EU looks to hit Big Tech in crackdown on US services exports
ft.com
ft.com
Look, I’d prefer a cooperative relationship too, but diplomacy clearly hasn’t worked. The US administration needs to understand that actions have consequences, and if this means leveraging our market strength and standing firm, then that’s exactly what we have to do. If the EU doesn’t respond decisively, we’ll only embolden more aggressive policies from Trump’s side.
We’ve tried being patient. Now it’s about showing we won’t be pushed around.
How do you tariff Adsense from google? Or 3rd party cell phones that run Android? Will they slap an upcharge on netflix or Amazon prime somehow?
How does suspending intellectual property rights work, also? That seems like a whole can of worms
I guess if IP is off the table as well, nothing to stop someone from pirating every movie on netflix and launching a clone for EU!
Im curious for some more details around this. I hope it turns out to be a nice big stick to smack some sense into the US tech oligarchs, and also their orange subordinate
That should do the trick.
Well, it's already subject to VAT, so I guess in much the same way as that?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if more American big corpos paid more taxes, I was just curious what this plan would even look like when/if it's enacted
They are commonly applied as a surcharge (charge on top of the business or consumer price of a good) on specific goods, which is exactly how VAT works across the EU.
Tariffs can be applied in other ways too, such as a surtax (tax on top of another tax). But I don't think tax on profits is common, as that would give the foreign company too much leeway to fudge the numbers.
Not the case in at least some EU countries. Businesses are responsible for calculating the VAT and paying it themselves.
So that's ~4%. It’s not insignificant, but I wouldn't exactly call it a primary revenue stream. VAT brings in 3x as much money. Import duties bring in about 5x that. And about half of the budget comes directly from the member states.
"Tech fines tracker" - https://proton.me/tech-fines-tracker
Perhaps someone better versed in geopolitics could explain why the US doesn't absolutely ditch Europe to fend for themselves and exit all military and otherwise engagements with them and fall back to ordinary international trade relationships.
We moved to a rules based world order, there is no imperialism after that, unless we want to return to a world of war (people forget how frequent this was before this, this is the reason the nations of the world agreed to the move, they didn't want to live in this terrible uncertain type of world). This world was also unproductive as people are too scared to take risks. A war economy isn't productive in the true sense as it doesn't improve the human condition.
A rules based world order needs someone to enforce those rules, with the US as hegemon, they ended up being the largest enforcer (in addition to the UN security council which has been neutered by China and Russia's moves to ignore it).
The benefit for the US is a prosperous, stable world. A consumer base with plenty of money to spend on US goods (the world economy is demand based), and a stable supply chain.
Of course it's good Russia and China are on the council. Them being there is an acknowledgement and example of rule based order.
The idea is that the "market makers" (the countries with the largest influence in the world) adhere to the security council's decisions. And then if smaller players ignore it, the bigger players on the council can bring them back in line to preserve world order.
And sorry you're delusional if you think rules based order never existed, you're welcome to take the US out of the equation, it still exists! There are a number of institutions including the WTO, the UN amongst others and various agreements in the bretton woods agreement, all created post WW2.
Seriously don't be dismissive and don't listen to propaganda, go read the history. This dismissive attitude, you've co-opted, are part of efforts to dismantle it as part of this imaginary "multipolar world" (which only means might is right, a return to war). It's only beneficial to the likes of those who know they have enough might and who wish to ignore the rules. The existing order is multipolar, if a country is influential enough they can be added to the council. Removing the councils influence is destroying order, creating chaos and war. It also may be ignorance, people aren't being taught the reasons in school anymore.
The open US support for genocide has fully destroyed the concept.
You take the world you live in for granted, look at a 80 year timescale and world scale, 7 billion people. What do you think WTO is and what is it doing? What do you think that passport you are carrying is doing? There are nearly 200 countries in the world and you're focusing on how many instances?
I hear that often but I still don't understand what these "rules" are exactly. It can't be international law which the hegemon broke over and over again. So what are these rules?
People occasionally break the law in countries too, doesn't mean it's a free for all when there is one crime committed.
Just found a good write up. The economic integration was intentional post WWII.
We also have imperialism today and have done since the end of WW2.
Perhaps it occasionally has happened since but not at the scale beforehand and with plenty of roadblocks. It's like saying crime is rampant when one person commits one, it's hyperbole to say so.
I mean, that's suitably US-narcissistic for me to believe that's a genuinely held position I guess.
To me it's a mutually beneficial arrangement, de-risks the continent.
For the US ensures long term alignment and influence avoiding someone else filling the vacuum (EU militaries were weak and fragmented). For Europe common alignment and influence ensures some unity. Remember the continent was consistently fragmented and at war before this, it's hard to imagine in current times with the EU.
The US has been interested/involved in a number of conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa over the last few decades. Europe provides safe and friendly place to station military equipment nearby.
Seems the EU is keen to regulate it's tech sector into nothingness, only stodgy big corporate crap like SAP making it through, and then when the good tech, which logically must appear overseas, shows up on their shores, they spitefully fine them constantly for everything they can think of.
Seems they're ruled by their worst.
It’s true Europe struggles to build big global tech companies, but that’s mainly due to factors like fragmented markets, less venture capital, and more cautious investors, not just regulation. Cities like Berlin, Amsterdam, and Stockholm actually have thriving tech scenes despite these rules.
So it’s really not about hurting US tech, it’s more about making sure huge companies, wherever they’re from, follow clear rules and don’t abuse their market power.
They're much closer to the Middle East and Africa, can be used for refuelling/restocking, provides intelligence and obviously NATO.
> Perhaps someone better versed in geopolitics could explain why the US doesn't absolutely ditch Europe
I don't think you'd have much opposition to the removal of US military bases, they're probably not popular with the local populations (certainly not Croughton).
It's the US that has been the one that's been opposed to a European army or independent European military strategy outside of NATO under fear of loss of influence (and defence sales).
Now even the Soviet has dissolved, there's always the menace of Europe allying with Russia or China (from the US perspective). So it's worth to pay a premium to prevent your opponent from getting the same thing.