France says European satellite venture talks are making progress
"It's a project which we support. Talks are moving forward in a constructive manner," said France's Marc Ferracci during a meeting in Paris with his Italian counterpart Adolfo Urso.
Urso said negotiations were aiming at giving the two countries an equal footing in the project, endorsed by French President Emmanuel Macron at the Paris Airshow in June.
Under the so-called "Project Bromo", named after an Indonesian volcano, Leonardo, Thales and Airbus have been exploring plans to set up a new satellite manufacturing company to better compete with the U.S. and China, but so far progress has been modest.
Leonardo's Chief Executive Roberto Cingolani said last month that the three companies would make another assessment on where the deal stands by the end of July.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed to and what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Enough of the billionaires and their big tech. ‘Frugal tech' will build us all a better world
There's a common misconception that state-of-the-art technology has to be expensive, energy consumptive and hard to engineer. That's because we have been persuaded to believe that innovative technology is whatever bombastic billionaires claim it is, whether that's commercial spacecraft or the endless iterations of generative AI tools. As the Canadian technologist and engineer Ursula Franklin once said, fantasies of technology would have it that innovation is always 'investment-driven, shiny, lab-born, experimental, exciting'. But more often than not, in the real world, it is 'needs-driven, scrappy, on location, iterative, practical, mundane'. The real pioneering technologies of today are genuinely useful systems I like to call 'frugal tech', and they are brought to life not by eccentric billionaires but by people doing more with less. They don't impose top-down 'solutions' that seem to complicate our lives while making a few people very rich. It turns out that genuinely innovative technology really can set people free. Last month at Berlin's once hippy, now increasingly corporatised Re:publica conference, for example, I met researchers from the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), who are using technologies such as software-defined radios and spectrum sensing to allow people in low-resource environments to stay connected despite limited bandwidth, power, hardware and communication infrastructure. These technologies are the basis of the local community networks that supply coverage to the 2.5 billion people globally who lack internet access. In the Niger Delta, which suffers from toxic levels of air pollution from its oil industry, APC is setting up connections and deploying low-cost sensors that monitor the environment. These play a crucial role in how locals can advise children when to stay inside and which areas to avoid playing in. This infrastructure is managed for and by the municipality, serves a pressing need and can be installed and built by the people who deploy it. Unlike, say, ChatGPT or a Blue Origin space rocket. The fact is, while generative AI is lauded as the technology of the minute, iterations such as Dall-E 3, Google Gemini and GPT are irrelevant to those who don't have enough internet bandwidth to use them. The new digital divide is the gap between the top end of the global population – who have access to these power-intensive technologies – and those at the bottom, whose internet access, or lack of, remains static. That's why some of today's most brilliant minds are working out how to manage the trade-off between internet range and bandwidth, and whether there are obstacles in the way such as mountains and foliage. The fact is that good innovation also often involves lobbying for good. So while big tech poured hundreds of millions into watering down the EU AI Act, good tech lobbies for better internet provisions for all. Policy and innovation go hand in hand, meaning that the consequences of good technology far exceed the technology itself, extending to governance and social welfare. At Re:publica's 'maker space', I fiddled around with DIY solar-powered sensors that can be built using a Raspberry Pi computer and off-the-shelf components such as humidity sensors. I lost my partner, an engineer by training, to a microscope designed by the OpenFlexure project that was made from 3D printed materials. Microscopes are crucial for diagnosing infections but can cost millions of pounds, making them entirely inaccessible for many people across the globe. This one is lightweight, costs next to nothing and is open source, meaning that anyone can reproduce the design by 3D printing parts and cobbling them together with shop-bought motors and circuit boards. A bit like a cheap Ikea wardrobe, except that all the bits you need to assemble it can be bought inexpensively from a local electronics shop. Manufacturers from Ghana and Wales to Chile and Australia are all using OpenFlexure's designs to give people everywhere access to low-source microscopy. We might think generative AI has invaded all corners of our lives, but this couldn't be further from the truth. What is actually prolific and relevant to the majority are low-cost technologies that solve day-to-day business and social problems. While most of what we consider to be 'hi-tech' is closed off behind proprietary algorithms, the open-source technologies above all require community involvement. This can be immensely empowering, and can improve public trust: it's hard (and unwise) to give yourself over to a technology that won't tell you how it works, particularly when its predefined settings allow only for meagre approaches to 'user privacy'. As I ask my students, if you could develop an AI at your own home, and programme it to reflect your values and prioritise your safety, wouldn't you trust it more? Well, the idea isn't so outlandish – it only feels impossible because big tech firms want us to think it is. What is most outstanding about frugal innovation is not just that its technologies are impressive, but that it might actually prompt systemic change by showing people that tech can be developed locally, and not just imported from Silicon Valley. When farmer Chris Conder dug her own fibreoptic cables on her property in Lancashire, she set out 'to prove that ordinary people could do it … it wasn't rocket science'. By demonstrating that fast internet could be connected with fibre-optic cable, a digger and the desire to just get on and do it, she spawned an organisation called B4RN, which promotes community fibre partnerships. Tech bros may want you to believe there is no point in making something new unless it is difficult, inaccessible and exclusionary. But technological innovation is about collaboration as much as it is about competition. For many people across the world, a product's value isn't in a sky-high valuation, or in it being impossible to take apart (as with impenetrable iPhones). Often, the smartest technologies are those that distil a problem down to its bread and butter components in order to disseminate a solution to the masses. So, while innovative individuals and communities around the world quietly get on with improving their lives and those around them, it's high time the rest of us stopped being passive recipients of technology, and started asking ourselves what kind of world we want to live in and how to create it. Must the setting for innovation be £1bn-plus buildings like Google's new London offices in King's Cross, located in nations that can afford to stomach eye-watering training costs and compute power requirements? Or might we instead be able to steer innovation from within our very communities – or households? Eleanor Drage is a senior research fellow at the University of Cambridge's Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence and co-author of the The Good Robot: Why Technology Needs Feminism
Auto Express
an hour ago
- Auto Express
Volkswagen, Skoda and Cupra slash electric car prices
The Volkswagen Group has decided it doesn't want to wait around and see which of its EVs are eligible for the government's new Electric Car Grant scheme, and has cut £1,500 from the price of selected electric cars from Volkswagen, Skoda and Cupra. The government recently announced a grant scheme for fully electric cars costing under £37,000, but it's still unclear which models will be eligible for £1,500 or £3,750 off their respective price tag. It's dependent on complex sustainability criteria – which is why we don't know which models will meet the government's grant just yet. For Volkswagen, the electric cars that fall under the German firm's new £1,500 'Grant Guarantee' include the ID.3 in Pure, Pro and Pro trim levels, along with the ID.4 in Pure and Pro - essentially excluding the GTX from both. The £1,500 grant would bring the entry-level ID.3 Pure Essential's price down to £29,360 and the ID.4 Pure Match to £38,090. Advertisement - Article continues below If the new £1,500 grant from Volkswagen isn't enough to tempt you, then check out the big savings through the Auto Express marketplace, where you'll find great deals on loads of pure-electric cars. As for Skoda, its grant covers the Elroq and Enyaq, in SE, SE L, Edition and SportLine trim. With the grant the Elroq will cost from £30,010 and the Enyaq £38,190. Cupra's grant is on the Born hatchback on V1, V2 and V3 trim levels - lowering the base price to £34,190. All three brands will run their new £1,500 'Grant Guarantee' until 31 August. Volkswagen, Skoda and Cupra all say their grant 'will honour the £1,500 grant on the vehicles specified, even if the Government's grant is not awarded'. You won't be able to receive both the 'Grant Guarantee' and the Government Electric Car Grant on any of those models however. The latest moves follow similar offers or incentives from brands including Hyundai, Alfa Romeo, Kia and Leapmotor. Configure your perfect Skoda Elroq through our Find A Car service now. Alternatively, check out the best deals out there on a new Skoda Elroq from stock or top prices on used Skoda Elroq models...
