
Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising - okket
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47639228
======
zaroth
This is not for AdSense on Google.com, this is for third-party sites with a
search feature showing search ads to their own customers.

A third-party site who wants to show ads in their own search results could
partner with Google to include AdSense ads in their own results. The Google
contract originally required exclusivity, and then was changed to require
Google ads to be more prominent.

In the context of the market for third-party sites running search ads, the
$1.5 billion fine seems extremely high.

On the one hand, it’s not immediately obvious to take a conglomorate’s total
worldwide revenue into account to value a fine for a specific market, versus
considering only the revenue for that market.

However in this case Google is squeezing out companies like Yahoo and Bing
from increasing their own ad inventory in the few ways that are available to
them, aside from increasing their own organic search traffic. So this is where
the anti-competitive behavior comes in, and perhaps why the fine is so
massive.

I can’t imagine keyword search on third-party sites is responsible for a
significant share of overall AdSense revenue, I wonder if it’s even a single
digit percentage of their overall ad inventory?

~~~
yeahitslikethat
As long as the punishment for the crime is less than the crime itself, crime
will perpetuate.

If you steal 1.000,00€ from a bank, they don't fine you 1€. No. They send you
to jail for years.

~~~
sosodev
Exactly. Why should corporations get off easy when we don't?

~~~
vnnkov
Because we can't close corporations for a rules violation.

~~~
wnevets
I mean we could

~~~
leesalminen
Kind of like how we could implement the death penalty for marijuana
possession?

~~~
wnevets
It's not like there aren't countries where that exist.

~~~
leesalminen
Right, but should we? Probably not. That’s what I’m getting at.

~~~
rhizome
Arguments by analogy are not worth anybody's time.

~~~
1stcity3rdcoast
Arguments by analogy are an excellent way to compose an argument. Socrates
built entire ethical systems using analogy.

~~~
rhizome
You only have to look at what we have above, a changing of the subject from
corporate punishment to...execution for marijuana possession. That is bad
community'ing.

As an aside, I've got some bad news about how Socrates' method worked out for
him.

~~~
leesalminen
>> Because we can't close corporations for a rules violation.

> I mean we could

The post I was replying to talked about “closing” a corporation for a rule
violation. Closing a company is akin to “killing” it, not “punishing” it. I
think the analogy stands.

------
Veelox
Just trying to get the facts straight. Google provided the ability to search
your site. They also allowed you to show ads/make money from these searches.
If you wanted to use this, you had to only show Google ads.

I don't understand how that is illegal.

~~~
squaresmile
I think the press release [1] did a good job of detailing the specific
activity that was over the line:

> Starting in 2006, Google included exclusivity clauses in its contracts. This
> meant that publishers were prohibited from placing any search adverts from
> competitors on their search results pages. The decision concerns publishers
> whose agreements with Google required such exclusivity for all their
> websites.

Even if the search result and some ads were provided by Google, requiring
exclusivity for search adverts was too much.

[1] [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-19-1770_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-19-1770_en.htm)

~~~
Veelox
From the press release

>Google has abused this market dominance by preventing rivals from competing
in the online search advertising intermediation market.

>Based on a broad range of evidence, the Commission found that Google's
conduct harmed competition and consumers, and stifled innovation. Google's
rivals were unable to grow and offer alternative online search advertising
intermediation services to those of Google. As a result, owners of websites
had limited options for monetizing space on these websites and were forced to
rely almost solely on Google.

This just doesn't make sense to me. So Google offers the website search
functionality. It then says "If you want to run ads, you have to use our ads"
a few years later Google says "If you want to run ads, you have to give us the
best N spots, and all other ads have to be approved by us." Because of this
the EU concludes "rivals were unable to grow and offer alternative online
search advertising intermediation services."

I am really trying to read the logic some other way but the logic appears to
be as follows

1) Google let people set up search pages on individual websites.

2) Google set the terms for ads on those search pages so that Google had
exclusive/best ad spots on those search pages.

3) 2 limited competitors ability to develop an alternative to 1.

4) Because Google had a dominate market position, 3 is illegal and should be
fined.

This honestly feels pants-on-the-head crazy to me because I do not see how
this logic doesn't apply to Google.com. Should Google be forced to let Bing
run adds on "google.com/search?q=shoes"? No! Yet if it is
"ShoeReviews.com/search?q=shoes" suddenly Google is required to let Bing run
adds on it.

Edit: Formatting

~~~
squaresmile
I think a thing to keep in mind is this is about antitrust and "Google is
dominant in the market for online search advertising intermediation in the
EEA". Exclusivity deal was nothing strange but abusing "this market dominance
by preventing rivals from competing in the online search advertising
intermediation market." wasn't ok.

The exclusivity deal might have been fine were it not for Google's dominant
position.

------
__ka
Official Press Release from European Commission:
[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-19-1770_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-19-1770_en.htm)

------
amelius
With 500 million EU citizens, that's about €3 per person.

This makes me wonder, how much does Google make from showing ads to one
person?

~~~
andy_ppp
About $8 billion revenue per quarter for EU + Middle East, let's say roughly
60% of people in Europe use the internet and > 90% of them use Google.

Therefore: 8,000,000,000 / (500,000,000 * 0.9 * 0.6) = $29.63 per person
revenue per quarter. Could be as much as +- $10 given how arbitrary (research
based, but still guesswork) my inputs were...

Somewhere around $100 per person per year seems insane but I guess how much do
you spend per year on stuff?

P.S. please feel free to correct my figures!

~~~
scrumbledober
This really puts things in to perspective. Subscription startups looking to
get some percentage of the population to pay $10 a month can never reach the
scale of google advertising when they are extracting nearly that much value on
average from every single person.

~~~
bduerst
Well that's part of the problem inherent with the subscription model, isn't
it?

Google can make >$100 a click for ads on mortgages or insurance keywords, but
subscription models are locked in to revenue that doesn't scale with the
category of use - unless they become some sort of affiliate service.

~~~
londons_explore
A friend of mine bought a house from a cost-per-click ad...

If the seller has $1000 per click, that's really going to distort the
market...

------
boggio
> They were setting chrome as default browser in android. Also they did not
> allow changing the default search engine so easily.

Isn't this the same case with Safari on iOS devices?

Update: I posted this before the motivation was published.

~~~
isolli
I guess the difference is market share...

~~~
throwaway9d0291
No, not really.

Basically the way the EU sees it, Google has a monopoly in a market: mobile
operating systems. That is, if you're an OEM and you want to sell a device
with an operating system, Google is currently the only place you can really
turn. Apple exists but since it doesn't sell its operating system, it's not a
participant in this market.

So the EU saw Google saying to OEMs "you can have Android but you have to
install our stuff on it or pay extra" and decided that Google was using its
monopoly position in one market (mobile OS) to give itself an advantage in
other markets (app stores, browsers, search). They see this as anti-
competitive.

~~~
olalonde
As far as I know, Android is open source and any OEM is free to use it without
asking permission. The licensing program is for the right to install
proprietary Google apps like the Play Store or Google Maps. There are plenty
of Chinese OEMs who aren't licensed and sell phones without the Play store.

~~~
Youden
The code is open source but "Android" is trademarked. You can't call it an
"Android" phone unless Google lets you.

~~~
dlubarov
Not necessarily -- trademark infringement requires an element of deception or
confusion, not just any usage of the mark.

If an OEM sold a phone with a stock AOSP build, I think they'd be fine with
calling it "Android" without permission. Google might attempt to enforce their
mark anyway, but they wouldn't have much of a case.

If the phone ran a fork like LineageOS, the OEM would need to be more careful
about their use of the mark, but I imagine they'd still be okay with language
like "Android-based".

------
kierenj
I was wondering where funds from such a fine go:

"Fines imposed on companies found in breach of EU antitrust rules are paid
into the general EU budget. This money is not earmarked for particular
expenses, but Member States' contributions to the EU budget for the following
year are reduced accordingly. The fines therefore help to finance the EU and
reduce the burden for taxpayers."

~~~
matt4077
That happens to most fines, everywhere.

In case this is in accusation of corrupt practices aimed to increase the EU
budget, note:

\- Fines account for <5% of the EU's budget

\- The EU budget is relatively small compared to national governments'
budgets. EU: 150 billion, Germany + France + UK = 5 Trillion (5,000 billion).
That's leaving out 24 smaller economies. National governments have a lot of
input in the decision-making process and couldn't care less about a billion
here or there. Especially if it risks impacting perceived rule of law.

\- In any large bureaucracy, individual decision makers have incentive
structure that often diverge fundamentally from those of the organisation as a
whole. A prosecutor will have no financial or career advantage tied to the
EU's finances. In this specific example, the commissioner responsible
(Vestager) is somewhat likely to leave the commission after the May elections
anyway, because of another pro-competition decision that was decidedly more
important and not appreciated by France and Germany, namely prohibiting the
Siemens and Alstom merger.

If you sum up all the fines collected by continent, you will see that (a) EU
companies pay fines roughly equivalent to their share of economic activity in
the EU, (b) Asian companies pay comparatively more, and (c) US companies are
actually fined far less than their share of the economy would suggest. The
most likely explanation is that rather high standards of enforcement and
corporate governance in the US require less EU intervention.

~~~
rat9988
> The most likely explanation is that rather high standards of enforcement and
> corporate governance in the US require less EU intervention.

Or maybe the american political influence is stronger?

~~~
matt4077
It would need to be stronger _than EU member states '_ influence, which seems
unlikely. I also don't remember ever hearing of even attempts to exert
influence on these investigations.

Note that such agency actions are firewalled from even their EU/US/national
political leadership. Even if Trump managed to convince Merkel to intervene,
she wouldn't really be able to. To illustrate with a reverse example: Imagine
Macron trying to get to get to a judge in a California District Court. There
are multiple layers in between where they would tend to consider the call a
prank and hang up.

------
perttir
That's small money for the Google.

Last year they gave Google €4.34bn fine and in year 2017 they gave Google
€2.42bn fine.

~~~
dagw
Basically, at this point I'm sure there is a standing ~€2.5 bn section in
Google's annual budget simply labeled "misc. EU fines". If they manage to keep
it under €2bn in any given year they probably consider that a win and pay out
bonuses to their legal team.

~~~
yulaow
The fine is only part of the EUC action, the fined entity has also the
obligation to change their behavior as suggested by EUC to stop asap their
abusive actions.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
How do you reconcile this with the knowledge they’ve been fine $x billion
every year for the past 3 years (at least?)?

At what point does Big Corp run out of things to abuse?

If the fines just become a cost of doing business the finance and legal teams
can probably get creative and invent new ways of mashing up old abuses over
time.

I think the underlying theme here, then, is that the fines are necessary but
not sufficient.

~~~
cbg0
There's nothing really stopping the EU from making the fines larger if they
don't correct their behavior. The point of a fine like this isn't to
completely cripple a company, but to make it understand that there are very
real consequences.

It's very simplistic to look at their yearly revenue and say they can just
absorb it. If the money they made off of an activity like this was less than
the fine, absorbing it won't make sense.

~~~
zaarn
Even if they absorb it, accounting for R&D and other expenses on a product,
the profit margin could be sufficiently ruined for the entire product to no
longer be viable or a competitor could take over the market easily.

------
ChuckMcM
This will be a boon to sites who have lost a lot of their revenue from their
"custom search" function on their own website. As described in the article,
Google has been squeezing these sites in order to keep more of the advertising
revenue for themselves. (You can see it in their results by looking at how the
ratio of money made on Google sites versus third party sites has been
consistently shifting into the Google side of the pie)

Now I wonder if the EU will take on search engine front ends like
startpage.com or duckduckgo who use Google results. Will they be allowed to
run their own ad network alongside the Google results? If so that would make
them a lot more viable.

~~~
zavi
Nothing will happen to those other sites because for this particular case
Google has already changed its practice after the EU filed an objection in
2016. This fine is retroactive to cover the damages made during the 10 years
of investigation. [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-latest-eu-fine-on-
alph...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-latest-eu-fine-on-alphabets-
google-5-things-to-know-2019-03-20)

~~~
ChuckMcM
Understand that there are two "kinds" of custom search. One, which is
discussed in the BBC article is "AdSense for Search" which is and advertising
program you could engage when you put a Google search box on your web site.

The other kind, which is not discussed here, is where you have a web front end
like startpage.com or duckduckgo.com which is making an API call to a search
index in response to your query. In the US, the two english language indexes
with decent precision and recall are provided by Google and Bing[1]. One of
Google's big partners there is Infospace which uses Google results in many of
their properties. That said, when you use Google results in your search
"engine" web page, you are bound by a different contract than the AdSense
contract. And, like the AdSense contract, it is (or at least was) pretty
restrictive on what sort of advertising you could do around Google's results.

[1] Bing either directly or through Yahoo!'s BOSS API if that is still a
thing.

------
maaaats
Is there an other article with some background / explanation what Google did
in this case? That they were "blocking others" doesn't tell me much.

Edit: The linked article is now updated, at the time it was basically just a
paragraph stating the fine.

~~~
perttir
They were setting chrome as default browser in android. Also they did not
allow chaning the default search engine so easily.

~~~
Pyxl101
I believe you are referring to a different case than this one. That Android
decision was in July 2018:

> In July 2018, the Commission fined Google €4.34 billion for illegal
> practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen the dominance of
> Google's search engine.

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm)

------
jquery
Based on the cadence and size of these fines for the given offenses, they seem
like backdoor taxes, not fines. They're hitting Google's global revenue over
comparatively minor offenses, seemingly just enough to keep Google around as a
golden goose to extract more wealth out of but not drive them away completely
like China.

------
mtgx
"We love competition; here's what we're doing to show you how much we love
it!" \- Google hours before being fined in anti-trust case.

~~~
icebraining
They are being fined for behavior that stopped in 2016. I wouldn't bet on
Google's current intentions, but being fined now doesn't mean anything.

------
peteretep
The EU feels to me like one of the few forces for good in the world at the
moment

~~~
growlist
Let's not pretend it's not a mixed bag, e.g.: 'European multinationals are
aggressively pursuing one of milk’s few growth markets, where locals say they
can’t compete.'

[https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-milk-scramble-for-
africa...](https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-milk-scramble-for-africa/)

~~~
Cthulhu_
At the same time, the EU spends a lot of money on subsidies just so that farms
(big and small) can keep their head above water. I wouldn't mind if that was
changed somewhat, give smaller farms more survivability, but at the same time
it's the market forces that should be changed so that farmers get fairer
prices for their products.

~~~
C1sc0cat
And this also hurts Cane sugar producers - sugar beet is much more energy
intensive

------
tareqak
Investor reaction: _Google was slapped with another huge EU fine — and
investors didn’t bat an eye_ [0]

[0] [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/google-eu-fine-investors-
not...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/google-eu-fine-investors-not-
worried.html)

------
PrimeDirective
just wondering, what's up with the previous two fines? did Google pay? is it
still in courts?

~~~
zavi
They pay immediately then dispute in court.

------
kabsekabtak
Google needs to be broken up. If Microsoft could be broken up, Google deserves
it 100x.

They control way too much.

~~~
AnaniasAnanas
Google does indeed need to be broken up, but much less than Microsoft. Google
has actually done good for the whole world with their open source initiatives,
opening of webm, etc - plus all(?) of their products are easily replaceable,
unlike say windows which has exclusive programs written for it.

~~~
jamisteven
If by open source you mean free if they can keep your data and then some, then
sure.

~~~
AnaniasAnanas
No, by open source I mean things like
[https://www.webmproject.org/](https://www.webmproject.org/),
[https://golang.org/](https://golang.org/),
[https://www.chromium.org/blink](https://www.chromium.org/blink), their
contributions to existing foss projects like gcc and the linux kernel, and
initiatives like
[https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/](https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/).

------
bb101
Did anyone play Dune II back in the day? In a world where North America is
Atreides, Russia being Harkonnen, the EU is conveniently taking the place of
House Ordos (ambitious vying by disparate powers).

------
gerash
Apart from how absurd the justifications and the amount of these billion
dollar fines are, who would be the recipient of this fine if paid?

------
aurebox
I'm really an amateur on this kind of topic but I was wondering: Is there a
way the fine grows as Google does not cooperate with EU rules?

~~~
icebraining
Yes, they can impose larger fines if Google doesn't cooperate, but they have;
the behavior in question stopped in 2016.

------
sabujp
cost of doing business in EU when you're big

~~~
Hamuko
The cost of engaging in anti-competitive behaviour in the EU.

~~~
dodobirdlord
As far as I can tell, being a large successful technology company is anti-
competitive behavior in the EU. This fine, and the multi-billion dollar fine
last year, and the multi-billion dollar fine the year before that all are
apparently for violations from 2008-2016, before Google had wised up to the
fact that the EU was going to get out of fines what it couldn't get out of
taxes. There will be another multi-billion dollar fine next year. There will
be another multi-billion dollar fine the year after that. Technology companies
are sufficiently dependent on economies of scale that the commission will
never run out of "anti-competitive practices" to fine them for and it will
never be the right financial move to fracture enough to escape the
commission's gaze. The whole Irish tax haven thing was crafty, but the EU has
figured out how to get its slice of the pie.

------
bitxbit
They’re going to fine Facebook into oblivion.

------
rplnt
Did Google ever pay one of these fines?

~~~
benjaminsuch
Why do you assume they didn't?

~~~
stefano
I don't know if that's the case with OP, but there's a good amount of HN users
who think internet companies are above the law. Some of them also cheer it as
a good thing.

------
iamgopal
Fine is the new taxes.

------
a_imho
Slap on the wrist.

~~~
buboard
more like a part of the wrist itself. They are racking up $7B in fines at the
moment

~~~
WA
\- "Let's make rules that cripple our competitors and see how long we can get
away with it."

\- "What can we earn?"

\- "Billions."

\- "What's it going to cost?"

\- "Less than what we're going to make."

\- "Let's do it!"

~~~
lagadu
Should be noted that besides the fine they have to change how they operate in
regards to the subject matter (which they always have, as described in the
article).

~~~
WA
True, but if you get away with this for years, it can be part of a strategy.
The risk, of course, is that if you do this too often or too obvious, you
could be forbidden to sell your product. But then, Google might be too
important to be shut down for non-compliance.

------
nyuszika7h
The original title says €1.5bn.

------
feketegy
Then look at GDPR, which is a mess imho, and article 13 too

~~~
martin_a
GDPR is quite good actually, we will just need to find a way to use its power
for good.

~~~
kypro
It's good for US tech because it is yet another cost and restriction EU
startups have to face before they can grow to scale and profitability.

~~~
Dylan16807
It's a very small cost that all companies _should_ already be able to handle
if they're to be trusted with personal data.

~~~
kypro
It's absolutely not a small cost. It cost the last startup I worked for around
two weeks of development time, plus in many cases it prevents us (or adds
massive restrictions) on collecting contact information from leads.

It has certainly affected the bottom line of companies like Facebook and
Google, but they can afford to take the hit, not all startups can.

I'm not really disagree that companies "should" do it. But I'd argue one of
the many reasons we have a shortage of big tech in the EU is excessive
regulation restricting our ability to scale.

~~~
wlll
I'll take my data being protected over your ability to scale any day, and
remember, if a US company wants to do business with EU citizens they still
need to comply.

~~~
kypro
But unlike EU startups, US startups have the advantage of only having to to
comply with EU regulation when they're at scale and profitable.

I actually like GDPR and would love it if it was made law worldwide, but right
now that's not the case and with being EU only it comes at the cost of EU
tech. And if the EU wishes to remain economically competitive with the US in
the coming decades we're going to need tech and GDPR is yet another hurdle
preventing us from achieve this.

Again, I'm not really arguing what should be, but from a purely pragmatic
perspective I'd argue tech regulation isn't good for the already struggling
economy of the EU.

~~~
martin_a
Being GDPR compliant right from the start should be seen as an advantage over
competitors.

GDPR can really be reduced to "privacy by design" and "privacy by default". If
your business struggles with those two principles it's a business you'll
probably not need.

------
MaMyT
Is that how we are planning on fixing the EU budget?

------
known
How does Google Legal Team allow such restrictive clauses in their contracts?
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect)

------
indronilbanerji
Excellent news! I'm quite delighted. Stringent punishment should be imposed on
those thugs systematically looting data of uninitiated usrs.

------
nilsocket
One makes the law and then punish if somebody doesn't follow it.

It seems EU is digging laws to earn money from American companies.

It's very weird when EU punishes someone by digging up their past and without
looking into oneself of the horrible atrocities one have done.

While in this case, it seems to make sense to say we aren't responsible for
what's done in past.

~~~
icebraining
> It's very weird when EU punishes someone by digging up their past and
> without looking into oneself of the horrible atrocities one have done.

What does this mean? Who is "one" here?

~~~
nilsocket
What I mean to say is, EU is looking at tech giants past and fining billions.

But if one looks at the European countries history, they have mostly looted
from various other countries.

It's seems completely fine for them to look up all the bad practices done by
google.(where no human life is lost)

One should also look at what their countries have done in past and pay the
affected countries for their wrong doing.

But in these case they seem to say we aren't responsible for what our
ancestors have done.

What I mean is, It's fine if google have done something wrong in the past.

Layout the rules now, if they cross it, then fine them.

Now, I think this is exploiting power, just because they can.

------
eggy
I don't know, I see the super state that the EU wants to become as scary as
the super tech company people fear in Google. Also, making it hard to change
browsers is not the same as prohibiting changing browsers. Some things are
hard to change in Linux too, but I am sure for different reasons that are the
result of how they pile on top of each other. The EU could use a cash infusion
though given its current economic state.

~~~
klmr
For starters, this fine isn’t about browsers, it’s about AdSense. Apart from
that, we can discuss the pros and cons of multinational treaty cooperations
until we’re blue in the face but at the very least the EU _in principle_
follows a democratic postulate, meaning that its citizens have decision power.
Google is fundamentally unaccountable to anybody but its largest shareholders.
If you fear democratically steered treaty unions more than unaccountable
multinational mega-corporations, you’re not paying attention.

~~~
eggy
I am not as optimistic on the EU as you are. Reading 1984, before 1984, and
growing up during the Cold War, definitely has shaped my thoughts on some of
this, especially a single state or one-world government. A pan-European state,
with one flag, it's own anthem, and the desire for a single army doesn't pass
my sniff test of just being a multinational treaty cooperation, or a
"democratically steered treaty union" as you write above. It points toward a
bigger thing in action of that which some of its proponents oppose in their
ideals. Trotsky pushed for a communist, soviet united states of Europe in
1923. As far as AdSense goes, after reading the article a second time, I am
not convinced of it being a forced monopoly (Apple iPhones and other options),
and I see the fine as protectionist and not under antitrust violation. I see
the same protectionism here in the US too. I gave up an iPhone for an Android
phone, because I think it gives me more choice to install what I want, to hack
away at it, in a way that feels more free to me than when I had an iPhone
(back in 2016, maybe it has changed?).

~~~
klmr
> Trotsky pushed for a communist, soviet united states of Europe in 1923.

Right, but what does this have to do with anything? The only thing in common
is that both have “Europe” in the name (and I’m not even sure that was part of
Trotsky’s vision). If a union of states scares you, the USA must be your
waking nightmare. If you’ve indeed read 1984 you’ll notice that there are
literally _no_ parallels between that scenario and the history of the EEC and
EU.

~~~
eggy
The zeitgeist of 1923 during Trotsky's statement, and the idea of unifying
Europe, since 1923 was also the year that Paneuropa was published by
Coudenhove-Kalergi. I don't read 1984 as a roadmap, or with literal parallels
to the EU, but only as a cautionary tales against large super states. It is
not too clear how the world arrives at this scenario in the book. Warring is a
distraction to keep the public in line. I have lived in other countries, and
the USA is not my waking nightmare, since in older age, I am more moderate in
my response to things. I don't like labels, but I am more of a free-market
anarchist than a socialist, and I am not someone who sees the formation of
super states, no matter how you label them, optimistically. I guess living in
the US, I would be part of Oceania, and not Eurasia anyway ;)

~~~
klmr
You either didn’t understand the point I was making, or you are intentionally
ignoring it. So let me be direct: How is the EU structurally more similar to a
Trotskyist superstate than to the USA? How do you justify comparing the EU,
but not the USA, to the totalitarian, quasi-fascist nightmare from 1984?

~~~
eggy
Both of your leading assumptions are incorrect: I understand your point, and I
am not ignoring it. I didn't bring up the USA, you did, so I didn't bother
making your argument for you. My guess was that you assume I am fine with the
US, but not the EU. I brought up 1984 and the Cold War as things that shaped
my thoughts on the subject of one-world government or super states in general.
I brought up Trotsky to show that there were different ideas of a united
Europe, not to say its modern incarnation, the EU is a Trotskyist superstate -
your words. I am more of a free-market anarchist, so the US and the EU both
are not at all my cup of tea, if we're going to idealize or dream. I have
nothing to justify per your remark in comparing them. But now, for fun I'll
bite on a comparison for you. The US even during the early years was not as
defined by so many different languages and regions as Europe was and is, even
if you include the English, Dutch, Spanish, and French
settlers/explorers/colonizers, and the Native American population. The US is a
young nation. The idea of a United States came early on in the country's
formation into a Federal Republic. Each European nation, even with shifting
borders and leaders over time, remained separate until realtively recently
with the formation of the EU. You may choose to invoke Trump as the tip of
your spear in this argument about the US, he's an easy target, but there is
more than just one populist leader in Europe with AfD in Germany, the Freedom
Party in Austria, Macron in France (almost Le Pen), Italy (oh, boy), Hungary,
Slovenia and Poland to name a few. People seem to get confused over the
electoral college's role in US politics. I am confused on how Juncker got
elected, and now Salvini has his sights on the coming May elections. With
Brexit and the rise of populism in Europe, I can paint a few nightmares, but I
am an optimist.

