The laws are designed to make the extortion impossible. If one state isn't allowed to undercut another for an individual company then the "or we'll take our business elsewhere" question isn't possible.
>The laws are designed to make the extortion impossible. If one state isbn't allowed to undercut another for an individual company then the "or we'll take our business elsewhere" question isn't possible.
Those are EU laws. Apple could have taken their business anywhere else, including outside EU where such laws don't apply, and a country could undercut Irish taxes.
That said, I'm not against an international agreement to prevent that (though I don't think most countries will be willing to sign it, as they lose their negotiating advantages compared to other countries, and no companies would prefer them all other things being equal).
Agreed, to me much of the point of the EU is ensuring countries don't undercut eachother on product safety, environmental regulation, tax laws etc.
Ideally these things would be regulated in global agreements too, but that's harder to achieve.
I'm fine with Apple moving all of their business to China to dodge high taxes in the EU.
> Apple could have taken their business anywhere else, including outside EU where such laws don't apply, and a country could undercut Irish taxes.
Yes, Apple could do that. But then they'd have to pay EU customs and other costs that aren't applicable when you do business inside the EU. They choose to be inside the EU for a reason, and they should pay accordingly.
As you put it, it doesn't sound like extortion at all.
It sounds like a business negotiation.
Like negotiating for a place you want to rent or whatever. If they don't accept your terms, you take your business elsewhere.
Extortion necessitates an actual threat of harm.
"I'll take my business elsewhere" is not that, since Apple's business wasn't Ireland's in the first place.