That the US sees this technology as a matter of national security is all the more a reason to push for more independence to stay sovereign.
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/european-...
A budget of 120 million euros is quite low though.
> Guarantee that a significant part of that technology is European
I wish they instead wrote "Guarantee that no significant part of that technology is not European".
Not saying, it wouldn't be good to have chip production there. On the contrary, I support the idea. However, I don't really think the EU is about independence.
Too bad along the way they left some behind and broke some... ( Ugh... Humans)
There's another way to look at freedom: freedom from, rather than freedom to. Governments are generally instituted to ensure the former rather than the latter. They put restraints on some freedoms to increase other freedoms.
Thus, for example, the specific standards that goods are produced to and services are provided at may be set centrally, removing freedom to vary at a local level, but adding freedom to sell across the whole union with very low barriers to trade (i.e. freedom from variance in standards). Since freedom to vary on standards at the local level frequently ends up with beggar-thy-neighbour policies, or anti-competitive regulations, it's not a bad trade.
The European Parliament is all powerful except for the important things. The real power is in the hands of the commission, which, in practice, it's not more than an international forum, where, as in all the international forums, the will of the stronger states is the law.
The state members are bond by treaties that, in practice, are impossible to change by the population and that, in fact, are used to limit what the population could choose.
In theory, the EU could be a democratic institution, but there is not the will for that, quite the opposite, in my opinion.
The population is slowing awaking to those realities and the relevant institutions would do well addressing all those problems before is too late.
Every country can send just one member of the commission. Decisions are made by majority vote. Every member has the same weight, except the president, which is a tie-breaker. How again does the stronger country impose rules on the weaker?
The EU binds countries just like countries bind regions and cities. Why don't you complain about that? Well, because it is helpful if the government acts in the interest of the population.
A required part of understanding the EU is letting go of irrational attachment to notions of nationalism.
It is good that we have several governments working in our collective interest on many levels. Be it the city mayor, the regional government, the countrywide government or the European Commission.
Tell that to the countries in the south that are financing the exports of the north and that have to implement crazy pro-cyclical economic policies.
A part of understanding the European Union (and even more so the Eurozone) is letting go of fairy tales about how Realpolitik and national interest is dead.
If you want a real union just create a fiscal union controlled by the European parliament, but that, it's not going to happen.
One of the many goals of the EU was to provide a unified economy that had the ability to compete on a level playing field with other large powers. That is a form of independence, in the sense that member states can trade some of their individual independence for a greater ability to be independent from other global competitors as a union.
For what it’s worth, The UK’s departure will either result in a country that’s either an EU member in all but name, or a shining example of why leaving was bad.