US tech firms share Dutch regulator officials' names with Senate
154 points
by zqna
4 hours ago
| 6 comments
| dutchnews.nl
| HN
petcat
4 hours ago
[-]
> However, stopping working with Microsoft and other US tech companies is not an option in the short term, he told the magazine.

> Van der Burg is currently grappling with the issue of Solvinity, a Dutch cloud service provider which is widely used by government departments including the Digid identity system, and which is on the verge of being sold to a US company.

> The Dutch tax office is also currently switching to Microsoft systems, despite MPs’ concerns.

They all talk about the importance of European digital sovereignty and then continue to do the exact opposite behind the scenes.

reply
microtonal
4 hours ago
[-]
They all talk about the importance of European digital sovereignty and then continue to do the exact opposite behind the scenes.

To be honest and I say this as a Dutch person, this is typical Dutch (government). Basically two rules in Dutch politics: (1) always choose the option that pleases the US the most; (2) always postpone solving issues to the latest possible moment (US dependence, nitrogen deposition, childcare benefits scandal, gas-induced earthquakes).

France, Germany, etc. are much better examples when it comes to sovereignty.

As an aside the parliament wants to stop the Solvinity acquisition or stop renewing the contract with Solvinity. But the VVD (one of the parties in government) is always going to choose what is best for big business (the party is one big revolving door) or the US.

reply
miohtama
4 hours ago
[-]
It's not only Dutch. Instead of building sovereignity, the EU thought they could regulate their way and force everyone to bend the knee because of their share as a trading partner. This started 20 years ago. However what has happened is that the EU's soft power is crumbling, but the politicians have hard to grasp with the reality they could somehow dictate things globally. AI will only further accelerate this.

Only way to have control is to have domestic actors you can push around.

reply
graemep
3 hours ago
[-]
Europeans (and not just the EU) think they still have the influence on the world they had in the 1980s when their economies were a much larger proportion of the global economy. Europeans have no idea what the world looks like from Asia which contains most of the world's population and generates a third of global GDP.
reply
ffaccount2
3 hours ago
[-]
Americans (and not just the US) think they still have the influence on the world they had in the 1980s when their economies were a much larger proportion of the global economy. Americans have no idea what the world looks like from Asia which contains most of the world's population and generates a third of global GDP.
reply
graemep
2 hours ago
[-]
It is a general western problem to some extent, but the US has a a faster growing economy than any of the big European economies. It is still a super-power.
reply
dgellow
2 minutes ago
[-]
It’s fine, you don’t have to be the fastest growing economy in the world to be a meaningful global power and a good place where to live. You need some level of growth, but it’s ok to no be at the top of the charts. The US has been the capitalist leader in the world for a long time and isn't going well at all.

The EU has some issues, the economy isn’t the most dynamic, but the quality of life is great and has been improving. It is a large global market and has cultural influence. Our democratic institutions have survived ok so far. I think we are doing quite ok.

reply
vanviegen
2 hours ago
[-]
The "faster growing economy" is basically 100% AI speculation now. If that gamble pays of the US is still in trouble (as is the rest of the world), as there doesn't appear to be even a hint of a plan of what a post-AI society looks like for anybody but the top 0.1%.
reply
trollbridge
1 hour ago
[-]
I don't think the top 0.1% has a plan, either. From my personal interactions with them, they are mostly just excited they can talk to a chatbot on their phone all day, and then make questionable decisions from that - to use a recent example, deciding to be their own general contractor and make a house remodel cost an extra million and take an extra year to do.
reply
rob74
1 hour ago
[-]
Well, Musk for one is promising not universal basic income, but universal high income. In a country where a lot of people don't even have health insurance. Let's see how that will work out, I'll believe it when I see it...
reply
Fnoord
29 minutes ago
[-]
After the eradication of humanity as we know it, a few survivors can start their own country with a law defining the term high.

I don't believe it when I see it. I call it poppycocks. Because if you do want to argue such, you need to define the path to get there. Without that, it sounds like a pipe dream. Akin to say Leninism.

reply
alistairSH
1 hour ago
[-]
Does anybody honestly think that guy is gonna willingly relinquish any of his fortune?
reply
joe_mamba
1 hour ago
[-]
>The "faster growing economy" is basically 100% AI speculation now.

True, however, the US does more export manufacturing than the EU and at higher profit margins to boot. So even without the AI industry, the US is still in a far stronger place economically than EU.

The EU's massiv offshoring efforts, lack of innovation investments, red tape, environmentalism and high energy prices have left its domestic industry weaker and more vulnerable to foreign competitors and malicious foreign dependencies it can't control since it doesn't have any hard power to use as leverage to protect its industry.

Sure, the EU started to remilitarize and move away from fossil fuels to renewables, but this titanic effort is gonna pay back and maybe restore balance in 5-15 years time, and it remains to be seen if by then its economy will have just fallen further behind, since investors and the world aren't standing still waiting for the EU to catch up with them, but are instead exploiting the EU's current weakness to pull further ahead.

Like Germany's exports are now back to 2006 levels, and its domestic giants like BASF is further downsizing operations in Germany and building a massive 10 billion $ factory in China which is totally not gonna make Germany's policies tied to the whims of the CCP the same way they were tied to Russia's gas. BOSCH just announced 20k more job cuts in Germany and moving abroad till 2030. etc

Remains to be seen if this damage can be undone in the future, as things are currently patched up by massive government spending to cover up the private industry lack of spending, which isn't sustainable and eventually the cracks will get bigger.

reply
cess11
1 hour ago
[-]
I would consider bonds and treasuries a stronger signal than any lack of "post-AI" political vision.

China's security establishment has gone public with the view that their purpose is no longer to find answers to the question 'how do we survive the US?', but instead to something like 'how do we manage the US?'.

In the coming years US power projection is not going to look anything like the stuff we grew up with, that social and military influence just does not exist anymore. Right now, things are pretty good, compared to what they'll be in a year or two. It's likely we'll get a brutal el Niño, fertilizer and lubricant shortages, gnarly energy prices and more, all at the same time. The US is closing down food production at a rate that would keep me up at night if I lived there.

reply
cess11
2 hours ago
[-]
The other year the US was beaten by a starved little country on the edge of the Arabian Peninsula, and recently by a somewhat large country by the Persian Gulf. Currently their only real ally is getting beaten by FPV drones handled by a guerilla force.

The US has very little influence today compared to a decade or more ago. To the extent that the world at large cares about the US it's because they are committing genocide and destroying global trade logistics. All of their former allies are trying to substitute them out, or at least hedge with other international relations.

As far as I can tell, outside certain parts of the Occident, no one cares about new US movies or television series anymore. The Oscars gather some interest because some people want to know if any entertainment industry people will go against the regime and say something negative about mass murder of children, but that's about it. Future generations will be shaped more by chinese and indian movies than usian ones.

When apartheid South Africa was about to crumble it also initiated nasty military campaigns and faked political and military supremacy for a while, as did Idi Amin's Uganda. I'd bet something similar is going on in the US.

Some people are still stuck in the late Cold War, notably EU politicians like von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, as well as most swedish top politicians. They cannot imagine a world where the US is not calling the shots and will drag Europe further into global irrelevancy by idiotically paying tribute and kneeling for the US. Pretty much the rest of the world is disgusted and horrified by the bumbling nastiness of contemporary US empire.

reply
gyanchawdhary
57 minutes ago
[-]
But they do and you are bitter and sad that you can’t do a thing about it.
reply
tedggh
2 hours ago
[-]
They also came to realize building, operating and maintaining a military force is extremely expensive. Free healthcare, 7 weeks of vacation, 36 hr work weeks, unemployment benefits, subsidized housing, etc etc is all great when you don’t have the financial burden of protecting your home.
reply
victorbjorklund
2 hours ago
[-]
USA has said they will not support Europe in a military conflict so now you can slash your military and fire all those soldiers and have free health care etc. No? Sounds like ”protecting” Europe wasn’t what stood in the way of free healthcare, vacation, etc.
reply
trollbridge
1 hour ago
[-]
Nearly half (about 47%) of healthcare in the U.S. is government-paid, although via a variety of different programs. The USA also has quite lavish benefits in a variety of other ways.

Of course, that is mostly paid for via massive amounts of debt, not from savings of military spending. But government spending on healthcare is more than twice (2.5 to 3 times) that of military spending. So slashing military spending to zero would just mean the amount of government-provided healthcare spending could go from 47% to 56% or so. (Not taking into account that a lot of "military spending" is actually healthcare spending!)

reply
tanaros
2 hours ago
[-]
Total EU defense spending is around $450M USD. The US defense budget, prior to 2027, is about $950M USD. Are you saying the US could have all those social policies for $500M USD?
reply
avidiax
1 hour ago
[-]
The US could have those benefits for free.

Single payer would be drastically cheaper than the current system.

The other benefits are just policies that slightly reduce GDP per capita based on a first order analysis.

We are able to afford so many other subsidies, so unclear why housing would be different.

reply
rescbr
2 hours ago
[-]
The US could simply give away $1 M per resident, removing the need for social policies and it would still come out cheaper.
reply
sokoloff
1 hour ago
[-]
Where does this ~$350 trillion dollars come from?!
reply
jbverschoor
24 minutes ago
[-]
Exactly where all the dollars came from :D
reply
ImJamal
57 minutes ago
[-]
The US has around 340 million people. Giving a million dollars to each one would be 340 trillion dollars.
reply
kasey_junk
2 hours ago
[-]
You aren’t counting the VA in your spending. That’s another 450 billion.
reply
jorvi
4 hours ago
[-]
> However what has happened is that the EU's soft power is crumbling

Uh, no. The US soft power is turning to dust whilst the EU is out there building the new free [trade] world, with itself as the biggest lynchpin.

What has happened the past ±30 years is that most EU countries cut spending on their militaries to the bone, because big brother USA would take care of it anyway. Now that we are returning to a multi-polar world, suddenly the EU is left scrambling for hard power that it doesn't have. That's why they can't play hardball when the US does a new ridiculous thing, because they simply lack the hard power to back up Ukraine.

The US is sorely going to regret their antics though. Long term, the EU is going to switch to their own stacks, both for military but also things like cloud and other tech. It's trillions of $ the US economy will be missing out on. And voting in a Democratic president, senate and house is not gonna change a thing about it, because the US has proven itself to be a fundamentally unreliable, if not outright hostile partner.

reply
rafram
3 hours ago
[-]
The US alone spends 1.5x as much on consumer goods (yes, adjusted for PPP) and nearly 2x as much on R&D as the entire EU. It’s very sweet that the EU is trying to decouple itself from the US economy, but I highly doubt its ability to become “leader of the free trade world” when it has so little money to throw around.
reply
ejpir
1 hour ago
[-]
Yeah, we'll just up our EU debt to about 40 trillion USD, make up some money and continue. Sounds a lot like US right? Living in perpetual debt as a nation.
reply
JumpCrisscross
20 minutes ago
[-]
> whilst the EU is out there building the new free [trade] world, with itself as the biggest lynchpin

In the same way America is stuck in its military heyday past, the EU is stuck pretending its brand of multilateralism is still a thing outside its own borders.

reply
inglor_cz
3 hours ago
[-]
"the EU is out there building the new free [trade] world, with itself as the biggest lynchpin"

At its usual pace ... do you know when the negotiations with Mercosur started? Year 2000. Only now we have an agreement. Still, better than not doing anything at all. But I wonder how many of the original negotiators are still alive.

It also yet remains to be seen what happens if China puts a real pressure on us. Our list of allies is now somewhat thin and we have to cozy up to India, which indirectly funds the Russian war against Ukraine by importing Russian weapons and Russian oil/gas, the latter in huge quantities. Still, better than cozying up to China, because the possibility that Beijing teaches Brussels some cool tricks to keep the population under perfect surveillance scares me.

reply
joe_mamba
3 hours ago
[-]
>Still, better than not doing anything at all

How is Mercosur better for the EU citizens?

reply
CalRobert
1 hour ago
[-]
German car companies get new countries in which to see themselves destroyed by China?
reply
joe_mamba
3 hours ago
[-]
>whilst the EU is out there building the new free [trade] world, with itself as the biggest lynchpin.

Being an international pushover with no teeth that folds like a deck chair to the demands of the rest of the world at negotiations, isn't "building the new free [trade] world,", or at least not one that benefits the EU. Absolute free trade isn't always a benefit for your own citizens and industries. Do you want to import low quality agriculture made by slave labor that will undercut your own farmers and put them out of business? Do you want to import unlimited people without assurance the government has enough housing, childcare and medical staff already in place for said new people? There's a reason borders and goods have some restrictions, because sudden heavy imbalances lead to destabilization of society and democracy.

The recent free trade agreements the EU has been desperately signing lately (mercosur, etc) are just short term gain for long term pain down the road, since everyone has the EU by the balls right now so other countries are squeezing as much as they can from the EU now while they're busy with Russia, expensive energy and losing China as an export market for their expensive cars.

EU capitulating to foreign trade pressures, is not gonna create a superpower like dreamers think, it's gonna create new dependencies with other (less democratic) countries, which is gonna backfire just like their dependency to US tech and Russian and China market did, in the future when those countries will have a strong grip over EU critical sectors, they will then demand concessions from the EU, and the EU will again fold like a deckchair because the EU is never in a position to bully others or retaliate to preserve its own interest let alone impose them around the world, further losing power internationally and remaining a pushover where its citizens lose, while the core issues plaguing the EU(demographics, debt, government speeding on welfare, lack of innovation and manufacturing in key sectors, no VC funding) will remain and continue to grow.

Signing deals to import more people and cheap food and stuff from Latam, India or wherever to depress wages and prices, doesn't fix any of that not make the EU a superpower, it just kicks the can down the road.

reply
ReptileMan
2 hours ago
[-]
>Uh, no. The US soft power is turning to dust whilst the EU is out there building the new free [trade] world, with itself as the biggest lynchpin.

To quote when harry met sally - I'll have what she's having.

reply
SiempreViernes
1 hour ago
[-]
He's having a dish called "Watching Trump from a distance", you should definitely try it.
reply
ReptileMan
1 hour ago
[-]
It is amusing what he inflicts on USA and I thoroughly enjoy it ... But the idea that EU is taking leadership in this chaos is somewhere between laughable and delusional.

Actually EU is getting fucked on every possible turn. We are the ones that pay trough the nose for all his follies. We are weaker than ever and we have delusional commission in charge.

Compared to Ursula Trump is the reincarnation of Richelieu and Bismarck with a pinch of Disraeli

reply
tchalla
1 hour ago
[-]
I can’t believe people even think that the EU is coming out ahead of this in any sort of way. It’s really delusional.
reply
skippyboxedhero
3 hours ago
[-]
It is difficult to think of an economic region that is more opposed to free trade than Europe (that isn't a comedy country). Possibly some countries in South America?

Trade within Europe has massive restrictions. I have no idea why, given the stated aims of Europe...we are posting this on a post about the Netherlands trying to protect office software ffs, people think this isn't the case. One of the reasons why the EU created a trade bloc, and the same reasons why you see the same attempts in areas of the world like South America, was to limit the impact of free trade. This should be completely obvious given that the EU is not competitive in areas where they lack the ability to limit competition.

Also, I will point out: US policy is for the EU to do exactly the thing that you are suggesting. This has been the consistent position of Trump since 2016. The main blockers for this have been politicians in the EU. I am not sure how you equate being unreliable with subsidising EU defence spending to the tune of multiple trillions so that EU countries can spend on welfare either.

The EU self-image is totally bizarre, it is so out of touch with reality. Hostile to all forms of change and innovation: actually one of the greatest free traders there has ever been. Xenophobic and hostile to certain countries: possibly one of the greatest allies to these countries ever. Never gets any support on Ukraine, would be a leader if the US weren't such bastards: spent multiple decades fuelling Putin's state.

reply
phatfish
3 hours ago
[-]
The only people that think global free trade is a good thing are the top .001% net worth individuals which use it to wield power.

Trading blocks (like the European single market) are specifically designed to protect their members from shit that global corporations or other nations attempt to get away with.

I'm not sure what "Trade within Europe has massive restrictions." means without context. Compared to some Randian capitalist utopia where there are no rules and no governments? Or compared to before the creation of the European single market?

reply
dgellow
3 hours ago
[-]
> I'm not sure what "Trade within Europe has massive restrictions." means without context.

We actually do have a good amount of issues regarding internal trades, according to https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7792....

“The International Monetary Fund estimates that the persistent barriers to the EU single market still represented the equivalent of a 110 % tariff on services.”

There is a good amount of work to be done to complete the single market, what we currently have is way too fragmented

reply
skippyboxedhero
3 hours ago
[-]
That is politically impossible. Everyone knows it is impossible because if you open up some countries to free services trade then the political basis for the EU and the traditional governing countries would collapse.

The limitations on trade within Europe are intentional design. The attempts to stop the economy from collapsing with these massive government spending packages are the death throes.

reply
dgellow
3 hours ago
[-]
I mean, it is extremely difficult, but the whole union was seen as impossible the last century. With strategic developments over decades I don’t think it’s impossible
reply
skippyboxedhero
2 hours ago
[-]
What you said comprises the exact error in logic that people make. Because we did this, this other thing is possible.

The EU was a certainty in a region that is hostile to change, wants big government, wants centralization, is suspicious of democracy, etc. Free trade would be a massive change, that is why it hasn't happened. The EU is basically the logical conclusion of European forms of governing.

reply
dgellow
2 hours ago
[-]
> The EU was a certainty in a region that is hostile to change, wants big government, wants centralization, is suspicious of democracy, etc

I don’t understand how you can say that with a straight face, it’s such a contradictory statement

reply
skippyboxedhero
3 hours ago
[-]
Services trade within Europe is often less free than services trade outside of Europe. The reason why is because there is a strong political constituency within Europe to ensure that certain kinds of sinecure jobs are not impacted by competition (and yes, as you helpfully point out, to blame that on "global corporations"...and people wonder why Europe had such a long period of dictatorships in the 20th century, "globalism", right? wink, wink).
reply
WarmWash
2 hours ago
[-]
They're letting Chinese cars in when automobiles are there last remaining mega industry.

How can you take them seriously?

reply
dgellow
17 minutes ago
[-]
FWIW our local car industry had decades to prepare to compete in the EV sector and decided to do pretty much nothing + train China how to take over their market. We’ve been way too protective of that industry, I’m personally happy they finally have to face some real competition. Protectionism has its place in global trade but it should be with a very specific goal in mind, such as giving the companies some room to breath while transitioning to new technologies and avoid a complete disruption of your economy. You cannot do it just to keep a dying industry alive. But you’re supposed to replace the external economic pressure with internal political pressure (or similar), otherwise corporation just go with the status quo
reply
dgellow
3 hours ago
[-]
> Hostile to all forms of change and innovation

I don’t understand how you can believe that about the EU. The union has been evolving so much since its creation. It is itself one of the greatest innovation in governance ever created. GDPR is an innovative framework making the EU leader in privacy protection. European open banking initiatives/frameworks are unique and have been leading the way forward for the past 20 years, and we are now reaping all the benefits with the latest payment system developments (PSD2 and others were already awesome but the payment standard is what makes the day to day citizens actually see the results). The 28th regime[0] in development is innovative. Schengen/TFEU Art. 45 is such an innovative policy. Where else can you move freely between so many countries?

That’s only from the top of my head and the few examples I’m familiar with

0: https://the28thregime.eu/

reply
karmakurtisaani
30 minutes ago
[-]
These innovations don't count, since they didn't create any new oligarchs.
reply
inglor_cz
3 hours ago
[-]
There are still some protectionist issues on the single market itself.

For example, Poland defends its rail operator, PKP Intercity, against foreign competition by a series of dirty tricks, including "just never registering a sale of a depot to a competing corporation in the land registry".

reply
joe_mamba
3 hours ago
[-]
Almost every major EU country, has implanted some domestic protectionist rules to protect some of its politically well connected lobbyist industries or jobs from cheaper or more efficient intra-EU competition buying them out. The restrictions almost never are in reverse.
reply
dgellow
3 hours ago
[-]
> always postpone solving issues to the latest possible moment

Germany has the exact same issue. Always looking to keep the status quo for as long as possible. It’s really a structural problem, it’s the result of the political system, elected leadership, demographics (mostly the voting population aging rapidly). I expect the same issue is shared by most Western European countries

reply
embedding-shape
3 hours ago
[-]
Isn't this simply a "human thing", keeping the status quo for as long as possible? I see the same European country I'm from, where I'm living currently, the South American country my wife is from and every single country I visit.

Maybe another framing, is there any countries where this isn't true? Where truly the default is to go against the status quo and continuously improve no matter what? I know there are a few countries people think are like that, but when you start reading about it, turns out to be kind of "hyped" and not matching reality.

reply
TeMPOraL
2 hours ago
[-]
People talk like "status quo" was inherently a bad thing, and that any change to it is good by default. On the contrary, "status quo" is usually a hard-won place, a foothold against strong tides, a position that you try to preserve while carefully considering your next step, because a careless step will just send you falling back down to whatever hellhole reality your predecessors dragged themselves up from.

Status quo is not a stable state, it's a state you defend.

reply
dgellow
2 hours ago
[-]
The problem is defending a status quo adapted to a past reality that doesn’t make sense anymore. You need change to adapt to an evolving world, with new challenges, new alliances, new industries, etc
reply
dgellow
3 hours ago
[-]
Some countries with different politics like China do not seem to suffer the same issues, or at least not yet. Or maybe the country is defending a different status quo (the mono-party)? But they seem to be eager to develop the infrastructure and country as a whole.

Not that I would want to live under their political system, to be clear. I wish we could have a democratic system AND also be eager to develop our regions instead of being so protective of everything

reply
legulere
2 hours ago
[-]
I don’t think it’s different politics directly in China. The people believe that change means change for the better. In the west people have lost all hope for progress.
reply
dgellow
21 minutes ago
[-]
The people of China don’t have much say, I’m not sure what they believe matters too much, the government has a strong control over the media and can and will silence dissenting voices.

In europe we’ve been generally pretty bad over the past decades at presenting positive arguments for liberalism, which is a shame. Similarly the EU is notoriously bad at communicating how it benefits the people, most of the communication assumes people already accepted it was a positive thing and already bought into European values, isn’t of arguing why they matter. The fact EU members blame EU institutions for their own local issues whenever something goes wrong doesn’t help…

reply
stingraycharles
3 hours ago
[-]
Don’t forget that they’re in the process of letting our digital government identity being managed by a US company. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
reply
CalRobert
1 hour ago
[-]
Not to mention being overrun by Dodge Rams that do not meet EU safety roles but come in under a loophole. I like living here mostly but a lot of what makes it nice is threatened by the US.
reply
vanviegen
2 hours ago
[-]
Another way to look at it is that things just move slowly in government land. The tax office moving towards Microsoft has probably been in preparation for half a decade... And do you really believe the government is technically capable of switching DigiD to a different provider on a (relative) moments notice without causing large scale outages?

We'll start seeing government bodies moving away from US IT suppliers in a couple of years.

reply
WarmWash
1 hour ago
[-]
The actual question is if (capable) SWEs will choose working for (or be a founder of) Dutch/Euro tech companies over US ones, or even leave the US to live there.

Europe is an excellent value prop if you want to be a bartender or baker. Its decidedly less so if you want to be a white collar/gold collar worker.

reply
Waterluvian
2 hours ago
[-]
This is part of the point of Carney’s Davos speech. Us middle powers need to de-Americanize together or we don’t stand a chance at succeeding.
reply
WarmWash
1 hour ago
[-]
Which might be impossible given that sacrifices will have to be made in the interim, and people already riot if you even hint at moving retirement age up a year.
reply
throwaway85825
1 hour ago
[-]
The problem is the government treating people like the enemy drowning them in paperwork. Western governments believe they can create the perfect citizen if they just surveill them and regulate them enough.
reply
weinzierl
2 hours ago
[-]
> France, Germany, etc. are much better examples when it comes to sovereignty.

France maybe, Germany most definitely not.

reply
Georgelemental
1 hour ago
[-]
No, not France either. It used to be, and some inertia from the Gaullist past remains, but the current leadership is as useless as everyone else.
reply
pjc50
4 hours ago
[-]
Rather like pre 2022 Russia, governments get warnings that something bad is going to happen that it would be expensive to prepare for, and put off preparing because you don't get political rewards for that.
reply
skippyboxedhero
3 hours ago
[-]
The reason Germany didn't prepare for it was because multiple leading politicians were bought and paid for by Russia. Be totally clear about that. Former German president was working for Gazprom on the project whose stated aim was to facilitate an invasion of Ukraine at some point (which Trump pointed out, and EU politicians literally laughed at him).

The issue with the EU is that they lack the capacity for any kind of strategic thought. There are multiple reasons why but the underlying cause is that it is possible to move into local minimum where there is a very strong disincentive for any kind of change. Countries in the EU have generally been in that place since before the EU...that is why the EU was created, to limit change. It is isn't political incentives, it is a fundamental aspect of the political culture. If you also look at the stuff that has changed, this only becomes more strange (i.e. government intervention, immigration, regulations). Change is limited to preserve control.

reply
bob001
3 hours ago
[-]
> The reason Germany didn't prepare for it was because multiple leading politicians were bought and paid for by Russia. Be totally clear about that. Former German president was working for Gazprom on the project whose stated aim was to facilitate an invasion of Ukraine at some point (which Trump pointed out, and EU politicians literally laughed at him).

To add to your point, despite this the German population seems to strongly believe there is no corruption in their government. Local minima, everything is fine, there is no fire, I'm going to make some tea while the tables turns to ash under the pot.

reply
WarmWash
1 hour ago
[-]
They also work 400 hours less per year than their US counterparts and 1000 less than their Chinese counterparts.

You might be comfortable in that life, but you won't be competitive.

reply
sham1
23 minutes ago
[-]
And pray tell, what does the American or the Chinese worker in this case get out of their higher productivity and competitiveness? Because it really seems that it's not quality of life, that's for certain.

More money and material comforts? Well perhaps, but then again, I do wonder just how many would willingly take that rather than for example a proper work-life balance or clean environment. And we'll probably have to rethink the relationship of our societies with material consumption etc. in the coming decades anyway due to the climate emergency, and so maybe it'd actually be better for the US or China to adopt our "less competitive" stance rather than for us to try to agonise on trying to get ourselves competitive with them.

No one has yet figured out just what one's material possessions will do for them after they're dead. At best you can pass them to your next of kin, but that doesn't need the kind of hyper competitive, hyper capitalistic mindset espoused by the US or China.

reply
skippyboxedhero
3 hours ago
[-]
As the other answer says, surely this would always be the case. People do not deal with government regularly and there is a strong disincentive to report upon this.

I think you see the same thing in every Western democracy where people believe there is no corruption or believe in rather comical forms of corruption, but the corruption is actually systemic and a function of some political configuration that can't really stand change. This is certainly the case in Germany where you have this odd alliance between unions and billionaires that has basically led to, despite the amazing talent of their people, amazingly poor policy delivery.

reply
joe_mamba
3 hours ago
[-]
>despite this the German population seems to strongly believe there is no corruption in their government

Because Germans only believe what their state speech controlled media is telling them. The prussian school is based on getting people to respect authority not about free critical thinking. Makes the population easily susceptible to government propaganda which has been used against them for 100 years already and they still haven't learned.

They also don't believe any foreigners pointing out their internal issue: "no, YOU are wrong, we make ze best cars in ze world(not anymore lol), so our country can't be doing anything wrong".

reply
TrackerFF
3 hours ago
[-]
It takes time. Hence whey Microsoft has a stranglehold on big gov. customers in other countries.

From my own experience, big changes can take place in smaller gov. organizations, and pretty fast too. I've worked at a place where we swapped out all Microsoft and commercial products to open source alternatives in just a couple of weeks. But it was a smaller and specialized part of an organization, with 30 users.

Trying to do the same change, where there are millions of users involved? It will almost certainly take a decade or more.

The only thing that would accelerate such a process, would be Microsoft shutting down services at the command of, say, the US president. But that would only be the case if said country ended up being sanctioned by the US.

reply
petcat
3 hours ago
[-]
> It takes time. [...] It will almost certainly take a decade or more.

> The Dutch tax office is also currently switching to Microsoft systems

They're not even trying though. They're not even starting the clock. They are actively going in the opposite direction.

It will never happen.

reply
PowerElectronix
2 hours ago
[-]
European politicians and bureaucrats are just full of shit and extremely unwilling to make any kind of effort beyond talking.
reply
vanviegen
2 hours ago
[-]
European politicians are usually not backed by anything even close to a majority, so they need to talk and compromise.
reply
softwaredoug
4 hours ago
[-]
Ironically GOP talks about European sovereignty over their own defense, but economically want to treat them like a vassal
reply
NoLinkToMe
3 hours ago
[-]
This is by the way how the defense was treated for decades as well. US resisted the EU from building a formidable army, instead they preferred a vassal state defense, enough to deter others from messing with Europe, not enough for Europe to be independent, and buying almost exclusively from US defense companies propping up US military R&D and financing factories during peacetime.

Now that the US has pivoted to Asia since Obama, they expect the EU to fill the gap they leave behind. But that’s new, the US wanted it exactly like it was pre 2014 or so.

reply
WarmWash
1 hour ago
[-]
Reading this is like when you hear fat people talk about how all these corporations just keep forcing them to eat junk food.

Meanwhile you live in the same society and eat healthy without issue or expense.

reply
BDPW
1 hour ago
[-]
Who are you in this comparison?
reply
roenxi
3 hours ago
[-]
If you think about it in terms of game theory that is actually a fair approach - you have an ally, you propose a best-case path forward for the alliance where both members are strong. If the ally don't want to take that path then you exploit the ally instead since a technically incompetent ally is a liability who needs to be kept under tight control.
reply
throwaw12
4 hours ago
[-]
Because there is no punishment for lying in politics.

Look at the Trump, connected to p*dos, instead of stopping wars, started a war, betrayed MAGA, but still no action taken against him, because there is no legal action for lying to become a politican

reply
2Gkashmiri
1 hour ago
[-]
Indian tax departments use EXCEL VBA and force users to.use licensed microsoft excel to run the utilities so tax returns can be filed.

The reason given "for your own safety"

At the same time, the public tendering process makes no mention of the tools. The L1 uses excel and that inturn FORCES thousands and thousands into using paid excel.

I use masgrave but thats irrelevant. I also use libreoffice which works most of the time but yeah

reply
hulitu
3 hours ago
[-]
US tech companies pay well, the cost of living is increasing, so politicians have to think about the future.
reply
spockz
4 hours ago
[-]
There are many different tracks underway in government in different branches. Completely vetoing everything to use Microsoft is a difficult decision as it also stops a lot of features that depend on it, or were made to depend on it, such as updating tax codes. Therefore it is a risk/benefit assessment rather than outright lying. (The latter also happens obviously but just wanted to state that reality is more gray than black and white.)
reply
roysting
3 hours ago
[-]
Greed is the easiest way to compromise anything.

It is a central theme covered in too many sources to list, but it is always a deal with the figurative devil, treason, betrayal of not just oneself, but everyone else who trusted you, lifted you, and relied on you.

It is why treason is such a pernicious and evil act even when one is ignorant of perpetrating it, because you may personally advance your own position for a moment by making a deal with the devil, but the real price is always immeasurably greater.

It is also why no one hates the traitor more than the devil himself, because he knows best what a vile and untrustworthy traitor the person is that would betray his own people. Even the devil cannot even respect that, hence why the only thing one can be sure of when making a deal with the devil is that the devil and his children will always stab you in the back.

It is the existential question all of “the west” is wrestling with right now. Whether they can stop the traitors among them who have long ago made many deals with many devils and his many children…or will they personally “profit” in the short term all the way to figurative hell.

reply
zugi
14 minutes ago
[-]
The article is thin on details about the sharing of names. If US companies responded to US government inquiries about speech regulation by forwarding the emails they received from Dutch regulators, those would unsurprisingly include regulators' names.

The article title seems like click bait, even though the article content goes on to have interesting details about EU attempts to reduce dependence on US technology companies.

reply
Eridrus
4 hours ago
[-]
I don't know what the US thinks it will gain by targeting civil servants. They are not the ones with the power to decide what happens, and retaliation would mean more anti-US people selecting themselves into these projects.
reply
bob001
3 hours ago
[-]
> retaliation would mean more anti-US people selecting themselves into these projects.

Very few people are martyrs or want to become martyrs. Even fewer in places where life is generally fine and for a cause that isn't dire to their loved ones.

reply
RenThraysk
2 hours ago
[-]
They are not civil servants.

Similarly UK OfCom is a non governmental organisation, so not civil servants either.

reply
emilfihlman
4 hours ago
[-]
>They are not the ones with the power to decide what happens

This is a very naive interpretation. Bureaucrats have MASSIVE amount of power and control, and in actuality decide many things and how the law is written.

reply
tjpnz
3 hours ago
[-]
Wasn't this one of the factors leading to the EU's new payments network?
reply
jgalt212
3 hours ago
[-]
Yes, civil servants should be allowed to ply their trade without scrutiny.
reply
icfly2
3 hours ago
[-]
Yes, Dutch civil servants must not be supervised oder subjected to scrutiny of American law makers. That is sort of self evident.
reply
vrganj
11 minutes ago
[-]
Foreign authoritarians have no business scrutinizing our public servants.
reply
miohtama
4 hours ago
[-]
These civil servants are effectively trying to bypass the US court. These civil servants yield considerable power what comes to the censorship, and the Whitehouse really really hates the idea that the EU can decide, not them, what is allowed. This will send a message that the US stands behind its companies and is not push around. If you want to push non-domestic enforcement, you need to be willing to stand behind the principles and be publicly ready to defend the censorship rulings you set forward.
reply
pjc50
3 hours ago
[-]
> Whitehouse really really hates the idea that the EU can decide, not them, what is allowed

.. in the Netherlands. Where the EU and the Dutch government get to decide what happens. That's what national sovereignty means.

reply
skippyboxedhero
3 hours ago
[-]
I would read the links in the article. The problem is that social media companies worked with civil servants in European countries to remove posts being made people outside Europe. This also happened in the UK where there were parts of the government that were able to make requests directly to social media companies to remove posts on their platform, regardless of where the poster was from.

For obvious reasons, the linked article does not explain that fully.

It is kind of weird to see the turnaround on here from people who complain about the US government being too powerful but, for some reason, are quite okay with an unelected EU bureaucrat being able to govern their internet usage. There are no principles at play here.

reply
vrganj
11 seconds ago
[-]
Posts being distributed to people in the Netherlands that is.

Magic mushroom truffles are decriminalized here in NL, you can sell them openly in shops. Doesn't mean you won't get in trouble if you send them to the US.

reply
phatfish
3 hours ago
[-]
Honestly, rather a "unelected EU bureaucrat" (What does this even mean? Are we going to individually elect the entire civil service, or require elected officials to delegate nothing and personally review every decision?) than an American tech-bro governing my internet usage.
reply
neves
2 hours ago
[-]
USA has always seemed it's companies. Will they do the same they did with International Criminal Court? They were investigating Israel genocide and now they judges can't use a credit card or travel.

Reference: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-strongly-rejects-new-us-san...

reply
emilfihlman
4 hours ago
[-]
Civil servant's info is public information (at least in Finland it is).

It's good that bureaucrats can't hide behind bureaucracy.

reply
cynicalsecurity
1 hour ago
[-]
They are afraid more of their own citizens thn of Americans. That's the reason for secrecy. At the same time, Danish officials push for chat control - a fascist Stasi-like initiative of mass spying on citizens, with a deliberate exception of government officials.
reply
portly
3 hours ago
[-]
Sorry, but "dutchnews.nl" is not a source I take seriously. Please link a publication on an established media outlet because this smells like misinfo.
reply
quink
2 hours ago
[-]
They literally mention Vrij Nederland as a source as near enough the first thing in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrij_Nederland and https://www.vn.nl/microsoft-ambtenaren-amerikaanse-overheid
reply
sixhobbits
2 hours ago
[-]
Dutchnews.nl is an established media outlet and what a lot of English/non-Dutch speakers use to keep up with Dutch news (which is perhaps surprisingly to Americans, usually written in Dutch)
reply
tgv
3 hours ago
[-]
reply