EU May Forbid the Transfer of Personal Data To the US 202
An anonymous reader writes: As the Snowden revelations have shown, personal data stored in the United States of America is not protected from the US government, be it through warrantless eavesdropping or national security letters. In light of this, the general attorney for the Court of Justice of the European Union has just issued an opinion requiring the US to be removed from the list of "safe harbors", where the transfer of personal data of European citizens is permitted. If the court follows his opinion, the change will have deep impact in the operations of large transnational Internet companies, between a US government that wants to keep on spying, and European authorities that will punish them if they let it happen.
The US needs a serious spanking (Score:5, Insightful)
The US needs to wake up to the fact that it doesn't set policy for the world, and that other jurisdictions have their own laws and regulations that US companies have to abide by if they want to do business there.
Enough with jackboot "treaties" that the US doesn't even try to abide by after signing them. :(
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep that is what the TPPA, TISA etc are all about. Shoring up US influence.
The US does not know what to do when its no longer in charge, they are like the pushing little kid who has to make up all the rules of every game to ensure they win every time, and if they can't they don't want to play with everyone else.
Re:The US needs a serious spanking (Score:5, Insightful)
The US needs to wake up to the fact that it doesn't set policy for the world,and that other jurisdictions have their own laws and regulations
The US government happily violates its own constitution. Its expecting too much for any nation to have more respect for foreign laws than their own.
Re: (Score:2)
A foreign government can do what the fuck it wants to it's own citizens - that's what being a sovereign nation means, after all - but the whole point is that it is one of the duties of a government to protect it's citizens from the actions of a foreign government. And that is what the EU's courts are forcing the EU's governments to to do, no matter how political
Re:The US needs a serious spanking (Score:5, Insightful)
With all due respect, its not down to the US government to accept that US companies have to obey foreign laws - the conflict is something that solely needs to be handled by the companies in question, they have to decide how they can follow both sets of laws if required to.
A US company operating in a foreign country doesn't suddenly fall outside US jurisdiction - if they do find themselves in conflict between the laws of the country they (or their owning umbrella company) are incorporated in and the laws of the country they are doing business in, then its up to the company to decide whether they can resolve that or leave one of the jurisdictions (stop doing business in that country or change the country of incorporation or ownership).
The EU passing laws requiring foreign companies to solely follow EU jurisdiction doesn't solve anything - it doesn't stop the companies being in the jurisdiction of their home country, all it does is create further conflict.
The only thing that can satisfy this situation are completely, entirely and utterly unconnected companies - Amazon SARL having no ownership or connection to Amazon.com Inc. If there is any ownership or similar connection between the two companies, its entirely legitimate for Amazon.com Inc's legal jurisdiction to cascade down the chain of ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
Jurisdiction of the head office does not affect the need to follow local regulations. Go ahead and try to sell a Japanese car in the US that doesn't meet US safety regulations or emissions requirements...
Re: (Score:2)
The US needs to wake up to the fact that it doesn't set policy for the world, and that other jurisdictions have their own laws and regulations that US companies have to abide by if they want to do business there.
That goes both ways though, with those other countries businesses wanting to do business in the US which is a large enough market that EU (and other) businesses will put pressure on EU (and other) governments over time to allow the US to do what it wants.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No one has made a claim yet
And the ability of the US to dictate terms to anyone is plummeting .
Turns out the rest of the world is far more interesting.
Re: The US needs a serious spanking (Score:4, Insightful)
What handouts? Maybe you should feed your own starving citizens before even dreaming about some handouts? US "handouts" always come with strings attached, nobody in their right mind should touch them. If you want to build your country in the image of 1984 please do, but don't be surprised when the rest of thwe world refuses to use it as a manual on society building.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The US infrastructure is ageing.... badly.
The US debt is increasing
The US is no longer the worlds largest, that goes to China with India and Brazil rising
The only things the US is No1 in is military spending and prison population.
All other metrics the US barely makes it into the top 10, if ever.
Education, Welfare, freedom of the press, Honesty, life expectancy, health, racial harmony, corruption.
Re: The US needs a serious spanking (Score:5, Insightful)
"So what? We can still kill your economy and a sizeable part of your population without breaking a sweat. "
Only if the Chinese loan you the money to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
no only if the citizens loan us the money. if you haven't heard China is selling the majority of their USA debt to pay for stimulus packages at home.
What the USA needs to do is to forgive itself the debt it owes to itself and balance the budget.
The majority of us government debt is to the people via SS and medicare payments promised but not yet made, and to the military industrial complex for funding two wars which are not yet paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The US needs a serious spanking (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is making claims under the agreement. What they are saying is that the US does not abide by the terms of the agreement, so the agreement should be nullified.
This isn't a decision being made by courts; it's a decision being made by the government. Totally different ballgame.
The US does not get to dictate law to foreign nations, no matter how much they'd like to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, what you're saying is false. The case stems from a complaint brought by an Austrian citizen against Facebook. That constitutes bringing a claim against a US organization. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner ruled against the claim, so it was appealed to the European Court of Justice.
And, let's be clear, the EU is actually the one trying to dictate the law to the US. Schrems' lawyer was quoted as saying, "If the United States doesn't change its laws in order to guarantee a minimum of data protec
Re:The US needs a serious spanking (Score:5, Informative)
The EU is trying to dictate the law to companies that are doing business in Europe, not against the US government or congress. Which every country does on its territory. Note that the case is against Facebook, not the US government.
Some of these companies happen to be US companies. Who may be in a bind soon, as the European Court of Justice is likely to invalidate the Safe Harbor Agreement, as it usually follows the advice of its general attorney. If that happens, said US companies are no longer allowed to store data of EU citizens outside the EU, but at the same time they may be told by the US via national security letter to hand over those data.
If both the US and the EU stay adamant, companies like Facebook may have to choose between doing business in the US or in Europe.
Re:The US needs a serious spanking (Score:4, Insightful)
companies like Facebook may have to choose between doing business in the US or in Europe.
Win Win for Europeans!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not actually a "case" surely. It's a situation of where the EU has said, these are the countries we trust with our data, and the US isn't one of them.
Re:The US needs a serious spanking (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, what you're saying is false. The case stems from a complaint brought by an Austrian citizen against Facebook. That constitutes bringing a claim against a US organization. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner ruled against the claim, so it was appealed to the European Court of Justice.
That might be the origin, but that's not the question the Attorney General issued an opinion about. The Irish High Court refused to hear a claim about Facebook's transfer of data and referred to the Safe Harbour treaty, and thus there was the question to the European High Court if the Irish High Court has to consider if the actual conditions of the Safe Harbour provisions were met. And now the Attorney General opinionated that the U.S. does not met the the regulations for the Safe Harbour treaty because European citizens have no legal recourse against the wholesale spying performed by the NSA and other organisations in the U.S.. The NSA spying was called unspecific and without clear goal and thus in violation of the privacy rights of European citizens. This is the first time that an European institution actually took the Snowden allegations as fact (until now most courts opinionated that the allegations have not been proven yet), and thus issued a statement that the U.S. is not adhering to the provisions and thus the European Commission can't declare the U.S. a safe harbour, thus all treaties with the U.S. about data protections are void.
Re:The US needs a serious spanking (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't Facebook an Irish company?
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't Facebook an Irish company?
As much as Apple and Google are.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't Facebook an Irish company?
As much as Apple and Google are.
It would be funny if their tax shenanigans end up biting them in the ass and puts them fully under EU rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of. I'm not an accountant or anything even close, but from what I understand of the financial wrangling they're doing, they've basically established dummy companies in Ireland that own the rights to all of the European intellectual property, while the actual operations lie with other subsidiaries. The subsidiaries then pay licensing fees to those dummy companies, who then funnel the funds back to the mother company.
Because of the shell game that's being played, the companies have their EU operations ta
Re:The US needs a serious spanking (Score:5, Insightful)
if facebook had no european operations it would not be having any problems, as the data would already be in USA.
but they're doing business and hosting in the EU, so there's that. nothing forcing them to try to prosecute in the usa.
bottom line is that USA isn't complying.
Re: (Score:3)
You make it sound like Facebook forces does something with EU citizen data against their will. In fact, Schrems chooses to use Facebook and enter private data, knowing that it will end up on US servers, and that's the same with all other EU citizens whose data ends up on US s
Re: (Score:3)
You make it sound like Facebook forces does something with EU citizen data against their will. In fact, Schrems chooses to use Facebook and enter private data, knowing that it will end up on US servers, and that's the same with all other EU citizens whose data ends up on US servers: you do business with a US company (directly or indirectly) and your data ends up in the US.
Except, not.
I never used Facebook. Yet Facebook send me emails suggesting that I know this or that Facebook user (mostly they were correct about me knowing those people) and that I might want to join Facebook to stay in contact with them.
Which means that Facebook has information about me (from acquaintances that uploaded their address book) and processed that information about me to get even more data about me, with me ever agreeing to anything. I never did business with Facebook, yet data about me is on th
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea that only companies that you did business with should have information about you is laughably wrong. It also doesn't even apply in Europe, where there are plenty of exceptions.
In any case, the EU may or may not be able to bully companies like Facebook into compliance because they do business in Europe. But don't kid yourself: Americans are not going to comply with European wishes or views on personally identifiable inform
Re: (Score:2)
Law is law, and if a company does not have the right to use my data, it does not have it. And please avoid the racist remarks. There are never too many (whatever) people.
Re: (Score:2)
No, i do not. You're constructing it.
Your argument boils down to: "I just ignore laws, i see as unjust".
There is a point, where you start to do so. IF you live in a dictatorship.
But as long as you live in a democracy, you have the option to change laws. And if you do not like the law, you do not ignore it, but change it.
> European culture at its core is totalitarian
I guess you're a troll. Not sure if further discussion is worth it.
What about people who DON'T use Facebook? (Score:2)
Facebook almost certainly does some things with personal data about some EU citizens against their will. For example, by uploading the contents of users' phone books, it would be collecting personal data about everyone in those phone books, not just their owners. Because phone numbers are effectively unique IDs, and because Facebook appears to be collecting that data systematically from a large number of people, it would also be building a database about the social relationships of everyone in those phone b
Re: (Score:2)
If you take my private data and send it to someone else, then you are violating my privacy.
It may wel
Re: (Score:2)
If you take my private data and send it to someone else, then you are violating my privacy.
But it's obviously not as simple as equating private data with personal data. If I send you an e-mail, then unless you and I both run our own mail servers, some number of service providers between us are going to be involved in forwarding the mail, complete with your e-mail address and mine. I don't think most people would say sending or receiving an e-mail is violating the other party's privacy, but there is certainly personally identifiable data there, and in connection with other personally identifiable
Re: (Score:2)
Erm... Did you actually understand my post, at all? Did you even read it? It's like I wrote that whole post and you still think I'm on the other side of the debate or something.
Re: (Score:2)
They have. That's the reason, why they try to avoid data.
You know, what the nazis liked? the registers with religious data. Here a german read for you: http://www.heise.de/ct/ausgabe... [heise.de]
Re: The US needs a serious spanking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if I understand the case correctly, the ratification may end up being invalid. As analogy, imagine the US ratifies a treaty and the SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional afterwards. I guess the US constitution would win over the ratification too.
And BTW, I can fully imagine that the EU was sloppy in the ratification process.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course the Senate can't ratify a treaty that is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled that the US Constitution makes any such ratification invalid.
My problem is that the US is accused of trying to force their laws on other countries. That's really not accurate. Both sides are trying to push their laws and policies on the other. The Data Protection Directive under which this treaty might be invalid was created in 1995, so it should take precedence over a treaty that's in opposition to it and was n
Re: (Score:2)
That means if I start a company in the US and I process any data of EU citizens, the EU thinks I'm subject to EU laws on data protection even if I have no presence in the EU at all. When people complain that the US wants to extend their laws to other countries, this seems like the EU wants to do the same to the US.
I despise the US surveillance and think there needs to be better data protection. However, I reject the criticism that only the US is trying to force their laws on other countries. The EU is trying to do the same.
If you process data of EU citizens, chances are that you are doing business in the EU. With the internet, a physical presence is not necessary anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The treaty doesn't give US a permission to spy. And yeah, there is a treaty, now the EU is questioning the treaty, and if US will keep on spying there will soon be no treaty. Dictating laws? Well, the thing is, nobody is dictating anything, just stating that US and EU laws are in conflict, and if some side doesn't change there can't be a treaty. You really expect them to first suggest they should drop all privacy protections from their own citizens?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So the US never violates international treaties then? Do some research outside your local corporational propaganda channels and wake up..
Re: (Score:2)
The US does not get to dictate law to foreign nations, no matter how much they'd like to.
Tell that to Swiss who dropped their pants and now report used-to-be-secret banking info to the damned IRS.
Re: (Score:3)
You're kidding right?
Export.gov requires safe harbor companies to self certify. - The companies state every year that they provide adequate protection.
Self-certifying to the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework will ensure that EU organizations know that your organization provides "adequate" privacy protection
That's all. No checks are made. No audit performed. There's noting to stop them lying, and companies HAVE lied - in their droves.
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't a ruling against a US organization, but a ruling against the entire US.
Re: (Score:3)
US courts forces US companies to non-comply with EU laws.
EU Supreme Court dont like that and now forces the companies to follow the law.
So this is EU Supreme Court appling tit for tat.
Re: (Score:2)
"Also, in what sense is Facebook Ireland a 'US organization'?"
It isn't. But it stores the data on servers in the US, that is what this is about.
Nobody cares where the company has its roots.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you did not understand that law.
Default case: It is illegal to store data outside of the EU.
Safe harbour: We acknowledge, that certain companies ARE allowed to store their data in the US, because they can guarantee for the data safety with respect to privacy.
Now: We must assume, that data in the US is not even safe, when its there according to the safe harbour treaty, because we know the NSA does not care about treaties.
So, the point is, nobody has to store data in the US. And nobody is allowed to d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let them handle Putin, ISIS, and the refugees, all over on their side of the world. Not the US's problem.
You know that the rise of ISIS and the refugee crisis is the result of the US conquest in the middle east, right?
What your are calling "Not the US's problem." is the consequences of US politics a decade ago. The US has been criticized for it but never took responsibility for the shit that was stirred up.
Dealing with the refugees could be as easy as building a wall like the one Trump suggested towards the Mexican borders, but that is not very humanitarian.
The insanity that is Putin is the result of the cold
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the end of the Cold War was expedited considerably because Bush Sr and James Baker promised Gorbachev they would not expand NATO eastward. "Not one inch" was the phrase at the time.
Now NATO have added basically all of eastern Europe, and are trying to incorporate Ukraine.
Doesn't make Putin a good guy, he patently is not. But without this context it is not actually possible to understand the situation.
Consider how the US would react if Russia were spending billions toward unconstitutional regime ch
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except that didn't really happen.
Except that it did. Victoria Nuland admitted to $5B :
http://youtu.be/U2fYcHLouXY
the fact you used the word "unconstitutional" is what gives you away as a Russian shill
There was regime change without elections. You and I might consider this "just", given that the previous bunch were pretty corrupt, but it certainly wasn't "constitutional".
NATO doesn't make anyone join by force
That's right, and I don't think anonymous GP was arguing they do. But they do accept or deny membership bids, and accepting Poland and various other former East Bloc nations was a violation of the promises made when the cold war ended.
Re: (Score:3)
As employees who wish to retain our employment contracts, we have no opt-out option.
Anonymous denunciation to the geographically relevant data protection agency. Opt-out is mandatory. Data may only be collected for a legitimate purpose that must be explicitly justified. Every database holding personal informations must be declared to the data protection agency so it can check for compliance.
Weigh it up. (Score:1)
Corporations don't comply with open European laws...... execs get fined (maybe)....
Corporations don't comply with secret U$A laws........ execs get "rendition" to Federal prison.
Which scenario do you think they'll choose ?
Re:Weigh it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or
US corporation stay within the USA, missing out on doing business with 96% of the worlds population.
At one point the USA made up about 60% of the worlds GDP, that meant doing business with the US.
Now the US is about 1/3 of the worlds GDP, meaning more money can be made dealing with everyone else.
The US is no longer able to dictate to the world, and that scares US politicians shitless, they don't know how to behave when not in charge.
Re:Weigh it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
There is no "right" for US corporations to participate in foreign markets. If they don't want to abide by the terms of a foreign nation's laws, they're free not to do business there.
They are not free to impose US law on those nations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And then we get into a tit for tat situation. The US will make it hard for European Union corporations to do business here. It wont be good for anyone but the US has deep pockets even with the last two presidents presiding over a spending spree of biblical proportions. It's arguably more self sufficient than the EU. It'll be bad for the world in general. I expect there will be some sort of compromise way before anything like that happens though.
Re: (Score:2)
US companies would still be free to do business in the EU. They would just have to locate their servers in the EU.
Re:Weigh it up. (Score:4, Informative)
Won't help. As long as they are US companies the US Courts think they can force them to divulge information stored in EU.
From an actual court case still active against Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is imposing US law on those nations? The US is imposing US law on US companies doing business in a foreign country. Its up to the US company to sort out the conflict between US law and local law, not the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
No I think its the US Govement who need to decide if they want international companies or only domestic.
They cant force US law into all other countries around the world.
If they want international companies, US Goverment can't make laws that forces their international companies to break other countries laws.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't forcing US law into all other countries, they are forcing their own citizens and entities to follow domestic law.
There is no such thing as an "international company", there are only companies that conduct business internationally - and yes, the US government can force US companies to break foreign laws, its up to the company to reconcile that conflict with their business.
I don't see this issue coming up when we are talking about US or EU companies being prosecuted for bribery in foreign nations,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see this issue coming up when we are talking about US or EU companies being prosecuted for bribery in foreign nations, even when it wouldn't be considered bribery in those foreign nations.
That's not a reasonable comparison. The right comparison would be if those companies were prosecuted for bribery in foreign nations, where such foreign nations required bribery by law (which, by definition they don't, because then it wouldn't be bribery).
Plus, we can't divorce the actual subject matter from the issue. The US is demanding the ability to violate the privacy rights of foreign citizens (as the EU sees it), and the EU says it's against the law to aid and abet that. Yes, it's up to the multina
Re: (Score:2)
US laws do not exist outside US territory.
Re: (Score:2)
US laws do not exist outside US territory.
But US companies work outside US territory and the government wants their data. Look at the Microsoft case where an NY judge demands their data from servers in Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And this is why the EU would like to forbid storing EU citizens' data on storage owned by US companies.
I wonder how US companies are going to store personal details of non-US employees. Will Microsoft be forbidden from using their own servers for HR and payrolling?
Yeah! Only EU countries can spy on the EU! (Score:1, Insightful)
Cough, Germany, UK, etc. etc. Cough cough.
This is just more "Anti American Company" bullshit that parts of the EU pull every once in a while because they're mad all the big internet companies are in the US and stuff and not in the EU. Oh sure, the proposed purpose SOUNDS noble. Except plenty of countries in the EU already do the same thing they're protesting so loudly about. So really it has nothing to do with privacy, and everything to do with throwing a hissy fit that they don't have their own Apple or Fa
Re: (Score:2)
At least the EU gives lip service to protecting its citizens private information. Here in the good old USA the government makes no secret that it wants to become increasingly more both invasive and pervasive.
Re: (Score:1)
Different subject, but still it is understandable that governments that provide more services to citizens require more resources to do so. I'm a social libertarian, not a conservative libertarian, and more in favor of rewarding those adept at acquiring wealth a trophy rather than let them horde their wealth to the detriment of their fellow men. We, both poor and rich, are all in this together after all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kinda like nuclear weapons; the US has them themselves, but they will go to war against any country that they imagine might also want to have them.
In this case countries would like to spy themselves, but they don't want to be spied upon by others.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually unconstitutional, at least by a literal interpretation of the US Constitution. Of course the courts have pretty much decided to reinterpret that document in a way that allows the government to get away with all kinds of sleazy things. Can't let legality get in the way now can we?
it just makes so much sense (Score:1)
From the reuter article:
"If the United States doesn't change its laws in order to guarantee a minimum of data protection to European citizens, U.S. companies will have to process their data in the EU,"
Spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. government cannot be trusted. (Score:1)
The government of the United States of America has lost all credibility.
What once represented freedom for many now stands for oppression.
Why does the state need to spy on its own citizens?
Answer - to identify and stamp out dissent in order to preserve the status quo.
Time to go back to sleep sheeple..... Nothing to see here.
nice (Score:1)
Ironic twist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether it would be "safer" is a matter of opinion, but the point is the EU wants to do their own spying on their citizens, rather than let the US do it. Like for example when Snowden revealed that the US has been spying on the German Chancellor. That's a big no-no.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should that be a "no-no"? Spying on foreign leaders is one of the primary jobs of spy agencies. The US has no reason to trust Merkel. Oh, Merkel probably won't attack the US militarily, but the German government has engaged in anything from weapons exports and toleration of right wing extremism to secret illegal international agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An "alliance" just means that two nations pursue some common goal; it doesn't imply trust, friendship, or good will. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are also "allies" of the US; that doesn't mean that we trust them.
Germany has been a military ally since WWII, but it was full of Nazis and communists after WWII, which is why the US maintained an extensive spy program in Germany and throughout the German government. That was with the knowledge and support of the
As someone that writes HR software... (Score:1)
dammit. About half of our customers have a few employees in Europe. We mainly support US companies, but most of them have remote employees outside of the country. This might kill us. Thanks Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been obvious for a long time that (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For foreigners? No, of course not. US spy agencies have always had a right to look into the data of foreigners. That's the same for all spy agencies anywhere.
The difference is that Americans used to be legally protected against that kind of spying by their own government, and the scandal in the US is that those laws were violated. Europeans have never been legally protected in the same way from their own governments at all.
Pot, kettle, black (Score:3)
Your data is probably safer in the US than it is in the EU. European countries have spies too, you know...
At least, US citizens seem to make a big deal out of it and they are allowed to speak it out. In the EU, we don't need a Snowden to know that the government spies on us, yet, few people seem to care, of their control of the press is much more effective than in the US.
Wise move (Score:2)
The U.S. government are nothing more than mega-corporate bitches. They should be shunned and marginalized
Re:BS article summary (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, it's absolutely necessary for US companies to either be certified under the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, or otherwise demonstrate to the EU that they abide by those principles, in order to be allowed to transfer personal data to the US. Any other scenario would be a violation of the Data Protection Directive, because the USA doesn't provide adequate level of protection, and never has.
The problem is that the certification process is easier, and totally unreliable, especially when it comes to big fishes. The FTC hasn't shown any willingness to make any effort to enforce it significantly (FTC: "Are you complying to the Safe Harbor Principles?" Big Data: "Yes we are." FTC: "Good. Here's your certification."), making it de facto a vast scam.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:BS article summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
National Security letters as part of the problem (Score:1)
Since it has become public knowledge that US authorities can demand the "protected" data at any time, even from subsidiaries abroad, the value of any certification or demonstration is questionable.
That alone could end up making the Safe Harbor rules unusable for US companies, regardless of FTC enforcement. Depending on the EU court's ultimate decision of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When who is as rich as who?
USA GDP: 16 trillion
EU GDP: 18 trillion
Re: (Score:2)
Bahahaha, you posted the GDP of a single country and compared it with the GDP of *Twenty Eight*
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, EU comprised of quite separate countries with sovereign governments, any one of which can be forced to leave by the others under certain conditions. Nothing like the articles of confederation at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes those 28 countries with 508 Million people have close to the GDP of the worlds single superpower with its 326 million people. That's nice. Maybe sum up the rest of the world's GDP while your at it and claim the non-US produces more than the US. Doesn't change things, U.S.A. is the pitcher and any other country or group of countries is the bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the British Prime Minister apparently does. You should catch up on current affairs some time.