Even if it falls short on the ideal implementation via a regulation rather than a directive (the former mandating all states to adhere to a single implementation and the latter defining a framework that can be implemented by member states) this is still a huge accomplishment and a step in the right direction.
And all done as a grass roots effort from a few dedicated and motivated folks like Andreas Klinger.
Exactly. Even if all it ends up amounting to is the stuff in the last paragraph of the summary, that would be huge.
The EU has a long history of doing things like this -- forcing the hand of national governments to do what they all knew needed to be done, but lacked the political willpower or mandate. Freeing monopolist-dominated or coddled industries like telecoms, delivery, airlines, railways would never have happened without the EU.
Will I be able to freely move between EU countries when I own such a company or will Germany tax 340% of the average profit of the last three years for doing so as they do now? People with German GmbH are essentially unable to move anywhere.
half baked? disagree, doing EU is hard - it's a bunch of fully sovereign countries trying/having to agree, and we're still figuring out how that could work.
We'll need a bunch of steps like that, to get closer to the efficiencies we're hoping for.
You can move before you make a profit however ? Seems quite self defeating for Germany - all the companies that are about to break out will move out just before hitting profitability ?
Unfortunately the foundational thinking behind this runs deep in German culture, stemming from the social upheaval of the early 1800s when a foreign colonizer introduced the (already natively sought) end of the estate system as a way to pit Germans against each other (and gain loyalists). The resulting loss of privileges agitated the heirs towards successful entrepreneurs: Labeling them as Traitors, Jews, and people that didn’t deserve it. As modern Anti-Semitism was born out of this so was the tendency to see success of others with contempt and failure with glee. Though things have improved, you can still notice it.
Apart from that: How is that de-facto locking in of individuals compatible with the EU‘s foundational freedom of movement?
> The objective is to enable innovative companies to operate under a single, harmonised set of EU-wide rules, covering relevant aspects of corporate, insolvency, labour and tax law.
A good idea in theory
> legal framework provides faster (within 48 hours), cheaper (maximum EUR 100) and fully digital company registration, simplified procedures throughout the company life cycle
Did not expect this
.
If they deliver, this might actually make startups in europe a bit more common
> If they deliver, this might actually make startups in europe a bit more common
Just in time for AI to make startups no longer possible for labor capital to undertake as financial capital alone (plus the hyperscalers) take the reigns.
Once there's a $1M Claude Code button to implement an entire business, it's over. Engineeers and business folks and the startup hustle are over.
I was hoping open source would save us, but it's not keeping pace with the leading edge of foundation models. Plus the hyperscalers own all of the infrastructure to run and scale anyhow. Piddly RTX cards are nothing in the face of this.
This is tech (and humanity's) final "embrace, extend, extinguish".
Nah. Very few start-ups succeed or fail because of speed of writing code, or lack thereof. And there is huge opportunity in areas where LLMs are barely helpful at all: for example new low-cost guided missiles (disruptive innovation in military affairs).
Brick and mortar stores, as well as service oriented businesses do exist and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Tech is not the entirety of business.
I bet not, because you don’t know their laws, and you don’t want to litigate in Croatian. You also don’t know the tax implications and chance is you will only find out when it’s too late.
So if an EU Inc happens, it needs to be based on a shared English law, otherwise it doesn’t change much
You can definitely invest trough a holding company set up in Ireland or in other lower tax jurisdiction and pay less tax that way.
Even if you invest in a Croatian startup you can wrap in a UK structure to have the British courts available. Or you can structure the deal to include the British court as a venue for conflict mitigation.
Also Irish courts are comparable and since 2020 have remote hearings (thank COVID).
Either way, your main risk is not the law, but startup market risk.
It's funny that the EU pretends not to be a sovereign entity or a state in its own right, but then sets up legal frameworks like this. Even in the US, you can't set up a corporation at the federal level: apart from a handful of entities chartered via special acts of Congress, a business entity must exist under the laws of a particular state.
> Even in the US, you can't set up a corporation at the federal level:
This is only because the drafters of the US constitution didn’t think to list corporations law as an enumerated power of Congress - I don’t think they omitted it out of an ideological conviction, simply because nobody thought of it at the time. That said, given SCOTUS’ expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause, there’s a decent chance SCOTUS would let them get away with a federal corporations law, but they’ve never had the political will to attempt a general federal incorporation law
The drafters of the Australian constitution did list corporations law as a power of the federal government-but they were working over a century later, and they studied the US system intently to try to identify what worked and what mistakes to avoid. However, it took until 1989 for a federal corporations law to be enacted, and then the High Court ruled in 1990 that the new federal corporations law was unconstitutional, because the corporations power in the constitution only authorised federal regulation of existing domestic corporations, not the act of incorporating them - however, this was fixed by a federal-state agreement voluntarily ceding corporations law power to the Commonwealth (this is another innovation the Australian constitution has compared to the US - the ability of the federal level to gain new enumerated powers without constitutional amendment, by the states voluntarily agreeing to cede them)
You can easily hire a person from Ohio to work for your company incorporated in California without having a separate legal entity in Ohio. Not the case in EU.
True but you do have to register with the state of Ohio, and jump through some hoops.
It’s possible to be registered in a state you’ve never been to - how many people have actually been to Delaware or Wyoming - and employ nobody at.
Some countries play this game too - after the Cayman Islands enacted anti money laundering laws, they tried to keep companies with privacy and efficient dispute resolution.
EU is not a sovereign entity or a state but it needs to be and this is one step in that direction. EU eurocrats worked with the people affected of this and put together a proposal and the elected officials of each member state will vote on this.
Anyway, I don't know about the exact wiring of this but an alternative can be to create a virtual country with its own law, sign a trade agreement with the country to give it full access to the EU market and even some special rights and achieve the same effect of getting rid of the regulations and bureaucracy. These arrangements can be very interesting, like the City of London which is like a country inside London that is actually a corporation. Very weird things are possible.
It’s a mix, some competences lie more with the EU, some remain more, or exclusively, with the member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competences_of_the_European_Un....
Importantly, foreign policy and defense lies more with the member states. In addition, proposals by the European Commission must be approved by the Council (consisting of executives of all member states) in a qualified majority (at least 55% of member states and representing at least 65% of the total EU population) or in some cases unanimously.
Hungary can leave the EU if it wants. Article 50 exists for this.
If it wants to stay in the EU it has to adhere to the bloc rules. It is not forced to stay in the EU (and, in fact, getting rid of Orban would not be such a bad idea). Hungexit when?
Yes, they were free to leave. No one stopped them from leaving the free trade area and having the exact same status as any other random country in the world. Or did you mean that Uk wanted to leave EU but keep all the good benefits? Like canceling Netflix and bitching about not being able to watch the latest series.
sure. It did just take 3 simple elections over many years, with open antagonizing, fearmongering and interference by the EU until they accepted defeat.
After the referendum, the EU and Bremainers made the 2 following nation-wide elections into single-issue elections. And they burned themselves justifiably from it.
You know that is the problem with the pro EU camp, they tout their opposition as science deniers and worse, yet conveniently pretend hard numbers (ie. election results) don't exist or didn't happen - if it hurts their feelings. It's just intellectual dishonesty through and through.
The EU made UK elections into single-issue ones? Obviously that didn't happen.
I think you're just projecting, to be honest. The "leave the EU" side won; unexpectedly, with no clear vision of what that involved. And then the UK's internal inability to agree resulted in a tumultuous period of internal politics, the result of which is pretty much the outcome we'd've all expected.
>If it wants to stay in the EU it has to adhere to the bloc rules.
What are you supposed to do when the bloc rules imposed upon you now, are not the ones that were agreed upon when you joined? Imagine your landlord or employer changes your contract without your consent and just tells you to walk if you don't like it. It wouldn't be legal anyway, but it would also be a dick move. I'm old enough to see how the EU of today is not the same it was just 20 years ago.
@dosinga False. All those examples you gave, require bilateral agreement to be legal. At least in Europe. You can't unilaterally change a contract for both parties.
Employers and landlords do that sort of thing all the time. Rent goes up, job descriptions change, return to office is suddenly required. And yeah, you can get a different job or a different home if you don't like it.
States joining the EU agree to transfer some of their competences to the EU, in exchange for the benefits that being a member brings. They participate democratically in the EU decisions like every other member state. They even have veto powers in some cases. If they feel that it isn’t worth it anymore, they are free to leave.
> What are you supposed to do when the bloc rules imposed upon you now, are not the ones that were agreed upon when you joined?
Those rules are not conjured from thin air. They are proposed either by EU commission or EU council, and the national governments have direct participation on both, including veto powers.
And ultimately, a country can article 50 if the rules are unacceptable.
> Imagine your landlord or employer changes your contract without your consent and just tells you to walk if you don't like it.
Depending on the country where you live there are regulations, but employers in particular do that all the time.
> I'm old enough to see how the EU of today is not the same it was just 20 years ago.
That obviously makes no sense. A club isn’t a sovereign entity just because it has rules. Hungary is free to leave the EU and set a border policy that conflict with EU law if it wishes - but if it wants to remain part of that organisation, particularly one that has open borders thorough The Schengen area, then of course it needs to follow the rules.
And Poland and Italy and the Netherlands and Luxembourg etc. are all free to voice their opinion as being members of the club.
The EU is walking on thin ice: it doesn't exist since very long (at least not in that form) and the EUR is a very young currency that is already in serious trouble, with most members of the eurozone deeply indebted (and one that already partially defaulted on its public debt, Greece).
The hubris of people who think the EU can bully every single country into submission is insane. Many people aren't happy at all with what's going on in the EU. The EU screwed big times on nuclear (and recently acknowledged they fucked up on nuclear), became dependent on Russia for cheap energy (the US warned them this had potential to SNAFU and SNAFU it did) and now has one of the highest energy price in the world. Making it extremely hard for EU industries to compete with the rest of the world.
There are also many people in the EU who believe that massively importing people from Africa and poor middle-eastern countries (I'm not saying all middle eastern countries are poor: I'm saying middle-eastern countries migration into the EU is mostly from poor middle-eastern countries) won't raise the living standard of the EU.
The entire "we decide which size cucumbers should have, we decide to break encryption to protect the kids, we decide to flood the continent with migrants, etc. and you STFU or you can get out" is not an acceptable posture.
Also please let me laugh at the Schengen borders area: we saw how quickly those borders were closed during several occasion, including Covid. But lastly there have been police controls filtrating cars at the borders in Germany: got controlled twice last summer in Germany. So much for the free movement of people.
My bet is the EUR is going to die a quick death (one of the most stupid currency every invented: cannot work with different fiscal laws and different productivity in the various eurozone countries). And my second bet is that this is going to put a lot of pressure on the entire EU thing.
The EU is not doing well. The US and China's GDPs grew like crazy since the 2008 financial crisis while inflation-adjusted the EU barely moved.
At some point people should do well to wonder if the EU construct ain't the root cause of the problem.
No, EU is not the root of the problem, whatever the problem is. For example, countries are stronger, more resilient and business is more effective together than everyone trying to do it alone. And of course the EU is not perfect and there is room for improvement.
In my experience, one concrete problem is that so many people misunderstand or are unaware of basic things about the EU and why EU even exists. With the former I mean things like how the EU Parliament is put together, the relation of the EU Commission to the EU Parliament, how is the President of the EU Commission chosen (no, it's not "undemocratic"), what does Schengen mean, what is the Euro and WHY does it exist, why was there legislation which mentioned the curvature of cucumbers, and so on.
As there is no big picture, or it is rejected due to ideological reasons, the lack of knowledge and misunderstandings then manifest as fear of the unknown (=the EU). At this point, these people become against everything in EU: whatever new things are proposed from the EU side, it is somehow "lousy", "bad", "failing", "won't work anyway", and so forth. Any EU company has "bottom-barrel products" and "can't succeed", euro cannot work between countries, Europe is "weak" and "gay" and "collapsing".
Also, some people look at an individual member state and confuse it with the whole EU. For example, the nuclear power stance of Germany is seen as an EU-mandated position and then the whole EU is seen to be against nuclear power. This can also work in reverse: Poland sends generators to Ukraine, well done Poland and why is the weak and failing EU doing nothing (except the generators were from RescEU stores, and one such store was located in Poland, so EU was sending them).
When people understand what the EU is and know the basics, of course they might still disagree with things, that's normal, but at least the arguments are more factual.
EU didn't fight UK. UK fought EU to not lose their exorbitantly privileged status and benefits while leaving the club itself. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. When they realized and decided that they will get none of the benefits, the finalization of the exit took merely weeks. EU is a huge privilege / opportunity for smaller countries. EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market. If Hungarians want out, it can be done by the end of 2026 and you can enjoy being a proper vassal to neo-Soviets by 2027.
>EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market.
That's where you're wrong. Where would German industry be today without the labor, suppliers, export market and cheap energy imports from the other non-EU-6 members? Especially after they denuclearized and derussified their energy sector and nuked their birthrates, and so rely on importing energy and workers from everyone to stay afloat. You can't claim you don't need them while you're importing their energy, labor, resources, doctors, etc. You can't treat your country like an economic zone, while ignoring all the economic transactions.
Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement. Most of the German labor came from Turkey, not from the smaller and less developed EU countries. Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even. Germany doesn't import much energy from less developed EU countries either: https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/energy-mix#where-does-... most of them come from EU-6 and UK which makes sense since those countries have technology and resources to produce extra capacity. It's the same deal with France with its former and current colonies. They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits. Same for Canada, Canada doesn't need to enter a union with a less developed country to get lots of immigration.
I'm not saying that Germany (or other EU-6) doesn't need immigration. I'm an immigrant in Germany and I do support it for qualified and even non-qualified jobs. However, it is not a clear cut benefit to be in a union with emigrant source countries either.
The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup. Allowing smaller post-Soviet countries without significantly investing and improving their economies and industries and their political stability before ascension, ended up very badly for the other ones. EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries, so now their populations are mostly old, resented people, the biggest businesses owned by EU-6 for only cheap labor. Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes and the authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland of past can block significant decisions with the veto right.
EU is very beneficial for smaller countries however at a significant cost for both sides in a bad way. It worked best when the candidate / new member nation was already a significantly developed and industrialized part of Soviet Union like Baltics or Poland (for the most part, they are not 100% clear yet).
>Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement.
I'm talking about the state of the German economy of today, how it's deeply tied to non-Eu-6 countries in a big way. Their past economic success of a lone wolf, is irrelevant today when they're struggling. Different times. China wasn't even on the radar as a competitor back then and German cars were all the rave worldwide back then. Times have changed.
> Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even.
So why doesn't it want to be as selective anymore today? You know, like back their economic boom days you mentioned before.
>They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits.
Then what's the point of the EU if they can get everything they need without a union? Why doesn't Germany and France just leave the EU and take their money with them?
Because you only focus on the argument of the German EU integration being all about importing cheap labor with your argument, but my argument is beyond that. For example, countless suppliers to Germany economy are in Poland, Romania, Slovakia, etc. And such trade and IP collaboration NEEDS an union. Same for defence parts for French companies that are now made in post-communist countries.
>The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup.
It wasn't always like that though. Only in the last 10 or so years did the EU start to be authoritarian towards member states.
>EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries
True, but guess what, for the first time ever, more post-Communist EU migrants are now leaving Germany and returning home, than the number migrating to Germany from post-Communist members. Reasons are many, but it seems like the days of Germany (and others) being the lands of milk and honey are over.
>Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes
And German population ISN'T?! They just prefer a different flavor of authoritarianism, one with nicer PR, where the jackboots are eco friendly, as they take you to court for "hateful" Tweets, stuff that doesn't happen in the post-Communist states.
>authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland
Why are they considered authoritarian? Because they do what their voters want and not what the EU wants?
>can block significant decisions with the veto right.
Good? Shouldn't nations be able to have a say themselves from EU decisions that might negatively impact them?
I didn't hear many people calling the Austrian regime autocratic for constantly vetoing Romania and Bulgaria's Schengen memberships, despite those countries having met the criterias long before.
So the "autocratic" label keeps being applied very inconsistently across the EU. Dare I say hypocritical.
The EU will fight you? If Texas tried to secede from the US, the government would send in the military. The EU "fought" them by not giving them a sweetheart trade deal on their way out the door?
It was super easy for UK to leave EU? No one tried to stop them. The ”hard” part was that they wanted to keep some benefits of the membership after canceling the membership.
Of course leaving the EU is hard. Membership has a significant effect on regulation and governance. The fact that something is hard also doesn’t mean you aren’t free to do it.
It being “fought” or countries being “penalised” is a matter of opinion but not one I share.
That is incorrect. Leaving EU is super easy. Leaving written accords with USA is hard, and that's what UK tried to pull off. Since the oligarchs pushing for EU exit to hide their black money were dumb, they forgot they have an agreement with USA making a UK-Ireland border transparent. And they basically spent 4 years trying to either tear down a USA deal or EU law, without having any leverage for either, since they are dumb. Since there no such things in other EU countries, their leave can happen much faster.
With the naming of “28th Regime”, I think they should have named it like “0th Regime”, or “Zero Regime”, or “99th Regime.” What if another country or two or more are added in the future? They will be on the 29, 30th, and so on.
Question: Anyone know if this is open internationally or is just for European Residents?
Let say I would like to start making good chees... In what 28^th regime even helps me ?
It imagines new registry so OBVIOUSLY any company in existence will need to do additional work to re-register itself and plaster that number on all invoice issued. You will see.
So all that years of meetings and documents and laws are just to instruct clerks how to handle additional work to workers ?
How about "destroing barriers" for doing business ? For example WHY THE FUCK EVERY COW NEED TO HAVE A FUCKING eu PASSPORT YOU MORONS ????????? Do milk is cheaper that way ? Do hard working agriculture peoples asked for this ? Or you just trying to get rid of agriculture businesses ? And now more stupidity to send in "digit" form ??
So more "digital services" bureaucrats can juggle all months and years and push into workers throats ? How wasting a time helps EU ?? In which reality things bureaucrats do helps small business peoples ? How new register number helps in anything ???
You aware that only way to re-industrialization is to have a lot of WORKING small businesses ? You know difference between "created" startups and existing businesses ? Startups often do not know when they are doing and giving money to "starting business" just ups statistics in temporal number of paper preparing "businesses". 20 years of doing that practice didn't improve anything.
> "attract private investment through common fast, digital and cost-
effective procedures"
Do you even know how that thing "business" works ? peoples do things that business domain requires. Now you know. And _ANY_PAPER_WORK_FOR_GOVERMENT_AND_CONTROLING_INSTITUTIONS_OR_JUST_TO_PUT_IT_INTO_PAPER_STACK_BECOUSE_SOME_MORON_IMAGINED_MORE_PAPER_FORMS_END_PROCEDURES_NOW_ALSO_IN_DIGITAL
... is wasting time that can be used for business domain. or research and innovation.
So more perfect procedures for whom exactly ????????? To consume by time wasters , right ?
Another take to deny the need of a POLITICAL union. Anyway a large slice of the issue lay in the many different social security systems, the vastly different inheritance tax regimes (zero inheritance tax for some states, over 80% for others) and so on, having a company that exists as a state unto itself, but with employees from another state subject to its rules, doesn't simplify things; it only complicates them.
What is needed is the arrest of the Commission for a coup d'état and high treason, with its powers being transferred to the European Parliament.
The first policy of the last 20 years by this gerontocratic, bureaucratic, and corrupt institution, that makes sense.
> The objective is to enable innovative companies to operate under a single, harmonised set of EU-wide rules, covering relevant aspects of corporate, insolvency, labour and tax law.
Especially the last two topics are the nitty gritty details, subject to day-to-day populism by local politicians. It’s why „relevant aspects“ dampens my hopes.
Sometimes I wonder if we should just reduce the EU to a non-geographical sovereign state with which EU countries have a shared agreement. I‘d the incorporate within this state, have it taxed and regulated there. Sort of like a mixture of the City of London and the Holy See.
Well, we've proven the 27 smaller, competing bureaucracies are creating plenty of their own issues. It's not like the US where 50 states (and yet more territories) actually compete on simplifying corporate law and offering strategic advantages.
Corporate law is inherently somewhat bureaucratic; better simplify it and unify it if proven necessary.
Before Brexit there was the 1£ Ltd. as a famous contender, which got quite attraction and lead to creation of German UG. Nowadays Estonia is advertising their quick digital registration process.
The problem is that you are still bound to the individual countries legal system and many things there aren't unified. Having to appear at an Estonian court as your books don't comply with Estonian regulation (while at the same time for tax purpose your bookkeeping have to comply to your local legislation) isn't fun.
Also people don't know those names. What is a GmbH, an A.S., an OÜ? Is that a serious business or some shady shell company far off?
Bureaucracies are not in competition though. They are intended monopolies. For a prospective company they are investment options, larger countries usually have larger bureaucracies but also larger labor markets.
What kinds of innovations require protecting people from being held liable for harms that they participated in? Economic growth for whom and at whose expense?
- What's the catch? It's better than forcing the population to pour all their money into stocks that they don't understand just to stay ahead of inflation. This form of passive investing is creating a lot of problems under the surface.
- The one with the most control would get the biggest share of liability.
Blame attribution doesn't have to be precise. For example, if a police officer catches someone littering and it's a plastic Coke bottle, they would fine the person doing the littering, but also a small fine for Coca Cola for having made their bottle out of plastic... If the problem is significant enough, the CEO would be fined a large fine and lose their job along with any employees responsible for the design choice of using plastic. The shareholders would also get a fine (potentially taken out of their dividends).
Some panel of councilors in different towns can decide on the fines independently and fine any local branches that the company has.
It would open up opportunities for smaller companies which is good. Everyone is working constantly anyway; life would be better for most people if they could operate their own company.
Firstly, I question the efficiency of large companies in terms of delivering what people actually need. Secondly, I question the need for such efficiency to begin with; especially in a world where everyone is spending all of their time working bullshit jobs.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone could feel useful in their jobs? Even if it was less 'efficient' in aggregate? I'm pretty sure people would get more value in terms of what they actually need from such society.
The biggest problem is the privatized gains/societal expenses. That's where the real accidents happen and with liability for shareholders and execs you can bet that a lot of corporate crime would simply never happen in the first place.
Even if it falls short on the ideal implementation via a regulation rather than a directive (the former mandating all states to adhere to a single implementation and the latter defining a framework that can be implemented by member states) this is still a huge accomplishment and a step in the right direction.
And all done as a grass roots effort from a few dedicated and motivated folks like Andreas Klinger.
Exactly. Even if all it ends up amounting to is the stuff in the last paragraph of the summary, that would be huge.
The EU has a long history of doing things like this -- forcing the hand of national governments to do what they all knew needed to be done, but lacked the political willpower or mandate. Freeing monopolist-dominated or coddled industries like telecoms, delivery, airlines, railways would never have happened without the EU.
Will I be able to freely move between EU countries when I own such a company or will Germany tax 340% of the average profit of the last three years for doing so as they do now? People with German GmbH are essentially unable to move anywhere.
I think you know the answer already. Another half-baked initiative. I can't imagine countries willingly losing their tax revenues.
half baked? disagree, doing EU is hard - it's a bunch of fully sovereign countries trying/having to agree, and we're still figuring out how that could work.
We'll need a bunch of steps like that, to get closer to the efficiencies we're hoping for.
You can move before you make a profit however ? Seems quite self defeating for Germany - all the companies that are about to break out will move out just before hitting profitability ?
Noice!
(I'm of course spitballing ;)
> tax 340% of the average profit of the last three years
Go into loss on purpose for 3 years, then move. If law is written literally, they will calculate negative tax and thus pay you for moving away.
This is a legal framework, not a fiscal one, so presumably no.
the exact reason why I moved out of germany after leaving there for 4 years
> 340%
Holy crap.
> People with German GmbH are essentially unable to move anywhere.
Well, that's not entirely true, but I can see how it might complicate things considerably.
Unfortunately the foundational thinking behind this runs deep in German culture, stemming from the social upheaval of the early 1800s when a foreign colonizer introduced the (already natively sought) end of the estate system as a way to pit Germans against each other (and gain loyalists). The resulting loss of privileges agitated the heirs towards successful entrepreneurs: Labeling them as Traitors, Jews, and people that didn’t deserve it. As modern Anti-Semitism was born out of this so was the tendency to see success of others with contempt and failure with glee. Though things have improved, you can still notice it.
Apart from that: How is that de-facto locking in of individuals compatible with the EU‘s foundational freedom of movement?
> The objective is to enable innovative companies to operate under a single, harmonised set of EU-wide rules, covering relevant aspects of corporate, insolvency, labour and tax law.
A good idea in theory
> legal framework provides faster (within 48 hours), cheaper (maximum EUR 100) and fully digital company registration, simplified procedures throughout the company life cycle
Did not expect this
.
If they deliver, this might actually make startups in europe a bit more common
> If they deliver, this might actually make startups in europe a bit more common
Just in time for AI to make startups no longer possible for labor capital to undertake as financial capital alone (plus the hyperscalers) take the reigns.
Once there's a $1M Claude Code button to implement an entire business, it's over. Engineeers and business folks and the startup hustle are over.
I was hoping open source would save us, but it's not keeping pace with the leading edge of foundation models. Plus the hyperscalers own all of the infrastructure to run and scale anyhow. Piddly RTX cards are nothing in the face of this.
This is tech (and humanity's) final "embrace, extend, extinguish".
This is the last few years of startups.
Nah. Very few start-ups succeed or fail because of speed of writing code, or lack thereof. And there is huge opportunity in areas where LLMs are barely helpful at all: for example new low-cost guided missiles (disruptive innovation in military affairs).
Brick and mortar stores, as well as service oriented businesses do exist and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Tech is not the entirety of business.
Would you invest in e.g. a Croatian startup?
I bet not, because you don’t know their laws, and you don’t want to litigate in Croatian. You also don’t know the tax implications and chance is you will only find out when it’s too late.
So if an EU Inc happens, it needs to be based on a shared English law, otherwise it doesn’t change much
You can definitely invest trough a holding company set up in Ireland or in other lower tax jurisdiction and pay less tax that way. Even if you invest in a Croatian startup you can wrap in a UK structure to have the British courts available. Or you can structure the deal to include the British court as a venue for conflict mitigation. Also Irish courts are comparable and since 2020 have remote hearings (thank COVID). Either way, your main risk is not the law, but startup market risk.
It's funny that the EU pretends not to be a sovereign entity or a state in its own right, but then sets up legal frameworks like this. Even in the US, you can't set up a corporation at the federal level: apart from a handful of entities chartered via special acts of Congress, a business entity must exist under the laws of a particular state.
> Even in the US, you can't set up a corporation at the federal level:
This is only because the drafters of the US constitution didn’t think to list corporations law as an enumerated power of Congress - I don’t think they omitted it out of an ideological conviction, simply because nobody thought of it at the time. That said, given SCOTUS’ expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause, there’s a decent chance SCOTUS would let them get away with a federal corporations law, but they’ve never had the political will to attempt a general federal incorporation law
The drafters of the Australian constitution did list corporations law as a power of the federal government-but they were working over a century later, and they studied the US system intently to try to identify what worked and what mistakes to avoid. However, it took until 1989 for a federal corporations law to be enacted, and then the High Court ruled in 1990 that the new federal corporations law was unconstitutional, because the corporations power in the constitution only authorised federal regulation of existing domestic corporations, not the act of incorporating them - however, this was fixed by a federal-state agreement voluntarily ceding corporations law power to the Commonwealth (this is another innovation the Australian constitution has compared to the US - the ability of the federal level to gain new enumerated powers without constitutional amendment, by the states voluntarily agreeing to cede them)
You could setup a European company (SE) for 20 years or so, this is a new kind that solves some of the issues that one had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societas_Europaea
You can easily hire a person from Ohio to work for your company incorporated in California without having a separate legal entity in Ohio. Not the case in EU.
True but you do have to register with the state of Ohio, and jump through some hoops.
It’s possible to be registered in a state you’ve never been to - how many people have actually been to Delaware or Wyoming - and employ nobody at.
Some countries play this game too - after the Cayman Islands enacted anti money laundering laws, they tried to keep companies with privacy and efficient dispute resolution.
EU is not a sovereign entity or a state but it needs to be and this is one step in that direction. EU eurocrats worked with the people affected of this and put together a proposal and the elected officials of each member state will vote on this.
Anyway, I don't know about the exact wiring of this but an alternative can be to create a virtual country with its own law, sign a trade agreement with the country to give it full access to the EU market and even some special rights and achieve the same effect of getting rid of the regulations and bureaucracy. These arrangements can be very interesting, like the City of London which is like a country inside London that is actually a corporation. Very weird things are possible.
It’s a mix, some competences lie more with the EU, some remain more, or exclusively, with the member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competences_of_the_European_Un.... Importantly, foreign policy and defense lies more with the member states. In addition, proposals by the European Commission must be approved by the Council (consisting of executives of all member states) in a qualified majority (at least 55% of member states and representing at least 65% of the total EU population) or in some cases unanimously.
Yes, but you can incorporate in any state you want (provided the state allows that).
That means there’s no barrier to movement.
It’d also possible to reincorporate relatively easily.
They surely became a sovereign entity when they started fining member states (who are allegedly sovereign) for attempting to own their own border policy: https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/migra...
Hungary can leave the EU if it wants. Article 50 exists for this.
If it wants to stay in the EU it has to adhere to the bloc rules. It is not forced to stay in the EU (and, in fact, getting rid of Orban would not be such a bad idea). Hungexit when?
Elections are happening soon (April). It's not clear at all Orban will win this round of elections, see e.g. https://apnews.com/article/hungary-orban-magyar-rival-rallie...
Why leave when you can just keep breaking the rules and wait for the EU to kick you out?
Oh we all saw the true colors of the glorious and open and free-to-leave EU when Brits wanted to leave.
Yes, they were free to leave. No one stopped them from leaving the free trade area and having the exact same status as any other random country in the world. Or did you mean that Uk wanted to leave EU but keep all the good benefits? Like canceling Netflix and bitching about not being able to watch the latest series.
sure. It did just take 3 simple elections over many years, with open antagonizing, fearmongering and interference by the EU until they accepted defeat.
This didn’t happen. I know you have a fantasy it will be hard to disabuse you of, but that was an issue all of the UK’s own making.
Yes it did happen.
After the referendum, the EU and Bremainers made the 2 following nation-wide elections into single-issue elections. And they burned themselves justifiably from it.
You know that is the problem with the pro EU camp, they tout their opposition as science deniers and worse, yet conveniently pretend hard numbers (ie. election results) don't exist or didn't happen - if it hurts their feelings. It's just intellectual dishonesty through and through.
The EU made UK elections into single-issue ones? Obviously that didn't happen.
I think you're just projecting, to be honest. The "leave the EU" side won; unexpectedly, with no clear vision of what that involved. And then the UK's internal inability to agree resulted in a tumultuous period of internal politics, the result of which is pretty much the outcome we'd've all expected.
Time to get over it, I think.
Yes we did, the UK just left.
>If it wants to stay in the EU it has to adhere to the bloc rules.
What are you supposed to do when the bloc rules imposed upon you now, are not the ones that were agreed upon when you joined? Imagine your landlord or employer changes your contract without your consent and just tells you to walk if you don't like it. It wouldn't be legal anyway, but it would also be a dick move. I'm old enough to see how the EU of today is not the same it was just 20 years ago.
@dosinga False. All those examples you gave, require bilateral agreement to be legal. At least in Europe. You can't unilaterally change a contract for both parties.
Employers and landlords do that sort of thing all the time. Rent goes up, job descriptions change, return to office is suddenly required. And yeah, you can get a different job or a different home if you don't like it.
States joining the EU agree to transfer some of their competences to the EU, in exchange for the benefits that being a member brings. They participate democratically in the EU decisions like every other member state. They even have veto powers in some cases. If they feel that it isn’t worth it anymore, they are free to leave.
You are free to leave EU just like any other agreement.
> What are you supposed to do when the bloc rules imposed upon you now, are not the ones that were agreed upon when you joined?
Those rules are not conjured from thin air. They are proposed either by EU commission or EU council, and the national governments have direct participation on both, including veto powers.
And ultimately, a country can article 50 if the rules are unacceptable.
> Imagine your landlord or employer changes your contract without your consent and just tells you to walk if you don't like it.
Depending on the country where you live there are regulations, but employers in particular do that all the time.
> I'm old enough to see how the EU of today is not the same it was just 20 years ago.
Age presumably brings wisdom. Not always.
That obviously makes no sense. A club isn’t a sovereign entity just because it has rules. Hungary is free to leave the EU and set a border policy that conflict with EU law if it wishes - but if it wants to remain part of that organisation, particularly one that has open borders thorough The Schengen area, then of course it needs to follow the rules.
> Hungary is free to leave the EU ...
And Poland and Italy and the Netherlands and Luxembourg etc. are all free to voice their opinion as being members of the club.
The EU is walking on thin ice: it doesn't exist since very long (at least not in that form) and the EUR is a very young currency that is already in serious trouble, with most members of the eurozone deeply indebted (and one that already partially defaulted on its public debt, Greece).
The hubris of people who think the EU can bully every single country into submission is insane. Many people aren't happy at all with what's going on in the EU. The EU screwed big times on nuclear (and recently acknowledged they fucked up on nuclear), became dependent on Russia for cheap energy (the US warned them this had potential to SNAFU and SNAFU it did) and now has one of the highest energy price in the world. Making it extremely hard for EU industries to compete with the rest of the world.
There are also many people in the EU who believe that massively importing people from Africa and poor middle-eastern countries (I'm not saying all middle eastern countries are poor: I'm saying middle-eastern countries migration into the EU is mostly from poor middle-eastern countries) won't raise the living standard of the EU.
The entire "we decide which size cucumbers should have, we decide to break encryption to protect the kids, we decide to flood the continent with migrants, etc. and you STFU or you can get out" is not an acceptable posture.
Also please let me laugh at the Schengen borders area: we saw how quickly those borders were closed during several occasion, including Covid. But lastly there have been police controls filtrating cars at the borders in Germany: got controlled twice last summer in Germany. So much for the free movement of people.
My bet is the EUR is going to die a quick death (one of the most stupid currency every invented: cannot work with different fiscal laws and different productivity in the various eurozone countries). And my second bet is that this is going to put a lot of pressure on the entire EU thing.
The EU is not doing well. The US and China's GDPs grew like crazy since the 2008 financial crisis while inflation-adjusted the EU barely moved.
At some point people should do well to wonder if the EU construct ain't the root cause of the problem.
No, EU is not the root of the problem, whatever the problem is. For example, countries are stronger, more resilient and business is more effective together than everyone trying to do it alone. And of course the EU is not perfect and there is room for improvement.
In my experience, one concrete problem is that so many people misunderstand or are unaware of basic things about the EU and why EU even exists. With the former I mean things like how the EU Parliament is put together, the relation of the EU Commission to the EU Parliament, how is the President of the EU Commission chosen (no, it's not "undemocratic"), what does Schengen mean, what is the Euro and WHY does it exist, why was there legislation which mentioned the curvature of cucumbers, and so on.
As there is no big picture, or it is rejected due to ideological reasons, the lack of knowledge and misunderstandings then manifest as fear of the unknown (=the EU). At this point, these people become against everything in EU: whatever new things are proposed from the EU side, it is somehow "lousy", "bad", "failing", "won't work anyway", and so forth. Any EU company has "bottom-barrel products" and "can't succeed", euro cannot work between countries, Europe is "weak" and "gay" and "collapsing".
Also, some people look at an individual member state and confuse it with the whole EU. For example, the nuclear power stance of Germany is seen as an EU-mandated position and then the whole EU is seen to be against nuclear power. This can also work in reverse: Poland sends generators to Ukraine, well done Poland and why is the weak and failing EU doing nothing (except the generators were from RescEU stores, and one such store was located in Poland, so EU was sending them).
When people understand what the EU is and know the basics, of course they might still disagree with things, that's normal, but at least the arguments are more factual.
It sounds like a system with little democratic buy-in.
It's not universally so, but is more like that in some parts of Europe.
It's mostly a branding issue, in my opinion.
[flagged]
Are you really conflating the idea of Schegen with "keeping unlocked doors to your house"?
Very quick way to show you are not willing to engage in ideas in good faith.
[flagged]
As UK showed, leaving EU is hard and EU will fight you on it as well as seek to penalize you
EU didn't fight UK. UK fought EU to not lose their exorbitantly privileged status and benefits while leaving the club itself. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. When they realized and decided that they will get none of the benefits, the finalization of the exit took merely weeks. EU is a huge privilege / opportunity for smaller countries. EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market. If Hungarians want out, it can be done by the end of 2026 and you can enjoy being a proper vassal to neo-Soviets by 2027.
Press made it pretty clear one of the EU’s goals was to ensure nobody did this again. That fits the word “punishment.”
>EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market.
That's where you're wrong. Where would German industry be today without the labor, suppliers, export market and cheap energy imports from the other non-EU-6 members? Especially after they denuclearized and derussified their energy sector and nuked their birthrates, and so rely on importing energy and workers from everyone to stay afloat. You can't claim you don't need them while you're importing their energy, labor, resources, doctors, etc. You can't treat your country like an economic zone, while ignoring all the economic transactions.
Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement. Most of the German labor came from Turkey, not from the smaller and less developed EU countries. Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even. Germany doesn't import much energy from less developed EU countries either: https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/energy-mix#where-does-... most of them come from EU-6 and UK which makes sense since those countries have technology and resources to produce extra capacity. It's the same deal with France with its former and current colonies. They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits. Same for Canada, Canada doesn't need to enter a union with a less developed country to get lots of immigration.
I'm not saying that Germany (or other EU-6) doesn't need immigration. I'm an immigrant in Germany and I do support it for qualified and even non-qualified jobs. However, it is not a clear cut benefit to be in a union with emigrant source countries either.
The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup. Allowing smaller post-Soviet countries without significantly investing and improving their economies and industries and their political stability before ascension, ended up very badly for the other ones. EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries, so now their populations are mostly old, resented people, the biggest businesses owned by EU-6 for only cheap labor. Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes and the authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland of past can block significant decisions with the veto right.
EU is very beneficial for smaller countries however at a significant cost for both sides in a bad way. It worked best when the candidate / new member nation was already a significantly developed and industrialized part of Soviet Union like Baltics or Poland (for the most part, they are not 100% clear yet).
>Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement.
I'm talking about the state of the German economy of today, how it's deeply tied to non-Eu-6 countries in a big way. Their past economic success of a lone wolf, is irrelevant today when they're struggling. Different times. China wasn't even on the radar as a competitor back then and German cars were all the rave worldwide back then. Times have changed.
> Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even.
So why doesn't it want to be as selective anymore today? You know, like back their economic boom days you mentioned before.
>They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits.
Then what's the point of the EU if they can get everything they need without a union? Why doesn't Germany and France just leave the EU and take their money with them?
Because you only focus on the argument of the German EU integration being all about importing cheap labor with your argument, but my argument is beyond that. For example, countless suppliers to Germany economy are in Poland, Romania, Slovakia, etc. And such trade and IP collaboration NEEDS an union. Same for defence parts for French companies that are now made in post-communist countries.
>The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup.
It wasn't always like that though. Only in the last 10 or so years did the EU start to be authoritarian towards member states.
>EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries
True, but guess what, for the first time ever, more post-Communist EU migrants are now leaving Germany and returning home, than the number migrating to Germany from post-Communist members. Reasons are many, but it seems like the days of Germany (and others) being the lands of milk and honey are over.
>Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes
And German population ISN'T?! They just prefer a different flavor of authoritarianism, one with nicer PR, where the jackboots are eco friendly, as they take you to court for "hateful" Tweets, stuff that doesn't happen in the post-Communist states.
>authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland
Why are they considered authoritarian? Because they do what their voters want and not what the EU wants?
>can block significant decisions with the veto right.
Good? Shouldn't nations be able to have a say themselves from EU decisions that might negatively impact them?
I didn't hear many people calling the Austrian regime autocratic for constantly vetoing Romania and Bulgaria's Schengen memberships, despite those countries having met the criterias long before.
So the "autocratic" label keeps being applied very inconsistently across the EU. Dare I say hypocritical.
The EU will fight you? If Texas tried to secede from the US, the government would send in the military. The EU "fought" them by not giving them a sweetheart trade deal on their way out the door?
It was super easy for UK to leave EU? No one tried to stop them. The ”hard” part was that they wanted to keep some benefits of the membership after canceling the membership.
Of course leaving the EU is hard. Membership has a significant effect on regulation and governance. The fact that something is hard also doesn’t mean you aren’t free to do it.
It being “fought” or countries being “penalised” is a matter of opinion but not one I share.
It was only hard because UK wanted to stop immediately to participate to budget while continuing to benefit from already agreed multi-years policies.
How, exactly, did the EU penalize the UK for leaving?
Please, elaborate, I'll be waiting.
That is incorrect. Leaving EU is super easy. Leaving written accords with USA is hard, and that's what UK tried to pull off. Since the oligarchs pushing for EU exit to hide their black money were dumb, they forgot they have an agreement with USA making a UK-Ireland border transparent. And they basically spent 4 years trying to either tear down a USA deal or EU law, without having any leverage for either, since they are dumb. Since there no such things in other EU countries, their leave can happen much faster.
Sounds like EU deliberately evil?
With the naming of “28th Regime”, I think they should have named it like “0th Regime”, or “Zero Regime”, or “99th Regime.” What if another country or two or more are added in the future? They will be on the 29, 30th, and so on.
Question: Anyone know if this is open internationally or is just for European Residents?
AFAIU it's just for EU residents, it's supposed to tie in with the local tax/labor/etc code, it just replaced the corporate law part.
So this basically makes the Estonian e-residency program obsolete?
Let say I would like to start making good chees... In what 28^th regime even helps me ?
It imagines new registry so OBVIOUSLY any company in existence will need to do additional work to re-register itself and plaster that number on all invoice issued. You will see.
So all that years of meetings and documents and laws are just to instruct clerks how to handle additional work to workers ?
How about "destroing barriers" for doing business ? For example WHY THE FUCK EVERY COW NEED TO HAVE A FUCKING eu PASSPORT YOU MORONS ????????? Do milk is cheaper that way ? Do hard working agriculture peoples asked for this ? Or you just trying to get rid of agriculture businesses ? And now more stupidity to send in "digit" form ??
So more "digital services" bureaucrats can juggle all months and years and push into workers throats ? How wasting a time helps EU ?? In which reality things bureaucrats do helps small business peoples ? How new register number helps in anything ???
You aware that only way to re-industrialization is to have a lot of WORKING small businesses ? You know difference between "created" startups and existing businesses ? Startups often do not know when they are doing and giving money to "starting business" just ups statistics in temporal number of paper preparing "businesses". 20 years of doing that practice didn't improve anything.
> "attract private investment through common fast, digital and cost- effective procedures"
Do you even know how that thing "business" works ? peoples do things that business domain requires. Now you know. And _ANY_PAPER_WORK_FOR_GOVERMENT_AND_CONTROLING_INSTITUTIONS_OR_JUST_TO_PUT_IT_INTO_PAPER_STACK_BECOUSE_SOME_MORON_IMAGINED_MORE_PAPER_FORMS_END_PROCEDURES_NOW_ALSO_IN_DIGITAL
... is wasting time that can be used for business domain. or research and innovation.
So more perfect procedures for whom exactly ????????? To consume by time wasters , right ?
I was looking into using tokenize.it to get some of these benefits for a German GmbH. But I guess this eu inc will take years beige it exists.
Another take to deny the need of a POLITICAL union. Anyway a large slice of the issue lay in the many different social security systems, the vastly different inheritance tax regimes (zero inheritance tax for some states, over 80% for others) and so on, having a company that exists as a state unto itself, but with employees from another state subject to its rules, doesn't simplify things; it only complicates them.
What is needed is the arrest of the Commission for a coup d'état and high treason, with its powers being transferred to the European Parliament.
The first policy of the last 20 years by this gerontocratic, bureaucratic, and corrupt institution, that makes sense.
> The objective is to enable innovative companies to operate under a single, harmonised set of EU-wide rules, covering relevant aspects of corporate, insolvency, labour and tax law.
Especially the last two topics are the nitty gritty details, subject to day-to-day populism by local politicians. It’s why „relevant aspects“ dampens my hopes.
Sometimes I wonder if we should just reduce the EU to a non-geographical sovereign state with which EU countries have a shared agreement. I‘d the incorporate within this state, have it taxed and regulated there. Sort of like a mixture of the City of London and the Holy See.
The only antidote to bureaucracy is more bureaucracy.
Well, this part of bureaucracy tries to provide a single bureaucracy instead of 27 different ones.
The second such attempt - there's also Societas Europaea.
I think the question really is: What's better? One giant bureaucracy or 27 smaller (and competing) bureaucracies?
Well, we've proven the 27 smaller, competing bureaucracies are creating plenty of their own issues. It's not like the US where 50 states (and yet more territories) actually compete on simplifying corporate law and offering strategic advantages.
Corporate law is inherently somewhat bureaucratic; better simplify it and unify it if proven necessary.
Why aren’t European countries competing on better corporate law?
To some degree they are.
Before Brexit there was the 1£ Ltd. as a famous contender, which got quite attraction and lead to creation of German UG. Nowadays Estonia is advertising their quick digital registration process.
The problem is that you are still bound to the individual countries legal system and many things there aren't unified. Having to appear at an Estonian court as your books don't comply with Estonian regulation (while at the same time for tax purpose your bookkeeping have to comply to your local legislation) isn't fun.
Also people don't know those names. What is a GmbH, an A.S., an OÜ? Is that a serious business or some shady shell company far off?
In America everything is a shady shell company so it doesn’t matter ;P
Well, it's all Delaware corporation ...
Bureaucracies are not in competition though. They are intended monopolies. For a prospective company they are investment options, larger countries usually have larger bureaucracies but also larger labor markets.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
I don't like the limited liability construct. There needs to be full liability shared between all stakeholders.
Well if you want to kill all innovation and economic growth then full shareholder liability is one way to do it.
What kinds of innovations require protecting people from being held liable for harms that they participated in? Economic growth for whom and at whose expense?
Its complicated.
- It would discourage share buying.
- somebody with control packet can do terrible things, while minority stock owners have no impact. Blame attribution might be tricky.
- What's the catch? It's better than forcing the population to pour all their money into stocks that they don't understand just to stay ahead of inflation. This form of passive investing is creating a lot of problems under the surface.
- The one with the most control would get the biggest share of liability.
Blame attribution doesn't have to be precise. For example, if a police officer catches someone littering and it's a plastic Coke bottle, they would fine the person doing the littering, but also a small fine for Coca Cola for having made their bottle out of plastic... If the problem is significant enough, the CEO would be fined a large fine and lose their job along with any employees responsible for the design choice of using plastic. The shareholders would also get a fine (potentially taken out of their dividends).
Some panel of councilors in different towns can decide on the fines independently and fine any local branches that the company has.
It would open up opportunities for smaller companies which is good. Everyone is working constantly anyway; life would be better for most people if they could operate their own company.
Firstly, I question the efficiency of large companies in terms of delivering what people actually need. Secondly, I question the need for such efficiency to begin with; especially in a world where everyone is spending all of their time working bullshit jobs.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone could feel useful in their jobs? Even if it was less 'efficient' in aggregate? I'm pretty sure people would get more value in terms of what they actually need from such society.
So just use a partnership?
Who does this?
That's the point: nobody except for dentists and lawyers. But it should be the norm.
Yeah it's interesting. For any activity where rich people care about outcomes, suddenly they want full liability.
We need to say no to diffuse harms and concentrated gains.
The biggest problem is the privatized gains/societal expenses. That's where the real accidents happen and with liability for shareholders and execs you can bet that a lot of corporate crime would simply never happen in the first place.
This take basically defies every entrepreneurial experience as well as commercial history of the last 100s of years.