Publications Archive

• The Tech Sovereignty Package published today is the most coherent attempt the EU Commission has made so far to address structural technology dependencies. That does not mean it is free of risk.
• Sovereignty is not an all-or-nothing choice between openness and self-sufficiency. A Europe that wins by excluding the competition has not solved its technology problems, it has merely postponed it.
• Europe’s ambition must be to be competitive on the basis of the quality of its technologies. While this is a challenging goal, it is the only right path to take.

Today, the European Commission published its Tech Sovereignty Package, consisting of a revised Chips Act, the Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA), a Strategy for an EU Open Digital Ecosystem, and an Strategic Roadmap for Digitalisation and AI in Energy. The political logic driving this package seems straightforward: According to the Draghi Report, the EU remains structurally reliant on non-EU providers for over 80% of its digital products, services, infrastructures and intellectual property. However, according to a preliminary cep analysis, the proposals contain good ideas and serious risks in roughly equal measure.

A few days ago, The Economist argued in favour of Europe pragmatically opening up to Chinese open-source AI models such as DeepSeek. At first glance, the reasoning is compelling: these models are almost as powerful as their American competitors, considerably cheaper and seem to offer Europe insurance against US market isolation under the Trump administration. However, this position could prove dangerous in the medium term – not because openness is the wrong approach, but because the choice of partner will determine fundamental security policy issues relating to European technological sovereignty.

In the US, 27 percent of users already prefer AI tools such as ChatGPT to traditional search engines. This change is also in full swing in Europe. However, the trend has negative consequences for diversity of opinion, competition, and democracy. The Centre for European Policy (cep) warns that large language models influence both consumer decisions and political attitudes.

The rapid development of artificial intelligence agents and their use in virtual worlds such as computer games harbours considerable risks. According to the Centre for European Policy (cep), the EU's metaverse strategy and existing regulations underestimate the danger: without comprehensive framework conditions, a loss of trust could soon undermine the digital economy.

The introduction of an EU scheme for certifying the cyber security of cloud services (EUCS) has been the subject of intense debate for years - so far in vain. The aim: harmonised standards for the attestation of the level of cybersecurity of cloud services in the EU. As time is pressing due to enormous political and economic turmoil, the Centre for European Policy (cep) is proposing ways out of the impasse.

US tariffs are putting the EU under pressure. At the same time, the dominance of American digital companies on the European market is growing. The Centres for European Policy (cep) is calling for a decisive digital response and proposes a concept for fair and targeted taxation of multinational digital companies as a counterstrategy.

Europe's planned code of practice for Artificial Intelligence (AI) could fail. Influenced by major US tech companies, the project risks becoming a meaningless document that merely legitimizes existing practices. The Centre for European Policy (cep) warns that the EU could lose a historic opportunity to establish a global level playing field for safety, responsibility, and competition in AI.

Police authorities and governments are calling for digital backdoors for investigative purposes - and the EU Commission is listening. The Centre for European Policy (cep) warns against a weakening of digital encryption. The damage to cyber security, fundamental rights and trust in digital infrastructures would be enormous.

The second draft of the General Purpose AI Code of Practice represents a significant improvement, addressing key stakeholder feedback and refining its approach to systemic risk, transparency, and proportionality. However, challenges remain, including ambiguous language, unclear deployment decisions, and procedural hurdles to more diverse stakeholder engagement.

The EU wants to close the gap to leading digital nations such as the US – including with a new Commissioner for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy. But her title alone says it all:
The EU digital policy is caught in a trilemma. The Centre for European Policy (cep) warns of the risks of conflicting objectives – and describes possible ways out.