Will I be able to freely move between EU countries when I own such a company or will Germany tax 340% of the average profit of the last three years for doing so as they do now? People with German GmbH are essentially unable to move anywhere.
Even if it falls short on the ideal implementation via a regulation rather than a directive (the former mandating all states to adhere to a single implementation and the latter defining a framework that can be implemented by member states) this is still a huge accomplishment and a step in the right direction.
And all done as a grass roots effort from a few dedicated and motivated folks like Andreas Klinger.
I bet not, because you don’t know their laws, and you don’t want to litigate in Croatian. You also don’t know the tax implications and chance is you will only find out when it’s too late.
So if an EU Inc happens, it needs to be based on a shared English law, otherwise it doesn’t change much
It's funny that the EU pretends not to be a sovereign entity or a state in its own right, but then sets up legal frameworks like this. Even in the US, you can't set up a corporation at the federal level: apart from a handful of entities chartered via special acts of Congress, a business entity must exist under the laws of a particular state.
You can easily hire a person from Ohio to work for your company incorporated in California without having a separate legal entity in Ohio. Not the case in EU.
It’s a mix, some competences lie more with the EU, some remain more, or exclusively, with the member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competences_of_the_European_Un....
Importantly, foreign policy and defense lies more with the member states. In addition, proposals by the European Commission must be approved by the Council (consisting of executives of all member states) in a qualified majority (at least 55% of member states and representing at least 65% of the total EU population) or in some cases unanimously.
EU is not a sovereign entity or a state but it needs to be and this is one step in that direction. EU eurocrats worked with the people affected of this and put together a proposal and the elected officials of each member state will vote on this.
Anyway, I don't know about the exact wiring of this but an alternative can be to create a virtual country with its own law, sign a trade agreement with the country to give it full access to the EU market and even some special rights and achieve the same effect of getting rid of the regulations and bureaucracy. These arrangements can be very interesting, like the City of London which is like a country inside London that is actually a corporation. Very weird things are possible.
That obviously makes no sense. A club isn’t a sovereign entity just because it has rules. Hungary is free to leave the EU and set a border policy that conflict with EU law if it wishes - but if it wants to remain part of that organisation, particularly one that has open borders thorough The Schengen area, then of course it needs to follow the rules.
And Poland and Italy and the Netherlands and Luxembourg etc. are all free to voice their opinion as being members of the club.
The EU is walking on thin ice: it doesn't exist since very long (at least not in that form) and the EUR is a very young currency that is already in serious trouble, with most members of the eurozone deeply indebted (and one that already partially defaulted on its public debt, Greece).
The hubris of people who think the EU can bully every single country into submission is insane. Many people aren't happy at all with what's going on in the EU. The EU screwed big times on nuclear (and recently acknowledged they fucked up on nuclear), became dependent on Russia for cheap energy (the US warned them this had potential to SNAFU and SNAFU it did) and now has one of the highest energy price in the world. Making it extremely hard for EU industries to compete with the rest of the world.
There are also many people in the EU who believe that massively importing people from Africa and poor middle-eastern countries (I'm not saying all middle eastern countries are poor: I'm saying middle-eastern countries migration into the EU is mostly from poor middle-eastern countries) won't raise the living standard of the EU.
The entire "we decide which size cucumbers should have, we decide to break encryption to protect the kids, we decide to flood the continent with migrants, etc. and you STFU or you can get out" is not an acceptable posture.
Also please let me laugh at the Schengen borders area: we saw how quickly those borders were closed during several occasion, including Covid. But lastly there have been police controls filtrating cars at the borders in Germany: got controlled twice last summer in Germany. So much for the free movement of people.
My bet is the EUR is going to die a quick death (one of the most stupid currency every invented: cannot work with different fiscal laws and different productivity in the various eurozone countries). And my second bet is that this is going to put a lot of pressure on the entire EU thing.
The EU is not doing well. The US and China's GDPs grew like crazy since the 2008 financial crisis while inflation-adjusted the EU barely moved.
At some point people should do well to wonder if the EU construct ain't the root cause of the problem.
EU didn't fight UK. UK fought EU to not lose their exorbitantly privileged status and benefits while leaving the club itself. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. When they realized and decided that they will get none of the benefits, the finalization of the exit took merely weeks. EU is a huge privilege / opportunity for smaller countries. EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market. If Hungarians want out, it can be done by the end of 2026 and you can enjoy being a proper vassal to neo-Soviets by 2027.
>EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market.
That's where you're wrong. Where would German industry be today without the labor, suppliers, export market and cheap energy imports from the other non-EU-6 members? Especially after they denuclearized and derussified their energy sector and nuked their birthrates, and so rely on importing energy and workers from everyone to stay afloat. You can't claim you don't need them while you're importing their energy, labor, resources, doctors, etc. You can't treat your country like an economic zone, while ignoring all the economic transactions.
Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement. Most of the German labor came from Turkey, not from the smaller and less developed EU countries. Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even. Germany doesn't import much energy from less developed EU countries either: https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/energy-mix#where-does-... most of them come from EU-6 and UK which makes sense since those countries have technology and resources to produce extra capacity. It's the same deal with France with its former and current colonies. They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits. Same for Canada, Canada doesn't need to enter a union with a less developed country to get lots of immigration.
I'm not saying that Germany (or other EU-6) doesn't need immigration. I'm an immigrant in Germany and I do support it for qualified and even non-qualified jobs. However, it is not a clear cut benefit to be in a union with emigrant source countries either.
The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup. Allowing smaller post-Soviet countries without significantly investing and improving their economies and industries and their political stability before ascension, ended up very badly for the other ones. EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries, so now their populations are mostly old, resented people, the biggest businesses owned by EU-6 for only cheap labor. Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes and the authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland of past can block significant decisions with the veto right.
EU is very beneficial for smaller countries however at a significant cost for both sides in a bad way. It worked best when the candidate / new member nation was already a significantly developed and industrialized part of Soviet Union like Baltics or Poland (for the most part, they are not 100% clear yet).
>Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement.
I'm talking about the state of the German economy of today, how it's deeply tied to non-Eu-6 countries in a big way. Their past economic success of a lone wolf, is irrelevant today when they're struggling. Different times. China wasn't even on the radar as a competitor back then and German cars were all the rave worldwide back then. Times have changed.
> Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even.
So why doesn't it want to be as selective anymore today? You know, like back their economic boom days you mentioned before.
>They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits.
Then what's the point of the EU if they can get everything they need without a union? Why doesn't Germany and France just leave the EU and take their money with them?
Because you only focus on the argument of the German EU integration being all about importing cheap labor with your argument, but my argument is beyond that. For example, countless suppliers to Germany economy are in Poland, Romania, Slovakia, etc. And such trade and IP collaboration NEEDS an union. Same for defence parts for French companies that are now made in post-communist countries.
>The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup.
It wasn't always like that though. Only in the last 10 or so years did the EU start to be authoritarian towards member states.
>EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries
True, but guess what, for the first time ever, more post-Communist EU migrants are now leaving Germany and returning home, than the number migrating to Germany from post-Communist members. Reasons are many, but it seems like the days of Germany (and others) being the lands of milk and honey are over.
>Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes
And German population ISN'T?! They just prefer a different flavor of authoritarianism, one with nicer PR, where the jackboots are eco friendly, as they take you to court for "hateful" Tweets, stuff that doesn't happen in the post-Communist states.
>authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland
Why are they considered authoritarian? Because they do what their voters want and not what the EU wants?
>can block significant decisions with the veto right.
Good? Shouldn't nations be able to have a say themselves from EU decisions that might negatively impact them?
I didn't hear many people calling the Austrian regime autocratic for constantly vetoing Romania and Bulgaria's Schengen memberships, despite those countries having met the criterias long before.
So the "autocratic" label keeps being applied very inconsistently across the EU.
The EU will fight you? If Texas tried to secede from the US, the government would send in the military. The EU "fought" them by not giving them a sweetheart trade deal on their way out the door?
It was super easy for UK to leave EU? No one tried to stop them. The ”hard” part was that they wanted to keep some benefits of the membership after canceling the membership.
Of course leaving the EU is hard. Membership has a significant effect on regulation and governance. The fact that something is hard also doesn’t mean you aren’t free to do it.
It being “fought” or countries being “penalised” is a matter of opinion but not one I share.
Yeah, I don't get why Hungary is doing this. Just do like Italy, Grece, Romania, Croatia, etc do, and waive those migrants though, since they'll all go to places like Austria, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, etc, they won't stay in Hungary anyway, and this way you still get to cash those EU cheques and migration becomes someone else's problem. Malicious compliance FTW. If the holier-than-thou EU want no border checks, then fine, let them enjoy it. Hope EU leaders also have no locked doors or security at their place of living in Brussels to match the openness and inclusivity towards unvetted strangers of their border policies. Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.
Sigh, another person that doesn't know, or refuses to acknowledge that Schengen means border free travel only for member states and visa holders, while still having to enforce borders and immigration rejections for non-members or those with no visas, but yet is accusing others of bad faith argumentation. Can it get more hypocritical than this?
Hungary can leave the EU if it wants. Article 50 exists for this.
If it wants to stay in the EU it has to adhere to the bloc rules. It is not forced to stay in the EU (and, in fact, getting rid of Orban would not be such a bad idea). Hungexit when?
Yes, they were free to leave. No one stopped them from leaving the free trade area and having the exact same status as any other random country in the world. Or did you mean that Uk wanted to leave EU but keep all the good benefits? Like canceling Netflix and bitching about not being able to watch the latest series.
sure. It did just take 3 simple elections over many years, with open antagonizing, fearmongering and interference by the EU until they accepted defeat.
>If it wants to stay in the EU it has to adhere to the bloc rules.
What are you supposed to do when the bloc rules imposed upon you now, are not the ones that were agreed upon when you joined? Imagine your landlord or employer changes your contract without your consent and just tells you to walk if you don't like it. It wouldn't be legal anyway, but it would also be a dick move. I'm old enough to see how the EU of today is not the same it was just 20 years ago.
@dosinga False. All those examples you gave, require bilateral agreement to be legal. At least in Europe. You can't unilaterally change a contract for both parties.
Employers and landlords do that sort of thing all the time. Rent goes up, job descriptions change, return to office is suddenly required. And yeah, you can get a different job or a different home if you don't like it.
States joining the EU agree to transfer some of their competences to the EU, in exchange for the benefits that being a member brings. They participate democratically in the EU decisions like every other member state. They even have veto powers in some cases. If they feel that it isn’t worth it anymore, they are free to leave.
> The objective is to enable innovative companies to operate under a single, harmonised set of EU-wide rules, covering relevant aspects of corporate, insolvency, labour and tax law.
A good idea in theory
> legal framework provides faster (within 48 hours), cheaper (maximum EUR 100) and fully digital company registration, simplified procedures throughout the company life cycle
Did not expect this
.
If they deliver, this might actually make startups in europe a bit more common
> If they deliver, this might actually make startups in europe a bit more common
Just in time for AI to make startups no longer possible for labor capital to undertake as financial capital alone (plus the hyperscalers) take the reigns.
Once there's a $1M Claude Code button to implement an entire business, it's over. Engineeers and business folks and the startup hustle are over.
I was hoping open source would save us, but it's not keeping pace with the leading edge of foundation models. Plus the hyperscalers own all of the infrastructure to run and scale anyhow. Piddly RTX cards are nothing in the face of this.
This is tech (and humanity's) final "embrace, extend, extinguish".
Nah. Very few start-ups succeed or fail because of speed of writing code, or lack thereof. And there is huge opportunity in areas where LLMs are barely helpful at all: for example new low-cost guided missiles (disruptive innovation in military affairs).
Brick and mortar stores, as well as service oriented businesses do exist and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Tech is not the entirety of business.
Well, we've proven the 27 smaller, competing bureaucracies are creating plenty of their own issues. It's not like the US where 50 states (and yet more territories) actually compete on simplifying corporate law and offering strategic advantages.
Corporate law is inherently somewhat bureaucratic; better simplify it and unify it if proven necessary.
Bureaucracies are not in competition though. They are intended monopolies. For a prospective company they are investment options, larger countries usually have larger bureaucracies but also larger labor markets.
Another take to deny the need of a POLITICAL union. Anyway a large slice of the issue lay in the many different social security systems, the vastly different inheritance tax regimes (zero inheritance tax for some states, over 80% for others) and so on, having a company that exists as a state unto itself, but with employees from another state subject to its rules, doesn't simplify things; it only complicates them.
What is needed is the arrest of the Commission for a coup d'état and high treason, with its powers being transferred to the European Parliament.
What kinds of innovations require protecting people from being held liable for harms that they participated in? Economic growth for whom and at whose expense?
Will I be able to freely move between EU countries when I own such a company or will Germany tax 340% of the average profit of the last three years for doing so as they do now? People with German GmbH are essentially unable to move anywhere.
I think you know the answer already. Another half-baked initiative. I can't imagine countries willingly losing their tax revenues.
This is a legal framework, not a fiscal one, so presumably no.
> 340%
Holy crap.
> People with German GmbH are essentially unable to move anywhere.
Well, that's not entirely true, but I can see how it might complicate things considerably.
Even if it falls short on the ideal implementation via a regulation rather than a directive (the former mandating all states to adhere to a single implementation and the latter defining a framework that can be implemented by member states) this is still a huge accomplishment and a step in the right direction.
And all done as a grass roots effort from a few dedicated and motivated folks like Andreas Klinger.
Would you invest in e.g. a Croatian startup?
I bet not, because you don’t know their laws, and you don’t want to litigate in Croatian. You also don’t know the tax implications and chance is you will only find out when it’s too late.
So if an EU Inc happens, it needs to be based on a shared English law, otherwise it doesn’t change much
It's funny that the EU pretends not to be a sovereign entity or a state in its own right, but then sets up legal frameworks like this. Even in the US, you can't set up a corporation at the federal level: apart from a handful of entities chartered via special acts of Congress, a business entity must exist under the laws of a particular state.
You can easily hire a person from Ohio to work for your company incorporated in California without having a separate legal entity in Ohio. Not the case in EU.
It’s a mix, some competences lie more with the EU, some remain more, or exclusively, with the member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competences_of_the_European_Un.... Importantly, foreign policy and defense lies more with the member states. In addition, proposals by the European Commission must be approved by the Council (consisting of executives of all member states) in a qualified majority (at least 55% of member states and representing at least 65% of the total EU population) or in some cases unanimously.
You could setup a European company (SE) for 20 years or so, this is a new kind that solves some of the issues that one had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societas_Europaea
EU is not a sovereign entity or a state but it needs to be and this is one step in that direction. EU eurocrats worked with the people affected of this and put together a proposal and the elected officials of each member state will vote on this.
Anyway, I don't know about the exact wiring of this but an alternative can be to create a virtual country with its own law, sign a trade agreement with the country to give it full access to the EU market and even some special rights and achieve the same effect of getting rid of the regulations and bureaucracy. These arrangements can be very interesting, like the City of London which is like a country inside London that is actually a corporation. Very weird things are possible.
They surely became a sovereign entity when they started fining member states (who are allegedly sovereign) for attempting to own their own border policy: https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/migra...
That obviously makes no sense. A club isn’t a sovereign entity just because it has rules. Hungary is free to leave the EU and set a border policy that conflict with EU law if it wishes - but if it wants to remain part of that organisation, particularly one that has open borders thorough The Schengen area, then of course it needs to follow the rules.
> Hungary is free to leave the EU ...
And Poland and Italy and the Netherlands and Luxembourg etc. are all free to voice their opinion as being members of the club.
The EU is walking on thin ice: it doesn't exist since very long (at least not in that form) and the EUR is a very young currency that is already in serious trouble, with most members of the eurozone deeply indebted (and one that already partially defaulted on its public debt, Greece).
The hubris of people who think the EU can bully every single country into submission is insane. Many people aren't happy at all with what's going on in the EU. The EU screwed big times on nuclear (and recently acknowledged they fucked up on nuclear), became dependent on Russia for cheap energy (the US warned them this had potential to SNAFU and SNAFU it did) and now has one of the highest energy price in the world. Making it extremely hard for EU industries to compete with the rest of the world.
There are also many people in the EU who believe that massively importing people from Africa and poor middle-eastern countries (I'm not saying all middle eastern countries are poor: I'm saying middle-eastern countries migration into the EU is mostly from poor middle-eastern countries) won't raise the living standard of the EU.
The entire "we decide which size cucumbers should have, we decide to break encryption to protect the kids, we decide to flood the continent with migrants, etc. and you STFU or you can get out" is not an acceptable posture.
Also please let me laugh at the Schengen borders area: we saw how quickly those borders were closed during several occasion, including Covid. But lastly there have been police controls filtrating cars at the borders in Germany: got controlled twice last summer in Germany. So much for the free movement of people.
My bet is the EUR is going to die a quick death (one of the most stupid currency every invented: cannot work with different fiscal laws and different productivity in the various eurozone countries). And my second bet is that this is going to put a lot of pressure on the entire EU thing.
The EU is not doing well. The US and China's GDPs grew like crazy since the 2008 financial crisis while inflation-adjusted the EU barely moved.
At some point people should do well to wonder if the EU construct ain't the root cause of the problem.
As UK showed, leaving EU is hard and EU will fight you on it as well as seek to penalize you
EU didn't fight UK. UK fought EU to not lose their exorbitantly privileged status and benefits while leaving the club itself. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. When they realized and decided that they will get none of the benefits, the finalization of the exit took merely weeks. EU is a huge privilege / opportunity for smaller countries. EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market. If Hungarians want out, it can be done by the end of 2026 and you can enjoy being a proper vassal to neo-Soviets by 2027.
>EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market.
That's where you're wrong. Where would German industry be today without the labor, suppliers, export market and cheap energy imports from the other non-EU-6 members? Especially after they denuclearized and derussified their energy sector and nuked their birthrates, and so rely on importing energy and workers from everyone to stay afloat. You can't claim you don't need them while you're importing their energy, labor, resources, doctors, etc. You can't treat your country like an economic zone, while ignoring all the economic transactions.
Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement. Most of the German labor came from Turkey, not from the smaller and less developed EU countries. Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even. Germany doesn't import much energy from less developed EU countries either: https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/energy-mix#where-does-... most of them come from EU-6 and UK which makes sense since those countries have technology and resources to produce extra capacity. It's the same deal with France with its former and current colonies. They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits. Same for Canada, Canada doesn't need to enter a union with a less developed country to get lots of immigration.
I'm not saying that Germany (or other EU-6) doesn't need immigration. I'm an immigrant in Germany and I do support it for qualified and even non-qualified jobs. However, it is not a clear cut benefit to be in a union with emigrant source countries either.
The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup. Allowing smaller post-Soviet countries without significantly investing and improving their economies and industries and their political stability before ascension, ended up very badly for the other ones. EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries, so now their populations are mostly old, resented people, the biggest businesses owned by EU-6 for only cheap labor. Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes and the authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland of past can block significant decisions with the veto right.
EU is very beneficial for smaller countries however at a significant cost for both sides in a bad way. It worked best when the candidate / new member nation was already a significantly developed and industrialized part of Soviet Union like Baltics or Poland (for the most part, they are not 100% clear yet).
>Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement.
I'm talking about the state of the German economy of today, how it's deeply tied to non-Eu-6 countries in a big way. Their past economic success of a lone wolf, is irrelevant today when they're struggling. Different times. China wasn't even on the radar as a competitor back then and German cars were all the rave worldwide back then. Times have changed.
> Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even.
So why doesn't it want to be as selective anymore today? You know, like back their economic boom days you mentioned before.
>They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits.
Then what's the point of the EU if they can get everything they need without a union? Why doesn't Germany and France just leave the EU and take their money with them?
Because you only focus on the argument of the German EU integration being all about importing cheap labor with your argument, but my argument is beyond that. For example, countless suppliers to Germany economy are in Poland, Romania, Slovakia, etc. And such trade and IP collaboration NEEDS an union. Same for defence parts for French companies that are now made in post-communist countries.
>The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup.
It wasn't always like that though. Only in the last 10 or so years did the EU start to be authoritarian towards member states.
>EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries
True, but guess what, for the first time ever, more post-Communist EU migrants are now leaving Germany and returning home, than the number migrating to Germany from post-Communist members. Reasons are many, but it seems like the days of Germany (and others) being the lands of milk and honey are over.
>Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes
And German population ISN'T?! They just prefer a different flavor of authoritarianism, one with nicer PR, where the jackboots are eco friendly, as they take you to court for "hateful" Tweets, stuff that doesn't happen in the post-Communist states.
>authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland
Why are they considered authoritarian? Because they do what their voters want and not what the EU wants?
>can block significant decisions with the veto right.
Good? Shouldn't nations be able to have a say themselves from EU decisions that might negatively impact them?
I didn't hear many people calling the Austrian regime autocratic for constantly vetoing Romania and Bulgaria's Schengen memberships, despite those countries having met the criterias long before.
So the "autocratic" label keeps being applied very inconsistently across the EU.
The EU will fight you? If Texas tried to secede from the US, the government would send in the military. The EU "fought" them by not giving them a sweetheart trade deal on their way out the door?
It was super easy for UK to leave EU? No one tried to stop them. The ”hard” part was that they wanted to keep some benefits of the membership after canceling the membership.
It was only hard because UK wanted to stop immediately to participate to budget while continuing to benefit from already agreed multi-years policies.
Of course leaving the EU is hard. Membership has a significant effect on regulation and governance. The fact that something is hard also doesn’t mean you aren’t free to do it.
It being “fought” or countries being “penalised” is a matter of opinion but not one I share.
How, exactly, did the EU penalize the UK for leaving?
Please, elaborate, I'll be waiting.
Sounds like EU deliberately evil?
Yeah, I don't get why Hungary is doing this. Just do like Italy, Grece, Romania, Croatia, etc do, and waive those migrants though, since they'll all go to places like Austria, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, etc, they won't stay in Hungary anyway, and this way you still get to cash those EU cheques and migration becomes someone else's problem. Malicious compliance FTW. If the holier-than-thou EU want no border checks, then fine, let them enjoy it. Hope EU leaders also have no locked doors or security at their place of living in Brussels to match the openness and inclusivity towards unvetted strangers of their border policies. Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.
Are you really conflating the idea of Schegen with "keeping unlocked doors to your house"?
Very quick way to show you are not willing to engage in ideas in good faith.
Sigh, another person that doesn't know, or refuses to acknowledge that Schengen means border free travel only for member states and visa holders, while still having to enforce borders and immigration rejections for non-members or those with no visas, but yet is accusing others of bad faith argumentation. Can it get more hypocritical than this?
Hungary can leave the EU if it wants. Article 50 exists for this.
If it wants to stay in the EU it has to adhere to the bloc rules. It is not forced to stay in the EU (and, in fact, getting rid of Orban would not be such a bad idea). Hungexit when?
Elections are happening soon (April). It's not clear at all Orban will win this round of elections, see e.g. https://apnews.com/article/hungary-orban-magyar-rival-rallie...
Why leave when you can just keep breaking the rules and wait for the EU to kick you out?
Oh we all saw the true colors of the glorious and open and free-to-leave EU when Brits wanted to leave.
Yes, they were free to leave. No one stopped them from leaving the free trade area and having the exact same status as any other random country in the world. Or did you mean that Uk wanted to leave EU but keep all the good benefits? Like canceling Netflix and bitching about not being able to watch the latest series.
sure. It did just take 3 simple elections over many years, with open antagonizing, fearmongering and interference by the EU until they accepted defeat.
Yes we did, the UK just left.
>If it wants to stay in the EU it has to adhere to the bloc rules.
What are you supposed to do when the bloc rules imposed upon you now, are not the ones that were agreed upon when you joined? Imagine your landlord or employer changes your contract without your consent and just tells you to walk if you don't like it. It wouldn't be legal anyway, but it would also be a dick move. I'm old enough to see how the EU of today is not the same it was just 20 years ago.
@dosinga False. All those examples you gave, require bilateral agreement to be legal. At least in Europe. You can't unilaterally change a contract for both parties.
Employers and landlords do that sort of thing all the time. Rent goes up, job descriptions change, return to office is suddenly required. And yeah, you can get a different job or a different home if you don't like it.
States joining the EU agree to transfer some of their competences to the EU, in exchange for the benefits that being a member brings. They participate democratically in the EU decisions like every other member state. They even have veto powers in some cases. If they feel that it isn’t worth it anymore, they are free to leave.
You are free to leave EU just like any other agreement.
So this basically makes the Estonian e-residency program obsolete?
> The objective is to enable innovative companies to operate under a single, harmonised set of EU-wide rules, covering relevant aspects of corporate, insolvency, labour and tax law.
A good idea in theory
> legal framework provides faster (within 48 hours), cheaper (maximum EUR 100) and fully digital company registration, simplified procedures throughout the company life cycle
Did not expect this
.
If they deliver, this might actually make startups in europe a bit more common
> If they deliver, this might actually make startups in europe a bit more common
Just in time for AI to make startups no longer possible for labor capital to undertake as financial capital alone (plus the hyperscalers) take the reigns.
Once there's a $1M Claude Code button to implement an entire business, it's over. Engineeers and business folks and the startup hustle are over.
I was hoping open source would save us, but it's not keeping pace with the leading edge of foundation models. Plus the hyperscalers own all of the infrastructure to run and scale anyhow. Piddly RTX cards are nothing in the face of this.
This is tech (and humanity's) final "embrace, extend, extinguish".
This is the last few years of startups.
Nah. Very few start-ups succeed or fail because of speed of writing code, or lack thereof. And there is huge opportunity in areas where LLMs are barely helpful at all: for example new low-cost guided missiles (disruptive innovation in military affairs).
Brick and mortar stores, as well as service oriented businesses do exist and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Tech is not the entirety of business.
saved for later. exactly the kind of deep dive i was looking for
good read. thanks for sharing
I was looking into using tokenize.it to get some of these benefits for a German GmbH. But I guess this eu inc will take years beige it exists.
The only antidote to bureaucracy is more bureaucracy.
Well, this part of bureaucracy tries to provide a single bureaucracy instead of 27 different ones.
The second such attempt - there's also Societas Europaea.
I think the question really is: What's better? One giant bureaucracy or 27 smaller (and competing) bureaucracies?
Well, we've proven the 27 smaller, competing bureaucracies are creating plenty of their own issues. It's not like the US where 50 states (and yet more territories) actually compete on simplifying corporate law and offering strategic advantages.
Corporate law is inherently somewhat bureaucratic; better simplify it and unify it if proven necessary.
Bureaucracies are not in competition though. They are intended monopolies. For a prospective company they are investment options, larger countries usually have larger bureaucracies but also larger labor markets.
Another take to deny the need of a POLITICAL union. Anyway a large slice of the issue lay in the many different social security systems, the vastly different inheritance tax regimes (zero inheritance tax for some states, over 80% for others) and so on, having a company that exists as a state unto itself, but with employees from another state subject to its rules, doesn't simplify things; it only complicates them.
What is needed is the arrest of the Commission for a coup d'état and high treason, with its powers being transferred to the European Parliament.
I don't like the limited liability construct. There needs to be full liability shared between all stakeholders.
Well if you want to kill all innovation and economic growth then full shareholder liability is one way to do it.
What kinds of innovations require protecting people from being held liable for harms that they participated in? Economic growth for whom and at whose expense?
Its complicated.
- It would discourage share buying.
- somebody with control packet can do terrible things, while minority stock owners have no impact. Blame attribution might be tricky.
So just use a partnership?
Who does this?
That's the point: nobody except for dentists and lawyers. But it should be the norm.
Yeah it's interesting. For any activity where rich people care about outcomes, suddenly they want full liability.
We need to say no to diffuse harms and concentrated gains.