From the headline I expected some kinds of new communication satellites. But instead this is "just" a marketplace where government entities can purchase services. The satellites were already in orbit and already "EU sovereign", this is about making it easier to use them and centralizing capacity planning
In a way this is the dry run for when IRIS² starts service in another four years or so, the European Starshield equivalent
mytailorisrich 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mort96 4 hours ago [-]
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.
stingraycharles 3 hours ago [-]
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.
mytailorisrich 1 hours ago [-]
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).
metalman 3 hours ago [-]
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.
bdauvergne 4 hours ago [-]
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).
mytailorisrich 4 hours ago [-]
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.
spookie 2 hours ago [-]
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.
bdauvergne 4 hours ago [-]
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).
jonkoops 4 hours ago [-]
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.
mytailorisrich 4 hours ago [-]
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.
pjc50 1 hours ago [-]
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.
philipwhiuk 4 minutes ago [-]
In this case though, control is moving not from France to the EU but from the US to the EU.
4 hours ago [-]
shafyy 4 hours ago [-]
It is correct that EU member states are not 100% sovereign, they need to implement EU law.
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?
notahacker 2 hours ago [-]
"Sovereign" is pretty widely used in the space industry to mean "made domestically, including the subsystems".
In this case, it means subsystems made in EU countries, and not imported from outside the EU.
direwolf20 2 hours ago [-]
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
iso1631 4 hours ago [-]
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.
direwolf20 2 hours ago [-]
The Council pushed Chat Control very hard, and the Parliament rejected it, so it is not the law. Russian propaganda only emphasised the first part.
iso1631 60 minutes ago [-]
> The Council
I.e. the heads of each sovereign government wanted it - democratic as anything else the French or Polish or Swedish government do
> Parliament rejected it
I.e. the representatives of the people didn't. What's democracy when one representative says yes and another says no
exceptione 3 hours ago [-]
> 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.
spookie 2 hours ago [-]
> 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.
Classic divide and conquer.
iso1631 58 minutes ago [-]
many pro-europe comments on HN get whacked down to grey once America wakes up
389236109210 3 hours ago [-]
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?
iso1631 3 hours ago [-]
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.
nek28 4 hours ago [-]
I don't see why term sovereignty should be applied only to member states and not the EU as a whole.
direwolf20 1 hours ago [-]
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.
mytailorisrich 4 hours ago [-]
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.
direwolf20 1 hours ago [-]
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.
pepperoni_pizza 3 hours ago [-]
Yes, and I'm not sure why you're framing it as some kind of gotcha. As an EU citizen, I'm all for it.
DeepSeaTortoise 3 hours ago [-]
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.
bdauvergne 4 hours ago [-]
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.
mytailorisrich 3 hours ago [-]
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.
Speaking of FUD and false dichotomy...
direwolf20 1 hours ago [-]
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.
bdauvergne 3 hours ago [-]
How can you state now, at all time, that to be wary of american power is FUD ?
shafyy 4 hours ago [-]
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.
mapt 3 hours ago [-]
It is a very vague multifaceted concept.
"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.
claudex 4 hours ago [-]
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.
tormeh 4 hours ago [-]
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.
sajithdilshan 1 hours ago [-]
I honestly wonder whether the EU can afford to spend on technological sovereignty. With an aging population and the need to maintain welfare states, governments will have to allocate more and more of future budgets to expanding and sustaining welfare programs (statutory health insurance, pensions, unemployment benefits, etc.). That ultimately means higher taxes, a larger government workforce, and a shrinking private sector. Maybe they will have enough money to maintain the existing status quo, but not sure where the additional capital would come from to invest in digital sovereignty.
jcfrei 2 minutes ago [-]
Not sure why you are getting downvoted - I'm wondering the same thing. Catching up is inherently more expensive than just maintaining a lead. And on top of that the EU pensioners will oppose any reallocation of resources outside of their retirement / pension schemes. The EU does have more fiscal headroom than the US, ie. lower debt per GDP and lower debt per capita - so through borrowing they could mobilize some more funds. But thats' about it and I'm doubtful that's going to be enough.
notahacker 44 minutes ago [-]
Most of the "digital sovereignty" stuff is spending money on companies that intend to sell services at a profit and pay taxes on it. So they absolutely can afford to do it (and governments have more routes to getting money back than just exits) provided you back the right companies. That's probably more easily achieved in digital sovereignty than space launch though.
philipwhiuk 2 minutes ago [-]
> With an aging population and the need to maintain welfare states, governments will have to allocate more and more of future budgets to expanding and sustaining welfare programs (statutory health insurance, pensions, unemployment benefits, etc.). That ultimately means higher taxes, a larger government workforce, and a shrinking private sector.
All of this is also true in the US.
alephnerd 58 minutes ago [-]
The EU has the capacity, but will be working closely with other partners like India, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Vietnam, and the UAE as capital and/or technology partners.
For example, Eutelsat - which is providing the backbone for GOVSATCOM and IRIS2 - is a three-way partnership between India's Bharti Group (Sunil Mittal), the French, and the UK. Or GCAP where Japan's Mitsubishi Group is acting as both a technology and capital partner to Italy and the UK.
This was also a major driver behind the EU-India Defense Pact and the EU-Vietnam Comprehensive Security Partnership - both of which were overshadowed by the EU-India FTA.
A multilateral organization like the EU has the muscle to integrate and cooperate with other partners, which is something that shouldn't be underestimated.
metalman 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Archelaos 2 hours ago [-]
I agree. However, the EU is by far the most advanced on this path. Unfortunately, it is compelled to build its own minor empire now, since the global hegemon abandons its mainly cooperative approach and wants to reign by force. Now, that the USA seems to turn back into what it was before the civil rights movement, the EU is forced to cut its close ties to the USA to preserve her liberties.
p-e-w 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
notahacker 2 hours ago [-]
"Sovereign" in the context of spacecraft means satellites that are designed, built and operated within a territory without relying on external suppliers for key subsystems.
If you insist on inventing new definitions of the word like "total subjugation of the individual to the state", at least keep it sufficiently on topic to explain how parts of a satellite coming from Italy and France and ground ops from Spain without relying on imports from the US or South Africa is going to lead to this...
derelicta 5 hours ago [-]
Too little too late, but one can still appreciate the initiative.
buckle8017 1 hours ago [-]
Guy in charge of NATO (who is dutch I think) recently said EU would need to move to spending 10% GDP to plausibly not need the us military.
So this is great and all but it's too little too late.
bluebarbet 58 minutes ago [-]
The declared aim of Nato sec-gen is 5%.
The EU and USA have similar total GDP measured by PPP, and USA spends 3.4%. So 10% would be wildly excessive by any measure. In addition the EU has three times the population of the unstated enemy, Russia.
But it's true that this initiative is happening too late.
isodev 1 hours ago [-]
What Mark Rutte has been saying recently is mostly buzzwords for peach daddy's ears (and has been criticises by EU members as it misrepresents our current goals and motivations).
Rendered at 15:23:06 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
In a way this is the dry run for when IRIS² starts service in another four years or so, the European Starshield equivalent
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.
> 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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 this case, it means subsystems made in EU countries, and not imported from outside the EU.
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.
I.e. the heads of each sovereign government wanted it - democratic as anything else the French or Polish or Swedish government do
> Parliament rejected it
I.e. the representatives of the people didn't. What's democracy when one representative says yes and another says no
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.
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.
Classic divide and conquer.
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 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 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.
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.
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...
"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.
All of this is also true in the US.
For example, Eutelsat - which is providing the backbone for GOVSATCOM and IRIS2 - is a three-way partnership between India's Bharti Group (Sunil Mittal), the French, and the UK. Or GCAP where Japan's Mitsubishi Group is acting as both a technology and capital partner to Italy and the UK.
This was also a major driver behind the EU-India Defense Pact and the EU-Vietnam Comprehensive Security Partnership - both of which were overshadowed by the EU-India FTA.
A multilateral organization like the EU has the muscle to integrate and cooperate with other partners, which is something that shouldn't be underestimated.
If you insist on inventing new definitions of the word like "total subjugation of the individual to the state", at least keep it sufficiently on topic to explain how parts of a satellite coming from Italy and France and ground ops from Spain without relying on imports from the US or South Africa is going to lead to this...
So this is great and all but it's too little too late.
The EU and USA have similar total GDP measured by PPP, and USA spends 3.4%. So 10% would be wildly excessive by any measure. In addition the EU has three times the population of the unstated enemy, Russia.
But it's true that this initiative is happening too late.