@SeasonedRP or traitors

The big picture of who wins: big corpos, punish mechanics are created for big corpos to use on them selectively, China is subsidised.

To understand who gains people would have to follow money trail, and to get traitors take'em layer by layer.

People have TV brain rot.

I listened to this guy and his interesting analysis of Cyprus public spending, tied to Pareto rule.

Infrasrtructure there is not known to be glam, but it works. He expects they are creating country that is cheap to run. So if one sees curb that is looking like a swallen ocean it is because it costed 20% to make it 80% effective. They are not bothered to invest another 80% to make it polished.

One more law accidentally omitted:

THE PPWR: THE PACKAGING CHARGE THAT IS BREAKING MICRO-BUSINESSES

Law: Regulation (EU) 2025/40 — Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) Status: Most provisions applicable from 12 August 2026.

What it does: Requires any business placing packaged products on another member state's market to register with that country's Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme, file annual reports, and in many cases appoint an authorised representative.

What we have seen:

Fixed compliance fees of €300–€1,100 per EU country, per year, charged regardless of parcel volume or revenue.

A micro-seller shipping 40 parcels a month pays roughly the same as one shipping 40,000.

Compliance costs are charged per country, not per parcel or revenue unit, so microbusinesses are subject to the same fees as large corporations.

The Malta Chamber of SMEs warned the PPWR is "effectively excluding" micro and small businesses from the Single Market through disproportionate cross-border compliance obligations.

Local low-volume suppliers have suspended all online sales to EU countries.

German government proposed exempting companies placing less than 10 tonnes of packaging annually from the authorised representative requirement.

Eurochambres stated the PPWR contradicts the EU's own competitiveness objectives: "EU legislation that makes it commercially nonviable for producers to sell cross border is fundamentally flawed".

Bottom line: The PPWR is the single most damaging regulation currently in force for micro-enterprises and independent creators. A Greek engineer selling five electronic boards to Germany, two to France, two to Austria, and one to Belgium becomes a packaging waste producer in four different countries. The minimum annual compliance barrier for four countries is roughly €1,150, before any recycling fees or packaging redesign. This is not a recycling regulation. It is a fixed-cost barrier to cross-border trade that scales with the number of flags on a shipping map, not with environmental impact. The result is that the EU's Single Market is fracturing into 27 separate compliance markets, and the smallest innovators — the ones most likely to create new products — are being priced out entirely.

#EU

summary of major EU laws and proposals that critics say are already causing downsizing, delays, and friction. Some effects are direct. Others are partly driven by market conditions and global politics. Supporters say these laws protect the environment, consumers, and financial stability. Critics say the costs and freedom losses are mounting.

1. 2035 PETROL AND DIESEL CAR BAN Law: Regulation (EU) 2023/851 What it does: Forces all new passenger cars sold in the EU to be zero-CO2 by 2035. In practice, that means electric.

What we have seen:

• Audi closed its Brussels EV plant.
• Volkswagen announced plans that could close up to four German plants: Zwickau, Emden, Hanover, and Neckarsulm.
• Ford and Mercedes cut back EV goals because buyers are not buying fast enough.
• Chinese brands like BYD and MG, plus Tesla, have been gaining EU EV market share while legacy EU brands lose ground.
• BYD overtook Volkswagen as China's best-selling car brand in 2023.
• EU makers have also lost share in China, their biggest market, to local EV makers.
• The EU imposed tariffs of up to around 35% on Chinese EVs to slow their advance.
• Major suppliers like Bosch, ZF, and Continental have announced thousands of job cuts.

Bottom line: This is not just a few plant closures. It is a market transfer. EU manufacturers are being told to build EVs, but they are not yet price-competitive with Chinese and US rivals. So the policy risks handing the car market to non-EU brands: Chinese firms gain in Europe, European firms lose in China, and jobs, factories, and supplier networks in Germany, France, Italy, and Central Europe shrink. The 2035 ban may cut emissions, but it can also hollow out Europe's industrial base and make the EU dependent on imported EVs and batteries.

1. NEW BANK RULES FOR FOREIGN BANKS Law: CRD VI, Article 21c (Directive (EU) 2024/1619) What it does: Non-EU banks cannot serve EU residents unless they set up a local branch.

What we have seen:

• UK and Swiss banks started closing or limiting accounts for EU-based expats.
• Some raised minimum wealth levels to avoid multi-country licensing costs.

Bottom line: This creates a two-tier system. Wealthy clients keep their accounts; ordinary expats, retirees, and workers get offboarded. It reduces competition and choice, pushes people toward local banks or less regulated options, and makes life harder for EU citizens who worked or saved abroad.

1. AI ACT AND DSA Law: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 What it does: Adds audits, watermarking, and liability for high-risk AI and online platforms.

What we have seen:

• Apple delayed Apple Intelligence in the EU.
• Meta held back multimodal AI models in Europe.
• Platforms delayed or limited features to avoid fines.

Bottom line: EU users become second-class for new technology. They get fewer AI features, later, than users in the US and Asia. Big tech can absorb compliance costs; smaller EU startups cannot. The result is slower productivity, less consumer choice, and a growing tech gap. Brussels calls it protection; critics call it innovation lag and de facto censorship.

1. ENERGY RULES FOR HOMES (EPBD) Law: Directive (EU) 2024/1275 What it does: Sets mandatory energy-efficiency standards for residential buildings.

What we have seen:

• Housing markets in Germany, France, and Italy split.
• Low-rated F/G homes sold at 15-30% discounts.
• Banks tightened mortgage terms for those homes.

Bottom line: Older, cheaper homes become liabilities. Owners face costly retrofits, falling values, and harder loans. Renters may see higher rents or fewer affordable units. The pain falls hardest on lower-income owners and regions with old housing stock. Energy goals are real, but the costs are being pushed onto ordinary households.

1. DEFORESTATION RULES Law: Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 What it does: Requires GPS plot-level tracking for imported timber, coffee, cocoa, and soy.

What we have seen:

• Fears of major supply-chain disruption.
• Pushback from the US, Brazil, Indonesia, and others.
• The Commission proposed a one-year delay.

Bottom line: The paperwork is so heavy that even Brussels hit pause. Small farmers in developing countries may be excluded if they cannot provide GPS data. Prices for coffee, cocoa, and other goods may rise. It shows how EU rules can create trade friction and hurt the very producers they claim to help.

1. ANTI-MONEY-LAUNDERING PACKAGE Law: Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 What it does: Caps cash payments at EUR 10,000 and links national bank registries.

What we have seen:

• More cash-heavy small businesses, like antiques and cash logistics, lost bank accounts.
• Compliance fees rose and were passed on to customers.

Bottom line: Small cash businesses and ordinary shoppers pay the price. De-banking hits people who did nothing wrong. Financial privacy shrinks. Large firms can handle compliance; small ones cannot. The cash cap also pushes more transactions into digital systems that can be monitored or blocked.

1. CHAT CONTROL (CHILD ABUSE SCANNING) Law: Proposed regulation What it does: Would force automated scanning of messages to detect child abuse material.

What we have seen:

• Signal said it would leave the EU entirely if the rules break end-to-end encryption.

Bottom line: To catch criminals, the plan could kill private messaging for everyone. If client-side scanning is required, encryption is no longer truly private. Criminals can move to non-compliant apps; ordinary users lose secure communication. This is a direct tradeoff between child safety and civil liberties.

1. DIGITAL EURO (CBDC) Law: Proposed regulation What it does: Creates an ECB-issued digital currency.

What we have seen:

• Banking groups warned of deposit flight during panics.
• The ECB faced pressure to cap individual holdings, such as EUR 3,000.

Bottom line: A state-run digital wallet raises fears about bank runs and government control over spending. Holding caps would limit its use. In a crisis, people might move money out of banks into CBDC, destabilizing lenders. It could also enable surveillance, programmable money, and negative rates on wallets. Supporters say it protects payment sovereignty; critics say it is a tool for control.

1. ANTI-COERCION TOOL Law: Regulation (EU) 2023/2675 What it does: Lets the Commission impose trade sanctions without all member states agreeing.

What we have seen:

• Tit-for-tat tariffs.
• After EU duties on Chinese EVs, China opened probes into EU pork and brandy.

Bottom line: Trade fights get easier to start and harder to control. Member states lose their veto, so one dispute can drag everyone into retaliation. Exporters and consumers pay. It may look strong, but it can backfire on EU farmers, food producers, and manufacturers.

THE BOTTOM LINE

• The pattern is not just "more rules." It is higher costs, fewer choices, and more central control.
• Businesses downsize, delay products, or leave the EU market. European carmakers are losing market share to Chinese and US rivals. Tech users get fewer AI features. Expats lose bank accounts. Homeowners face devaluation. Cash users face limits. Encrypted messaging is under threat.
• Some effects are proposed, delayed, or contested. Market forces and global politics also matter. But the direction is clear: Brussels is adding rules faster than the economy and public trust can absorb.
• Supporters say these laws protect the environment, consumers, and financial stability. Critics say the costs and freedom losses are real, immediate, and falling on ordinary people.