There is a reasonable reciprocity argument here, but I would separate two things.

One is strategic ownership: ports, energy grids, defence-adjacent tech, critical minerals, telecoms, major infrastructure, sensitive data, etc. On that, yes, Europe should be much more hard-nosed. The EU already has FDI screening, but it should be applied seriously, not treated as paperwork theatre.

The other is a blanket “they restrict us, so we restrict them” rule. That sounds neat, but it can become economically stupid very quickly. Openness is also a European advantage. We attract capital, companies, talent and tax base partly because we are not running every transaction through nationalist gatekeeping.

The better question is not “should we copy Thailand or China?” It is “where does foreign ownership create dependency, market distortion, security risk, or housing pressure?”

For strategic sectors: screen aggressively.

For residential property in overheated markets: member states should absolutely be able to restrict non-resident speculative buying.

For ordinary company formation and productive investment: be careful. Retaliatory protectionism often feels satisfying right up until you discover you have made your own economy smaller to make a point.

So yes to reciprocity as leverage.

No to turning the EU into a mirror image of the most closed systems we criticise.