession. The U.K. even held a referendum as early as 1975 about the question of remaining in the then E.C.C. (67.33% voted remain)
The same is true for many other E.U. members, notably newer members who joined the union in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Warsaw Pact after 1991. Their incentive to join the union was just as much geo-strategic as it was economic. That doesn't mean there weren't voices opposition within those countries as well as elsewhere in the union.
These two companies coming under scrutiny isn't just because they monopolize a consumer market. It's because they enable forces of contention - nationalism, identity politics - that have led to some very dark chapters in the recent European history.
The E.U. such as it is today, originates from ideas that gestated right after WWII under such proponents as Winston Churchill, and the primary incentive was... creating a stable structure for peace on the continent. The E.C.S.C. as founded by the original 6 founding members (Schumann) was about consolidating the coal and steel markets exactly because those were enabling factors during both wars. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Background
And so, if the E.U. moves against Google and Facebook, it's because it feels these companies are evolving into a threat against the first principles from which the Union has emerged.
I figured from phtrivier's account of things that they were suggesting it's a political pattern for national leaders to blame the EU as unrepresentative. If it were a one-off I'd agree.
> if the E.U. moves against Google and Facebook, it's because it feels these companies are evolving into a threat against the first principles from which the Union has emerged
My point was about undermining perceived legitimacy. I've not commented on whether the regulations themselves are a good idea. Do you think phtrivier's account of things is mistaken?
Well, he only points to a specific rhetorical device used in politics. What really matters are the incentives, interests, values, trade offs, tactics, available opportunities, risks,... that prompt a leader to use that device.
The E.U. is very much a representative body. Every 4 years, there are European elections and every European citizen does have a vote in those elections. And it's perfectly possible to start a so-called europarty. [1] The European Pirate Party - part of the Greens-European Free Alliance, is an example. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pirate_Party
Moreover, a party could be nationally in the opposition, but be part of a political group holding a large chunk of seats in the E.U. parliament. Plus, as a party, you could be for and against particular policies at the same time.
The problem with phtrivier's account is that it surmises that politics must consistently operate from a particular, usually unmentioned or implied, moral high ground. The reality of democracy - and by extension any form of cooperation between individuals, groups, parties and nations - is that it can only function if one is willing to compromise and show pragmatism in which battles to pick, or where to draw lines in the sand.
The very real consequences of confusing rhetoric with pragmatism - and, ultimately, failing to display the latter - are clear in the second and third order effects as a result of Brexit on economic, political, geostrategic and social interests held by both the U.K. and the E.U.
Right, but that's the topic I was responding to. If politicians are making a habit of blaming things on the EU and implying the EU is unaccountable, that strikes me as a problem worth taking seriously. Presumably it wouldn't work in the first place if the people had unshakeable confidence in the legitimacy of the EU.
> The E.U. is very much a representative body
Sure, but I wasn't commenting on this. My point was a specific one about perceived legitimacy, without which there can be no EU. Whether the EU is actually democratic, is another matter.
Yes, the rhetoric is problematic. But politicians can be held accountable by the people who give them a mandate based on election results. The public debate, journalism, education and the voting booth are instrumental in doing that.
These things aren't self-evident though.
They are really expressions of emerging collective behaviour. And that behaviour is always a function of a multitude of social, economical, political, cultural, religious, geographical,... factors.
Authoritarians don't necessarily take power through a violent revolution. It just as easily happens by simply exploiting weaknesses in the economy, society, financial system, the legal and the constitutional framework to a point where they arrive into power. Weaknesses such as economic and social inequality, widespread resentment, poverty,...
Many authoritarians and populist leaders derive their legitimacy from the same democratic processes that also lead to a lawful state which upholds moral values such as basic human rights.
"Democracy" in itself isn't a guarantee towards a net "good" or "bad" outcome. That's just value attribution. Democracy is just a form of governance which could just as well lead to less then desirable outcomes.
Democracy doesn't protect society from bad actors who spout populist rhetoric. Nope, society can only protect itself as long as enough individuals are willing to call that rhetoric out for what it is: damaging and hurtful. Your "democratic" rights are only worth anything to the extent that each member of society is willing to back them.
And that requires believing in the value - the legitimacy - of the E.U. as a shared project.
> Whether the EU is actually democratic, is another matter.
Well, during last year's election cycle, I did get presented a voting ballot that allowed me to directly elect members to the European Parliament. The candidate I voted for, did got elected.
... which leads me to believe that, yes indeed, the E.U. is "actually democratic".
And as far as I can tell, the fact that the E.U. provides a legal framework that allows me to enact my individual rights. Such as the GDPR. Not just from Facebook or Google. But also from public authorities itself.
I perceive that as a good thing.
I have to clarify that I only witnessed the rethorical device being used in France, mostly in the late 90's / early 20s. It was mostly used "informally" (through dog whistle, if you want) , and usually simply by "ignoring" the debates in Brussels and hide behind the commission after decisions had been made. Only the most nationalist parties would blame almost anything on the EU. Maybe other countries behaved differently.
> The E.U. is very much a representative body
The fact that the Parliement is the most obviously elected body, and the one with the least amount of power always bothers me. Although it always makes me giggle to hear this complain from right-wingers in France, where we have a Parliement that has been de-facto powerless because of the way we elect our MPs and President. Anyway, another matter it is !
Right wing, often foreign owned, sections of the British media have been able to use that and other outright lies* to present the EU as against British interests whilst furthering their own agendas.
In a way, the UK tabloid press is like a precursor to the polemic fake news of social media. In the past politicians would suck up to foreign businessmen like Rupert Murdock and he would attack their rivals. The EU probably doesn't want to see that repeated elsewhere with Zuckerberg.
* When Boris Johnson was a full-time journalist he often made up populist stories. One well know example is the EU attempting to ban prawn cocktail flavoured crisps. Completely untrue and only written to get the naive frothing at the mouth in anger and advance his career. He repeated that lie, amongst others like his famous NHS bus poster, during the Brexit campaign.
Sure they can be banned EU-wide, although it can obviously be circumvented by the ambitious. Have you been paying attention to EU politics lately regarding the digital single market? Because the EU already has huge behind-the-scenes plans (generally unannounced) for EU based platforms and developments.
Ultimately, local politicians are the EU's decision-makers. MEPs sit as members of national political parties; the European Council are heads of national governments.
Passing the buck to the EU is a weak position, and in general a mistruth.
There aren't many issues divides nations in the EU from each other - most, if not all, decisions that the EU takes have divisions within nations (between the political groups), not without (between national groups).
You can argue that "blame the EU" is a position that the UK government has taken successfully - continually blaming the EU for any problems that they have created themselves (sometimes blaming the EU despite incompetently avoiding the EU's clear recommendations).
But, now that the UK has left the EU, they don't have anyone left to blame for their own poor planning and decisions. We'll see how that pans out.
More likely the EU would negotiate with the companies rather than outright ban them.
(they were still rioting over other issues, just not Amazon)
As far as I can tell, this had no noticable effect on the political parties. I think you are overestimating the power of large tech companies to influence foreign EU democracies.
There are other examples, including one involving google, where they tried to block access to certain services and expected the population to blame their government.
Unless you can give me a counter example, I think it's more likely people will blame the tech company.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/9c9bf084-994f-11e5-95c7-d47aa298f...
Buying competitors, actions which are already well regulated and overseen by the FTC? And European bodies?
And then ... ?
Giving away software for free?
The populism is getting way out of hand.
First, if there are some anti-competitive issues to address, the EU should do that, but it's hard to do in retrospect.
Google / Chrome / Android is an obvious one, Apple's issue with App Store another, but Facebook / Insta / What's a much less obvious one.
Second, the real underlying issue is Europe's failure to produce anything material in this landscape. They have almost no winners and are being dominated, these are the acts of system with a weak hand. If SAP and a bunch of other European companies dominated the US landscape, this legislation would be different.