Rebuttal: Digital Sovereignty is an Investment in Europe's Future, Not a Cost to Its Present

A question frequently deployed by those invested in the status quo of digital dependency is: "Why does Europe want digital sovereignty when it is going to increase costs and reduce growth?" This question, often amplified by lobbyists for dominant non-EU tech providers and echoed by skeptics, fundamentally misframes the debate. It rests on flawed premises, including the often-unsubstantiated assumption that European and Open Source alternatives are inherently more expensive, and it conveniently ignores the profound, ongoing price of inaction.

"We choose to go to the Moon... not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills..." - JF Kennedy, September 12, 1962

President Kennedy's vision for the lunar program required immense investment and faced unknown challenges; it was not chosen for its immediate, low-cost ease. Similarly, Europe's pursuit of digital sovereignty is our generation's "hard thing." It's not about choosing the path of least immediate resistance or the lowest upfront price tag offered by established global monopolies. It's about a strategic, long-term investment in our autonomy, security, and future prosperity. The question posed by counter-lobbyists rests on several flawed premises and a deliberately narrow definition of "cost" and "growth."

1. Deconstructing the "Cost" Fallacy: Unveiling the Price of Dependency

The core assertion that digital sovereignty initiatives will "increase costs" often crumbles under scrutiny, especially when actual market offerings are compared or one takes into account the enormous, ongoing costs of our current dependency.

Direct Cost Competitiveness: Contrary to widespread lobbying narratives, many European and Open Source solutions are already cost-competitive, and often significantly cheaper, than their US proprietary equivalents for comparable functionalities. This is particularly true when you factor out complex, often unnecessary, bundling or the lack of transparent, pay-as-you-truly-need models. We encourage buyers to actually compare like-for-like offerings – the results are often surprising and favorable to European/OSS solutions. The narrative of inherent European expensiveness is frequently a myth perpetuated to maintain market dominance.

The True Long-Term Costs vs. Initial Investments: While transitioning to more European and Open Source solutions will undoubtedly require initial strategic investments and a potential shift from some highly optimized (but dependency-creating) non-EU services, these are dwarfed by the perpetual costs of continued reliance:

The €264 Billion Annual "Dependency Tax": As the Asterès/Cigref report highlights, this is the direct annual outflow from European businesses to non-EU tech providers – a staggering and continuous drain on our economy.
The Price of Vendor Lock-In: Dominant providers leverage their entrenched positions to dictate prices, impose unfavorable licensing terms, and charge exorbitant egress fees, leaving European customers with little recourse or bargaining power.
The Cost of Stifled European Innovation: When local innovators and SMEs cannot fairly compete against subsidized or market-dominant global giants, Europe loses out on indigenous technological development, high-value job creation, and the retention of intellectual property.
The Cost of Insecurity and Data Exposure: Reliance on non-EU infrastructure inherently exposes critical European data to extra-territorial laws and foreign surveillance, carrying immeasurable risks to our businesses, public services, and national security.
The Geopolitical Cost of Subservience: Lacking digital autonomy diminishes Europe's leverage and freedom of action on the global stage.

The Cost of Inaction is Prohibitive: Viewing digital sovereignty as a "cost" is a misnomer. It is a vital investment in mitigating these far larger, systemic, and ongoing costs. The current model is already imposing a massive "dependency tax" that stifles our potential.

2. Challenging the "No Comparable Services" Myth: Value Beyond Feature Parity

The argument that Europe has "no comparable services" often stems from a narrow comparison against the exhaustive, and sometimes bloated, feature lists of hyperscalers.

"Fit-for-Purpose" Comparability: For core, mission-critical needs of public administrations and many industries (IaaS, PaaS, secure collaboration), European providers do offer robust, competitive, and often more strategically aligned alternatives. Comparability must include GDPR compliance by design, resilience, local support, and the absence of features designed for data extraction under non-EU legal regimes.
The "Microsoft Teams" Illusion & Thriving Alternatives: Europe possesses excellent, secure, and often more cost-effective Open Source alternatives for collaboration (Nextcloud, Element, Jitsi) and a wide array of commercial European solutions. The perceived dominance of some non-EU tools is often due to bundling, aggressive marketing, and legacy entrenchment, not a fundamental lack of superior or equally good (and often cheaper) European options.

3. Redefining "Growth": Towards Sustainable, European-Rooted Prosperity

The claim that digital sovereignty will "reduce growth" necessitates asking: Whose growth? And for whom?

Locus of Growth: Current "growth" in the digital sector disproportionately benefits a handful of non-EU tech conglomerates, with profits, strategic control, and cutting-edge R&D accumulating outside Europe. Digital sovereignty aims to shift this paradigm, fostering sustainable, European-rooted growth. This means creating high-value jobs within the EU, retaining intellectual property, and building lasting economic wealth on our continent.
Quality and Resilience of Growth: Growth built on dependency is inherently fragile and subject to external shocks or policy shifts by other nations. Sovereign growth, nurtured by a robust domestic ecosystem, is more resilient, more aligned with European strategic interests, and more reflective of European values such as data protection, sustainability, and democratic oversight.
Innovation as the Engine of True Growth: Sustainable growth is driven by innovation. By creating a more level playing field through strategic procurement ("Buy European"), promoting Open Source, and supporting our own innovators (especially SMEs), Europe can unlock new waves of innovation-led growth that are currently suppressed by market imbalances.

4. Strategic Market Shaping, Not Abject Subsidies

The "subsidy" accusation crumbles when faced with the reality of often lower-cost European/OSS solutions and the strategic rationale for public procurement.

Strategic Public Procurement is an Investment, Not a Subsidy: When the public sector chooses a cost-effective European or Open Source solution, it's making a smart financial decision and a strategic investment. It fosters a competitive market, allows European providers to achieve economies of scale (potentially leading to even lower prices), and retains value in Europe. This isn't propping up inefficiency; it's enabling existing efficiency and fostering future excellence.
Correcting Existing Market Failures: Policies promoting European digital capabilities, especially when these capabilities are already price-competitive, aim to correct market failures caused by the bundling, lock-in, and immense market power of non-EU giants.

5. The "Why": Sovereignty as a Strategic and Societal Imperative

Digital sovereignty transcends purely economic calculations; it is fundamental to Europe's future. Europe pursues it because:

Security and Resilience: In an increasingly volatile world, we cannot outsource the digital backbone of our critical infrastructure, public services, and defence. True security requires control.
Strategic Autonomy: To make our own laws, set our own standards, and pursue our own interests without undue influence or coercion from non-EU tech providers or their governments. This is the essence of avoiding "vassalage," as President Macron rightly warned.
Upholding European Values: To ensure the digital transition aligns with our deep-seated commitments to democracy, privacy, transparency, and individual rights – values that are not universally prioritized. The fact that 62% of European citizens view US Big Tech as a threat to European sovereignty underscores this public mandate.
Fair Competition and Economic Opportunity: To empower European businesses, particularly SMEs, to innovate, compete fairly, and contribute to a vibrant, diverse digital single market, rather than being perpetually overshadowed or acquired by external giants.
Long-Term Economic Vitality: To build a self-sustaining digital ecosystem that generates lasting value, high-quality employment, and technological leadership within Europe, rather than remaining primarily a consumer market for technologies developed and controlled elsewhere.

Conclusion: A Strategic Investment, Not a Costly Detour

The narrative portraying digital sovereignty as an expensive folly that will hinder growth is not only a false dichotomy but often a direct contradiction of market realities, where many European and Open Source solutions already offer superior value, including direct cost-effectiveness. The pursuit of digital sovereignty is a smart, calculated, and strategically imperative investment to halt the massive ongoing costs of dependency. It means leveraging often more aligned and cost-efficient local solutions and fostering a resilient, innovative European digital future.

Like the "Moonshot," achieving this will be challenging. It demands strategic vision, courage, and the best of our collective energies. But it is a challenge Europe must embrace to secure its ability to shape its own destiny in the digital age. The current model of dependency is the truly expensive path, riddled with hidden costs and strategic vulnerabilities. True digital sovereignty, built on competitive European and Open Source foundations, is the route to sustainable prosperity and genuine autonomy.