141–150 of 761 posts
Can't work legally speaking. There has to be a single sponsoring member state. Just sadly how the EU is designed. The only way would be to copy it individually so it is the same in each member state which breaks the purpose of it.
Which.. would be a good idea, but I am not holding my breath for it to happen in the next 10 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? Countries outside of EU don't always care for human rights or other things we find important. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still aim for the values we stand for.
Global warming is ultimately a global problem. It doesn't matter if you reduce your CO2 emissions if others aren't following.
I don't think it's a hard mindset to understand, giving up because others aren't taking it as seriously is the cowardly way to go about it. It's much more meaningful to show it can be done, help to scale technologies to become cheaper and more accessible for poorer countries, and inspire others with examples that it can be done so action can spread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the issue with EU is the taxes and cost of labour. 450 million and counting people would still prefer to live and work in the EU than anywhere else. Even more so with present geopolitics, to put it politely !
> 450 million and counting people would still prefer to live and work in the EU than anywhere else majority of population of any given country doesn't emigrate ever, even inside EU where it would be extremely easy
Because unlike the US, we don't speak the same language. If there would have been a real push to have a common EU language since its inception, we would have been more mobile and more US like. But no...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the headline statements say “… EU-level …” rather than European, unless the smaller print explicitly mentions non-EU countries such as the UK I would assume that we aren't included.
"one europe" except for all the other bits of europe
And by "it" we mean both "free choice to be part of the union or not" and "legal jurisdictions".
In practice ... there is always so much bureaucracy and inertia. I don't think the current EU model works well. I also don't think a copy/paste USA 2.0 works either, yet this seems to be the primary objective by the people in Brussels (that is, = politicians, not all folks in Brussels of course). There is such a huge disconnect between what people such as Leyen babble, and what people want or need or may want. And a lack of decision-making power too. So I think most of those projects will end in failure.
Personally I think an EU model will only work when the agendas are NOT unified, because unification leads to disagreements. You can already see this happening in regards to politics or war - some countries want to, oddly enough, serve Russia. That may be a fine decision for a state, but if other states push for another approach, you have a problem here. Now there are discussions to simply isolate the "non-compliant" states, but this is a bad approach since it will again lead to fragmentation and more people being angry at Brussels here. So this is a failing model. Splitting up things into separate aspects will also, of course, lead to more bureaucracy, but states would more easily form a specific opinion and align towards that, without being handicapped by other states that don't want to go that route. I don't see any other way for this to work. The EU in its present form is just setup for failure - the current model simply does not work, and the proposed new model is even worse in many ways e. g. 2/3 majority basically means that the big states will dominate the small ones. For instance, if Germany and France want to go to war against Russia (let's assume this were the case), then they'd have to send troops to the front - and they are unwilling to do so. So other states are more likely to be threatened. That model not only does not work but is also unfair.
Of course legal or taxation models are different to war, but the different countries have different wealth and opportunities, so a one-size-fits-all also can not possibly work. We saw this with the EURO where weaker countries struggle permanently. The whole EU needs to be completely re-designed - and this is not going to happen due to inertia alone.
I always heard that the issue with startup investment in Europe was the general lack of capital investors willing to take Hail Mary risks on founders with a wild idea and maybe little experience. The market is far too risk-averse for a grassroots early-stage startup scene. How would this organization address that fundamental psychological block?
It'll make it easier for investors in one country to invest in businesses in another (assuming both are in EU of course). Larger pool of available investors == larger pool of investors who are fine with higher risks.
Currently, when you raise money, you usually end up with just local investors, because others can't be bothered to having to understand your local laws and regulations, and with everything that comes with that.
Personally, that's what's stopping me too. In one case I still went through and invested in a company in another country, but in most cases I don't even bother reading deeper about the company unless it's in the same country, would have to be an exceptional idea and team for it to be worth it.
There is nothing hindering European startups to raise money from all over Europe. Except that Europeans hate to invest in real businesses and love investing in real estate. American startups and businesses get investor money from all over the world, including from Europe. Willingness to invest in startups depends on the downstream of willingness to invest in business in general. If venture capital investors know that…
Of all the challenges you face as a startup, the legal entity you choose is possibly the least consequential. Just choose a jurisdiction where investors understand how the legals work (Delaware C-corp, UK Ltd is OK too) and there's a finite administrative burden and/or commoditized tooling in place to help you handle it. Now, that may not work in all jurisdictions for reasons of local taxation etc (and you'll have to…
Can't work legally speaking. There has to be a single sponsoring member state. Just sadly how the EU is designed. The only way would be to copy it individually so it is the same in each member state which breaks the purpose of it.
yes you company needs to be rooted in a specific country, and sure moving company roots between countries is still not always trivial (anti capital flight laws are a thing). But that isn't really in conflict with a EU INC per-se. I mean they do point out that it will have
> Local taxes & employment
and this isn't in conflict with
- the same business form being available in all EU members
- central EU registry
- Standardized investment documents ( * this is only investment documents, not e.g. tax documents)
- Standardized EU-wide stock options
- For every founder ( * with some limits)
Like there are already some "EU level" business models, e.g. you company can operate as a Societas Europaea (SE). Now a SE is for other use-cases so not really the same at all (it's more like the EU version of a German GmbH), but it shows that things "in that direction" are very much viable.
Local Taxes… the issue with EU is the taxes and cost of labour.
Labour is much more expensive in the USA, and other taxes are very comparable. And the USA is the startup capital of the world.
In the US, this provides the companies with the levers they need to maintain a functioning business in pretty much an instant. In the EU you can't do that.