In a way this is the dry run for when IRIS² starts service in another four years or so, the European Starshield equivalent
In this case:
"GOVSATCOM is conceived as a “system of systems,” merging existing national and commercial satellite capacities into a common EU pool. The program is structured in multiple phases, and is pooling capacity from eight existing, already-in-orbit GEO satellites from five member states — France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Luxembourg."
What does this mean? Does it mean that these satellites were fully sovereign, i.e. under the full control of their respective countries but now the EU will be involved via this program?
The goal is to level the playing field to prevent countries to look for non European alternatives for now, which often happen in Europe when nobodies coordinates the actions of different countries when something becomes suddenly urgent (I do not thinkg it's really, but government must always show they do something, and US companies operating constellations have good salesmen).
I think that such discourse are FUD to prevent any advancement of European integration. Without such development small EU countries would be dependent upon the will and need of Elon Musk or the american DOD.
> Without such development small EU countries would be dependent upon the will and need of Elon Musk or the american DOD.
Speaking of FUD and false dichotomy...
That's why I think the way the term "sovereign" is thrown around is misleading and in fact part of push to transfer more control, and in fine sovereignty, to the EU from member states. People can decide if that's good or bad but the process is misleading.
HN is about curiosity and it seems that commenters do not use any as soon as the EU is mentioned but rather accept the official narrative without questions. The trend is to reduce member states' sovereignty, not to increase it, while the EU is taking over.
It's also correct that the term "sovereign" is used incorrectly in this headline; I think what they meant to say is "independence".
> [...] it seems that commenters do not use any as soon as the EU is mentioned but rather accept the official narrative without questions.
Which narrative is that?
In reality the EU heads of state appoint the EU commissioners and form the EU council, and the EU parliament is elected by the public. Nothing gets passed by the EU without the approval of the council and parliament, and while it's arguable that parliament is a "rubber stamp" shop, it's certainly more independent from the executive than the US congress is, and the Council certainly isn't. It's also true that any country in the EU can choose to leave the EU at any time, unlike say the US, who refuse the right to self determination of its people.
They must be glad to have useful idiots frame any criticism as Russian influence. It's truly inconceivable that any of their subjects would not be overjoyed by their supreme leaders.
By the way, why are they pushing for chat control while von der Leyen deleted her incriminating SMS?
> It's also true that any country in the EU can choose to leave the EU at any time,
This {$x}exitter bullshit is so tiring. 27 space programs, 12 types of fighter jets etc are horrible expensive. EU-countries enjoy super-high benefits of sharing burdens. In times of might makes right, it gives them a high degrees of sovereignty for a steep discount. Yes, being part of a collective does mean that you have to give-and-take with the collective.
It isn't a game of all "benefits for me" in a zero sum game.
EDIT because I wanted to add some more thoughts: "Sovereignty" means "supreme power or authority". It is valid to say "EU member states should have the ultimate supreme authority and not be subservient to the EU". It is also valid to say "the EU (as in all the EU member states) should have the ultimate supreme authority and not be subservient to the US". The two ideas are not even in conflict with each other. If you think EU member states should be completely sovereign, you can still find it valuable to have EU-wide sovereignty initiatives which decrease the US's authority over EU member states.
There are two ways "EU sovereignty" can be read. One is "the EU and its member states should have the supreme authority over themselves and not be controlled by the US". The other is "the political body known as 'the EU' should have the supreme authority over its member states". I don't think these sovereignty initiatives are meant to be read as the latter.
Perhaps the grandparent is a sockpuppet account, as they have quite an extreme take.
"EU sovereignty" in this context means being the EU being able to act with comparable agency to the US or China, as a world power. Italy or Belgium is never going to be a world power again.
Right now the EU would find it severely challenging if the US, say, broke out in a civil war and lost most of its remaining industrial, service, communications, infrastructural & military power projection functionality.
derelicta•2h ago