On tech, the EU doesn't speak for Europe:
The European Commission of President Ursula von der Leyen vowed in 2019 to make "a Europe fit for the digital age," dubbing the 2020s Europe's "digital decade."
Building on the European Union's flagship privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Brussels's regulatory race to the top gained historic momentum over the past four years. And from digital markets to content moderation, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, computer chips and data governance, the Commission has left little on the table in terms of regulation.
Bolstered by mended ties with the administration of United States President Joe Biden and increased coordination with the U.S. through the Trade and Technology Council (TTC), the von der Leyen Commission seems to have achieved the impossible in an often rancorous 27-member bloc — a unified Europe around a common digital agenda.
But this narrative of unity obfuscates a much more complex reality in which the Commission's policies are dominated by its two largest — and most zealously regulatory — countries: France and Germany. In fact, Europe's smaller but most tech-oriented members rarely feel heard in the halls of Brussels, even as they often disagree with the Commission's agenda.
Privately, officials from these countries say the Commission's strategy will hamper innovation by imposing complex compliance rules on smaller companies that can't afford to implement them. They also worry that foreign investment — particularly from U.S. investors, which are responsible for a whopping 76 percent of foreign investment in European tech companies — will wane as the Commission goes after large American tech firms. And many lament that Brexit took away the United Kingdom's counterbalancing voice, leaving a vacuum for France and Germany to fill.
While these concerns are rarely aired publicly, simply put, Central and Northern Europe know that when it comes to tech, the EU doesn't speak for Europe.
And no wonder: None of the EU's major institutions — the Commission, the European Council or the European Parliament — have Central Europeans at the helm, even as the power balance in Europe shifts eastward after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Proportional representation in the Parliament also means that the largest countries — France, Germany and Italy — have the most power in terms of votes. Even if all the Nordic, Baltic and Central European countries voted as a block — which they don't — they would still have fewer votes (191) than just France, Germany and Italy (251).
As a result, smaller countries then need to prioritize focusing on the most critical issues — defense and security — and the Parliament's ability to set Europe's tech agenda is then hamstrung by the Commission's sole power to propose legislation.
But just as the power balance on defense and deterrence is shifting to the east and north, so are the economic headwinds when it comes to tech innovation and investment.
For example, Helsinki, Stockholm and Tallinn have higher growth rates for capital invested in startups than London, Munich and Paris. And while unicorns — or firms valued at $1 billion or more and are still predominantly privately owned — in Western Europe still raise nearly double the amount of money as those in "new Europe," the latter has the highest valuation-to-investment ratio on the Continent.
In short, tech companies in Central and Eastern Europe do more with less.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by isj on Wednesday May 31 2023, @12:21PM (1 child)
The linked article isn't an article - it's an opinion piece. Nothing wrong with that.
Some of the opinion are a bit weird and I cannot figure out if it's pro-EU or con-EU, pro-USA, or simply pro-tech and con-regulation.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday May 31 2023, @03:14PM
The think-tank both authors work for is located in Washington.
That being said -- apart from the delusion that *unicorn* equals tech -- it would help if they got at least the basics right, and knew the slightest bit about how the EU operated. Perhaps than they wouldn't posit silliness like "the Parliament's ability to set Europe's tech agenda is then hamstrung by the Commission's sole power to propose legislation."
Post-script:
. Raa-aa-ah. I doubt that the policy of sending out invites for consultation to IEEE members has ended in recent years.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday May 31 2023, @12:27PM (10 children)
There are numerous and growing serious conflicts between states and with the central government. And poorly thought out regulation like what is mentioned in this story harms the economic future of everyone in the EU. My take is that we're moving forward to a new EU. It's time for people of Europe to think about what they want.
(Score: 2) by garfiejas on Wednesday May 31 2023, @01:01PM (7 children)
Been trying for a while - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/07/cameron-merkel-eu-freedom-movement [theguardian.com] - though it could be argued the actual reforms requested by the UK were a "failure of UK government to enshrine in law its own policies rather than the EU" but the rejection did trigger the "UK EU Referendum" - I became aware of how the EU works with the "incandescent light bulb" fiasco - (the UK promptly implemented practically any EU legislation with little thought back then) - whilst it eventually forced LED's to get good (still no-where near as good as advertised or as cheap as burning wire) the mercury contained in the 1st/2nd gen fluorescents could pollute an entire house/area... used to think "what were the politicians thinking" - now I know "they don't think"...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Wednesday May 31 2023, @02:31PM (6 children)
The phase out of incandescent bulbs was not a fiasco due to the EU. It was a simply hampered by those that where making profit of them. And forcing them out by legislation is the only way that will be remotly successfull.
Besides, the article is written by two members of the same think-tank and even they have to admit the 'non-German, non-French' part of the EU is anything but unified on such issues anyway.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday May 31 2023, @10:53PM
Now what's the case for forcing out incandescent light bulb manufacturers? The poor justification for the heavy-handed use of force is a large part of the reason this fiasco is a fiasco. It wasn't those manufacturers who did that.
(Score: 2) by garfiejas on Saturday June 03 2023, @11:40PM (4 children)
Most of my mouse is now LED; it wasn't the phasing them out, though they cost pennies and as a consequence I have a lifetimes supply which I'll be able to hand down to my grandchildren... none of of the UK or even EU political parties had it as a manifesto commitment - the speed and the massive cost/safety issues with their (then) replacements, would/could usually mean I wrote to my MP to get off their behinds and do something or join a political party and possibly/eventually get the King to sign into the thousand year or so old law books - still - backed up onto vellum. The issue was - as you point out - an economic one - "imposed" by the EU Commission - the only law-proposing-creating body across the EU - its not democratic/accountable in any way - and the law could not then be changed by any "political" means - something at least here in the UK, I understood (naively) to have ended back in the 1640's with the Civil War (200000+ dead); so while "light bulbs" were the poster-boy for the way this was going - what next - spinning rust (majority of a DC power usage) - electric kettles, crt monitors - pray they don't change the deal any further?
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Sunday June 04 2023, @08:26AM (3 children)
The EU commision not democratic? That one again?
The members of the commision are elected by the Parliament. The other voters probably did not agree with you (no party has a majority) but it is democratic.
(Score: 2) by garfiejas on Wednesday June 07 2023, @08:34AM (2 children)
Yes, that one again; they are "vetted" by the EU Parliament - drawn up from lists by member states - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/7/how-are-the-commission-president-and-commissioners-appointed [europa.eu]
Are the commissioners elected by a direct popular mandate? No; they are selected for "knowing the subjects they're appointed for";
That doesn't look like any democracy, in fact it looks very similar to the UK House of Lords... part of the executive; except these folk in the UK are there to review, accept & modify laws proposed by the UK Parliament - not the other way around
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Wednesday June 07 2023, @08:50PM (1 child)
Are you by any change one of those who want a referendum about every fart a government employee wants to release?
(Score: 2) by garfiejas on Thursday June 08 2023, @01:01PM
No, just one who wants the "will of the people" making the rules - not unelected - unaccountable and highly biased technocrats - not that those rules may be any good - or consistent or even legal in common-law - they may not know; that's the role of unelected, unaccountable and potentially highly biased technocrats - i.e it would be called, oh I don't know - the civil service... and an apology not a snide remark would have been nice.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday May 31 2023, @03:33PM (1 child)
The EU is not a central government. It cannot establish laws by itself, for example*.
To further the riddle, the EU Commission has no real power e.g. it cannot legislatively act on its own, nor can it really force member states to comply -- which everybody should know who followed a bit the Polish Jurors case, or Victor Orban's frolicking around. (Something to keep in mind when you hear of another Grand Initiative by the Commission.)
* I only know of 2 exceptions i.e. the introduction of the euro, and the establishment of the Schengenzone -- both required changes in the treaty documents at the base of the European Union, if I recall correctly, for which unanimity among the Council was needed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 31 2023, @11:03PM
And yet, here is all this EU-wide law and regulation established by the EU - a central government doing the usual central government things.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 31 2023, @04:34PM
The EU comprises 27 of the 44 states in Europe, or 61.4% by borders. Which is 447 of the 746 million people in Europe, or 59.9% of the population. So...if we're talking democratic principles of the majority being right...yes, the EU *does* speak for Europe? Or should?
So this article is in fact complaining about 2 degrees of separation, that France and Germany control the EU, which controls European policy? France and Germany are 151 million, so 33.8% of the EU pop, or 20.2% of Europe overall.
Sounds like an internal EU problem, then. I call this headline a bit misleading.
I'm losing the thread of what the problem is here...or is this just an informative piece, not pushing some specific action?
Finland, Sweden, and Estonia are all in the EU. What does this have to do with the thesis statement?
Not related to where we started ಠ_ಠ Central and Eastern Europe *is in the EU*, except for Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Russia!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Wednesday May 31 2023, @04:52PM (4 children)
By political model, EU Commission is an unvoted, self-appointed government which satisfies all historical definitions of tyranny.
Hungary and Poland are already on the divergent political path.
By economic model, after loss of Africa last year, Eastern Europe is the last colonial territory the Western Europe still holds the grip on.
Let's see if this survives next European war upcoming in weeks to us. Weapons production with energy limits and carbon allowances is above joke.
Why the tech is irrelevant to Europe' fate?
See, no European country is allowed to use ASML's (European) technology for any serious chip production.
Who decided that?
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday May 31 2023, @06:11PM (2 children)
The same people who decided that ASML's technology shouldn't be used for any serious chip production in the USA?
Seriously, MT, it is nice weather -- take the metro, pick up an ice cream cone, and watch the tourists stream across the Karluv Most while the sun sets: your stacks are overflowing, your circuits are overheating.
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Wednesday May 31 2023, @06:59PM (1 child)
With our political mainstream currently posting news literally titled as "In a Third World War we will become a rear", there is no more time for strolling. It's barely time for checking preps.
https://echo24.cz/a/HTJmU/tydenik-echo-anaylza-kaiser-dohoda-o-cesko-americke-obranne-spolupraci-cernochova [echo24.cz]
Fun Fact: Appendix A of the fresh new signed Czech-American DCA treaty which lists military facilities taken over by Americans is exactly the same as list of nuclear targets by Americans in a Cold War.
The only difference is they are now nuclear targets for Russians.
So. After 30 years, we achieved nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday May 31 2023, @10:47PM
I glanced at said treaty. No facilities are "taken over" by the US - it merely expedites the usage of Czech military bases. It might at some point be a prelude to a future takeover, but that would require a lot more effort on the US's part and a compliant Czech Republic. And I would wonder where the US would get the resources for supporting such a takeover? Military procurement and logistics has gotten quite inefficient in the past few decades.
As to the claim of "achieved nothing", there's a number of factors missing from your consideration. First, living under the boot of Soviet Russia would suck vastly more than the Czech Republic. Similarly, there's strong signs Russian nukes don't work so well anymore (after all, if Russia didn't feel it important to have working military gear for a major invasion, then they've probably cut corners on a lot of other vital security matters like working nukes). And fewer Russian nukes are spread over more and more targets. The Russians don't have as many deployable nukes now as the US had 30 years ago and they're generating more and more nuclear targets with their terrible foreign policy.
It's significantly better once you pay attention to what's going on.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Thursday June 01 2023, @09:33AM
This is not correct. The EU Commission as the executive body is, exactly like in many democracies, elected by the parliament. This parliament is directly elected. There are problems of course, that you allude to. The members of the commission are proposed by the governments of the EU entailing a level of indirection not seen in other democracies, albeit there is still indirect control through national elections. Finally, elections of the European parliament are often not seen as prominent elections, at the very least they score behind national elections. Again, this implies that democratic standing of the European parliament is weakened as compared to national parliaments.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday May 31 2023, @08:11PM (1 child)
In other words, France and Germany, through Brussels, prevent a US-style race to the bottom across the EU.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 31 2023, @10:49PM
We'll get a French and German-style race to the bottom instead. Someone should put it on YouTube.
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Wednesday May 31 2023, @09:52PM (1 child)
If you are Europe's regulatory authority and you have enforcement powers, yes, you most certainly do speak for Europe. That is the very nature of a centralized regulatory authority.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 31 2023, @10:35PM