> In general, I was really hoping you or another would address why the EU doesn't take preventative action. And in your answer, include why they may purposefully choose to let this practice continue with their lack of illegal-country-tax-reducer punishments and their lack of proactivity when these deals are being made

Just because something is happening, doesn't mean it is justified. The wheels of justice grind slowly. Take for example the recent shooting. Do you want me to reply to that: "why didn't you prevent it?" The answer to that question is painfully obvious when applying Hanlon's razor: "you tried to, but you couldn't".

(It is going too slow for me as well, btw.)

> (i.e. like requiring certain deals to submit for EU approval if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways).

That is a great suggestion. I will contact a member of the EU parliament about it. I'm afraid I will get a technical answer explaining why that isn't possible, but we'll see.

EDIT: I've actually written my entire e-mail to a member of the EP but I've decided to not sent it. I've been thinking more about it, and I do not like the condescending, unrealistic tone of "if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways". Law (including common law) and government, all the time, work like that. A lower authority such as Ireland or The Netherlands decides something, and then the EC or EP decides that is not legal, then what happens is they'll be reprimanded (similar to supreme court ruling X while lower court ruled Y). Sometimes with fines, sometimes without. So I prefer the question being "like requiring certain deals to submit for EU approval" not because of "if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways" but to provide legal structure beforehand. However, it assumes that the multinationals we're discussing are somehow victims here. They're not. They know exactly what they were doing, it just failed for them.

EDIT: As for what you wrote here:

> Selective enforcement is a real thing, and to brush it off as tu quoque, whataboutism, etc misunderstands the reason it is brought up. It's not a "oh, well him too" argument. It's a "why not apply evenly if you can" argument. I agree with you, that "I hope they'll get the appropriate amount of tax due from those as well". Until then, it's not unreasonable to ask if their enforcement choice follows a profile.

It doesn't seem you agree with me, you seem to assume malice from the EU. You seem to think its profiling. You seem tho assume it is easy, cheap, and quick to investigate all this accurately.

The proof is in the pudding. It has taken the EU 3 years to get to this point, with 2 companies. The EU still didn't get its money from Ireland, nor did Ireland even bother to get its money from Apple.

You know when your argument would be sound? If preventive frisking on Amsterdam train station or specific zones in Amsterdam would be done to for example black people more so than white people, and statistics would prove that this happens, then it'd be fair to say gelijke monniken, gelijke kappen ("what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"). Why? Because -unlike in your example- it is very easy for the Dutch police to execute that. All they have to do, is do more preventive frisking to white people, or do less preventive frisking to black people.