Yes we have yet more “Regulation” coming.
In an industry where the unscrupulous and downright dishonest are regularly attempting to steal money from “the punters” - this has to be a good thing - right ?
When the Govt of the US tried to prevent their citizens from playing poker on-line, they appeared to be successful. However you would be amazed how many online poker players there now are gambling from Canada and Brazil (Similar time zones to US). The implication being that some have simply “moved offshore” in their declared locations.
In the 1960s? a Labour Government was distressed by “Rackman type” landlords and intrduced the “Fair rents act” - which entirely killed the private rental sector until it was superceded many many years later and now we have “6 month assured shorthold tenencies” which do at least allow the sector to operate !
When the “Bankers” caused what they now refer to as the “financial crisis” (which was entirely foreseeable) by parcelling up dubious mortgages and selling them off as “financial packages” and by simply printing money without “Regulation”, the “Regulations” were brought in to ensure it never happened again. The net result (UK) was that self employed people and those in special circumstances were entirely prevented from using the “Self Certification” system to purchase houses, resulting in them having to pay more to rent than they would have to pay to buy a property. Less secure people were entirely prevented from accessing “mainstream credit” and are even now paying “payday lenders” at disgusting rates of interest (1500% pa is fairly “modest”).
Recently we have had a “Health driven” Sugar tax introduce in uk - here is a link to what appears to be the unintended consequence of that !
https://forums.babypips.com/t/sugar-tax-uk-and-insurance/152279
So with the new ESMA regulations (The same team ultimately responsible for the "Payday loans " scandal) on trading far as seems to be likely at the moment, it would seem that a great many of the most vulnerable will again be be driven to the arms of the least scrupulous “brokers”.
To me there seems to be ONE good result - the limitation of losses to the size of the account !
The rest (and indeed the real result of that one) we shall need to wait and see when the industry resets its platforms and “Terms and Conditions” to compensate for the Regulations.
My own preliminary assessment is that the most vulnerabe will become even more vulnerabe, yet they will have no protection - but that’s ok - because they will fall outside of ESMA Regulations - therefore ESMA cannot be criticised - The mulitiple victims will simply “drop off teh scale”
I believe it’s just an “A_ss covering excercise” by the faceless Beaurocrats. but hey they have to preserve their jobs and pensions - AND can be shown to have “Done something”.
In the meanwhile we cannot know the real detailed results and can only wait and see if those trading small accounts can actually find any real reason to bother “Trading” at all !
Please understand that the examples I have given are not detailed and there may be errors in the minutiae - I am “Firing from the hip” here but I believe the principle of my argument to be sound. ! 
[Edit - I would postulate that every single effort to “protect the vulnerable” by the intrduction of Laws or “Regulation” has had massive unintended consequences - eventually operating to the disadvantage of that “Vulnerable group” or a different “vulnerable group” - to quote my old Grannie - “It’ll all end in tears !” ]