As an EU citizen, I think we have no choice but to be tough here. Trump’s tariffs aren’t something we asked for, but backing down isn’t an option either—he’ll just keep pushing. Targeting US services, especially big tech, makes sense because it hits where the US is genuinely vulnerable, and Europe can’t match them dollar-for-dollar on goods alone.
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.
One obvious option would be to add a couple of percent on each transaction in the EU (e.g. each time Apple and Google take their 30% the EU takes 5% or so), that way the requirement to open up the mobile platforms to alternative app stores would also finally make sense, since European app stores wouldn't be affected by the tarrifs.
Sure, that makes sense, make the tax big enough to really hurt if they try to eat it.
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
ban starlink, twitter and tesla. put a %26 tax on all advertisement on Meta and Google. Put a similar tax on all Amazon Prime and Netflix subscriptions.
I guess it just seems a bit pointless to attempt to tariff what is essentialy a monopoly. Google could pretty easily just pass on 100% of the costs of the tarrifs onto the consumer.
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
The EU's budget is about €190bn. Fines for Big Tech companies last year totalled €8bn.
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.
I'm genuinely interested to know: why does the US maintain bases in Europe when they have clearly zero imperial gain from it, the would-be vassal states deriving tribute from the US by robbing their companies rather than the usual reverse?
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.
Think you need to update your worldview, I know it's resurged in popularity among MAGA but we intentionally left the imperial world behind post world war 2.
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.
This is such a US-biased view. This "rules based order" never existed, it was a convenient way for the US to say that they are the "world's government". Even after the cold war ended the US waged wars. No thanks. It's good that we have counter forces like Russia and China in the security council.
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?
There wasn't any direct threat to Europe between 1990 and 2014, yet the US kept their bases there.
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.
Why do you believe that the EU is attempting to "rob" US companies when it's quite clearly just a tit-for-tat retaliation to tariffs imposed by the US?
They've been doing it for years prior to the new tariffs.
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.
> why does the US maintain bases in Europe when they have clearly zero imperial gain from it
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).
My two cents: isn't this arrangement more of a continuation of the Marshall Plan? If the US did nothing, post-war Europe was likely to fall into the influence of the Soviet.
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.
Readit News
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.
Dead Comment
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
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.
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?
I mean, that's suitably US-narcissistic for me to believe that's a genuinely held position I guess.
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.
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.
Deleted Comment