Maybe actually informing oneself before posting stuff like that? Ariane 6 is perfectly capable of launching a strategic satellite communication network. Will the launching itself cost a bit more? Likely but the extra launch costs are wildly exaggerated. Which is exactly why the EU is creating such a satellite network as we speak. The network should become operational in 2029/2030. In the meanwhile there is a gap solution of GOVSATCOM which started this year. We can of course debate till eternity how that is too late but decision makers have woken up at least in the aftermath of the 2nd Ukraine invasion in 2022.

Now if we had listened to those that were talking day and night how Europe should throw away its Ariane 6 launcher because it is not reusable, we would be really fucked. Luckily those were ignored, as were the voices that were calling Galileo a waste of money.

PS: Falcon 9 list price in 2026 is apparently 74 Mio USD. Reports of Ariane launch prices are thin but one can find numbers from 72 to 115 Mio EUR.

It is not as simple. First of all, both Parliament and Council can and regularly do propose legislation to the Commission which then commonly follows up with drafting a proposal which then goes back to Parliament and Council to amend, turn upside down or simply vote into law.

Secondly, the Commission has to navigate the voters and draft something that has a change of passing in both legislative chambers. While there is a kind of coalition in the European Parliament in support of the Commission, majorities there can be quite flexible and there have been cases where the Commission relied on alternative majorities to get certain legislation passed. That said, I do think that what you list there has a realistic chance of becoming law.

Burning down law to defend it against fascists? All the while Putin watches pleased Europe setting itself on fire. He doesn’t care if it is the left or the right. It doesn’t matter if you consider EU primary law inferior to a constitution. Functionally it is primary law all the same and as such it relies just the same way on not being optional. Once it becomes optional it collapses on itself.

Which federal law did the blue cities declare null and void in their territory again?

That said, member states are not forced to oblige to the treaties. They are free to leave anytime. Hence the EU is not a state. No one is forced to stay and comply. One can leave if one finds the EU and its legal sphere unacceptable.

What is it really that justifies the destruction of the EU’s legal sphere and as a consequence the EU? That you seem to call necessary here? Let’s be concrete and say why it can’t be resolved without destroying the EU.

That is completely besides the point. What you described was the demand to make the primary law of the EU optional. That is as if saying that the constitution is just optional and local politicians can simply decide to opt out on whatever they don’t like. It is no fake dichotomy to simply state the fact that this is blowing up the legal foundation of the EU. If you said, Melenchon is working towards treaty change to add safeguards to specific well defined areas it would be something different, but that’s not what you described.

That said, there is absolutely no need to blow up the legal foundation of the EU. Much of what Melenchon appears to be complaining about is not even EU competence but largely national competence. Not all but and we can have a debate on concrete issues. But if law becomes optional to ignore its is not law anymore.

The problem here is not the ECJ, it is destroying the legal basis without which there is no EU, certainly none that has any EU of any political significance. How I can compare that left proposal for destroying the legal sphere of the EU with the one from the right in Poland in Hungary before the respective governments were ousted by the voter? Because it is functionally the same thing, an attack on the legal foundation of the EU by destroying the legal system (making law compliance optional). If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.

This isn’t a 1% or adversary rule thing. Any law sphere that becomes optional is doomed to collapse. It is tragic if that is not self evident anymore.

Again, I am not saying it is a good idea to put those freezer on the internet, one thing would be to put external sensors on the internet for monitoring, with no connection to the freezers controls. Then the only thing that can be done is stealing temperature information that is no surprise to anyone.

In any case, it is relevant to include the context that this attack failed to do any damage. Most below commented as if damage was done and that is disinformation. I am sick of misleading messages on the internet that are leaving out important context.

You can read the court of auditor reports and compare them to national ones, you can observe how when there are business lobby groups fighting for something, it is often some national governments who are already fully in line, copy pasting their positions and fighting for it in Brussels, while in Brussels the Commission is still on the fence and the European Parliament hosts meaningful opposition. Also on multiple occasions, where the national level was already completely in line, including national parliaments, initiatives still failed in the European Parliament, against massive lobbying campaigns because the public made a fuss about it

I also know from people, who are no business lobbyists that you can get heard by the Commission if you represent something of interest, eg open source initiatives. I also know from the business perspective that bribing agencies for getting some registration on EU level is not an option and that things that are not working as they should are rather issues of lack of resources or unclear legislation.

My favourite example however is the former interior minister of Austria, who afterwards continued his career as MEP in Brussels/Strasbourg. It is pretty clear he did not change the way he was doing politics but within a short time, he was uncovered to be bribed. That alone never happened in Austria in his long career before and unlike in Austria, it did have severe consequences, he did not only lose his job, was subject to prosecution but was entirely shunned by the party, as this had become such a big deal (also something that rarely happens in Austria with any corrupt politician). Of course Austrian nationalists were talking about how corrupt Brussels is, when in fact the Austrian modus operandi lead in Brussels to the destruction of a politician’s career.

EDIT: Things have improved further since the creation of the EPPO. A bribing case like the one above relied before purily on action from member state’s institutions. Now, EPPO can get active on its own and launch investigations and inquire assistance when raiding someone for example.

Making EU legislation fully optional (after all national politicians could arbitrarily then go on to decide to not “apply” binding EU law of whatever kind they choose further down the line), means destroying the very legal basis the EU is built upon. That is indeed not a reform, that is straight going to “destroy the EU from within” without the detour of pretending to go for “reforming the treaties”. Ironic or not, that is pretty much what the authoritarian far right was also trying to do in Poland and Hungary before being ousted by the people, albeit on other topics.

The only way to implement this is either by having cake and eat it for France (getting special privileges for France) or by changing that very aspect in the treaties for everyone. Both needs a treaty change and unanimous support by every member state which are almost entirely conservative or liberal.

So choose, this demand either means breaking the treaties or reforming the treaties.

Nothing convenient, emancipation needs the building of alternative capabilities first, then you can burn down bridges. As it happens, that is exactly what the EU is doing right now, even if one could argue that even more effort should be put into it. Doing it the other way round just means making it easier for enemies to take Europe apart and yes, that is doing Putin’s job then.

If Trump could choose between a far-left nationalist France that blows up the EU and more Macron with an increasingly independent EU standing, yes Trump would choose the former. Are you really believing the opposite being the case?

No, I am claiming that it doesn’t need any major treaty changes to change the political direction of the EU to a left leaning position. It would need however a left majority among voters, currently there is a clear right majority on EU level and most national capitals are right/conservative as well.

The EU’s operations are not “grossly corrupt”, corrrupt maybe but less so than most member states, certainly less corrupt than Germany or Austria, not sure about France but I would be surprised if things were different there. Most of the corruption is taking place on local level with EU funds. Fighting corruption on both levels is possible without any treaty change, as the creation of EPPO has shown. Great institution that has a mandate to fight corruption on both, European and national level, as long as it has something to do with EU institutions, policies or subsidies.

You are completely misjudging my position, to absurd levels. I am actually supporting rapid emancipation from the US and strengthening of European sovereignty. I am against balkanisation of the EU, which incidentially is what both, Trump and Putin want to see and both Melenchon and Le Pen will facilitate.

I see that you are pretty much on that line as well. Congratulations, your position is more in line with what Trump wants than mine. Tragic, isn’t it?

That is the kind of narrow nationalist perspective Putin is counting on. Yeah, no one will try to attack France directly. Once the EU is functionally dead (either by “reform” to Melechon’s liking or “reform” to Le Pen’s liking), and NATO is gone the rest will fall in place and once Le Pen is elected, there will be no need to attack France, as it will be already under pro-Russian autocratic rule.

It makes little difference if you demand exiting the EU or destroying it from within, maybe the latter being worse. Both serves Putin’s agenda.

No, I am not. Mekechon’s opposition comes from a different, leftist, direction but it is opposition all the same. He is a staunch critic of the “neoloiberal European Union” and demands a fundamental renegotiation of the treaties. Are you seriously denying that?

Guess what, the far right in many member states is demanding the same. It is hard to keep track though with the far right, as the are oscilating between demanding leaving the EU, and “reforming”, ie destroying it. To my understanding Le Pen is currently demanding to “reform”, ie destroy the EU from within. As such a fundamental “reform” will fracture the Union or at least lead to a massive weakening of its political structure and its ability to act.

He is also against the EU though.

I am all for the EU as a meanginful defense union but capabilities need to exist and they don’t yet. Blowing up the one thing while not having a working replacement at the same time means inviting hostile powers to carve up Europe.

Russia doesn’t care if Mélenchon talks badly about Russia. It is enough that France is destablised, NATO is weakened or destroyed and that European cooperation damaged or better yet destroyed as well. Le Pen and Mélenchon are almost the same to him. Same with right populist parties like PiS that talk badly about Russia while also doing mostly what Putin wants them to do.

Russia doesn’t really care for their ideologies, the only important thing for Russia is that these parties weaken their home nations and destroy European cooperation. Those two things are crucial for them to be able to dominate Europe, as they stand no chance against a united Europe.

The downvoting was for the shortsighted self centric perspective. Yes, France can take down the other side, but is that a preferable outcome to rather staying together in Europe and preventing that scenario to begin with in the first place?

Indeed. He is almost as much anti-EU as he is anti-NATO, even if I don’t know if he stops form demanding leaving the EU as well, or not. He stands for a left nationalist ideology that just makes sure Europe is an easy prey.

Most of the NATO members are not the US, also in terms of population. If you propose leaving NATO without a realistic alternative of a kind of NATO without the US for example all you are doing is selling out Europe.

Putin really doesn’t care if the far left or the far right wins power in France. They are the same picture to him.