EU startup fund overwhelmed by high demand(politico.eu)
politico.eu
EU startup fund overwhelmed by high demand
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-startup-fund-overwhelmed-by-huge-demand-digital-economy/
114 comments
The problem with these EU funds in Europe is that when you apply you need to spend half of the funds on enormous application papers which contain heavily regulated requirements for you to implement in the company.
In many cases it just doesn't add up. Too much effort.
That's why when you look up who received the funds you'll immediately see a pattern where large scale enterprise corporations have 100% owned subsidiaries that do nothing more than receive state funds, live for like 2 years without hiring any talent that is specific to their "research" area, and then get declared insolvent because the managers got themselves a big payout.
Most of the funds don't go to startups, and that's exactly what I hate about this paper pushing goldberg machine.
The big consultancy companies like accenture are also heavily involved in this scam. Founding AI startups without a single data scientist or engineer is what they seem to do for a living.
Most of the funds don't go to startups, and that's exactly what I hate about this paper pushing goldberg machine.
The big consultancy companies like accenture are also heavily involved in this scam. Founding AI startups without a single data scientist or engineer is what they seem to do for a living.
Any data to back your claim here.
If not straight corruption this would be a clear case of bad allocation of EU resources.
If not straight corruption this would be a clear case of bad allocation of EU resources.
There are agencies who do nothing else but deal with bureaucracy of applying for these funds and they are a justifiable expense when looking for funds... Next level job creation right there
It's also just plain bad business that leads to loads and loads of corruption. It's come to the point where a lot of people apply to essentially get a boost to their own spending power while parading to be entrepreneurs and then go back to usual with no repercussions.
This is also the small kinds of financial swindles. There are others that are much worse and involve already established companies.
This is also the small kinds of financial swindles. There are others that are much worse and involve already established companies.
Agreed. Have applied for EU projects before and it's a costly mess.
Is a government handout more likely to do good than harm?
This BS is as corrupt as the SBIR system. Real money is in china.
Can confirm, used to work for an SBIR farm. Good times...
Wouldn't touch China with a ten foot pole though.
Wouldn't touch China with a ten foot pole though.
Well, China is an interesting place. With the right gov contacts it can be very productive. Much more open for me than sbir grants and Eu grants. And I know several people who got sbir 2 grants and they told me how they got it and told me not to waste my time applying.
SBIR is doable, but a lot of rather sleazy people have made it their life's work to drain that particular program so the paperwork burden has become fairly high as a result. As such the contracts tend to go to people who understand how to get them which can make the system frustrating.
China is absolutely NOT an interesting place from the perspective of government contracts, particularly for US citizens that don't want to end up in jail, however. Anything defense related will fall under ITAR and associated tech export bans (this includes just working on these programs, not just physical movement of goods).
Additionally, if you're paid in Chinese currency it might as well be monopoly money to a foreigner.
There's also the massive ethical dilemma of supporting a government that is actively engaged in ethnic cleansing (regardless of the whataboutism).
China is absolutely NOT an interesting place from the perspective of government contracts, particularly for US citizens that don't want to end up in jail, however. Anything defense related will fall under ITAR and associated tech export bans (this includes just working on these programs, not just physical movement of goods).
Additionally, if you're paid in Chinese currency it might as well be monopoly money to a foreigner.
There's also the massive ethical dilemma of supporting a government that is actively engaged in ethnic cleansing (regardless of the whataboutism).
SBIR is in my experience done by
1. Companies that made a business out of doing SBIR grants (I think the previous poster may have meant the same with SBIR farms). They write one grant after another and do some BS research, write reports and in the end, trash the results and move to the next SBIR
2. Small Start-up that a basically linked to big military suppliers and since the big supplier is ineligible to appply, they apply for them and among the big big stack of applicants, they are selected for the SBIR. Must be really superior ideas I guess. Or huge luck :-)
The SBIR grant was designed for neither, but blue sky ideas that VC don't want to fund. My experience with SBIR has been terrible. Especially
A. Idiot reviewers. I can only tell you that an idiot and google are a very dangerous combination.
B. Idiot management. One lady that is in charge of giving out the SBIR has emailed me that she has occasionally given SBIR to inexperienced (speak not having done an SBIR before) researchers. So she basically handles the grants to companies mentioned above under "1", the SBIR farms. She has no idea what she is doing. SBIR was not designed for that.
In my opinion, and I may be wrong, SBIR were designed to be open to the best blue sky ideas that may be too risky or too early stage for regular VC. This already excludes the existence of SBIR farms.
1. Companies that made a business out of doing SBIR grants (I think the previous poster may have meant the same with SBIR farms). They write one grant after another and do some BS research, write reports and in the end, trash the results and move to the next SBIR
2. Small Start-up that a basically linked to big military suppliers and since the big supplier is ineligible to appply, they apply for them and among the big big stack of applicants, they are selected for the SBIR. Must be really superior ideas I guess. Or huge luck :-)
The SBIR grant was designed for neither, but blue sky ideas that VC don't want to fund. My experience with SBIR has been terrible. Especially
A. Idiot reviewers. I can only tell you that an idiot and google are a very dangerous combination.
B. Idiot management. One lady that is in charge of giving out the SBIR has emailed me that she has occasionally given SBIR to inexperienced (speak not having done an SBIR before) researchers. So she basically handles the grants to companies mentioned above under "1", the SBIR farms. She has no idea what she is doing. SBIR was not designed for that.
In my opinion, and I may be wrong, SBIR were designed to be open to the best blue sky ideas that may be too risky or too early stage for regular VC. This already excludes the existence of SBIR farms.
> 1. Companies that made a business out of doing SBIR grants (I think the previous poster may have meant the same with SBIR farms). They write one grant after another and do some BS research, write reports and in the end, trash the results and move to the next SBIR
This was kind of my experience, though it isn't quite so malicious generally. The overhead in setting up the contract, while not ridiculous, is enough that once you get one, you usually end up getting another, and so on until you become an SBIR farm. The grants come in phases, Phase 1 being research and proposal, Phase 2 prototype, and Phase 3 basically being follow on contracts for production/continued development. You have to get them in order and if you only farm Phase 1 contracts you won't get super far. That said getting past Phase 2 is quite hard as the kind of stuff they generally ask for (weird one off fixes for various government procurement requirements) don't generally commercialize well.
They're frequently moonshot type efforts for the size of businesses they're targeting and the ROI is low unless you're using them to build and pay a team for some other goal. That said, if your goal is to build a team/small facility and you know what you're doing, it's not a bad option. It just isn't really anything like what the rest of the software world's VC funding model.
This was kind of my experience, though it isn't quite so malicious generally. The overhead in setting up the contract, while not ridiculous, is enough that once you get one, you usually end up getting another, and so on until you become an SBIR farm. The grants come in phases, Phase 1 being research and proposal, Phase 2 prototype, and Phase 3 basically being follow on contracts for production/continued development. You have to get them in order and if you only farm Phase 1 contracts you won't get super far. That said getting past Phase 2 is quite hard as the kind of stuff they generally ask for (weird one off fixes for various government procurement requirements) don't generally commercialize well.
They're frequently moonshot type efforts for the size of businesses they're targeting and the ROI is low unless you're using them to build and pay a team for some other goal. That said, if your goal is to build a team/small facility and you know what you're doing, it's not a bad option. It just isn't really anything like what the rest of the software world's VC funding model.
> Having run out of cash, an EU fund meant to boost promising tech companies will hand out certificates instead.
> Companies who are left without any money will get a "seal of excellence," meant to tell private investors that the EU likes the company.
> Companies who are left without any money will get a "seal of excellence," meant to tell private investors that the EU likes the company.
Now this is cringeworthy for sure.
As someone living in the EU, this makes me embarrassed. We should be able to do better than this.
As someone living in the EU, this makes me embarrassed. We should be able to do better than this.
Easier to top up than to have a pot available and no one using it... Its a new instrument so I guess they couldn't get a good estimate what was needed. Also better if you can select rather than fund everything.
I suppose they will pitch in other funds, e.g. they have encouraged countries to use some of the funds under the Recovery and Resilience Facility to fund projects that got these certificates of quality.
I suppose they will pitch in other funds, e.g. they have encouraged countries to use some of the funds under the Recovery and Resilience Facility to fund projects that got these certificates of quality.
FreeSpeech(1)
My startup received this "seal of excellence". It hurts because I'd rather have the money instead of a piece of paper, but hopefully we might be selected for the next round. They do this startup selection every 6 months or so.
They should have issued them as NFTs.
This must certainly be a joke, right?!
I found this better than the nothing.
“I liked them, but not enough to find a way to fund them” isn’t the best endorsement ever
Is the job of a government to fund startup, I personally disagree. I prefer easing of red tape and support of administrative tasks.
An endorsement is better than nothing.
An endorsement is better than nothing.
I doubt that. No VC or other private investor is going to give a shit about a "seal of excellence" handed out by the government.
I think you're still overestimating. VCs would run away from a company that was vetted by the government.
[deleted]
Strongly reminds me of USSR
So you think that in USSR there were startups and private investors? Interesting.
No but they had two kinds of money. Rubles and accounting Rubles.
They did have startups and private investors, but it was obviously black market and was punishable by death.
raverbashing(1)
Ah, digital dividends from the government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei9iM_zzzQk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei9iM_zzzQk
I prefer EU to just say 'We give up' LOLL
[deleted]
Using the government as social proof
I dont think politico articles are a good fit for the HN crowd.
On HN we try to go by article quality, not site quality. Sites that mostly produce bad and/or offtopic articles for HN sometimes still produce good and ontopic ones sometimes.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
We do put a standard downweight on major media sites, though, especially ones focused on politics. politico.com has had that for years, but politico.eu didn't. I've done that now.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... doesn't look so bad though!
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
We do put a standard downweight on major media sites, though, especially ones focused on politics. politico.com has had that for years, but politico.eu didn't. I've done that now.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... doesn't look so bad though!
Isn't the investment too small? I think 1B or even 4B are pocket change when you want to boost a whole economy sector.
Yes, but the EU as an institution is (ironically) exactly the sort of small hands-off interstate-trade-focused organisation that the American right wish the USA federal government was.
Total GDP for the USA and the EU was fairly similar before Brexit, but the 2019 EU budget was €148.2 billion in both revenue and expenses compared to the USA federal budget of $3.5 trillion revenue and $4.4 trillion expenses.
Most of the budget and power is in the hands of member states.
Total GDP for the USA and the EU was fairly similar before Brexit, but the 2019 EU budget was €148.2 billion in both revenue and expenses compared to the USA federal budget of $3.5 trillion revenue and $4.4 trillion expenses.
Most of the budget and power is in the hands of member states.
Which means you should include member state budgets, as the EU has no social systems, militaries etc... to find. Comparing EU member states to US states is just plain wrong.
This is an EU-as-an-institution fund, so no. EU member states have bigger startup funds: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-22/germany-s...
Nice analysis!
I share your opinion. Printing money and giving it to Lufthansa isn’t better in any way.
I don't think
let's remember that decent EU SE salary is 3-5k USD
Except Zurich, London hubs.
let's remember that decent EU SE salary is 3-5k USD
Except Zurich, London hubs.
Meanwhile in Silicon Valley, single companies can raise the same amount of money in one round of funding. It's quite pathetic in its lack of ambition.
The only funding that's equivalent to the EU's $1.1bn this year has been GoPuff's $1.2b series G round, in a company that's been going for 8 years and has absolutely proved its market. Last year there were some bigger ones, Rivian's $2.5bn round for example, but even that wasn't exactly in a startup considering they'd already raised $3bn before. The VC funds in SV are definitely bigger and better than anything on this side of the Atlantic, but even in SV they're not exactly throwing huge bundles of cash at seed rounds any more. I wish they were. It was fun when people got a couple of mil to prove an idea. Reading the daft things that founders did (on Fucked Company) was a good laugh.
Crazy times when a company with zero revenue and no products launched is “not a startup” because of their funding…
In the Silicon Valley it's mostly private money, this is a government fund. Not the same thing.
The larger point is: you can't replace a healthy investment ecosystem with grants. A government fund is itself representative of a lack of ambition. If the EU actually wants its own SV, they're going to have to address regulation, not throw money around.
The real problems startups face in the EU are labor and tax laws. Companies can't use equity as compensation (which is a big lure for talent) and it's extremely hard to fire people (which makes pivoting or dealing with general market changes impossible for small companies). Pro-employee policies are necessarily anti-employer. Smaller, more innovative, companies have a harder time surviving such policies. So long as there is greater risk in EU companies, investors will take their money elsewhere.
The real problems startups face in the EU are labor and tax laws. Companies can't use equity as compensation (which is a big lure for talent) and it's extremely hard to fire people (which makes pivoting or dealing with general market changes impossible for small companies). Pro-employee policies are necessarily anti-employer. Smaller, more innovative, companies have a harder time surviving such policies. So long as there is greater risk in EU companies, investors will take their money elsewhere.
Well, it is easy to get rid of employees in case revenue is declining. ESOPs and RSUs are a very real thing as well. Of course, equity in an unproven company is basically short changing employees on salary.
Also, the EU has what, almost 30 different sets of tax and labour laws.
Also, the EU has what, almost 30 different sets of tax and labour laws.
I was making generalizations based on things I had heard from people I know in Europe. The things I said may not apply everywhere, but I know from coworkers overseas that they definitely apply to Germany, France, and Italy.
Having had a failed start-up myself in Germany, I take issue with the sentiment that equity isn't feasible as part of compensation. That usually comes from founders unwilling to work inside the legal framework to find a solution. And from investors, because paying employees with shares, that get deluded and take the second seat compared to investors, reduces HR costs for their portfolio companies.
> That usually comes from founders unwilling to work inside the legal framework to find a solution.
I appreciate your engagement, but this statement feels like it proves my point. In the US, startups have simple, standard, procedures for creating option pools for future employees. I had my own failed startup in the US, and never had to give a thought to how to structure equity compensation.
I appreciate your engagement, but this statement feels like it proves my point. In the US, startups have simple, standard, procedures for creating option pools for future employees. I had my own failed startup in the US, and never had to give a thought to how to structure equity compensation.
Same goes here, again ESOPs or RSUs. You do need the correct legal entity. And I don't see any reason why stock based compensation would be the main reason holding European start ups back.
Edit: Thinking of it, you can even do that with GmbH in Germany by handing out equity that is tied to to the employment, at least for directors and the like. Don't ask me about the details, obviously it never came to it in my case.
Edit: Thinking of it, you can even do that with GmbH in Germany by handing out equity that is tied to to the employment, at least for directors and the like. Don't ask me about the details, obviously it never came to it in my case.
To be fair it is also not part of the culture in Europe. Most people who misses it are the one who've compare with the USA.
The USA is riddle with complex tax rules for investment and capital gains that makes those incomes interesting for an employee. That might not be necessarily true in Europe.
The USA is riddle with complex tax rules for investment and capital gains that makes those incomes interesting for an employee. That might not be necessarily true in Europe.
This accelerator is just to make more high risk capital available in certain select fields. It's actually a very small thing that the EU has fielded, the real solution has been and continues to be The Capital Markets Union (https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/growth-and-i...)
It's far from completed, but I understand some of the more important actions have been done and it's already had a significant impact.
It's far from completed, but I understand some of the more important actions have been done and it's already had a significant impact.
It’s expensive to fire people, it can be done. Money doesn’t seem to be an issue for startups these days.
Every company I’ve worked for has given equity as compensation here.
Opening a company is insanely easier than anywhere else I’ve been.
I can’t relate any of those factors to lack of innovation from my own experience. It must be something else?
Every company I’ve worked for has given equity as compensation here.
Opening a company is insanely easier than anywhere else I’ve been.
I can’t relate any of those factors to lack of innovation from my own experience. It must be something else?
> Companies can't use equity as compensation (which is a big lure for talent)
What? Where do you get that? Then I better return all the equity I got.
> and it's extremely hard to fire people
I would say that is hyperbolic, unless you find anything but at-will employment "extremely hard". Small companies (<20?) in Germany, can fire people without reason. I do not know any country (Edit: in the EU), where restructuring is not a valid reason to fire someone (with a severance of 0.5-1.1 monthly salaries per year of employment).
(Edit: But then, I cannot claim to know all the labour laws in the EU)
What? Where do you get that? Then I better return all the equity I got.
> and it's extremely hard to fire people
I would say that is hyperbolic, unless you find anything but at-will employment "extremely hard". Small companies (<20?) in Germany, can fire people without reason. I do not know any country (Edit: in the EU), where restructuring is not a valid reason to fire someone (with a severance of 0.5-1.1 monthly salaries per year of employment).
(Edit: But then, I cannot claim to know all the labour laws in the EU)
> What? Where do you get that? Then I better return all the equity I got.
Startups normally use options for equity compensation rather than direct shares because of the tax benefits for employees and simplicity for reporting. Options are look at more like regular shares in the EU. Can't was a bad way of phrasing it. More like shouldn't because tax laws make it a crap shoot.
> I would say that is hyperbolic, unless you find anything but at-will employment "extremely hard"...
Anything but at-will is extremely hard with knowledge work, especially for small companies.
Startups normally use options for equity compensation rather than direct shares because of the tax benefits for employees and simplicity for reporting. Options are look at more like regular shares in the EU. Can't was a bad way of phrasing it. More like shouldn't because tax laws make it a crap shoot.
> I would say that is hyperbolic, unless you find anything but at-will employment "extremely hard"...
Anything but at-will is extremely hard with knowledge work, especially for small companies.
> Pro-employee policies are necessarily anti-employer
I can't help but feel offended that you feel this way. As a technocrat, sure, let's treat employees as numbers on a sheet that we can hire and fire at will because who cares about them as people right?
Don't forget employees are people, with families, who are usually working to sustain their own lives.
It saddens me how deep this US-centric rhetoric on treating employees unfairly has gone.
I can't help but feel offended that you feel this way. As a technocrat, sure, let's treat employees as numbers on a sheet that we can hire and fire at will because who cares about them as people right?
Don't forget employees are people, with families, who are usually working to sustain their own lives.
It saddens me how deep this US-centric rhetoric on treating employees unfairly has gone.
What way do I feel? I'm very pro-worker's rights, I'm just pointing out the flaw in the EUs approach.
I'm not sure how you feel, that's up to you to tell us.
The EU has done a fantastic job of respecting worker rights, from the right to disconnect, to time off / vacation from work, worker's rights for employment and having a social safety net if you become unemployed.
If you like metrics you can read the world happiness report [1] or look at how the OECD measures income inequality across the world [2], the US is below most European countries.
[1] https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2021/WHR+21.pdf
[2] https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
The EU has done a fantastic job of respecting worker rights, from the right to disconnect, to time off / vacation from work, worker's rights for employment and having a social safety net if you become unemployed.
If you like metrics you can read the world happiness report [1] or look at how the OECD measures income inequality across the world [2], the US is below most European countries.
[1] https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2021/WHR+21.pdf
[2] https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
There is also a bright side here. This indirectly incentives alternative organizational structures such as cooperatives. Some would argue it's also a healthier way to grow and has existed in more traditional sectors such as farming for a long time.
Personally I think EU has a long way to go, but it's not all doom and gloom.
Personally I think EU has a long way to go, but it's not all doom and gloom.
Who do you think in part supplies the cash for SV VCs :)
Isn't that the problem? SV has too much cash going around so lots of bullshit is funded or companies run for decades on VC with the single mission to drive out all competitors and then hike prices.
SV has given the world a lot but what actually usually innovation has come from there in the past 10 years (not companies that moved there for easy money, but rather actual innovation creation)?
SV has given the world a lot but what actually usually innovation has come from there in the past 10 years (not companies that moved there for easy money, but rather actual innovation creation)?
From the government though?
I might sound a bit naive, but what is the vetting process for distributing funds? This sounds more like a grant than traditional VC funds.
Raising capital from a good VC firm is hard. period. If you do not have track record, you have to go through a lot of due diligence, it is selective. I can also understand why, because it is some LP's money so you want to invest in a startup that is risk-aversed.
Raising capital from a good VC firm is hard. period. If you do not have track record, you have to go through a lot of due diligence, it is selective. I can also understand why, because it is some LP's money so you want to invest in a startup that is risk-aversed.
> Companies can ask for a grant of up to €2.5 million, or a combination of a grant with an equity investment, ranging from €500,000 to €15 million, with returns on the investment to go back into the program. "The huge demand clearly shows the interest of the community for this kind of support," a Commission official said.
You bet. 2.5 million in free money is bound to attract interest...
You bet. 2.5 million in free money is bound to attract interest...
I didn't even hear about it until now and the money is already gone?
In the USA, are government grants for startups a big thing? As in Canada, it seems like half the startups are heavily built around them.
In the US I would imagine they are drowned out of relevance by VC funding.
In the US I would imagine they are drowned out of relevance by VC funding.
The best thing the US government does for tech startups is completely staying out of their way. There is, however, a Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit which pretty much every company makes use of.
In the EU however we think that shelling out a billion - peanuts in the grand scheme of things - and then some certificates which amount to a big thumbs up (“Ursula von der Leyde and 25 others like this”) will create a vibrant startup ecosystem.
I’ve been extremely supportive of the EU all my life but I’m starting to wonder if politicians are in any way connected to the ground-level reality of business and personal life.
I’ve been extremely supportive of the EU all my life but I’m starting to wonder if politicians are in any way connected to the ground-level reality of business and personal life.
That might be true for consumer tech startups, but they do have programs to help startups. SBIRs, STTRs, FAST, and other programs (not to mention funding from agencies like DARPA) are all run by the federal government. It’s just that they typically invest in things that likely wouldn’t be funded by VCs due to high risk & limited market (e.g., advanced technology development for the military or space).
Except when they could do with getting in the way, but then don’t.
Remembering recent stories there have been problems with adtech, spyware (same thing?), tech monopoly behaviour, privacy violations, treatment of workers, dubious automation etc.
Remembering recent stories there have been problems with adtech, spyware (same thing?), tech monopoly behaviour, privacy violations, treatment of workers, dubious automation etc.
It depends a lot on what you're doing. Things genuinely close to the bleeding edge of technology often get DARPA funding, and the list of DARPA alumni companies is pretty long - even for stuff that at face value might not have military applications. But what most people think of when thinking about the "startup scene" is mostly private VC funds. There are various other small business grants from federal and state governments, but they're generally dwarfed by the private investors.
The US has (amongst other things) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIRs) Grants/Contracts, that the DoD plus various other gov orgs (NIH, NSF, NASA, FBI, etc) put out once or more a year that looks for research ideas for lots of things. I worked for a company for almost a decade and a half that dealt with them, and it lets you work on lots of fun stuff!
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/topic/current
There are some startups that actually launch using them, but they are relatively rare because when you are a startup you want to focus on finding your product or service, and not spend a lot of time filling out grant proposals and progress reports and going to governmental meetings. So they can be a big distraction. Still, it is an option.
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/topic/current
There are some startups that actually launch using them, but they are relatively rare because when you are a startup you want to focus on finding your product or service, and not spend a lot of time filling out grant proposals and progress reports and going to governmental meetings. So they can be a big distraction. Still, it is an option.
Yes. Certain businesses qualify for grants from the small business administration in the US: https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/grants
There are grants for Defense related start ups.
[deleted]
Did they just hand out cash freely? 2000 companies is A LOT to do due diligence on.
Grants are limited (even with a budget of 1Bi EUR). News at 11
Being overwhelmed by applicants is a good problem to have (as opposed to having few applicants. That would have been worrying)
Being overwhelmed by applicants is a good problem to have (as opposed to having few applicants. That would have been worrying)
EU creates $1 billion startup fund. China's government probably invests that every day.
Without even reading the article -
"Good!". "Now increase the size of the fund".
"Good!". "Now increase the size of the fund".
the EU needs stock option tax reform.
https://www.notoptional.eu/en/
https://www.notoptional.eu/en/
> these companies simply can’t afford to pay the higher wages of more established businesses.
HAHAHA. Right after news of a $400M funding round.
What exactly is the problem - the letter doesn’t mention it?
HAHAHA. Right after news of a $400M funding round.
What exactly is the problem - the letter doesn’t mention it?
Taxation is not competence of the EU, just the member states.
Green and digital are the major pillars of the EU vision. Its a genuine and positive vision, certainly distinct from the US/Chinese versions. There is some skepticism that the vision will ever translate to an alternate proposal. Politicians jumping on bandwagons, talking a good talk, distributing some funds in scatter gun fashion and hoping something will stick... In the end the innovation and breakthroughs will come probably more on the green than the digital side. There is very strong engineering tradition whereas digital somehow was always basically outsourced to the US.
Neither sound genuine to me. If anything, they sound like a cover for everything else the politicians want to do.
Think about the results the EU has achieved in digital. They've managed to:
* create pop-ups on almost every website
* screwed over regional pricing so that Bulgarians have to pay the same price as Belgians. Somehow region locks still exist though.
* tried implementing a system where all ISPs had to save all traffic of their users users
* recently the EU adopted a new copyright directive that will force digital platforms to pay money to copyright holders because a user might upload copyrighted content
* implemented a digital VAT system that screwed over microbusinesses, because the politicians couldn't be bothered to implement a minimum threshold (they eventually did... After a few years)
On the green front more has been done. But I'm not quite thrilled that they banned straws and strong vacuum cleaners. Neither do I like that they seem to be trying to make sure that we end up stuck with confusing USB cables.
Think about the results the EU has achieved in digital. They've managed to:
* create pop-ups on almost every website
* screwed over regional pricing so that Bulgarians have to pay the same price as Belgians. Somehow region locks still exist though.
* tried implementing a system where all ISPs had to save all traffic of their users users
* recently the EU adopted a new copyright directive that will force digital platforms to pay money to copyright holders because a user might upload copyrighted content
* implemented a digital VAT system that screwed over microbusinesses, because the politicians couldn't be bothered to implement a minimum threshold (they eventually did... After a few years)
On the green front more has been done. But I'm not quite thrilled that they banned straws and strong vacuum cleaners. Neither do I like that they seem to be trying to make sure that we end up stuck with confusing USB cables.
A few of your points seem right but several are just wrong or misleading. E.g. GDPR is a great tool just maliciously implemented by companies that have an interest to do so - 90% of the banners you see are purposefully designed to be annoying and delivered by a small group of ad networks. The aim is to grind you down and make you just click anything to get rid of them. But it has also given us Google/Facebook takeout and the right to actually delete your accounts.
>E.g. GDPR is a great tool just maliciously implemented by companies that have an interest to do so - 90% of the banners you see are purposefully designed to be annoying and delivered by a small group of ad networks.
But then why does https://europa.eu/ also have this banner? Surely, if this were so easy then the European Union's commission could at least be able to make a website without the banner, no?
And I agree that GDPR isn't all bad, but they had plenty of previous experience to come up with a better system than what we ended up with on the pop-up front. They knew that this would happen, because it happened previously. And yet they did it anyway.
But then why does https://europa.eu/ also have this banner? Surely, if this were so easy then the European Union's commission could at least be able to make a website without the banner, no?
And I agree that GDPR isn't all bad, but they had plenty of previous experience to come up with a better system than what we ended up with on the pop-up front. They knew that this would happen, because it happened previously. And yet they did it anyway.
Gdpr is totally and complete crap. It has zero redeeming qualities.