[shafyy]

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]

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.

[exceptione]

  > 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.

[direwolf20]

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]

> 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

[spookie]

> 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]

many pro-europe comments on HN get whacked down to grey once America wakes up

[389236109210]

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]

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.

[notahacker]

"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]

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

[shafyy]

Sure, they can, but I hope there will be consequences for Hungary.