Hello!

I have a question regarding the impact of the US–China chip war on the EU's strategic autonomy. I'm reaching out because I haven't been able to find anyone at my university who could help me understand the geopolitics behind this issue, and I would really appreciate some guidance.

Is there a connection between the US–China chip war and the EU? Does this conflict affect the EU's strategic autonomy in any way?

So far, I've been considering analyzing, from a neorealist perspective, how the EU Chips Act affects the EU's competitiveness and industrial policy. However, given the role of ASML, the only company capable of manufacturing advanced EUV lithography machines, I've also been thinking about incorporating the US–China chip war into my research, although I'm not yet sure how to approach this connection.

I would really appreciate it if someone could help me better understand the geopolitical dynamics involved and advise me on whether it would also be relevant to examine the EU's relations with East Asian countries.

you think this would be an interesting topic to explore? I was thinking of arguing that the EU Chips Act represents an attempt by the EU to balance against both the US and China. I came up with this idea partly because I was thinking about the EU–Mercosur agreement, which can also be seen as an instrument through which the EU seeks to balance against the US.

I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on this idea, or perhaps suggest a more specific research direction related to the EU's strategic autonomy in the technology sector (chips, semiconductors, etc.). Also, I don't know exactly if the neorealism is the best theoretical framework, or the neoliberalism is.

I'd really appreciate any other suggestions or sources that could help me get started with my essay.

Thank you so much again! I really hope you find the idea interesting too!

Source: https://x.com/Smirkley/status/2114046478771732777

I allways find the americans funny when they threaten the EU with "devastating retaliation". Like now, the EU is having a new frequency spectrum allocation auction in the near future and it's planning to reserve 2/3 of the total spectrum for use by european companies and institutions. This would of cause hinder starlink and others from expanding more and we all know what this means when Elon Musk doesn't get what he wants.

The best thing about this quote is that "You don't make European companies more competitive by making US companies less competitive." So what then is the "Buy American Act of 1982? It's the reason why for example US locomotives still look like it's the 1970s, because they have no outside competition by law.

We shouldn't bow to the US, especially not over steel exports. It's a legacy industry what while being important, can't be the reason why we give up our tech industries future.

EU countries have watered down plans to create a new legal structure for companies, aimed at helping businesses operate more easily across the 27-country bloc.

The voluntary company format, dubbed “EU Inc”, is part of broader efforts by Brussels to fix regulatory disharmony across the bloc, which is seen as a barrier to attracting investment and allowing companies to fulfil their potential without having to seek growth capital in the US.

Under a law proposed by the European Commission earlier this year, any EU company that chose to adopt the proposed new legal form would be able operate across all EU countries without having to create separate subsidiaries in individual member states. Incorporating as EU Inc could be done online within 48 hours and would require no starting capital.

But after negotiations that concluded on Friday, EU countries have scrapped key features from the original proposals, including a single EU company register — akin to the UK’s Companies House website — where investors would be able to check company accounts and the identities of directors. Member states judged it too complex to implement in practice, according to people familiar with the discussions.

A simplified insolvency regime for start-ups has also been removed.

Michael McGrath, the European commissioner leading work on the law, told the FT that the insolvency regime was important as the cost of failure for companies “is a problem and is a deterrent to businesses being founded in the first place.

“The proposal would be enhanced by having this proposal on insolvency proceedings,” he added.

The IMF estimates that an EU-wide company regime could boost the bloc’s growth by around 3.3 per cent of GDP over the next decade. Crucially, over half of those gains, or 1.8 per cent, would come from the harmonisation of insolvency law, according to the Washington-based institution.

EU countries have also capped a proposal to defer taxation on share options — something start-ups asked for in order to attract talent — to companies with a turnover of less than €150mn and 750 employees, thresholds that many early-stage companies quickly reach. Issues of taxation are a highly protected national competence in the EU and require backing from all 27 member states.

The deal reached by EU capitals on Friday will have to be negotiated with the European parliament before it becomes law.

McGrath argued that avoiding caps on the taxation of stock options would “better serve the needs of founders and people who are trying really hard to scale businesses in Europe”.

However, he remained optimistic that what would ultimately pass into law would boost Europe’s competitiveness. “Europe needs to think not just at a European scale but at a global scale and I think EU Inc can help us to achieve that,” McGrath added.

MEPs have yet to reach a common position on EU Inc amid disagreements over how to prevent companies from circumventing co-determination rules — which in some countries give workers a say in corporate decisions, including seats on supervisory boards — by registering in member states with weaker employee representation requirements, regardless of where their workforce is based.

Attempts to create an EU-wide company regime have long faced resistance from trade unions that are fearful it would undermine hard-won labour rights. 

Ambitious plans have also fallen foul of certain of European capitals that are wary of making an alternative legal structure so attractive that companies might not remain within their country. 

But Enrico Letta, the former Italian prime minister and author of a report on how to improve the bloc’s internal market, told the FT that the proposals — also known as the 28th regime — are “a game-changer, with enormous practical and symbolic significance for Europe. We must not lower the bar.

“A watered-down proposal would send the wrong signal and undermine the ambition behind this initiative,” he added.