What do Europeans expect from digital sovereignty, and where do they think the EU is falling short? Our policy brief CTRL + ALT + Europe?, authored by Martin Hullin, developed with input from members of the European Network for Technological Resilience and Sovereignty, finds strong support for greater European control over digital technologies, alongside doubts about the EU’s ability to put its principles into practice. Here, network experts bring their own perspectives to the findings: from cooperation between Member States and protection against technological coercion to democratic participation and the enforcement of existing rules.
Murielle Popa-Fabre, Senior Technology and Policy Advisor
(in personal capacity)
At this critical juncture, where the global reshaping of the geopolitical order coincides with national unrest, Europeans have had the opportunity to make their voices heard on digital sovereignty. Awareness of the concept is uneven across generations. More than half (57%) of 18-25 year-olds understand the term, compared with only 40% of those aged 56 to 69. Yet this limited familiarity should not mask a clear preference – 67% of EU citizens would choose a European alternative offering comparable performance.
Across national differences and political horizons, Europeans converge on a shared vision of digital technology that is, above all, transparent (83%), legally framed (78%), developed in collaboration with European consumers (73%) and built to be controllable (72%).
These shared principles give decision-makers a clear basis for action. Why not begin by matching citizens’ digital ambitions with stronger cooperation among Member States? Europe can build such a shared digital horizon with experience-sharing as its cornerstone, by pooling expertise in critical public services, such as healthcare and the judiciary, and by establishing joint operational collaboration to monitor information manipulation during elections.
European Council on Foreign Relations
By: Dr. José-Ignacio Torreblanca
The polling figures in this brief show that Europeans fear technological coercion, with 73% worried that critical services could be remotely disabled by actors outside Europe (Figure 5). Yet fewer than half (43% on average) believe Europe is regulating foreign digital services in line with its values – Germany (39%) and France (38%) are the most sceptical (Figure 10). The authors rightly call this a “stark trust deficit”, and I could not agree more on its relevance. Europeans have understood that technological coercion is real – and they do not see their institutions acting against it.
The policy lesson is that industrial policy and investment – the EuroStack of European cloud, chips and models – are necessary but not sufficient conditions for technological sovereignty. Anything short of autarky, which nobody wants, leaves dependencies that can be weaponised against the EU. And as the Union advances on this agenda, it should expect more pressure, not less.
The EU Space Act and IRIS², meant to reduce Europe’s dependence on a single non-EU provider of satellite connectivity, are already being attacked in Washington as discriminatory against US operators. This is the same charge levelled at the DMA – along with the threat of coercion measures. Respondents see capacity and regulation as complementary. Decision-makers should follow suit: an industrial strategy to reduce dependence, and a political strategy – using the single market and the acquis as leverage – to defend the Union while that dependence lasts”
The Data Tank
By: Anna Colom
EU’s approach to Digital Sovereignty needs a public mandate: ‘Digital sovereignty’ is a contested term across and within EU states. Ultimately, what matters is asking why and defining the how. As we argue in the piece, “In Search of a Vision: The EU’s Approach to Tech Sovereignty Needs to be Steered by Clearer Public Interest Outcomes Rather than a ‘Race’ to the Unknown“, this needs to be defined democratically, beyond the state level. The EU’s approach to digital transformation needs to be aligned with the EU’s climate goals and strategic priorities – and, ultimately, backed by a public mandate.
This is why public attitudes insights, such as the ones included in this policy brief are important. While the term remains unfamiliar to many, what matters – the vision and how to get there – are better defined. A majority wants less dependence on foreign technology, more control over data, better regulation and more transparency.
The Data Tank is an observer at the European Citizens’ Panel on Democratic Resilience, a randomly selected group of citizens chosen to be broadly representative of the EU population. Here, one of the working groups is deliberating on artificial intelligence and digital sovereignty. Deliberative democracy strengthens surveys by providing insights built on a process of learning about the issue and conversations with fellow citizens from all walks of life. The discussions point towards a very similar direction to the one suggested by this survey and will add qualitative depth. The European Commission, Parliament and Council should pay attention.
Europe should not follow the so-called global race logic. It needs to be driven by public interest outcomes and democratic engagement, while supporting a bottom-up thriving local and diverse economy aligned with the EU’s climate goals.
Centre for Future Generations
By: Dr. M. Onur Cevik
Digital sovereignty is won or lost in enforcement: European citizens support the EU’s rights-based vision for technology, but remain sceptical about its implementation. The challenge is strengthening institutional capacity and enforcement amid shrinking budgets and political pressure in Brussels to do less.
The survey highlights Europeans’ expectations of digital sovereignty: 83% want transparent, secure systems for critical public services; 78% want legal remedies within Europe; and 69% want their data stored and processed here. The first two demands hinge on enforcement. The third is partly covered by GDPR and data transfer frameworks, but data localisation and control gain urgency as AI systems consume growing volumes of European data.
Only 43% believe Europe effectively regulates foreign digital services. This points less to rejection of the EU’s rights-based approach than to a lack of confidence in its implementation. Unenforced rules risk being seen as failed rules. Therefore, the priority is not more or less regulation, but ensuring existing rules count.
Political differences are stark. Positive assessments fall from 67% on the far left to 21% on the far right, risking a partisan divide over digital governance. Younger Europeans are more positive (49% versus 38% among older respondents) and more familiar with digital sovereignty (57% versus 40%). These differences merit investigation alongside Eurostat data on digital literacy.
Future surveys should clarify what constitutes a critical public service. For example, neural data from medical devices and consumer wearables fall under different regulatory frameworks. Additionally, electoral integrity extends beyond ballot infrastructure to social media. These grey areas warrant scrutiny as technology outgrows established regulatory categories.
Michael Strange, Associate Professor in International Relations at Malmö University
(in personal capacity)
Technology regulation remains critical to the future of the EU and the public want to be involved in shaping that future: Two-thirds (72%) say they want Europe to ‘have control over key digital technologies and infrastructure.’ And more than four-fifths (78%) say they want to be able to ‘seek legal protection within Europe if a digital service causes harm or fails.’
Yet, compare that to less than half (43%) perceiving the EU as ‘successful in regulating digital services from outside the continent (platforms, AI, software, etc.) so that they align with its core values’.
There is no doubt from the answers to our questions that people want more local control over the technologies affecting their lives. It is clear that technology is one of the most prominent fields in which EU citizens see the value of European coordination.
While less than a majority see the EU as able to provide that regulatory role, we note that the percentage of respondents seeing the bloc as unsuccessful in regulating technology is the same as those who see it as being successful, with the remaining respondents (14%) unsure. In other words, technology regulation remains a key testing ground on which the public looks to the EU to prove its worth.
Nearly four-fifths (73%) of respondents want digital technology to be developed with European consumers. Not only does the European public see digital sovereignty as being about better protections, but they want the EU project to mean they have more direct involvement in future technological innovations.
For Europeans, digital sovereignty is not just about protections; it means making technology more democratic.
Conclusion
These perspectives point to a common challenge: public support gives Europe room to act, but trust will depend on what people experience in practice. The experts propose different ways forward, including stronger cooperation, investment in European capabilities, more effective enforcement and a greater public voice in shaping technology. Together, their contributions show that digital sovereignty must be judged by its impact: Does it give Europeans meaningful control, reliable protections and a say in their digital future?
Write a comment