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.
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.