[flagged]
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.
As already said, can we also refrain from stupid accusations every time someone disagrees with the herd?
Please, don't apologise.
The harsh reality of 2026 is that the "Minimum Viable Economy" required to maintain orbital sovereignty—meaning a native LEO constellation and reusable launch capability, exceeds the fiscal bandwidth of any single member state.
The choice is no longer "National Sovereignty" vs "EU Federalism." The choice is "Pooled EU Sovereignty" vs "Client State status to the US."
We are effectively trading local political control for a shot at operational leverage. You might dislike the deal from a governance perspective, but from a systems perspective, fragmentation guarantees irrelevance.
> 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).
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.
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.
The sovereignty of the EU is the sum of the sovereignty of its member states.
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 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,
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.
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
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.
In this case, it means subsystems made in EU countries, and not imported from outside the EU.
> [...] 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?
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.
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.