5 ms·

From the headline I expected some kinds of new communication satellites. But instead this is "just" a marketplace where government entities can purchase service

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 9mo ago
[flagged]
- bdauvergne 9mo 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 9mo 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.
    - bdauvergne 9mo 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).
    - spookie 9mo 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.
- claudex 9mo 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.
- nek28 9mo ago
  I don't see why term sovereignty should be applied only to member states and not the EU as a whole.
  - mytailorisrich 9mo 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.
    - shafyy 9mo 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.
    - bdauvergne 9mo 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 9mo 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...
- tormeh 9mo 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.
- jonkoops 9mo 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 9mo 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.
    - shafyy 9mo 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?
      - iso1631 9mo 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.
- mort96 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
      @dang, this sort of gratuitous accusation has no place on HN.
    - mytailorisrich 9mo ago
      The key is "collaboration", not submission to a higher authority. As already said, can we also refrain from stupid accusations every time someone disagrees with the herd?
      - 9mo ago
- mapt 9mo 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.

mytailorisrich 9mo ago

[flagged]

bdauvergne 9mo 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 9mo 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.
  - bdauvergne 9mo 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).
  - spookie 9mo 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.
claudex 9mo 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.
nek28 9mo ago
I don't see why term sovereignty should be applied only to member states and not the EU as a whole.
- mytailorisrich 9mo 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.
  - shafyy 9mo 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.
  - bdauvergne 9mo 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 9mo 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...
tormeh 9mo 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.
jonkoops 9mo 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 9mo 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.
  - shafyy 9mo 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?
    - iso1631 9mo 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.
mort96 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
    @dang, this sort of gratuitous accusation has no place on HN.
  - mytailorisrich 9mo ago
    The key is "collaboration", not submission to a higher authority. As already said, can we also refrain from stupid accusations every time someone disagrees with the herd?
    - 9mo ago
mapt 9mo 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.