You're right that the talk from EU about EU sovereignty is about increasing EU involvement, while decreasing US involvement. I don't agree that it's a misleading term: both "EU sovereignty" (EU independence from the US) and "EU member state sovereignty" (member state independence from the EU) are both valid uses of the term "sovereignty".
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.
I also think it’s futile to think member states can get sovereignty in these types of areas without collaborating together on an EU level. I don’t think anyone believes this would be possible.
Perhaps the grandparent is a sockpuppet account, as they have quite an extreme take.
They are in conflict with each other, that's the problem. The US is only thrown in conveniently to muddy the water and as scarecrow but the aim is EU over member states in any case.
> the EU (as in all the EU member states)
No, it's the EU, not the member states independently as sovereign states. Note also that there is a huge difference between "European cooperation" and "EU integration".
Over time the EU has taken over significant levers of sovereignty away from member states. The single currency was a very big one (hence some countries decided to stay away). Now it is pushing into another very regalian domain, which is defence.
If there was a referendum in each EU country to ask the people clearly and honestly whether they were in favour of their country disappearing as sovereign state and becoming only a 'state' of a federal EU, my strong guess is that they would vote "no", but that's exactly what is happening little by little. That's my point, my problem with and fear about the EU (and of course the national governments that are in on it).
Quite disappointing to read the crass insults and accusations thrown by some commenters, as well as the barrage of downvotes. Unfortunately it seems to be an usual pattern (I'm getting uncomfortable 1984 vibes more and more).
I think this is a bit unfair. The EU is a combination of the member states and institutions: the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council of the European Union. These bodies are made up of either people elected directly by EU citizens or by politicians from EU member countries, not dissimilar to how the federal government in the US is made up of either people elected directly by US citizens or by politicians from US member states.
And just as it would be unfair to describe the US as only its member states, I believe it is unfair to describe the EU as only its member countries.
The EU at its very core is international contracts between member states. All that the EU is is contracts between states. Thus, the EU itself is nothing but the member states acting from their sovereignty.
From my perspective, the main structural difference between the EU and the US is that it's legal for a member country to leave the EU but illegal for a member state to leave the US.
This is a very significant difference and means that the EU is a consensual partnership between countries while the US is not. Still, if the US instituted a legal way for a member state to secede, I do not think it would be fair to call the US "only contracts between states"; I think it would be warranted to view the federal government as its own political entity which is more than just the sum of its member states.
Do you agree with my view of this hypothetical alternative US? If yes: what is the essential difference between that and the EU which makes one a political entity of its own right while the other is "just contracts between countries"? If no: why?
Had the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe succeeded, I would agree with your point.
Since it hasn't, it's all just a bunch of treaties between countries. Yes, there is European politican entities. But they all just exist by the power of the member states instituting them. They are not (yet?) established as powers in their own right.
There is a huge, crucial, and obvious difference here (the EU is made of member states but a member state's sovereignty is not the same as the "EU sovereignty", very obviously), but if you can't see it (or refuse to) after what I already wrote then I am afraid that I don't have the energy to even attempt to discuss this with you...
The modern versions of empire are showing off all of deviant proclivities of our species.
Humanity must find a way to move forward with individual soveriegnty, for which privacy, education, and financial freedom are keys, or live with the horrors of insane
people continiously gaining controll of state/empire aparatus and turning it to cults of genocide.
It means some countries had already advanced hardened satcom capacities (like France which had it for a long time, lookup Syracuse satellites, it exists since 1984) in geostationary orbit, mostly for military use. It organizes the sharing of these capacities between countries immediately, before the arrival of the IRIS² constellation in low earth orbit/medium earth orbit.
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).
Yes, that's pretty much what the quote form the article says. And then IRIS² constellation will be fully an EU system that member states will be able to use. Sounds like a reduction of sovereignty to me at least for the countries that have their own capabilities.
I believe, as an european, that isn't much of a concern. We are very coupled to one another, plenty have family ties with other european citizens, share similar languages within immediate neighbours, and are culturally similar. Even religion is mostly shared. Of course, each has its own identity, not saying this isn't the case.
But without unity each one of us would just be yet another small country with a declining population, unity gives us strength.
The US leadership today thinks they are powerful enough by themselves. Quite a different perspective. Hence why sovereignty there seems to have a more patriotic meaning. I'm sure the states themselves still see the value of collaborating between themselves however.
France will keep having its own satellites anyway for some time and Eutelsat is french too, so for France not so much. I do not about the other countries having current sovereign solutions. But if you take France, Germany and Italy, they already share some military space stuff like observation satellite of optical and SAR kind (france provided the optical part, and italy/germany developed and operate the SAR satellites).
The EU is sovereign, it is, and always has been a project for member states to tackle issues at scale that would not make sense to duplicate on a national scale, and to reap the benefits together. Don't buy into the nonsense that being stronger together is somehow detrimental to sovereignty of member states. It in fact makes them less vulnerable to bad actors on an international such as the U.S., Russia, and China.
As I mentioned in another comment, if the EU is sovereign then member states no longer are, and if member states are sovereign then the EU isn't and still defers to member states.
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.
I think this is a valid point; France is sovereign now in a way that Texas isn't, for example. Texas doesn't have an independent nuclear deterrent. Or, more to the point, Minnesota.
But the rationale is clear. Europe has spent too many centuries and too many lives in warfare. There is no way forwards that isn't some kind of unified structure with the guns pointed outwards.
This is akin to States in United States losing sovereignty to the United States Federal government. It is a balancing act between the two, and calling the USA (or the specific States) therefore not sovereign isn't about curiosity; it is intellectually dishonest. Surely you can do better if you want a discussion where curiosity reigns.
> [...] and in fine sovereignty, to the EU from member states [...]
This no longer works if NATO doesn't exist or if those member states get under military pressure by either Russia or the United States.
The narrative you mention is spread by alt-right trolls in order to lower the power the EU has. It is called divide and conquer.
> and calling the USA (or the specific States) therefore not sovereign isn't about curiosity; it is intellectually dishonest
No idea where this accusation comes from. The USA are a sovereign country. Individual US states are not sovereign (they are part of the US). That's what I have been saying wrt. EU vs member states as the EU moves towards federalisation. Where is the dishonesty?
It is moving control from member states to the EU.
An European country with strong military relation/dependence on the US, say, a la South Korea is still more sovereign than if it becomes a simple 'state' of a federal EU...
It is even more obvious if you take France as example as France has low dependency on the US and has been careful to keep its independence on defence matters. So for France it is all a pure loss of sovereignty and independence (which has been going on for years now, tbh).
To me, the EU is only using Trump tactically to further its aim of greater control over European defence.
The irony, or worse, is that no later than 2023 it was apparently urgent for Sweden and Finland to join NATO and to buy F-35s (Finland and many others)... The only clear thing is that we are taken for fools.
EU states can outright ignore EU law, like Hungary does. They won't be invaded, like if a nonsovereign entity like Minneapolis ignores the laws of its sovereign
There's a common thread that the EU is some awful unaccountable organisation. This tends to mainly come from the US. It's also the line pushed by Russian propaganda for the last 15 years.
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.
> It's also true that any country in the EU can choose to leave the EU at any time,
Exactly. If countries want to be 100% sovereign, they can do a Brexit and enjoy the benefits and the downsides of doing that.
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 each a high degree 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.
> There's a common thread that the EU is some awful unaccountable organisation. This tends to mainly come from the US. It's also the line pushed by Russian propaganda for the last 15 years.
Not sure about the US, haven't seen such sentiment much. But from Russia? Yup, lots of EU skeptic parties have ties to Putin or Russia.
Neither the president nor the commissioners are elected by the 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?
The UK prime minister isn't elected by the people either. Doesn't mean it's not a democracy.
The EU Council is the heads of government of each EU country. Without their support there is no EU Commission president, no commissioners, and anything the EU tries to do can't be passed.
The EU doesn't have ultimate power as it has no military — member states can just ignore it. They will stop receiving benefits though. Most EU states realise a rising tide lifts all boats.
If the EU becomes an actual state then it can be sovereign, but then it means that member states won't be sovereign anymore as they will no longer be independent states. This process is already in progress.
It's the other way around. If the EU becomes sovereign it becomes an actual state.
The EU can be said to be sovereign in some limited areas without being really sovereign, though. We say the Schengen agreement sets border law, even though countries often set up illegal border checks.
As another EU citizen I'm strongly against it. There is a reason one of the 5Ds of the Potsdam Conference was "Decentralization".
This is just way too close to the nationalist-wing ideology of the 2nd International. Combine that with the overall strong shift left during the last 30 to 40 years and the staggering unawareness of the ideologies of the Internationals (beyond buzzwords) and you've put yourself on a path for repeated history.
Which sovereignty in this matter have countries which anyway would not have possibility to develop this capacity in anyway ? Estonia has not the know-how to make satellites, or make rockets or put anything into orbit by itself. Are they more or less sovereign with a shared guaranteed access to such a capacity provided by bigger countries of Europe and or Europe itself ?
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.
It is not FUD, it is stating the obvious that "European integration" is happening little by little non-transparently and deceptively. If nation states are to disappear and to be replaced by a federalised EU then it should be very clearly put to the people once and for all for them to decide (my guess is that the EU wouldn't like the answer)...
> Without such development small EU countries would be dependent upon the will and need of Elon Musk or the american DOD.
They're not getting replaced. It's just one think tank who wrote an opinion piece. While it keeps being a "what if?" and some people think it should happen, it has no political traction right now, not among the people, not among the EU itself, and not among the member states.
That's the whole point of the EU, it's not some hidden agenda. Many people support a stronger EU. Yes, this means that single member states have less sovereignity. But the EU is a democratic institution (and yes, there's a lot to improve here I know) and giving up sovereignity doesn't mean giving up democracy.
"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.
It's just a central marketplace so the governments can buy the unused capacity from these satellites with reduced negotiations with each states operating the satellites.
Most member countries are too small to have their own capabilities. It's either some sort of EU capability or outsourcing to US/China. Denmark can't afford operating a fleet of stealth bombers or whatever. In the past, basically all the big-country stuff was outsourced to the US. With Trump being elected twice this strategy seems to be a lot less safe than what everyone (except the French) used to think.
