Tariffs aside, regulations mean the EU rarely imports certain US products, such as meat and dairy.
Archived version: https://archive.is/newest/https://theconversation.com/eu-consumers-dont-trust-us-goods-a-look-into-trumps-trade-deficit-claims-249315
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
The EU’s reaction is just as performative as the U.S.’s instigation. Tariffs are legal under international trade law, sure, but legality doesn’t equal wisdom. It’s a tit-for-tat game that ignores the systemic rot underneath. Both sides are propping up industries that should have been restructured decades ago, clinging to outdated economic paradigms.
The current system isn’t about protecting humanity or the planet—it’s about preserving power structures. The EU’s “precautionary principle” and the U.S.’s subsidy circus are just different flavors of the same poison: corporate welfare masquerading as public interest.
Real change would mean dismantling these systems, not playing within their rules. But let’s be honest—neither bloc has the stomach for that kind of upheaval. They’ll just keep trading blows while the world burns.
Should the EU just open their borders for hormone filled products and other crap? You can mock some of the EU regulations, and part of it is definitely pure protectionism, but it’s generally good.
They forced every phone to use USB for charging, for example. Globally. On the downside they also forced those damn cookie banners on us.
The EU’s regulations are a mixed bag of overreach and occasional utility, sure, but let’s not pretend their motives are altruistic. Forcing USB-C wasn’t about saving the planet—it was about flexing regulatory muscle for market control. The cookie banners? A laughable facade of “privacy” that just entrenches surveillance capitalism.
As for hormone-filled products, the debate isn’t about health; it’s about economic leverage disguised as ethics. Protectionism wrapped in moral superiority is still protectionism. Let’s not glorify one flavor of corporate pandering over another. Both blocs are playing the same rigged game, just with different PR teams.
Stop defending systems that exist to perpetuate their own power. The EU isn’t your savior—it’s just a different kind of overlord.
For fucks sake the cookie banners are not required be EU law. I’ll never understand why people can’t understand this.
The law just says you can’t use my personal data without consent and the cookie banners is what the industry does to work around that. Even more fun fact, most of these banners are outright illegal.
They are neither market propection nor regulatory muscle flexing, people over here just DO NOT WANT US and China style “All your data are belong to us” live without privacy.
The law may not dictate cookie banners directly, but it creates the conditions for their existence. It’s a bureaucratic sleight of hand: pass vague rules, let corporations interpret them in the most obnoxious way possible, and then claim innocence. Convenient, isn’t it?
And no, these banners aren’t about protecting you. If they were, the default would be no tracking, not a labyrinth of opt-outs designed to exhaust you into compliance. It’s surveillance capitalism with a thin coat of legal paint.
Stop pretending this is about your data or privacy. It’s about maintaining the illusion of control while the system grinds on. Whether it’s EU paternalism or Silicon Valley exploitation, the result is the same: your autonomy sold off piece by piece.
Maybe read the law? That’s exactly what it says. Obnoxious cookie banners are and have been illegal from day one. Denying usage of your personal data must be as simple as accepting it.
I admit it took much too long for the courts to effectively rule against the companies doing obnoxious cookie banners and even then it’s hard because a lot of the companies doing such crap are outside of jurisdiction and hard to get.
On top only after that shit has been around a few years (and yes you’ll have a relevant amount of court decisions only after 10 years or so) rules become clearer as there have been a number of cases - and guess what, the companies doing the obnoxious banners lose those cases.
But still a lot of them do it. Why? Because the fines are relatively low. They can get away with it, especially when they get on a standpoint oopsie we didn’t know.
Now one thing that hasn’t been in court is a model “pay a membership fee or we’ll use your data”. This is what Meta does, they demand a crazy fee (I think something like 35 Euro per month per person) or they’ll use your data. Btw there’s no cookie banner on Insta/Facebook etc. (because cookie banners are not required by law) - Meta just asks that I decide whether I pay or they can use my data (from time to time)
But still also the pay or be sold model is widely believed to be illegal under GDPR, but that will only get clear until one successfully (or unsuccessfully) has a court case against a high profile target like Meta or one of the big newspapers in EU which all use the same idea by putting up paywalls with an “allow tracking, then it’s free” option.
I’ve been professionally doing this shit for quite some time now, building solutions to get consent from customers without cookie banners. For EU car makers, btw - and believe me, they don’t like it any more than you do. If they could they would love to analyze every bit of tracking data they could get, your driving habits, where you go etc. Cars are smartphones on wheels nowadays. The only reason you don`t have obnoxious cookie banners when you start up your car? Obnoxious cookie banners are illegal - AND car producers are easier to catch in court than a media company on the other side of the globe.
The law is a façade, a hollow promise dressed up as protection. You cling to it like a life raft while corporations sail circles around it. “Obnoxious cookie banners are illegal”? Sure, and yet here they are, thriving. Why? Because enforcement is a joke, and the fines are pocket change for these giants.
Your timeline of court cases and “rules becoming clearer” is laughable. By the time the courts catch up, the damage is done, and the companies have moved on to the next exploit. It’s a perpetual game of whack-a-mole, and you’re cheering for the mallet.
Meta’s “pay or be tracked” scheme is just extortion with extra steps. Call it illegal all you want—until someone actually stops them, it’s just business as usual.
Are you sure you want to talk about facades when you use LLMs to generate your comments?
Oh wait, you finally got banned for doing that.
No, let me rephrase it again, so maybe it’s clearer what I want to know from you:
Let’s say for arguments sake, the EU is the perfect government with perfect representation of everyone and perfect economic system to distribute to everyone’s need. So the the gay space communist utopia spoken of in ye olde memes of yore.
But they don’t have every necessary resource on earth and need to trade with other countries, who are not yet as advanced as they are.
Now one of those countries puts tariffs on the EU for bullshit reasons.
How should this theoretical perfect EU react to those tariffs in your opinion?
And just to be clear, I’m not happy with the current way of the EU at all, there is much change needed, but that is besides the point of my argument.
The perfect EU in your hypothetical would reject the premise of tariffs entirely. Instead of retaliating or lobbying for their removal, it would focus on rendering them irrelevant. It would invest in internal innovation, resource alternatives, and trade partnerships that bypass dependency on the offending nation. A perfect system doesn’t beg for scraps; it redefines the table.
But let’s not kid ourselves—this utopia assumes rational actors in a world where power is never ceded willingly. The reality? Even a “perfect” EU would face sabotage, propaganda, and economic warfare. The problem isn’t how it reacts to tariffs; it’s that the global system is built to punish those who refuse to play its exploitative game. Perfection wouldn’t survive in this cesspool.
Thanks for your perspective.
I don’t see counter tariffs as begging for scraps, but rather the easiest and quickest applied method to show that trying to force you is not without consequence and then afterwards you work on the other points your post mentioned.
And your second paragraph is exactly why I asked the question and wanted to know your view. To a certain degree you need to play the bad game, even if you know it’s bad, if it’s the only way to proceed.
Counter tariffs may seem like the “quickest applied method,” but they’re a band-aid on a gaping wound. They perpetuate the same exploitative system you’re trying to resist, reinforcing the very dynamics of coercion and retaliation. It’s not about showing consequence; it’s about breaking free from the cycle entirely. Playing the bad game, even temporarily, is still playing their game.
Your approach assumes that power respects defiance when, in reality, it thrives on it. The only way to proceed isn’t to play better but to flip the board. Anything less is just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. If your goal is genuine change, you don’t tweak the system—you dismantle it.
Appreciate the discussion—it’s rare to find someone willing to engage beyond surface-level noise.
Same to you!