Yes laws are not crystal clear but you don't understand the problem because when laws are unclear in your country / union there is a clear channel to debate it which is the regulator and the courts this channels are not available to extra-territorial parties.

Add to that the fact that you now have laws enforced on you that you have no control on how they were written or are enforced because you are not part of the electorate that passed them.

International law is applied when 2 countries agree on a common set of rules in which case you have 2 representative electorates which are mediating an agreement.

The GDPR has no legal basis of application it's not part of any trade agreement or any other international agreement between the EU and other countries.

The claim that it somehow applicable is essentially tyrannical despite the intent of the law the means through which and the fact that people support it's universal application is terrifying.

What is even more terrifying is the likely means of enforcement which will be through the multinationals.

>The regulation is obviously available and there is a host of interpretative guidelines issued by the Article 29 Working Party which will enable anyone with enough time and desire to understand the implications of compliance. I'm not sure what kind of assistance you're looking for here? It's incumbent on the party who wants to operate in a country/provide services to users in that country to understand the relevant laws.

What are you even trying to say here? If I don't live in the EU, have no legal presence in the EU I have no means through which I must comply with the GDPR.

Mandating that I would create a local legal entity to serve as a proxy in a member state is a violation of existing trade agreements and WTO rules.

Enforcement of extra-territorial laws must be done through a process which is agreeable and understood by all parties.

>If you disagree with the extra-territorial application of the GDPR then that's a separate issue. Bringing international tax treatment into the discussion is also not of relevance.

This entire debate is about the extra-territorial application of the GDPR, bringing international tax treatment is super relevant because it's an established framework and it already establish things like localization which are critical for extra-territorial application that the GDPR must follow.

People really need to wake up and understand that the GDPR isn't about Facebook or eBay, Amazon or the likes it applies to them equally as it applies to your local dry cleaner or hair dresses which collect and process Personal Information as defined under the GDPR and are subject to the full extent of it's regulatory requirements.

What is more frighting is that through commerce of either tangible goods or services this regulation can be applied to non-EU entities in not only a extra-territorial fashion but in also extra-judicial one.

The reality is that either many small businesses or businesses regardless to which the volume of trade they have with the EU is less than the cost of compliance would likely be forced to stop offering services to EU consumers or switch to a proxy like well eBay or Amazon.

The scope of regulation like FATCA or SOX which were mentioned here as examples applies to institutions that can afford it and can handle it.

The GDPR applies to everyone equally, actually that isn't true if it applies to non-EU entities it doesn't apply equally it's much more costlier to them. If nothing else is then just by your ridiculous example "consult a lawyer" then a GDPR lawyer in Belgium or the UK would be fairly cheap since it's an established local law, to get the same level of advice and to get arbitration with a DPA in say Bolivia you can't go to an ambulance chaser you'll be limited to an international law firm.
Not to mention that getting legal advice for such services can be achieved for free in the EU through the local DPA and or various organizations like Citizen Advice which provide legal assistance.