Latest news with #Draghi
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
We're criticising GDPR for all the wrong reasons
'Simplify', 'Streamline', 'Scale back'. While EU communiqués often find creative ways to avoid uttering the word 'deregulation', this new European Commission is all about boosting the bloc's competitiveness by 'cutting red tape'. The intention to stimulate the continent's economy might be laudable, but there is a real risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Draghi Report, presented in September 2024, laid the foundation for a shake-up of one of the EU's crown jewels in digital regulation – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). According to the report, certain regulations present 'overlaps and inconsistencies', leading to fragmentation. Draghi pinpointed GDPR as a particular source of headaches, thanks largely to its complexity, burdensome national implementation, inconsistent local enforcement, and disproportionately high compliance costs for small and medium enterprises compared to larger corporations. Now the whispers are over: GDPR now seems headed for the chop, much like sustainability reporting rules before it. Yet the world has changed dramatically in recent months, meaning many of Draghi's proposals are tailor-made for a context that no longer exists. Additionally, the US' disastrous DOGE experiment offers a stark cautionary tale of deregulation leading to chaos rather than efficiency. Legal institutions, after all, are complex systems designed for the critical purpose of protecting people's rights. Leer más: Robust rules are essential to guaranteeing clarity and transparency. Especially in the digital sector, setting clear guardrails is vital to containing both the excesses of tech oligarchs and the erraticism of their satellites-in-chief. Far from slashing red tape, the EU would be wise to take this opportunity to refocus its energies on delivering and enforcing better regulations. EU regulations are often cast as stifling the continent's innovation, but EU trade law professor Anu Bradford argues that this narrative is, at best, oversimplified. Europe's sluggish dynamism can instead be attributed to a wide range of structural issues, including a fragmented digital single market, underdeveloped capital markets, and harsh bankruptcy laws that punish failure rather than encourage experimentation. Looking beyond the fiscal level, European cultural attitudes tend to be more risk-averse, and the bloc lacks the proactive immigration policies needed to attract international tech talent. Experts have also clarified that if fragmentation truly impedes innovation, trimming regulation without serious harmonisation of domestic frameworks will achieve little. While regulation like the GDPR is often unfairly scapegoated for the continent's woes, it is not exempt from criticism. Consider the algorithmic management (AM) and AI systems that have steadily infiltrated workplaces in recent years. Recent OECD figures reveal that in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, around 79% of managers across diverse sectors report that their firms already use AM software to hire, organise and monitor their workforces. Algorithms and AI are not just assisting managers either – in some cases they are replacing them altogether. This ushers in new risks, and entrenches or amplifies old, unresolved problems such as unfairness, opacity, incontestability, dysfunctionality and distrust. The boom in decision-making digital tools perfectly illustrates the GDPR's ambivalent role. On paper, it remains a gold-standard shield for personal data, including the data used to fuel Generative AI applications. Yet in practice, the GDPR struggles to fully address the challenges posed by machines making decisions, either independently or on behalf of human managers. In one recent study commissioned by the EU Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, data protection frameworks are put under the microscope to see whether they can tame AM systems. The verdict was mixed, leaning towards pessimistic. While it is undeniable that the GDPR can be mobilised to limit data processing and avoid repurposing, most of its headline provisions have wide gaps when it comes to the workplace. The study flags the indeterminacy, ambiguity, and open-textured nature of the rules on automated decision-making, among other things. For instance, semi-automated decisions – hybrid systems with human intervention at the last stage of the executive chain – often slip beneath the radar, reducing the chances for workers to be informed about their existence and reasoning, or to have a real shot at contesting and changing their outcomes. In a similar vein, uncertainty about the interpretation of grounds for lawful processing and the application of the proportionality principle is leading to a patchwork of discordant decisions made by Data Protection Authorities. As the case law on data controllers' 'legitimate interest' shows, compliance risks becoming a postcode lottery. None of this should come as a surprise, as the GDPR was designed to be general, not workplace-specific. Nevertheless, its exceptions and loopholes disadvantage workers, and create uncertainties that affect companies. In a different season, institutions were contemplating the introduction of a work-specific instrument to govern algorithms, a proposition that was also included in the mission letter of Roxana Mînzatu, Executive Vice-President for Social Rights and Skills, Quality Jobs and Preparedness. The current deregulatory drumbeat, stimulated by the US fury against EU powers, has cooled that talk, but the idea is not dead. Workplace technologies are still largely governed by consumer-oriented data protection principles, even though employment contexts differ profoundly. Employers routinely collect sensitive data that extends managerial control into workers' emotional domains, and AM systems intensify these dynamics by automating decisions and generating detailed profiles. The persistent and asymmetrical nature of workplace surveillance undermines autonomy and erodes mutual trust. Unlike consumers, workers cannot meaningfully refuse these intrusive practices, making power imbalances more acute. Moreover, data harms are often collective, threatening solidarity and enabling anti-union practices. The Platform Work Directive (PWD) offers a ready-made compass to reorient action on workers' digital rights. Indeed, a whole chapter is devoted to fine-tuning the GDPR to better govern AM at work. As argued in a policy brief, several PWD provisions appear to be deliberately drafted to fill the gaps left by the omnibus framework. The PWD covers 'decisions supported by' algorithms (not just fully automated ones), extends workers' information and access rights, re-establishes a right to explanation, and bans robo-firing outright. It is, however, crucially limited, as its sectoral scope stops at the gig-economy's edge, leaving everyone else in the open. If the GDPR is not good enough for delivery couriers and click-workers, why is it still being applied to all other workers? Blaming the GDPR for Europe's growth woes makes for great clickbait, LinkedIn memes and after-dinner quips, but it ignores the real issues. Looser privacy rules will not fix our problems. On the contrary, a smarter framework for workers' digital rights could serve as a robust counterbalance, ensuring that AM operates as a tool for efficiency rather than unchecked command-and-control. By all means, critique the GDPR, but aim at the right target. Its abstract, transactional, individualistic DNA is ill-suited to the collective, lopsided reality of modern workplaces where employees' data feed into black-box AI systems. In those environments the answer is not to prune protections, but to reinforce them by clarifying legal bases, establishing red lines, hard-wiring collective rights, and closing the enforcement loopholes. Reform, yes. Regression, no. Este artículo fue publicado originalmente en The Conversation, un sitio de noticias sin fines de lucro dedicado a compartir ideas de expertos académicos. Lee mas: Outdated legal frameworks are a barrier to the EU's just transition – here's how we can fix them The EU's 'twin' green and digital transitions: a policy revolution, or just Euro-jargon? How the UK could monetise 'citizen data' and turn it into a national asset Antonio Aloisi no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.
Epoch Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Epoch Times
Is the European Union Deliberately Delaying Trade Negotiations?
Commentary The European Union-United States These are the reasons why it should have been a concise and quick trade deal: Most of the U.S. team's demands coincide with the If the EU negotiators had presented a comprehensive package of tariff reductions for agriculture, farming, and the automotive industry, a preliminary deal would have been signed immediately, benefiting everyone. However, the negotiators were only willing to negotiate possible improvements in LNG imports and a vague concept of 'strengthening investment,' limiting any tariff negotiation to industrial goods where there is no significant dispute. Washington's requests to the European Union were significantly less demanding than the burdens from China or India. Unfortunately, the EU negotiators were only willing to propose plans to lower tariffs on industrial goods and non-sensitive agri-food exports, as well as a clause to keep the United States from introducing further tariffs while talks are ongoing, according to Bloomberg. The EU stated that tariffs could be reduced in phases or through a quota system, and higher levies would only come above a certain quantity of imports. Upon review, it appears that these proposals aim to uphold all non-tariff barriers and the majority of tariffs. Tariffs are much higher than those of the United States in agriculture, farming, chemicals, automotive, and manufactured goods. Related Stories 5/23/2025 5/20/2025 The demands of the United States are not outlandish. Furthermore, the EU allows the exemption of many of the tariff and non-tariff barriers to products coming from Turkey or Morocco, even China. The European Commission threatened with new countermeasures, which could hit 95 billion euros of U.S. products if negotiations to end the trade dispute fail. However, the EU does not have a lot to threaten with. Its trade surplus is so large, and the barriers to U.S. goods so widespread, that it simply cannot fight back. The European Union trade surplus, which stands at 150 billion euros and soared 244 percent in March 2025 compared to the same month in 2024, is not generated by free cooperation and spontaneous trade agreements between free companies. In many sectors, the EU's production and energy costs are up to 50 percent and 100 percent higher, respectively, than those of the United States, yet the exports of the European Union massively outweigh those of the U.S. A significant proportion of the trade surplus of the European Union comes from lifting barriers to others and benefiting from open markets for European producers. The European Union needs to understand that tariffs can be eliminated in minutes if a reasonable agreement is reached. Furthermore, the EU negotiators must admit that they would be complying with Draghi's recommendations and benefiting all businesses, inside and outside Europe, in the process. Thus, a deal can be reached rapidly and effectively. Regrettably, many analysts believe that the EU negotiators are not interested in removing trade barriers, preferring to maintain them at all costs, even if it results in the economy of many member states being weakened. Negotiators seem more concerned about pleasing bureaucrats and finding a scapegoat in the Trump administration for the EU's stagnation than advancing a deal that benefits American and EU companies. Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Irish Examiner
5 days ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Amazon says EU has singled out US companies in a discriminatory manner
The European Union spent the past five to seven years focusing on regulating US companies specifically, which was done in a discriminatory manner, said Lucy Cronin, the vice president of EU public policy at Amazon. Speaking at the 2025 Global Economic Summit at the Europe Hotel in Killarney on Monday, Ms Cronin told attendees that individual US tech companies were largely singled out when it came to the regulatory environment in the European Union. Noting the EU's Digital Markets Act, which was implemented in 2022 to ensure a fairer and more contestable digital economy, Ms Cronin said only seven companies, none of which were European, had to comply with the act. 'As far as Amazon is concerned, I think it is important to note that we have those 150,000 employees in Europe. We are competing directly with retailers in each member state. But we, as a company, are held to a much higher compliance bar than those with whom we are competing. 'That means we spend 20%-30% of our tech spend on complying with EU regulation. What could we be doing with that money? We could be investing it, we could be innovating, we could be creating jobs with it,' Ms Cronin said as part of a panel discussion with David Swan, chief operations and sustainability officer and SMBC Aviation Capital, Daniel McConnell, editor of the Business Post and MC, Ivan Yates. It is regrettable, this very protectionist approach that the EU has taken to tech regulation in the last five years. Ms Cronin also took aim at the EU's Digital Services Act, which was similarly adopted in 2022 and aims to address illegal content, transparent advertising and disinformation. Digital services taxes are applied on revenue, with Ms Cronin telling the conference: 'If you are anybody that knows anything about the retail sector, you will know it's a very, very small margin business. 'Applying a digital services tax to a retail business is very problematic.' Amazon's International revenue grew 9% annually last year to $143bn, with the company's web service business increasing by 19% to $108bn. The company's total global revenue rose my 11% to a total of $638bn in 2024. Ten years ago, Amazon's total revenue was just $89bn. In 2021, Luxembourg's data protection authority (CNPD) fined Amazon a record €746m for not complying with the EU's privacy rules. Draghi report The conference also featured talks and debates on the EU's response to the landmark Draghi report, which was published in September last year. It warned that Europe had largely missed out on the most recent era of technological innovation, with a widening productivity gap growing between the EU and the US. Since its release, the watershed analysis has become a cornerstone of the EU's policy agenda, with promises of cutting red tape, endorsing AI, and simplifying laws all part of the bloc's wider strategy to boost competitiveness and close the innovation gap. However, the EU's approach has been met with mixed reactions by politicians and academics. Many legal scholars have argued that the process of simplification could allow companies to avoid implementing concrete plans to reduce emissions, undermining the bloc's 2050 net-zero target. Asked by moderator Ivan Yates if the EU has abandoned its sustainability commitments, calling the EU's Green Deal 'politically dead', Mr Swan said: 'Climate change is real.' 'From an aviation perspective, we all need to take it very seriously and act.' Ms Cronin added: 'About 150 measures have already been adopted under the Green Deal. If you are a company operating in the European Union, you are already complying with a vast swathe of legislation that seeks to deliver a greener EU. 'The Green Deal may not be the political focus of the next five years, but what is important is that the measures already adopted serve as a mechanism to deliver those objectives set five years ago.' On a national level, Mr McConnell said the current government shows a 'complete lack of interest' in the green agenda compared to just 12 months ago. 'It's like night and day,' Mr McConnell told attendees. 'They are ignoring the Greens. Now, the critics within the government say the Greens were just blockers to big projects from an ideological perspective,' noting the Dublin Airport passenger cap as an example. 'There have been blockages within the system, both on a political level and within the civil service, which the Taoiseach said is one of his main priorities to undo and unlock.'
Irish Examiner
24-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Examiner
EU urged not to 'play the Chinese or American game. Play your own game'
The European Union is in the midst of an identity crisis. The landmark Draghi report, published last year by the former European Central Bank president, has sent shockwaves through the union, prompting a complete overhaul of its regulatory, innovation and competitiveness strategies in fear that the bloc will fall irrevocably behind its fellow superpowers. The eye-opening report, published by Mario Draghi late last year, warned Europe that it was asleep at the wheel, thus missing out on the digital revolution led by the internet and its subsequent productive gains. The result is a widening productivity gap between Europe and the US, largely explained by the tech sector. Only four of the world's top 50 tech companies are European, and in the past 25 years, real disposable income has grown almost twice as much in the US as in the EU. Compounding the challenge, Europe is entering an era for the first time in recent history where economic growth can no longer rely on a rising population. To counteract this, Europe needs to increase its investment share by five percentage points of GDP to levels not seen since the 1970s, an ambition characterised in the report as unprecedented but essential. Draghi has called this an existential threat, solvable only by radical change. The EU must grow and become more productive, the former ECB president Mario Draghi said. 'The only way to meet this challenge is for the EU to grow and become more productive,' the former ECB president wrote. 'If Europe cannot become more productive, we will be forced to choose. We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility, and an independent player on the world stage.' Since its release, the watershed analysis has become a cornerstone of the EU's policy agenda, with promises of cutting red tape, endorsing AI, and simplifying laws all part of the bloc's wider strategy to boost competitiveness and close the innovation gap. It is, therefore, no surprise that the Brussels Economic Forum, the European Commission's flagship annual economic event for more than 25 years, was largely defined by the same report. Held this week and attended by the Irish Examiner, the conference featured politicians, academics, economists, and business leaders, with some heated exchanges between policymakers and analysts revealing a growing disconnect between the EU and its citizens. French economist and author Timothée Parrique touched on this point during his panel discussion alongside European politicians and industry experts. He argued that Europe is losing sight of what is important, warning that measures like productivity and competitiveness were means and not ends. 'I'm going to say something very stupid, but it is something we tend to forget. The economy is here to satisfy needs and guarantee quality of life,' Mr Parrqiue told the conference, advocating for Europe's need to consider degrowth to mitigate climate challenges. His remarks were largely dismissed by fellow panellists, with Portuguese MEP Lídia Pereira going as far as to call his ideas 'dangerous'. Addressing the conference, the Social Democrat said that while she appreciated the plurality of views, considerations of degrowth were 'very, very dangerous', and fuelled social movements at odds with moderate politics. To the audience, Mr Parrique's comments were not considered so controversial. 'If we want to get back within the planetary boundaries across high-income countries, we have to consider down-streaming production and construction,' the French economist noted. 'This is a scientific reality. Economic growth today is not correlated with quality of life, even within the EU.' Taking the example of Portugal, where MEP Pereira is from, Mr Parrique noted that while it is a country with a relatively small GDP, it consistently outperforms other countries within and outside the EU in terms of health and living standards. This was not taken well by the panel. The EU is increasingly looking to ease green rules on the back of the Draghi report. Its efforts to simplify regulation have been largely criticised by legal scholars, who argue that scaling back the Commission's sustainability and due diligence requirements could allow companies to avoid implementing concrete plans to reduce emissions, undermining the bloc's 2050 net-zero target. The EU has also dedicated €800bn to bolstering defence spending across the continent amid concerns the bloc is not shouldering enough responsibility for its own security. These initiatives, both drastic and ambitious, signify a stark shift in the EU's priorities, reflecting a major departure from the bloc's traditional character. In an effort to compete with its fellow superpowers, Europe has pushed to largely become them. 'It is a mistake for Europe to emulate China or the US, and go down the path of European national champions and arms races in industrial policy,' said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, one of the world's most influential economic think tanks. Delivering the keynote lecture at this year's economic forum, the American economist noted: 'There are two reasons why this is a mistake. The first is simply, Europe will lose. 'Europe does not have the centralisation, resources, or the brutality to compete with the US or China, which have large-scale, subsidised industries. 'The second is, these policies generally tend to fail. We've already seen that to a large degree in China and the US.' According to Mr Posen, the solution is simple and highlights the growing disconnect between academic insight and policymaking. 'Europe cannot lose sight of itself,' the economist warned. 'Europe needs to make the most of the high-income, high standard of law place that is relatively open. It does not need to race down to the lowest common denominator. 'Do not play the Chinese or American game. Play your own game. Europe's best way forward economically and internationally is to be its best self.' The EU is terrified of falling behind and has looked to fellow superpowers for inspiration, which for them is the path of least resistance. What is far more challenging, and what it has so far refused to consider, is the need to forge a truly European path forward that is independent of US and Chinese influence and grounded in its own values, with living standards and quality of life at the forefront of its priorities. For that, there is no blueprint.
Irish Examiner
19-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Jim Power: Trump's actions are a much needed wake up call for Ireland and EU
Donald Trump is shaking up the world in every conceivable manner and little is escaping his all-encompassing attention. Much of what he is trying to achieve could be considered negative in terms of the environment, global trade and economic activity, disease prevention, aid to poorer countries, and just the general sense that he is giving license to many leaders around the world to do whatever they feel like doing with impunity. For reasons of balance, it must be pointed out that there are potentially some positives that might flow from his policy agenda. Firstly, perhaps he will force peace to break out in some conflicts, although many of us might not agree with his approach. Secondly, the potentially most positive impact of his actions could be the proverbial kick in the backside he is giving others. Here in Ireland, perhaps we will now recognise the extreme concentration risk inherent in our economic model and realise just how important it is to diversify our economic and fiscal concentration risk. This concentration risk is manifested in a dangerous dependence on all things American. CSO merchandise trade data published last week show that in the first three months of this year, exports of chemicals and pharmaceuticals accounted for 75.5% of total goods exports, with most of this driven by US companies. In 2024, this stood at an alarmingly high 65.2%, but facing the threat of tariffs, exports were obviously ramped up dramatically in the first quarter. This jump will prove temporary, but the underlying situation should give cause for concern. The concentration risk is also manifested in the contribution of US companies to direct and indirect employment, and in income and corporation tax revenues. While US foreign direct investment (FDI) will obviously have to remain a key part of the FDI model, the US is no longer a reliable and predictable partner. We must explore more aggressively what can be achieved in regions such as Asia, the Arab world, and Canada. It should also force us to aggressively tackle the creaking and inadequate energy and water infrastructure, public services such as health and education, and the worsening housing situation. The other positive could potentially be a total change in the policy approach of the EU Commission. It is now almost a year since the Draghi report was published, which was a damning indictment of the EU. Unfortunately, up until now nothing much has changed in that year. However Ursula von der Leyen is now seeking to significantly overhaul the EU budget. This overhaul would include a €200bn competitiveness 'superfund', which she believes is essential to keep up with, or catch up with, the US and China. The EU budget is a €1.2 trillion seven-year budget which is divided between three general areas — farmers, poor regions, and research, diplomacy, and administration. Ms Von der Leyen has wanted to add a fourth budget category for some time, which is a 'European Sovereignty Fund.' Now of course the need for such a fund is dramatically heightened by the policies of Mr Trump, and the stagnant eurozone economy, and fresh defence imperatives. Ms Von der Leyen has faced massive opposition from member states in the past, which is the way of the EU, but now a semblance of sanity might prevail at last. Europe needs to do it, and to do it fast. The Commission is also preparing a number of initiatives to cut red tape for start-ups and hopefully position Europe as the best place for technology driven countries. It is often in the face of extreme threats that people do the right thing. Hopefully, Trump will provide the required incentive to the EU to fundamentally alter its model.
