title
stringlengths 15
139
| content
stringlengths 459
61.8k
| author
stringlengths 0
519
| description
stringlengths 37
471
| keywords
listlengths 0
5
| category
stringclasses 23
values | datePublished
stringdate 2023-01-02 06:25:02
2025-10-28 21:57:05
| url
stringlengths 35
74
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Listen: UN says global climate plans fall short, as the EU considers easing its 2040 target
|
The world’s latest climate plans are in and they fall drastically short. More than sixty countries have submitted their updated commitments to the United Nations, outlining how they’ll reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. But according to the UN’s own analysis published today, these plans would only cut global carbon emissions by around 10 percent compared with 2019 levels. That’s just one sixth of what’s needed to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the supposed goal of the Paris Agreement. So, are governments genuinely trying, or are these plans just for show? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: The world’s latest climate plans are in and they fall drastically short. More than sixty countries have submitted their updated commitments to the United Nations, outlining how they’ll reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. But according to the UN’s own analysis published today, these plans would only cut global carbon emissions by around 10 percent compared with 2019 levels. That’s just one sixth of what’s needed to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the supposed goal of the Paris Agreement. So, are governments genuinely trying, or are these plans just for show? Some of the biggest emitters like China, the EU, and the United States are either missing from the assessment or sending very mixed signals. China’s target of reducing carbon output by up to 10% by 2035 was widely criticised as weak. The EU can’t seem to agree on its own target, stuck between a 62 and a 72 percent cut. And the US pledge made under Joe Biden, a 61% reduction by 2035 is effectively dead, now that Donald Trump has pulled the country out of the Paris Agreement for a second time. The UN’s climate chief Simon Stiell tried to stay optimistic, saying countries are “laying out stepping stones toward net zero.” But he also warned that progress isn’t happening fast enough, and that acceleration must start now. Meanwhile, inside the EU, things aren’t looking much better. Ahead of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, the bloc is considering loosening its own climate rules to win support from industry-heavy member states. A new draft proposal would let sectors like steel or chemicals pollute for longer, essentially slowing down the EU’s path to its 2040 target of a 90 percent emissions cut. So, even Europe, which once prided itself on being the world’s climate leader, is quietly pressing the brakes. Now, scientists say that to stay below 1.5 degrees of warming, global emissions must fall by 60% by 2035. But current pledges get us only a fraction of the way there. The past two years have already temporarily passed that 1.5-degree threshold. If that continues for several years, we’ll have officially crossed the line with all the floods, fires, and food crises that come with it. And here’s the uncomfortable truth that politics is getting in the way. Rising energy prices, wars, and fears of losing industrial competitiveness are making leaders more cautious and less ambitious. Some are even using climate as a bargaining chip, suggesting that protecting industry or the military should take precedence over decarbonisation. So, what now? Next week, world leaders will meet in Brazil ahead of the COP30 summit, hosted in Belém. Their task will be to figure out how to rescue the Paris Agreement from becoming just a nice memory. Brazil wants to focus the talks on financing, on how richer countries can finally help developing ones adapt and cut emissions. But given the geopolitical tensions, and the presence or absence of certain leaders, it’s likely to be a stormy meeting. As the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit put it: “The pledges move the world further, but not fast enough.”And that’s the problem. Progress is happening, just nowhere near the speed that environmentalists demand. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
More than sixty countries have submitted their updated commitments to the United Nations, outlining how they’ll reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. But according to the UN’s own analysis published today, these plans would only cut global carbon emissions by around 10% compared with 2019 levels. So, are governments genuinely trying, or are these plans just for show?
|
[
"Green Economy",
"Health & Society"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-10-28T21:57:05.655Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar31d3c74f
|
Women and peace-making are essential, not an 'add-on' - as Gaza proves
|
The United Nations on Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) was adopted 25 years ago — its anniversary falls on 31 October. It was a landmark commitment to include women meaningfully in conflict prevention and peace-building, but too often, it has fallen short. Having helped draft Resolution 1325 all those years ago, I know firsthand we’ve spent decades passing resolutions, producing national action plans, and signing pledges. What has proven far more challenging is turning them into sustained political action. The time for statements has passed; now we must do the actual work. That is no simple task. Around the world, we are witnessing a surge in authoritarianism and a backlash against gender equality. I will be speaking in New York at a time when many women cannot — some too afraid for their safety, others unable to travel due to restrictive immigration policies. And here in Europe, we are not immune. Across the continent, several governments are either openly joining the backlash or quietly retreating from their previous commitments. Meanwhile, we are seeing a shift from comprehensive peace agreements to short-term ceasefire deals that are often fragile and easily broken, and women’s representation in official peace negotiations remains staggeringly low. This reveals that inclusion will not come just from the top down. Governments and multilateral institutions, including the EU, must redouble efforts to mainstream the WPS agenda. But that alone is not enough. Real progress depends on supporting the women already doing the work on the ground: those who create space when official negotiations stall, who mediate in their own countries, and fill in the gaps when short-term deals don’t address the root causes of conflict. Hard facts, not 'nice-to-have' We must also confront the myth that including women is merely a “nice-to-have.” The evidence says otherwise. Research shows that peace agreements are 20 percent more likely to last at least two years and 35 percent more likely to last fifteen years when women are involved in negotiations. Despite this, as of 2023 , women made up just 9.6 percent of negotiators, 13.7 percent of mediators, and 26.6 percent of signatories to peace agreements. In high-level talks, such as efforts to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, women are absent. Only in the Colombian peace process, where I served as an advisor, did we see significant female participation. Excluding Colombia, that 26.6 percent drops to just 1.5 percent. In this era of rising conflict and resurgent authoritarianism, women are not being asked to join the table more often — they are being asked less. Europe cannot afford to be complacent about that trend. Because I have seen what happens when women do participate. In our work worldwide, women have mediated prisoner exchanges, negotiated local ceasefires, and created space for conflict transformation when conflict parties were at war or in a stalemate. Somalia, and the EU In Somalia, for example, women have helped transform disputes over contested territory into peaceful settlements. These actions might not always make international headlines, but they are the foundation of sustainable peace. If Europe wants to remain a credible global actor for peace, it must ensure that its foreign and security policies reflect these lessons. The EU’s recent Strategic Compass and its commitments under the WPS agenda provide a strong framework — but these commitments will ring hollow unless they are matched by resources, accountability and political will. That means ensuring women are represented not only at the highest levels of negotiation and mediation, but also in ongoing dialogue with local women’s organisations and peace-builders who understand the realities on the ground. It means integrating the WPS agenda into every stage of crisis response, from early warning systems to post-conflict recovery. It also means providing flexible, direct funding to women’s groups working in fragile and conflict-affected settings—without the bureaucratic barriers that too often slow or exclude them. We should also expect more from our governments . EU member states that have adopted national action plans must implement them fully; those that have let their plans lapse must renew and resource them. Europe’s leadership on peace and democracy cannot be credible if it ignores gender equality—whether at the negotiating table or on the ground. Particularly as conflicts deepen and climate change accelerates instability, the need for inclusive peacebuilding has never been more urgent. The Women, Peace, and Security agenda is not a nice-to-have; it is a When women are included, we not only uphold our principles but also achieve tangible results. By acting together, from the bottom to the top, we can collectively build towards more lasting peace. Chris Coulter is the executive director of the peacebuilding organisation, The Berghof Foundation . Chris Coulter is the executive director of the peacebuilding organisation,
|
The Berghof Foundation
|
It's a myth that including women is merely a “nice-to-have.” Research shows that peace agreements are 20 percent more likely to last at least two years and 35 percent more likely to last fifteen years when women are involved in negotiations. Yet, in high-level talks, such as efforts to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, women are absent.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Africa",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-28T14:31:26.851Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar62ac40a9
|
How NGOs die — Europe's playbook for dismantling democracy
|
Across Europe, a coordinated assault on civil society is unfolding with surgical precision. From Brussels to Budapest, from Bratislava to Sofia, EU institutions and national governments are deploying a five-step playbook to eliminate the independent organisations that stand between corporate power and the public interest. The playbook is brutally efficient: fabricate a scandal, delegitimise and defund organisations into dependency on philanthropic support, then criminalise their new funding as foreign influence, all while continuing to demand NGOs services for consumer protection and digital rights enforcement that governments refuse to fund themselves. The timing is no accident: this campaign accelerates precisely as Europe turns its back to the Green Deal and its digital rulebook to embrace "simplification" – the mantra-like belief that gutting regulations will unleash economic potential. Under the cover of strengthening democracy through transparency, governments are dismantling the architecture of accountability that makes democracy possible. The epitome of this attack is the creation of a dedicated Scrutiny Working Group on NGO financing within the EU Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee to investigate how certain NGOs have been financed by the EU Commission. After a decade-old anti-NGO campaign, the dominant EU political party — the centre-right EPP — backed by the far-right, pro-Trumpian Patriots for Europe, succeeded in weaponising a parliamentary tool otherwise reserved for genuine scandals like Dieselgate against organisations traditionally playing an accountability and expert role in policy formation and enforcement across EU policy. Welcome to the playbook for killing civil society. Step one: manufacture the scandal In late 2024, conservative MEPs and rightwing outlets accused environmental and health organisations of misusing EU funding from the LIFE programme, the €700m annual budget supporting climate and environmental action, including advocacy work directed to the EU institutions. The charge: using public money to advocate for stricter protections through lobbying. The accusation itself exposes the agenda. NGOs working on pesticides , PFAS "forever chemicals," and air pollution were attacked for doing precisely what their funding mandates: translating scientific evidence into policy recommendations. When these recommendations threaten corporate interests, advocacy becomes "inappropriate lobbying." The EU Court of Auditors found no misuse. Yet the attacks continued, amplified by a months-long campaign led by German EPP members and enabled by Germany’s AfD and other far-right groups who already succeeded in May 2024 to have the Commission issuing guidelines prohibiting EU grants for NGO 'advocacy work' that creates 'reputational risk' — including sending letters to MEPs, organising meetings, or discussing policy positions. The disinformation persists – with EU commissioner Olivér Varhélyi stating that EU grants to cover NGOs' day-to-day costs are "illegal" – because its purpose is stigmatisation. Step two: institutionalise the witch hunt With public opinion poisoned, governments build permanent surveillance infrastructure. By formalising what Civil Society Europe describes as an “NGO hunt" , the EU’s parliamentary working group merely codified a trend long underway across its member states Slovakia's April 2025 law passed after 13 months of chaotic rewrites — so incoherent that one observer noted "not even God could make sense of it" — yet it imposes crushing bureaucratic requirements on all NGOs. Hungary's May 2025 proposed "Transparency in Public Life" bill enables fines up to 25 times any foreign grant amount, payable within 15 days, with EU funding now classified as "foreign influence." Prime minister Viktor Orbán calls independent journalists and civil society "bugs" to be "wiped out." Slovakia's prime minister Fico declared in 2023: "The era of NGOs ruling this country is over." These aren't regulations, but permanent mechanisms aims at debilitating EU civil society and chilling its action. Step three: defund Systematically eliminate public funding or delay its transfer to maximise organisational uncertainty. The European Public Health Alliance cut 40 percent of staff in 2025 when operating grants disappeared. The Netherlands slashed €2.4bn in annual development aid from 2027. France reduced overseas development by 37 percent - €2.1bn gone. Germany halved humanitarian aid. Sweden terminated national NGO funding agreements to align with national priorities. More insidiously, the EU appears poised — by subsuming the L IFE Programme into a 'Competitiveness Fund' — to make all funding transfers conditional upon explicit commitments from beneficiary NGOs to abstain from any form of advocacy work – thus effectively prohibiting them from engaging politically with EU institutions. This transforms civic organisations into service contractors, permitted to implement programmes but forbidden from commenting on, critiquing, or seeking to influence the very policies they're tasked with executing. NGOs face an impossible choice: accept funding with a ‘gag order’, or maintain their advocacy role while watching their operations collapse from financial starvation. Step four: criminalise Once delegitimised and defunded, NGOs get criminalised due to the resulting dependency on philanthropic funding. Hungary's proposed law requires citizens donating to listed organisations to provide a "private deed with full evidentiary force" proving domestic origin — or face criminal forgery charges. Slovakia's League for Mental Health, trusted for decades, now faces accusations its director calls "cynical fraud charges for something we could not have done and did not do." The same EU Commission proposed in the previous legislature to set up a mandatory transparency registry for third-country lobbying as part of its "Defence of Democracy Package". The EU’s own version of foreign agent laws might soon be revived. While attacking European NGOs for accepting philanthropic support, several governments welcome the flood of MAGA money reshaping Brussels. Conservative donors, be they EU ultra-net-worth individuals or American culture warriors, pour millions into new institutes, think-tanks, and advocacy groups aligned with the Trump agenda. Meanwhile, the same MEPs investigating environmental NGOs or other public interest groups for "inappropriate lobbying" attend lavish conferences funded by US conservative foundations. Foreign influence isn't the problem — progressive foreign influence is. Step five: exploit NGOs’ indispensability After defunding NGOs, criminalising their funding sources, and questioning their legitimacy, political leaders expect the same organisations to continue serving as on-demand input providers to policymaking and the EU's enforcement infrastructure — tracking violations, gathering evidence, supporting victims, filing complaints. Ireland's Digital Services Coordinator employs 45 people to regulate Big Tech , the entire system relies on NGO expertise as "trusted flaggers." National consumer protection authorities designate civil society groups as "external entities" in enforcement networks. EDRi's 47-organisation network defends GDPR, files complaints, monitors Digital Services Act compliance, doing work governments won't fund. These organizations provide the enforcement infrastructure for consumer protection and digital rights while simultaneously being investigated, defunded, and delegitimized. EU leaders stand at podiums championing consumer protection and digital rights, knowing they've outsourced enforcement to organisations they're systematically destroying Europe’s governments may soon discover that the question is no longer whether NGOs can survive, but what, and who, fills the vacuum when they don’t. Civic organisations were never designed to exist for their own sake; they emerged because governments could not, or would not, perform essential democratic functions: scrutiny, participation, and protection of rights. Those functions do not disappear as that space collapses; they migrate to corporate lobbyists, opaque consultancies, or ideologically driven foundations. If Europe’s institutions allow this shift to continue, they will not just lose civil society, they will privatise accountability itself, and with it, the credibility of European democracy and governing capacity. Democracies rarely fall by force; they erode through complacency. Each time the EU treats public scrutiny as obstruction, and trades participation for “simplification”, it weakens its own capacity for self-correction. Ironically, it is precisely this diminished capacity for self-correction that Europe's current crises demand most urgently. Alberto Alemanno is a new columnist for EUObserver, an academic, author and one of the leading voices on the democratisation of the EU. He is Democracy Fellow at Harvard University , Jean Monnet Professor at HEC Paris and founder of The Good Lobby . Alberto Alemanno is a new columnist for EUObserver, an academic, author and one of the leading voices on the democratisation of the EU. He is Democracy Fellow at Harvard University , Jean Monnet Professor at HEC Paris and founder of
|
The Good Lobby
|
The playbook is brutally efficient: fabricate a scandal, delegitimise and defund organisations into dependency on philanthropic support, then criminalise their new funding as foreign influence — all while continuing to demand NGOs monitor consumer protections that governments refuse to fund themselves, warns new EUobserver columnist Alberto Alemanno.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-10-28T11:31:47.303Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar1c67c9a3
|
Irish election deepfake AI video shines light on lack of EU-wide rules
|
Last Friday (24 October), Catherine Connolly won the Irish presidential election, despite an AI-generated deepfake of her dropping out of the race circulating before the election. In an AI video, a realistic RTÉ News broadcast reported that the now Irish president-elect had dropped out of the race and that the election was cancelled. It also included a fake video and voice clone of Connolly herself withdrawing at a campaign event. And it's just the latest example. AI deepfakes of political candidates have been a feature of global elections in recent years, as bad actors, political parties and candidates themselve s post AI-generated videos during the campaign season in order to manipulate voters or reenforce political narratives The Connolly deepfake appeared across social media just days before Irish citizens headed to the polls. "The video is a fabrication. It is a disgraceful attempt to mislead voters and undermine our democracy," said Connolly herself in a statement on 22 October. Online platforms did take measures to mitigate the video's impact, with Meta removing the video and the accounts that posted it, but the video had already been shared numerous times. But AI content online does not necessarily have an impact on voting. “Current research on the impact of AI on elections has not uncovered any clear impact of AI-generated deepfakes on actual voting outcomes,” said Eva Lejla Podgoršek, senior policy manager at NGO AlgorithmWatch to EUobserver. And digital services have tools to limit AI influence, as Meta implemented its AI watermarking in 2024, and OpenAI has systems to prevent people from recreating public figures with its video and image models. However, videos continue to be posed, platforms systems are not foolproof and the technology continues to improve. On 30 September, OpenAI released its most realistic AI video generator, Sora 2 , and explicitly promotes the model's ability to place real people in generated environments through its so-called "cameos" feature — apparently launching with public figure safety features in place. However, AI detection software company Reality Defender was able to bypass Sora 2's safety features and create multiple public figure cameos. Tech platforms must also follow AI safety and election integrity measures under EU regulation. The EU's AI Act , which passed in 2024, requires platforms to watermark AI content and imposes specific disclosure requirements for deepfakes. The Digital Services Act also obligates them to mitigate risks to election integrity. But currently there is no EU-wide legal framework on digital likeness rights, leaving each member state to decide its own rules. "That fragmentation poses major issues for the regulation of generative video models,” said Barry Scannell, an attorney on the Irish government's AI advisory council and is head of AI law & policy at Irish law firm William Fry , to EUobserver. And he is concerned that member states are not teaching their electorates to question online content enough. As AI models continue to improve, the "reflex – to verify before sharing – should be standard and embedded in the curriculum,” said Scannell Owen Carpenter-Zehe is a junior reporter from the US at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Owen Carpenter-Zehe
|
AI-generated videos of then Irish presidential candidate Catherine Connolly dropping out of the race circulated online last week. Currently there is no EU-wide legal consensus on digital likeness rights, leaving each member state to decide its own rules.
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political"
] |
digital
|
2025-10-27T15:01:17.067Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ar9b098635
|
Listen: Why is everyone so eager to meet with China?
|
This week, the European Union and China will hold talks in Brussels aimed at easing trade tensions, focusing on Beijing’s restrictions on exports of rare earths and magnets, materials vital for Europe’s automotive, defence, green tech and digital industries. All this, as Donald Trump meets Xi Jinping to discuss trade and critical minerals on the other side of the world. But why is everyone so eager to meet Chinese officials? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: This week, the European Union and China will hold talks in Brussels aimed at easing trade tensions, focusing on Beijing’s restrictions on exports of rare minerals and magnets, materials vital for Europe’s automotive, defence, green tech and digital industries. All this, as Donald Trump meets Xi Jinping to discuss trade and critical minerals on the other side of the world. But why is everyone so eager to meet Chinese officials? China currently produces about 90 percent of the world’s processed raw materials, and has recently tightened export controls, adding new licensing requirements since 9 October. The European Commission says that out of 2,000 priority applications from EU companies for export licences, only around half have been processed. These restrictions have raised concerns in Brussels. A planned meeting between EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and China’s commerce minister was cancelled, replaced by lower-level talks under the Export Control Dialogue. At last week’s European Council summit, the issue of Chinese export controls was discussed by EU leaders. French president Emmanuel Macron described Beijing’s actions as “economic coercion.” The Anti-Coercion Instrument, a new EU trade defence tool adopted in 2023, was mentioned, but no decision was made to trigger it. The EU remains heavily dependent on China for critical raw materials and magnets. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen warned last week that “a crisis in the supply of critical raw materials is no longer a distant risk.” Now, Europe is trying to protect key industries, from electric vehicles to renewable energy, that depend on materials China largely controls. Brussels has been working to secure supply chains since the energy crisis exposed its dependence on Russian gas. And rare earth materials are seen as the next potential pressure point. The European Commission estimates that the EU imports almost all of its raw materials and permanent magnets from China. At the same time, the EU is caught between major global players. Beijing is clashing with Washington over similar export controls, while the US and China are preparing for a high-level meeting between presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping later this week in South Korea. So, both Washington and Brussels are trying to stabilise relations with Beijing, but from different positions of leverage. China continues to hold the upper hand when it comes to access to critical minerals. So, what’s next? In response, the European Commission is preparing a new strategy called RESourceEU, designed to reduce Europe’s dependency on Chinese raw materials. The plan will focus on diversifying supply, developing recycling systems, and forming partnerships with countries such as Ukraine, Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, and Chile. Von der Leyen says the EU must act with the same urgency it showed when cutting its reliance on Russian fossil fuels. But so far, Europe remains dependent on Chinese exports to keep its green and digital transitions on track. For now, the Commission is opting for dialogue, not confrontation. The Anti-Coercion Instrument, sometimes described as the EU’s “trade bazooka,” requires the backing of a qualified majority of member states, support that does not currently exist. So the meetings in Brussels will be more about preventing escalation than imposing consequences. Because Europe needs the materials that power its industries and Beijing knows it. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
This week, the European Union and China will hold talks in Brussels aimed at easing trade tensions. All this, as Donald Trump meets Xi Jinping to discuss trade and critical minerals on the other side of the world. But why is everyone so eager to meet Chinese officials?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-27T13:11:18.328Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar0c1ca88c
|
Will pesticides be let off hook by EU 'omnibus' deregulation?
|
The European Commission’s “simplification omnibus” review is a test: will it defend citizens’ health and Europe’s ecosystems, or yield to agrobusiness pressure and roll back pesticide protections under the disguise of ‘simplification’? Eighty percent of the responses to the commission’s consultation on its omnibus came from citizens. This is not an accident. It reflects deep and growing public concern about pesticide pollution. Across Europe, people are calling for less exposure to harmful chemicals and more support for farmers transitioning towards ecological farming. Europeans have consistently demanded stronger pesticide regulation, through surveys, consultations, and European Citizens’ Initiatives, reflecting a shared vision for a food system that protects health, supports farmers, and safeguards nature. Synthetic pesticides are among the most toxic chemicals intentionally released into the environment, with well-documented negative impacts to people’s health, water resources and biodiversity. Recognising these impacts, the EU’s Pesticide Regulation ( Regulation 1107/2009 ) and the Sustainable Use Directive ( Directive 2009/128/EC ) were designed to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment, remove harmful pesticides from the market and to drive a gradual shift towards safer, more sustainable farming. Yet today, implementation falls far short of the law’s ambition. Harmful substances remain on the market long after their legal deadlines. ‘Emergency use’ derogations are repeatedly extended, and lengthy ‘grace’ periods for removing banned pesticides undermine the regulation’s intent. Some hazardous chemicals are not banned due to gaps in risk assessment. Lobbying and marking their own homework Meanwhile, the pesticide industry continues to influence guidance documents, and companies themselves provide the toxicity studies used to assess the safety of their own products. The result is a growing gap between what EU law promises and what people experience. European citizens continue to be exposed to pesticide residues in food, water, air, soil and household dust. Farmers and rural communities remain on the front line of exposure, with higher incidences of certain types of cancers and neurological diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease or cognitive disorders in children. Meanwhile, biodiversity, from pollinators to birds, continues to decline at alarming rates, with pesticides a major cause. This dramatic biodiversity collapse erodes key ecosystem functions, including food production. Simplifying food safety laws could help coherence and efficiency, but not at the cost of safety. We welcome efforts to improve the regulatory framework for biocontrol substances, to enhance expertise in their risk assessment and promote their use to replace synthetic pesticides. However, these measures must not lower the level of protection established. Nor should they be used to extend approvals for hazardous synthetic pesticides and broaden derogations that would undermine the law’s intent. Crop rotation and soil health mostly not enforced The solution to synthetic pesticide overuse lies not in new exemptions but in the full implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which has been mandatory across the EU since 2014. IPM requires farmers to prevent pest problems through crop rotation, soil health, and natural pest control, using synthetic pesticides only as a last resort. Biocontrol solutions are an important part of the transition away from hazardous pesticides, but only when applied within a robust IPM framework that prioritises prevention and ecological balance. Most member states fail to enforce IPM, leaving farmers without the support needed to implement it effectively. This is where the commission’s focus should be: helping European farmers transition to resilient, low-input systems that protect both yields and ecosystems. Scientific evidence and practical experience show that synthetic pesticides are replaceable. Agroecological and organic systems, backed by robust IPM, can maintain productivity while improving biodiversity, soil health, and climate resilience. These are key elements for food security. The EU now has an opportunity to ensure that simplification strengthens, rather than undermines, the implementation of existing pesticide laws. This means: Ensure timely withdrawal of hazardous pesticides Enforce IPM and support ecological farming Guarantee transparency and independence in assessments Align import standards with EU requirements Better enforcement is not bureaucracy. It is what keeps Europe’s food, water, and people safe. Dr. Angeliki Lysimachou is head of science and policy at Pesticide Action Network Europe, a non-governmental organisation working to eliminate the use of hazardous pesticides and advance sustainable, ecological farming across Europe. Salomé Roynel is policy officer at PAN Europe . Dr. Angeliki Lysimachou is head of science and policy at Pesticide Action Network Europe, a non-governmental organisation working to eliminate the use of hazardous pesticides and advance sustainable, ecological farming across Europe. Salomé Roynel is policy officer at
|
PAN Europe
|
Better enforcement of EU pesticide use is not bureaucracy. It is what keeps Europe’s food, water, and people safe. More than 120 NGOs are urging the EU Commission to strengthen implementation of the bloc's pesticide law, and thousands of citizens responded to the commission’s consultation.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Green Economy",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-10-27T11:38:44.838Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar10983b93
|
A repeat Dutch election, China rare earth exports and von der Leyen in Nordics This WEEK
|
Dutch voters head to the polls on Wednesday (29 October), with far-right anti-Muslim leader Geert Wilders topping the polls, as he aims to repeat his surprise win from the parliamentary elections two years ago. The election itself only came after Wilders pulled his hard-right Freedom Party (PVV) out of a fragile four-party coalition , prompting prime minister Dick Schoof to call for fresh elections after 11 months. According to the latest polls, the PVV would currently win 34 of the 150 seats in parliament, becoming the leading force, though it is deemed unlikely they will form a new coalition, given Wilder’s style. The party of former EU commissioner Frans Timmermans, GroenLinks–PvdA (Green Left–Labour), is polling second with 16 percent of the vote. “The PVV is a party that sidelines a part of the Dutch population. We cannot work with them. You cannot tell more than a million Dutch people: you get fewer rights because you are Muslim,” Timmermans said last week on social media. Also this week, European trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is expected to meet his Chinese counterpart Wang Wentao in Brussels amid escalating concerns over China’s new export controls and broader trade tensions. China recently introduced tighter export controls on rare earth elements and related technologies, which are crucial for high-tech supply chains — a move the EU has described as “unjustified and harmful” to industry, prompting calls from France to use all options available against China, including the EU's so-called anti-coercion instrument. The meeting is likely also to cover broader issues, such as the Dutch government’s seizure of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia over “national security". But most eyes will be this week in Asia, as US president Donald Trump travels to Malaysia, Japan and South Korea for the Apec and Asean summits. US tariffs and China's dominance over rare earth resources are complicating relations, leaving Europe exposed to the consequences. Meanwhile, von der Leyen will join the Nordic Council meeting on Monday and Tuesday (27 and 28 October), engaging with leaders from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden on competitiveness, defence, and Arctic issues. Also on Monday and Tuesday, EU ministers will meet in Brussels on fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea, the green conditions under the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), and the food market situation in Ukraine. Saturday (1 November) also marks the anniversary of the Novi Sad tragedy, when 16 lives were lost, exposing widespread corruption in Serbia. The European Central Bank is set to hold rates steady on Thursday (30 October).
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
Dutch voters go to the polls on Wednesday, with Geert Wilders’ party leading. Trade talks with China, Ursula von der Leyen attending the Nordic Council, and ECB decisions mark a busy week, while Donald Trump heads to Asia for the Apec and Asean summits — amid a tariff-war with China.
|
[
"Nordics",
"Agenda"
] |
agenda
|
2025-10-27T06:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/agenda/ar1677d44a
|
Sex education remains a tricky topic in many European countries
|
About 80 percent of children and young people in Croatia now learn about sexuality from the internet. This figure, revealed in a study by the Croatian Institute of Public Health , is extremely worrying, says the country's ombudswoman for equality, Višnja Ljubičić. But it is hardly a surprise — given that comprehensive sex education has still not made it onto the country's national curriculum. Some look with envy at countries such as Sweden, where sex education was introduced in the 1940s and made compulsory in 1955. Even in kindergartens, the topic is at least touched upon. In Croatia, NGOs have been calling in vain for comprehensive sex education to be introduced in schools. Anamarija Sočo, from the organisation Status M , points out that in Croatia, as part of the cross-curricula ‘health’ programme, only one school lesson per year is devoted to sexuality. In cities such as Zagreb and Rijeka, efforts have been underway for several years to promote sex education in schools. However, this approach can only offer it as an ‘optional’ subject, as compulsory subjects are decided at the national level. Criticism from Lithuanian pupils In Lithuania, in contrast, sex education is indeed part of the curriculum. According to a survey by the Lithuanian Pupils' Union, however, many are dissatisfied with how it is taught. "In two years, there hasn't been a single sex education lesson," said one pupil. Another school reported that, every six months, a single video is shown on how to use a condom — and that's it. Several schools reported that the boys and girls were separated for the few sex education lessons that were taught. Moreover, many teachers only provide superficial information. One student surveyed said: ‘We are frustrated because the lessons are presented in a dismissive manner, as if we were not mature enough for such things.’ Lithuania's health ministry, which is responsible for this area, responded when asked in only rather general terms: "Sex education is complex and consistent. Children's development is taken into account in education, and age-appropriate materials and scientifically sound information are used." Meanwhile, in Romania, sex education remains a particularly sensitive issue in 2025. The country's education minister, Daniel David, decided that sex education should not be taught as a separate school subject, explaining that ‘the debate has become highly ideologised’. Instead, he opted for a subject called ‘Health Education’, which can be taught in biology classes. He agreed that children must have access to relevant information in the field of sex education, but in a form that is ‘not ideologically biased, that is highly pragmatic, and natural’. Meanwhile, Belgium provides compulsory sexuality education , implemented differently across Flanders, Wallonia, and the German-speaking community. Flanders integrates it throughout the curriculum, focusing on relationships, consent, diversity, and health, while Wallonia mandates at least two hours yearly. The part of sex education that deals with contraception and sexually-transmitted diseases is taught only from the eighth grade onwards. The fact that parental consent is required for this led to heated parliamentary debates in 2022. Similarly, in Bulgaria, sex education is not a separate subject. Instead, it is integrated into ‘biology and health education’ in grades eight to twelve. In Greece, sex education is taught as part of the subject area ‘wellbeing’, which also includes ‘environment’, ‘social awareness and responsibility’ and ‘creativity and innovation’. However, since teachers are free to choose which of these topics they will cover and how much time they will spend on them, sex education is often brushed aside and replaced by less "sensitive" topics, reports the media outlet Efsyn. In Poland, for a long time, the sole related subject was ‘education for family life.’ With the start of the school year in September 2025, a new, non-compulsory subject called ‘health education’ was introduced. This is also meant to cover sexual health, which is a thorn in the side of the national conservative Law & Justice (PiS) party, which was voted out of office in 2023. Critics from the PiS camp argued that the health education curriculum "contains harmful content, including the separation of sexuality from love, marriage and family, the promotion of abortion as a health service and the spread of gender ideology." The Catholic Church, which in Poland plays a particularly influential role, also denounced the lessons as "anti-family", "gender-destabilising" and said that they would "morally corrupt children". Criticism in France At the start of the new school year, France also introduced compulsory lessons on gender equality, consent and sex education. Initiated by education minister Élisabeth Borne, the reform aims to provide better education and so to help combat sexual violence against women and girls. In fact, since 2001, there has been a legal requirement for three compulsory lessons per year on sex education. An official report from 2021, however, stated that this requirement had by then been implemented for less than 20 percent of pupils. The new regulation has also angered conservative groups in France, and a petition against the reform gathered more than 80,000 signatures. In comparison, the situation in Austria appears far less controversial. There, sex education is part of the curriculum from primary school onwards, anchored as a teaching principle or as part of the educational area of ‘health and exercise’, and it is also integrated into certain compulsory subjects. Depending on the type of school, sex education is integrated into subjects such as general education (primary school), biology and environmental studies, religion, psychology and philosophy. A 2015 policy statement by Austrian ministry of education states: "Contemporary sex education is now understood as a form of school education that begins in early childhood, is appropriate to the age of the child, and continues into adulthood." Most want to know more In Austria, children and adolescents are expected to be provided with “information and skills” that “enable them to act responsibly toward themselves and others”. Parents play a central role in this, as do institutions such as kindergartens and schools. Schools can decide for themselves whether to teach sex education internally or whether to use external, quality-assured programmes. The ministry of education has its own department for quality assurance of external providers of sex education in schools. Completion of a quality assurance process is a prerequisite for providers to be approved to teach sex education in schools. Most recently, however, the 2024 Gender Health Report commissioned by the ministry of health revealed gaps in the representative data on sex education in Austria. In general, 72 percent of young people in the country would like to know more about sexual and reproductive health. Boys are mainly interested in contraception and sexually transmitted infections, while girls are particularly interested in the menstrual cycle. Kim Son Hoang is a reporter from Der Standard . With contributions from Lisa Nimmervoll, Marina Kelava ( H-Alter ), Ieva Kniukštienė ( Delfi ), Ștefania Gheorghe ( HotNews ), Desislava Koleva ( Mediapool ), Giota Tessi ( Efsyn ), Francesca Barca ( Voxeurop ) Kim Son Hoang is a reporter from Der Standard . With contributions from Lisa Nimmervoll, Marina Kelava ( H-Alter ), Ieva Kniukštienė ( Delfi ), Ștefania Gheorghe ( HotNews ), Desislava Koleva ( Mediapool ), Giota Tessi ( Efsyn ), Francesca Barca (
|
Voxeurop
|
Some look with envy at countries such as Sweden, where sex education was introduced in the 1940s and made compulsory in 1955. Even in kindergartens, the topic is at least touched upon.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-10-27T06:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar70d7a98b
|
TikTok and Meta breaching the DSA, EU Commission finds
|
The European Commission preliminarily found that both TikTok and Meta are in violation of the bloc's D igital Services Act (DSA) on Friday (24 October). Both TikTok and Meta platforms breach the DSA's requirement to provide adequate access to their data for researchers, according to the findings, which also report that Facebook and Instagram make it too difficult to report illegal content, and do not have a robust enough system for appealing content-moderation decisions. "Platforms must empower users, respect their rights, and open their systems to scrutiny. The DSA makes this a duty, not a choice.” said Henna Virkkunen, commission vice-president for tech sovereignty, in a statement. “We are making sure platforms are accountable for their services, as ensured by EU law, towards users and society,” Virkkunen added. After these initial findings , the companies now have a chance to defend themselves, and then the commission announces a final decision, which could include fines or required changes. The commission began looking into both TikTok and Meta for breaching the DSA in 2024. Along with investigation, the commission has already announced multiple preliminary findings for DSA breaches by large tech platforms, including against X and Temu . Jan Penfrat, from the European Digital Rights group , said the initial verdicts were a positive step, provided they lead to final decisions. But he pointed out there is still no final decision in the case against X, which began in 2023. In January 2025 , the commission announced that it had requested additional documents from the platform before it could make a final ruling. “This is good news. But only if the commission is now courageous enough to then actually follow up with a final decision and not wait another year until that happens," Penfrat told EUobserver. “Users need to be protected now — and not in a year or two or three from now.” Owen Carpenter-Zehe is a junior reporter from the US at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Owen Carpenter-Zehe
|
Both TikTok and Meta are breaching the DSA, according to EU Commission. The platforms are not transparent enough with their data for research use, and Meta makes reporting illegal content and appealing moderation decisions too difficult.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"Digital"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-10-24T11:05:24.381Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ar493fa366
|
Israel blocking €43m of Gaza aid despite ceasefire, NGOs say
|
Israeli authorities have rejected 94 percent of aid delivery requests from international relief organisations during the first two weeks of the current ceasefire, leaving €43m worth of critical supplies stranded at border crossings, according to 41 humanitarian groups working in Gaza. Between 10 and 21 October, Israel denied 99 requests from international NGOs and six from UN agencies, preventing the delivery of medicine, food, water, and winter supplies despite ceasefire terms requiring humanitarian access. The groups affected include Action Against Hunger, Oxfam, the German Welthungerhilfe, Finn Church Aid and the Médecins Sans Frontières . The blockages have prevented aid from reaching Gaza even from outfits that have operated in the territory for years and are registered with Israeli authorities. The 41 organisations are urging the Israeli government to uphold its ceasefire commitments and obligations under international law by allowing unimpeded humanitarian aid delivery. None of the blocked items should be restricted under the current ceasefire terms. The NGOs warn of the approaching winter and emphasised the urgency of delivering aid to people living in shelters without insulation or heating. The organisations attribute the high rejection rate to a new coordination system Israeli officials implemented in March. That system has already drawn criticism from a group of EU foreign ministers and the bloc's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who raised concerns about humanitarian-access restrictions. The restrictions require charities to submit details of private donors, complete Palestinian staff lists and other sensitive information about personnel and their families to Israeli authorities. A statement issued by Oxfam said: "Supplies are packaged, staff are equipped and ready to respond at scale. What we need now is access. Israeli authorities must uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law and the terms of the ceasefire agreement.“ Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Israeli authorities have rejected 94 percent of aid delivery requests from international relief organisations — leaving €43m worth of critical supplies stranded at border crossings, according to 41 humanitarian groups working in Gaza.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-24T10:46:13.291Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar40280aa8
|
Why we should worry about little-known 'crisis mechanism' in EU military industrial plan
|
One of the European Defence Industrial Programme ’s least discussed but most alarming features is the creation of a special “crisis mechanism”. Under this framework, basic protections set out in the EU’s Working Time Directive could be suspended, allowing for extended shifts and longer workweeks in arms production. The Working Time Directive limits working time to 48 hours per week and 13 hours per day — limits already very lenient. The EDIP’s crisis derogations would allow corporations to go beyond this, overriding existing protections in the name of “continuity of production”. This proposal represents not only a frontal attack on workers’ rights, but also on health and safety. Longer shifts mean more fatigue and especially in high-risk industries such as explosives and heavy manufacturing, where fatigue is a serious safety hazard. EDIP reintroduces, through the back door, language that trade unions had successfully removed from earlier defence legislation, such as the Act to Support Ammunition Production. So-called priority-rated orders, under which companies would prioritise defence-relevant production, under short deadlines, reinforce the potential impact on working life. During Covid, the US government invoked similar provisions of its Defence Production Act to keep certain production facilities open even when there was a serious concern for workers’ health and safety with workers working in crowded conditions without adequate protection. The process affects far more than arms factories. As most important defence products have components that are not themselves defence products, the measures touch upon whole sectors. Measures can be taken to divert resources from civilian to military purposes if a perceived bottleneck for defence products comes from components of civilian nature. Nitrocellulose is essential in explosives, but also important in laboratories for biochemical research, is an example. Today, in the US, the DPA is invoked to counter a perceived lack of graphite production. To put a toxic cherry on the cake, the EDIP regulation also pushes for faster permits for related production facilities, including through non-respect of the Water Framework Directive. Failure to achieve good groundwater status or prevent deterioration in the status of surface water or groundwater will be acceptable in the name of overriding public interest if a supply-crisis is declared. At a time when Europe struggles with PFAS contamination and chronic groundwater pollution, such exceptions could have disastrous long-term consequences for public health, and literally kill. Who gives the orders? Moreover, industry, but not workers, will play an important role in the declaration and management of a crisis. The initiative to declare a security-of-supply crisis for example would come from a new — utterly non-transparent — Defence Security of Supply Board. Next to member states and EU Commission representatives, the European Defence Agency will be represented on the board. The EDA considers serving as an interface to represent defence industry perspectives as one of its objectives. In addition to their structural interaction with the commission and their influence on national governments, national defence industrial associations will be invited to the board at least once a year. After the declaration of a crisis, EDIP also foresees the structural involvement of high-level industrial representatives. Workers, environmental groups, and civil society, however, have no guaranteed seat at the table. This direct attack on workers’ rights compounds the other negative effects of militarisation on workers and industry. Increased military spending entails significant opportunity costs by diverting resources away from more productive alternative investments. While workers across Europe face mass factory closures, the redirection of public funds to already highly profitable arms manufacturers creates far fewer jobs than comparable investments in infrastructure, renewable energy such as wind and solar, education, or healthcare. Studies — including those conducted by military think tanks — warn of a negative multiplier effect and an adverse impact on long-term economic growth. The institutionalisation of EDIP would further erode social and democratic rights, damage our health and environment, and entrench a war-dependent economy. Europe must instead reinvest in people, public goods, technology, and peace. Marc Botenga is a Belgian MEP, and Ozlem Demirel a German MEP, both from from The Left . Marc Botenga is a Belgian MEP, and Ozlem Demirel a German MEP, both from from
|
The Left
|
The new EU programme for the military industry contains a little-discussed regulation to override workers’ rights and environmental protection whenever an undefined defence security of supply crisis is declared, warn Left MEPs Marc Botenga and Ozlem Demirel.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Labour",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-24T09:50:54.034Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar58aafd22
|
EU leaders clash on 2035 engine ban, but experts warn subsidising demand is key
|
EU leaders clashed over a planned 2035 ban on combustion engines at their summit in Brussels on Thursday (23 October). The EU has already agreed on the ban, but Italy's Giorgia Meloni and Germany's Friedrich Merz have called for the ban to be overturned, the latter vowing to "do everything" to convince other leaders in Brussels. Not everyone agreed, as French and Spanish governments rejected such a move ahead of the Brussels summit. “Plug-in hybrid vehicles, which are mainly used in thermal mode, must not be favoured after 2035,” the French and Spanish negotiating draft document seen by EUobserver stated. "European car manufacturers and battery manufacturers have invested billions euros to produce a full range of EVs, it is crucial not to lose the benefit of these investments and scatter future ones by sending mixed signals,” they also wrote. Experts, however, warn that the topic is beside the point. "By every metric, the industry is in deep trouble — and none of it has anything to do with future emission rules or an engine ban a decade away," Nils Redeker, of the Jacques Delors Centre, wrote on social media. The real problems facing Europe's car industry are different. In a report published ahead of the summit by various think tanks, including the Centre for European Reform, Redeker and colleagues Sander Tordoir and Lucas Guttenberg point to a different set of problems EU leaders should be trying to solve. "Chinese car exports are surging, European producers are being squeezed out of global markets, US tariffs are rising, and domestic demand remains 20 percent below pre-pandemic levels," they write. "By focusing the political debate on the wrong issue, Europe's car industry may well turn into the next industrial policy train wreck," Redeker warned. The automotive sector employs over 13 million people across Europe and accounts for a larger share of private R&D spending than any other industry. But it now faces what the authors describe as a "perfect storm" of exploding Chinese subsidies, US tariffs and weak domestic EU demand. A demand-side solution Rather than fighting over regulatory rollbacks, the authors argue leaders should focus on boosting demand for European-made electric vehicles. Their central proposal: Europeanise the French 'eco-bonus model' and apply it to national EV-support schemes across the bloc. This French model limits subsidies to EVs built in low-emission supply chains, effectively steering demand toward EU-made cars and filtering out Chinese production. It can't be lifted straight to the European level and would "need an update," Redeker notes, "but it's effective, WTO-proof, and ready to deploy." Key to making this work, the authors argue, is harmonising eligibility rules across the EU "so member-states are not busy outsmarting each other while losing the global race." Public support for EVs should apply only to cars made in Europe or allied countries like Norway or Japan, they recommend. EU schemes 'completely uncoordinated' And crucially, these 'Buy-European' clauses should cover both household purchases and corporate fleets, the latter of which accounts for over 60 percent of EU new car registrations (especially relevant for high-end German cars). The report notes that Germany, France, Spain and Italy, accounting for 70 percent of EU new car registrations, are all set to review their EV support schemes in the coming months. Most member-states already have support schemes for EVs in place, but they are “completely uncoordinated,” they write. With Germany just committing to reintroduce EV subsidies, together they would have the “critical mass” to “kick start” EU coordination across all markets. "Future cars will be electric, not because of regulation, but because EVs will soon be substantially cheaper," the authors write. "If Europe's car industry is to survive, it must pivot faster to producing EVs that are high-quality, affordable and profitable."
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
As EU leaders clashed over the 2035 combustion engine phase-out at their Brussels summit, economists say governments should focus on boosting demand for European-made electric vehicles instead — perhaps by copying a French eco-bonus model.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-10-23T17:01:43.812Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar3cf2bb45
|
MEPs to put steel, suspension, and sunset clauses into US trade deal
|
MEPs are planning to rewrite parts of the EU-US trade pact, putting in place clauses to quickly suspend or terminate the deal if US president Donald Trump backtracks on any of its provisions. At a press conference in Strasbourg on Thursday (23 October), Bernd Lange, the German social democrat who chairs the European parliament’s international trade committee, professed that he was “not really satisfied with the proposal”, adding that parliament’s amendments to the laws would be based on “five S’s: Steel, Stand-still, Suspension, Safeguards and Sunset.” The August joint declaration is a “starting point”, said Lange, who is drafting parliament's position, adding that there was a “big appetite” among MEPs to strengthen the agreement and put in place safeguards to protect its industries. He pointed to the fact that 407 products, including steel and aluminium, had lifted from the 15-percent tariff rate to 50 percent after the July agreement. In a move that could put the EU on collision course with Washington, Lange noted that 70 percent of the EU’s agricultural machinery exports now face 50-percent tariffs, which he described as “unacceptable”. “Only if the US reduces this 50 percent back to 15 percent will I allow a zero-tariff rate on US steel,” he said. The deal agreed in July by EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and the US president at Trump’s Turnberry golf club in Scotland, on which the joint declaration was based, put in place 15-percent tariffs on most EU exports to the US, including cars. It also promised that Brussels and Washington would work on joint quotas on steel imports. Trump has imposed a hefty 50-percent tariff on EU steel and aluminium exports. Parliament’s intentions should not come as a surprise to the commission, but they are a potential headache. MEPs were highly critical of the deal when Sabine Weyand, the commission’s chief trade negotiator, presented the terms of the agreement to them in September. “I would not call it a negotiation,” was Lange’s withering assessment of the deal, which was widely believed to favour the US. Lange also told reporters that threats and executive orders from the US president amounted to “coercive pressure,” adding that “we need to have the right to cancel this legislation in these events.” Lange said that he would also propose an 18-month sunset clause after which the agreement could be suspended. That would give time for the EU commission to prepare an impact assessment of the economic implications of the agreement, he said. Since July, Trump has issued statements to the press or on his Truth Social platform demanding that the EU exempt US firms from its digital and environmental laws, and to water down its rules on imports of beef and pork. However, there is also a legal dimension at play. Lange told reporters that since the EU-US deal is not in line with WTO rules on non-discrimination, the EU needed to have a sunset clause to cancel the arrangement if, after 18 months, there was no prospect of a comprehensive trade deal being negotiated with the Trump administration. Despite Trump’s preference for trade policy to be decided by executive order, the EU commission president does not have comparable powers and the two laws giving effect to the July agreement need approval by MEPs and ministers. Nor is the EU’s ratification process likely to move at breakneck pace. The international trade committee will debate its draft report on 4 November before setting a deadline for other amendments. A vote is likely to be held in committee in January, said Lange, with a final plenary vote pencilled in for next March or April.
|
Benjamin Fox is a seasoned reporter and editor, previously working for fellow Brussels publication Euractiv. His reporting has also been published in the Guardian, the East African, Euractiv, Private Eye and Africa Confidential, among others. He heads up the AU-EU section at EUobserver, based in Nairobi, Kenya.
|
MEPs are planning to re-write parts of the EU-US trade pact, putting in place clauses to quickly suspend or terminate the deal if US president Donald Trump backtracks on any of its provisions.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-23T13:11:04.513Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ard7080a43
|
Listen: EU leaders greenlight new Russia sanctions and debate Ukraine reparation loan
|
EU leaders gathered in Brussels on Thursday (23 October) to discuss matters ranging from defence and housing to climate targets, but the agenda is clearly topped by Ukraine. Two big items stand out, the so-called “reparation loan” using frozen Russian assets, and the EU’s 19th sanctions package against Moscow, which was greenlit this morning. But can Europe turn political agreement into real financial support for Kyiv without crossing legal red lines? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: EU leaders gathered in Brussels today, Thursday, to discuss matters ranging from defence and housing to climate targets, but the agenda is clearly topped by Ukraine. Two big items stand out, the so-called “reparation loan” using frozen Russian assets, and the EU’s 19th sanctions package against Moscow. But can Europe turn political agreement into real financial support for Kyiv without crossing legal red lines? Leaders are expected to task the European Commission with drafting a concrete plan for using frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Kyiv’s war effort, a plan worth around €140bn. The idea, first floated by Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, is to channel the profits from immobilised Russian central bank assets, most of which are held in Belgium’s Euroclear into a loan to finance Ukraine’s military and budgetary needs. The rationale is simple, if Russia destroyed Ukraine, then Russia should pay for rebuilding it. But there’s a problem. Belgium’s prime minister Bart De Wever has warned he’ll block the plan unless all EU countries share the legal and financial risks. He argues that without full guarantees, the scheme could expose Euroclear to lawsuits and even undermine the euro’s credibility. He’s not alone. The European Central Bank has also raised concerns, warning that using sovereign assets could violate international law and set a dangerous precedent. Still, supporters like Germany, France and the Baltic states say the loan is not only legal but moral, a way to make Russia pay, without asking already stretched EU taxpayers for more money. Meanwhile, EU leaders are also set to approve the 19th package of sanctions against Russia, this time targeting Moscow’s liquefied natural gas exports, its key revenue streams, and expanding travel restrictions for Russian diplomats. It’s one of the fastest-agreed sanctions packages so far. With Slovakia lifting its veto last night, the EU will, for the first time, impose sanctions on Russian liquefied natural gas. Across the Atlantic, the US also announced new measures targeting Russia’s two largest oil companies, in response to Moscow’s continued refusal to sit at the negotiating table. Now, Ukraine is facing an estimated €55bn budget shortfall over the next two years, while Russian air strikes continue to damage energy infrastructure and vital services. The proposed loan aims to provide stable and predictable funding to help Kyiv maintain essential government functions and support its defence effort. For the European Union, the issue is not just financial, it’s legal and institutional because of the non compliance with international law. So this debate highlights a difficult balance for the EU, finding a mechanism that is both legally sound and politically credible, while ensuring that Ukraine receives the financial support it urgently needs. So, what’s next? For now, EU leaders are expected to agree on the political direction, to move ahead with the plan, but the technical and legal details will take months to finalise. The European Commission will be asked to draft binding proposals, while member states continue to debate exactly how the money should be used, whether strictly for military aid, or also for rebuilding Ukraine’s infrastructure and economy. In the meantime, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who’s in Brussels today, continues to remind European leaders what’s at stake, which is not just Ukraine’s future, but Europe’s. And as new US sanctions target Russia’s oil sector, the EU’s message to Moscow is clear, at least on paper, that the economic pressure isn’t going away. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
EU leaders gathered in Brussels on Thursday to discuss matters ranging from defence and housing to climate targets, but the agenda is clearly topped by Ukraine. But can Europe turn political agreement into real financial support for Kyiv without crossing legal red lines?
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-23T12:18:33.369Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar13f050b2
|
Outrage as Ireland picks ex-Meta lobbyist as new data protection chief
|
Civil society groups have decried the appointment of a senior ex-Meta lobbyist as one of Ireland's new data protection commissioners. Niamh Sweeney was announced in September as the pick for third commissioner for Ireland's already highly-controversial Data Protection Commission (DPC), rounding out its three-person leadership team. However her work at Meta from 2015 to 2021 raises concerns from civil society. In an open letter to the Irish government on Thursday (23 October), signed by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties , noyb , ARTICLE 19 , the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom , plus 40 others, highlights the conflict of interest Sweeney brings to a position that is supposed to police the same firms in which she used to work. This appointment “raises serious questions about the DPC’s independence at a time when its impartiality is of critical importance for the entire Union, and when public trust is already fragile,” the letter states. The letter also points out that Sweeney may have had to sign non-disclosure agreements during her time at Meta, raising questions about her ability to properly participate in investigations. The complaint cites this as conflicting with various regulatory independence and impartiality rules under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the EU Charter. One of the letter’s signatories, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, told EUobserver, "I think it's very difficult to expect her to be able to do the job she needs to do." This decision comes as civil society has already had problems with the Irish DPC , calling the agency a GDPR bottleneck in the letter. “Patterns of delayed or limited enforcement continue to undermine trust in the DPC as an eIective enforcer of the law,” wrote the NGOs. Ireland is home to many US Big Tech giants who have found the Irish DPC an amenable agency, as well as a low-tax EU member state. Other European data protection agencies have urged Ireland to take stronger corrective measures in their cases. The letter complains that “civil society organisations have filed highly important and strategic complaints in Ireland, many without any material result.” It concludes by calling for a new commissioner, with a data protection background, who is picked through a more transparent process. Along with an independent review process into the original appointment of Sweeney herself. The signing organisations aim for this letter "to put some pressure on the government and ultimately it'll put pressure on her," said the civil society representative. Owen Carpenter-Zehe is a junior reporter from the US at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Owen Carpenter-Zehe
|
Civil society is outraged by Ireland data protection agency — the key one in the EU — picking a former Meta lobbyist as its new commissioner.
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political"
] |
*
|
2025-10-23T08:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/ar6c78a452
|
Listen: Brussels scales back deforestation law to ease pressure on small firms
|
The European Commission has changed course, again, on its landmark anti-deforestation law, known as the EUDR. After weeks of speculation about yet another delay, Brussels has now decided not to postpone the law for everyone. Instead, it’s introducing a series of exemptions and tweaks, especially for small businesses and farmers. But what does this all mean in practice? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: The European Commission has changed course, again, on its landmark anti-deforestation law, known as the EUDR. After weeks of speculation about yet another delay, Brussels has now decided not to postpone the law for everyone. Instead, it’s introducing a series of exemptions and tweaks especially for small businesses and farmers. But what does this all mean in practice? The EUDR, adopted in 2023, is designed to stop products linked to deforestation, like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, timber, and palm oil, from entering the EU market. Companies have to prove that what they sell doesn’t come from land cleared after December 2020. Initially, the law was supposed to come into effect at the end of 2024. Then it was postponed. Twice. Now, the Commission says the rules will finally apply to large companies on 30 December 2025, with a six-month grace period before penalties kick in. For small and micro operators, the start date is pushed to December 2026. And there’s another big shift: companies that sell finished products, like chocolate manufacturers, will no longer need to file individual declarations. Only importers of raw materials, such as cocoa or coffee beans, will have to do so. Which means, firms like Nestlé or Ferrero might skip some of the bureaucracy, while smaller players, who already face a mountain of paperwork, wait another year to catch up. EU Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall insists this isn’t a climbdown, saying the new proposal is about “making the rules work in a better and smarter way.” But, the move came just weeks after she had floated a full one-year delay, which sparked backlash both inside the Commission and from environmental groups. Now at first glance, this may look like a technical fix. But the implications go far beyond bureaucracy. Environmentalists fear that every delay, every exemption, means more trees cut down and more carbon emissions released. Deforestation is responsible for around 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions and the EU is one of the world’s largest importers of deforestation-linked products. Meanwhile, critics inside the Parliament say the Commission’s U-turn gives conservative forces a perfect excuse to weaken the law even further. German MEP Christine Schneider has already announced plans for a so-called “zero risk” amendment, which could exempt dozens of countries, including EU members, from most reporting standards. While Green MEPs warn that, reopening the law gives the right a free pass to weaken it under the banner of deregulation. And that’s the political tightrope here: balancing environmental ambition with economic reality and credibility. So, what now? The new proposal still needs approval from EU countries and the European Parliament. Lawmakers will now have the chance to add amendments and we can expect some to push for even more exemptions. For big companies, the six-month grace period will be a relief. For small producers and importers, the delayed start may buy them time to adapt. But for forests and the global fight against deforestation, time is precisely what’s running out. And the timing couldn’t be worse for the EU’s environmental agenda. We’ve already seen the bloc water down its Green Deal in the name of competitiveness. But the Commission insists it’s not lowering ambition, just being pragmatic. However, all this sounds like yet another compromise. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
The European Commission has changed course, again, on its landmark anti-deforestation law, known as the EUDR. But what does this all mean in practice?
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-10-22T16:16:12.521Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/arfd04dd09
|
Global leaders’ meeting on women in Beijing promotes new, accelerated process for development
|
Women play an important role in creating, promoting and carrying forward human civilization. Advancing the cause of women is a shared responsibility of the international community. Thirty years ago, the Fourth World Conference on Women was held in Beijing . The conference adopted the landmark Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which has inspired persistent efforts for the global advancement of women. Thirty years later, the Global Leaders’ Meeting on Women is being held in Beijing again, with attendance of heads of state and government, and representatives from over 110 countries. Chinese president Xi Jinping attended and addressed the opening, injecting new momentum and consolidating new strength to promote global gender equality and women’s all-round development. This is a grand event taking stock of the achievements in the global cause of women. Over the past 30 years, guided by the spirit of the Beijing World Conference on Women, the cause of women has been thriving around the world. Equality between men and women is now a universal consensus of the international community. It has been included in United Nations development agenda and priority development targets, and 189 countries have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The environment for women’s livelihood and development has been improving steadily. Nearly 1,600 laws on women’s rights and interests have been enacted by more than 190 countries, and more and more countries have made national action plans to improve women’s well-being. Prominent progress has been achieved in women’s empowerment. Their education attainment has been steadily improving, and women are playing an ever more important role in economic, political, cultural, and social affairs. A great many outstanding women have stepped up to take the international stage, living their lives to the full and making contributions with their wisdom and strength. In China, 690 million women have entered a moderately prosperous society in all respects. Maternal mortality has fallen by nearly 80 percent compared to 1995, and key maternal and child health indicators rank among the top among upper-middle-income countries. Women account for over 40 percent of the total employed population, and in 2024, female students constitute more than half of higher education enrollment. In the new era, Chinese women, more confident and vibrant than ever before, are taking part in the whole process of state and social governance, fully playing their role as “half the sky” in economic and social development. This is also a grand event for shaping the future of the global cause of women. Women in every corner of the world are bound together by a shared future. Participants of the meeting emphasised that women play an irreplaceable role in human civilisation and social progress. The pursuit of gender equality and women’s development is a noble ideal of human society, an important measure of social civilisation, a key factor for sustainable development, and a shared responsibility of the international community President Xi proposed four key recommendations: jointly fostering an enabling environment for women’s growth and development, jointly cultivating powerful momentum for the high-quality development of women’s cause, jointly developing governance frameworks to protect women’s rights and interests, and jointly writing a new chapter in promoting global cooperation on women. President Xi also made the following announcement: in the next five years, China will donate another $10m [€8.62m] to UN Women; earmark a quota of $100m in China’s Global Development and South-South Cooperation Fund for implementing development cooperation projects for women and girls in collaboration with international organizations; launch 1,000 “small and beautiful” livelihood programmes with Chinese assistance that take women and girls as priority beneficiaries; invite 50,000 women to China for exchange and training programs; and establish a Global Center for Women’s Capacity Building, which is aimed at conducting capacity building and other development cooperation with relevant countries and international organizations to train more female talent. Europe has been an important promoter of the global cause of women. China is willing to work with Europe, building on the strong cooperation achieved so far, to jointly explore new paths for revitalising multilateralism, advancing global women’s causes, carrying out more cooperation on new fronts, and contributing greater wisdom and strength to the progress of human civilisation.
|
Ambassador Cai Run is the head of the mission of China to the European Union.
|
President Xi Jinping attended the 2025 Global Leaders’ Meeting on Women in Beijing, and promised in the next five years, China will donate another $10m to UN Women and earmark a quota of $100m in China’s Global Development and South-South Cooperation Fund for implementing development cooperation projects for women and girls in collaboration with international organisations.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-10-22T13:12:41.257Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/araee0af84
|
On eve of EU summit over 2,000 scientists call for 90-95% emissions cut
|
More than 2,000 scientists from across the continent have urged EU leaders to commit to cutting emissions by 90-95 percent by 2040 at their summit meeting on Thursday (23 October). The 2,178 signatories to an open letter timed their appeal to coincide with the European Council meeting, where heads of state will discuss political guidelines on the bloc's climate targets. EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday told MEPs that: “Clean tech is not just a tool for cutting emissions — it is key to our competitiveness and key to the independence of the European Union, and we really have to fight for it.” The letter points to scientific evidence indicating decarbonisation provides potential for investment, innovation, new jobs, and enhanced European technological leadership. The EU is attempting to come to an agreement on the 2035 and 2040 climate targets — before the UN climate conference, COP30, in Brazil starting 10 November. The bloc’s environment ministers were scheduled to agree on the laws already at a council meeting in September, but the decision stalled as several countries demanded a delay and deferred to their leaders. EU member states such as France and Germany felt the decision should be taken at a higher level. Joseph Dellatte, environmental researcher at the Institute Montaigne , told press on Tuesday: “The 90 percent of emissions target is not an environmental policy anymore, it’s an economic policy. It reaches such a high level of economic shift that you need to have a mandate coming from the highest level possible.” The bloc's leaders are expected to have a discussion on climate during the council but leave the details and the final decision to the environmental council meeting on 4 November. An EU official told reporters on Tuesday that “the objective of this debate is precisely not to weaken our climate ambitions and goals, but to discuss among leaders, how do we guarantee those climate goals?” Decisions among the ministers can be reached more easily, as only a majority of member states is needed and not a unanimous position like with the bloc’s leaders. The parliament can vote on the topic during a plenary session the following week, which will take place during Brazil's COP30. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
The EU is debating its 2040 climate targets — amid calls from scientists and officials to treat emissions cuts as an economic opportunity rather than a burden. But disagreements among key member states — not least France and Germany — have delayed a decision.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-22T13:11:20.830Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arf84b0898
|
Europe’s punitive welfare systems are fuelling the far-right
|
Rightwing populists are reportedly adopting a new strategy to woo European voters: the promise of higher welfare benefits . This pro-welfare stance is paying off. Rightwing parties in Sweden (Swedish Democrats) and Austria (Freedom Party of Austria) have seen their ratings rise as they promise more state spending on citizens. For the first time in modern history, this year far-right populist parties simultaneously topped the polls in Europe’s three biggest economies – France (National Rally), Germany (Alternative for Germany) and the UK (Reform) — all of which have touted similar agendas. From raising state pensions and rolling back the retirement age, to increasing spending on healthcare, the far-right increasingly promises to protect the interests of the working class – but only for the national 'in-group'. Migrants and other 'outsiders', they take pains to clarify, are excluded – a position known as “welfare chauvinism”, which stands in stark contrast to social protection as a human right . How has welfare — long the cornerstone of the left — become a vote-winner for the far-right? The report I present to governments meeting at the UN General Assembly in New York on Wednesday (22 October) shows the answer lies not simply in years of cuts to social spending, but in decades of welfare restructuring that have left Europeans increasingly receptive to the divisive rhetoric of the far right. Today, welfare systems in Europe — once lauded as a bulwark against poverty, insecurity and political extremism — are being hollowed out and twisted into something very different: a machine for policing the 'undeserving' poor. Take the widespread shift from welfare to workfare — which makes benefits conditional upon engaging in approved work-related activities. In France, recipients of the country’s minimum income scheme must now clock at least 15 hours of job-related activity a week — a measure denounced by the country’s own human rights commission as opening the door to potential labour exploitation. In Germany, citizen’s income is conditional upon accepting any “suitable” job proposed by the Job Centre, and authorities can withhold up to 100 percent of benefits if a claimant fails to comply with job-seeking obligations. In all countries, sanctions inevitably land disproportionally on those most in need of support: claimants with limited work experience and qualifications, or facing practical barriers to work such as a lack of affordable childcare or not having a car. And those that can work are forced to accept low-paid, precarious jobs — insecure, exhausting, and devoid of prospects. Progress is measured not in improved lives, but in boxes ticked: hours worked, appointments attended, hoops jumped through. Poverty is now a 'failure of the individual' Europe’s lurch to workfare has sent a dangerous message: poverty is a failure of the individual , rather than society, and benefits must be earned and deserved through compliance. Digitalisation has compounded this negative stereotype of benefit recipients — with welfare agencies across Europe, from Denmark to Sweden , embracing algorithms to hunt down supposed fraud. In France, the service responsible for family allowances quietly profiled 32 million people to identify potential welfare abuses, using algorithms that disproportionately targeted single parents and disabled citizens. While single-parent households represented only 16 percent of beneficiaries, they accounted for 36 percent of administrative investigations. In the Netherlands, a “fraud detection” programme wrongly accused thousands of mostly immigrant families of benefit abuse. These algorithms aren’t neutral tools; they reflect political choices about who can, or can’t, be trusted. Even social workers have been recast as enforcers , expected to monitor, report and sanction. Europe’s most vulnerable citizens therefore experience the state not as a guarantor of rights, but as a hostile interrogator. They are surveilled, stigmatised, and punished. And crucially, they feel abandoned and betrayed. Far-right populists reap what has been sown. Punitive welfare systems that treat recipients as 'suspects' also signal to voters that welfare support is scarce. They pit the 'deserving' against the 'undeserving', and breed resentment among those struggling, who come to see migrants or minorities as competitors for dwindling benefits. And they feed directly into the narrative of Europe’s far-right populists: that ordinary people are being cheated, that the system protects outsiders, that only the far right will defend national workers. Such pledges should be met with scepticism. Experience shows that, once in power, far-right parties tend to maintain the privileges of the very economic elite they denounce in their speeches, slashing income support, healthcare and other life-saving services, further deepening poverty and exclusion. European leaders, in a vain attempt to undercut populists’ fearmongering around benefits abuse, are doubling down on punitive welfare . This is the wrong approach and will only boost the radical right. Instead, mainstream political parties must act fast to reclaim the narrative around welfare — a human right that we will all benefit from at different points in our lives, and that should be provided willingly, respectfully and to all. Olivier De Schutter is UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.
|
Olivier De Schutter
|
As Europe punishes its poorest citizens, the far-right finds fertile ground to flourish, warns Olivier De Schutter, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. And this pro-welfare stance is paying off. Far-right parties in Sweden and Austria have seen their ratings rise as they promise more state spending on citizens.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-10-22T09:35:27.692Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar4588f76a
|
New holes in latest U-turn on EU anti-deforestation law
|
The European Commission has U-turned on plans to delay its landmark anti-deforestation law by another year, instead setting out a series of new exemptions for small businesses, farmers, and major manufacturers. Last month, the commission said that massive overuse of its in-house IT system needed to declare compliance with the bloc meant that it would be impossible to the law to come into effect from December 2025. Having initially estimated that 100m due-diligence statements (DDS) would be lodged each year, EU officials now expect up to 1bn to be made by hundreds of thousands of registered operators. Should the commission proposal be accepted by MEPs and ministers, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) would come into effect for large firms on 30 December, but with a six-month grace period for checks and enforcement of the due diligence requirements. For small businesses and farmers, meanwhile, it will be delayed until December 2026. The commission believes that large manufacturing firms or retailers, who sell the finished products such as chocolate, cocoa or timber, should also be exempted. That means that only one submission in the EUDR IT system at a product's entry point in the market will be required for the entire supply chain. In practice, chocolatiers such as Nestle or Ferrero, would not be required to submit due diligence statements, with the cocoa importers bringing beans into the EU being the only ones covered by the law. The announcement, on Tuesday (21 October), adds to chaos surrounding the EUDR, which was supposed to have been implemented in January this year. The new proposal "responds to real implementation challenges,", said EU environment commissioner Jessika Roswall, in a statement. "It is not about lowering the ambition, it's about making the rules work in a better and smarter way because effective implementation matters," she added. But there is little doubt that, just weeks after proposing a second one-year delay, that the chaos has hurt the commission's credibility. Last month, a group of chocolatiers and other industries urged the commission not to delay the regulation further, warning that delays would punish companies who had prepared for compliance and would lead to more deforestation. However, the new proposal offers lawmakers the opportunity to make additional amendments to the regulation, which could lead to more exemptions. Christine Schneider, a German centre-right MEP, has said that she will introduce a ‘zero risk’ amendment that would exempt dozens of countries, including EU members, for most of the reporting standards. "By opening up the whole deforestation regulation, the commission risks giving the right a free hand to hack away at this crucial legislation under the guise of deregulation,” said Virginijus Sinkevičius, a Green MEP from Lithuania and former environment commissioner. The EUDR was designed to require sellers of products like beef, coffee, chocolate, palm oil and wood to demonstrate that their goods were traceable to land that had not been deforested after 31 December 2020. The compliance burden for each country was based on a benchmarking system that was published by the commission in May, which categorises them as either 'high', 'standard' or 'low' risk. But despite being adopted as a landmark law promoting sustainable business practices, with large majority support among EU lawmakers, it has come under fire from conservative MEPs and governments, who argue that it could damage the competitiveness of EU firms.
|
Benjamin Fox is a seasoned reporter and editor, previously working for fellow Brussels publication Euractiv. His reporting has also been published in the Guardian, the East African, Euractiv, Private Eye and Africa Confidential, among others. He heads up the AU-EU section at EUobserver, based in Nairobi, Kenya.
|
The European Commission has U-turned on plans to delay its landmark anti-deforestation law by another year, instead setting out a series of new exemptions for small businesses, farmers, and major manufacturers.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-22T05:32:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar8600e8ee
|
Listen: Friedrich Merz under fire over ‘dangerous’ migration remarks
|
Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor, is facing strong criticism for what many describe as “dangerous rhetoric” on immigration. During a visit to the eastern state of Brandenburg, Merz said that Germany still had “a problem in the cityscape” and that his interior minister was working to enable and carry out large-scale deportations. Why have these remarks sparked such a strong reaction across Germany and what do they reveal about the country’s political mood on migration? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor, is facing strong criticism for what many describe as “dangerous rhetoric” on immigration. During a visit to the eastern state of Brandenburg, Merz said that Germany still had “a problem in the cityscape” and that his interior minister was working to enable and carry out large-scale deportations. Why have these remarks sparked such a strong reaction across Germany and what do they reveal about the country’s political mood on migration? When pressed by a journalist about the remarks, Merz replied: “I don’t know if you have children, and daughters among them. Ask your daughters, I suspect you’ll get a pretty loud and clear answer. I have nothing to take back. We have to change something.” Merz’s critics, including MPs from the Greens, the Left Party, and his coalition partners the Social Democrats, accused him of using racially charged language that echoes far-right narratives, and called for an apology. Government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius later tried to calm the situation, saying the remarks were made in Merz’s capacity as party leader, not as chancellor, and that “people were reading too much into them.” Merz’s own party, the Christian Democrats, is divided. Some regional leaders backed him, saying Germany needed to enforce its deportation laws more effectively. Others, including Berlin’s CDU mayor Kai Wegner, warned against linking migration to urban problems, saying Berlin’s diversity “will always be reflected in the cityscape.” Now this debate is unfolding against a broader political backdrop. The far-right Alternative für Deutschland, or AfD, is polling at record levels, around 20 percent nationally and as high as 34 percent in parts of eastern Germany. Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc performed below expectations in February’s general election, taking 28.5 percent, while the AfD surged. Since then, the two parties have been neck-and-neck in polls, driven by voter concerns about migration, security, and the economy. Merz came to power promising a tougher stance on irregular migration, reversing Angela Merkel’s more open approach during the 2015 refugee crisis. His government claims to have reduced irregular arrivals by 60 percent since May. But researchers warn that when mainstream parties adopt far-right rhetoric to counter populists, they risk normalising those narratives and shifting public discourse. A pattern that has been observed across Europe, from Italy to the Netherlands, where tough migration talk has often failed to stop the far right from gaining ground. So, what now? Within his own party, Merz faces a strategic dilemma. The CDU has maintained what’s known as the “firewall”, a strict refusal to cooperate with the AfD. Merz insists the firewall remains, saying there are “fundamental differences” between the CDU and the AfD. He argues that his approach, tougher migration control combined with economic reforms, will restore public trust and strengthen mainstream politics. Yet protests in Berlin and other cities, as well as ongoing criticism from opposition parties, suggest that the debate over his words is far from over. For many Germans, the issue now is not just how migration is managed, but how it is talked about and whether the language of the government itself risks deepening divisions. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor, is facing strong criticism for what many describe as “dangerous rhetoric” on immigration. But why have these remarks sparked such a strong reaction across Germany and what do they reveal about the country’s political mood on migration?
|
[
"Migration",
"EU Political"
] |
migration
|
2025-10-21T15:35:54.957Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar2c65d518
|
Germany's Merz under pressure from CDU to abandon 'firewall' against AfD
|
As Germany readies itself for five separate state elections early next year, chancellor Friedrich Merz's centre-right Christian Democrats faces a dilemma over how to handle the surging influence and popularity of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). In the run-up to the CDU party convention last weekend, voices within the party calling for collaboration with the extremists gained traction — raising concerns over the party’s shift to the right and normalisation of extremism in Germany. Merz himself rejected such a scenario at a press conference on Monday (20 October). “We will distance ourselves very clearly and distinctly from them [the AfD]. And above all, it is important that we counter this with successful government work,” he told reporters, calling the AfD the “main opponent” of the CDU and stated that “this party [the AfD] has declared its intention to destroy the CDU.” And yet, leading figures from the CDU in Germany's former communist east, such as in the state of Thüringen (where the AfD came top in elections in 2024), have called for exploring collaboration with the far-right. Former CDU politician Peter Tauber has argued that the CDU should "reconsider its red lines to allow decisions that the AfD supports," German media reported . Otherwise, the biggest economy of the European Union could be facing a "parliamentary deadlock," he warned. Andreas Rödder, another former CDU politician, has called for "willingness to engage” while “maintaining the Brandmauer [firewall]". In German politics, the 'firewall' refers to an unofficial agreement among mainstream parties to refuse to form coalitions or cooperate with the far-right AfD. However, Rödder, a German historian at the University of Mainz, said it would be worth attempting dialogue if "the AfD respects red lines” and “clearly distances itself from far-right extremist positions and figures." The CDU agreed internally not to collaborate with the AfD as well as the leftwing party Die Linke in 2018. Spring elections will be held in two western federal states, Rheinland-Pfalz and Baden-Wüttemberg , where the CDU is comfortably in the lead — with the AfD in the second (Baden-Wüttemberg) or third (Rheinland-Pfalz) place. In the eastern federal states, regional elections are planned for September. The AfD leads polls in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Sachsen-Anhalt, with 38 and 40 percent respectively. In Berlin, the capital and its own city-state, the CDU leads opinion polls with 25 percent and the AfD and Die Linke tied in second place has 16 percent. 'Ask your daughters' row The CDU faced a backlash in January when it voted alongside the AfD on migration legislation, sparking nationwide protests. Critics accuse Merz of embracing far-right positions and eroding the firewall. Last week, chancellor Friedrich Merz sparked controversy by suggesting German cities' appearance ("Stadtbild") had deteriorated due to migration. He doubled down on this narrative this week, telling journalists on Monday to ask their daughters about safety concerns. Curd Benjamin Knüpfer, a German political communication specialist from the University of Southern Denmark, told EUobserver: “These are [framing devices] we first saw in 2019, initially among rightwing extremist groups, who wanted to use the 'Me-Too' movement for rightwing ideology, to claim that [German] women are primarily threatened by foreign men.” Knüpfer also told EUobserver that the CDU has shifted dramatically from Angela Merkel's 2015 "Wir Schaffen Das" ("we can do it") approach to migration. Under Merz's leadership, the CDU narratives involve “an adoption of the problem definitions and their implied solutions from the far right," he said. The controversy highlights a broader dilemma for centre-right parties across Europe. The Konrad-Adenauer Foundation, a think tank closely tied to the CDU, published a study in September finding that working with far-right parties weakens centre-right parties. According to the study, a successful centre-right strategy includes clearly distancing from anti-system parties. “In notable instances, efforts to moderate rightwing populist or even far-right parties through collaboration have backfired, actually weakening EPP member parties,” the researchers said. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
As Germany prepares for five state elections next year, chancellor Friedrich Merz's center-right CDU faces a dilemma over how to handle the surging influence and popularity of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).
|
[
"Migration",
"EU Political"
] |
migration
|
2025-10-21T14:22:11.263Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/arb5413447
|
45 meat and dairy giants emit more methane than EU and UK combined, study finds
|
The methane emissions from the 45 world's major meat and dairy processing companies dwarfs that of all EU member states and the UK combined, a new report found on Monday (20 October) . The report, from Foodrise , Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy also revealed that these companies accounted for 1.02 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases (in CO₂ equivalents) in a single year. As a country, they would be the world’s ninth-largest polluter. The more greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, the hotter it gets and the harder it is to achieve the Paris Climate Agreement target of keeping global warming at 1.5°C. Among the 45 companies researched in the report, the five largest — JBS, Marfrig, Minerva (all in Brazil), Tyson and Cargill (both US) — generated approximately 480 million tonnes of greenhouse gases (in CO₂ equivalents) in 2023. This exceeds emissions from major oil and gas companies like Chevron, Shell or BP and makes meat and dairy production one of the world’s highest-emitting sectors. Within the sector experts estimate that cattle burps and manure cause the most emissions. The report found that the Brazil-based meat company JBS alone accounted for nearly a quarter of the total emissions for the 45 companies, being responsible for more than 240 million tonnes of greenhouse gases (in CO₂ equivalents). More than half of the emissions are methane, the report found. The global meat and dairy sector accounts for an estimated 12 percent to 19 percent of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the emissions come from burps of cattle and manure. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes heavily to climate change. The UN states that global methane emissions must drop 45 percent by 2030 to achieve the Paris limit. According to the report, this target is unlikely to be met, with livestock methane emissions projected to grow 30 percent by 2050 unless policies intervene. Cutting methane emissions would rapidly slow down global warming because it is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO . As COP30 approaches in Brazil — a country that hosts two of the five largest meat and dairy polluters —Shefali Sharma of Greenpeace Germany called for governments to put food system reform on the agenda. She said: “Farms that restore nature and communities, not corporate-controlled factories, should be at the centre of our food system. It’s not too late for governments to commit to such a transition in their climate plans coming out of this COP.” Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Global meat and dairy production's environmental footprint dwarfs that of all EU member states and the UK combined, according to a new report.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-10-20T15:42:34.738Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/arbe11b6de
|
Amazon cloud outage prompts new questions on EU reliance on US tech
|
Europe found many of their online applications disfunctional on Monday (20 October) when there was a major disruption to Amazon's cloud storage — prompting concerns over overreliance on US tech. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is Amazon's cloud computing platform, which services major online companies like Snapchat, and Zoom. By late Monday, some 67 services offered by AWS were still impacted by the outage. Platforms affected included Snapchat, Signal and Duolingo. The problem emerged early Monday morning, with Amazon confirming around 10 AM CET they were working to resolve the issue. The digital disruption impacted services used in Europe, including with platforms used by the EU institutions. “Once we have clarification from the company on what led to this outage, we will see if we need to take further measures in terms of the resilience of our own communication networks that we use,” an EU Commission spokesperson said. The outage had no impact on the European Parliament's internal operations, however, a spokesperson confirmed to EUobserver. The major outage comes amid discussions over Europe’s own digital sovereignty, which will be part of discussions on the agenda of EU leaders during this week’s European summit in Brussels. “In the face of geopolitical shifts, rapid technological change, and growing global competition for innovation, talents and investments, it is crucial to advance Europe’s digital transformation, reinforce its sovereignty and strengthen its own open digital ecosystem,” read the draft conclusions, seen by EUobserver, which are the basis for discussions during Thursday’s European Council. Tech experts believe outages like Monday's shine a spotlight on Europe’s over-reliance on US tech. “We urgently need diversification in cloud computing,” said Corinne Cath-Speth, from NGO Article19 . “The infrastructure underpinning democratic discourse, independent journalism, and secure communications cannot be dependent on a handful of companies”. Echoing the same message, Cori Crider, executive director of the Future of Technology Institute , said: “Europe’s dependency on monopoly cloud companies like Amazon is a security vulnerability and an economic threat we can’t ignore”. “Today’s outage shows how concentrated power makes the internet fragile and this lack of resilience hits our economies as a result,” said technologist Robin Berjon . ‘Back to traditional methods’ When asked about the impact on the work of the Burssels-exectuive, a commission spokesperson confirmed they were aware of the outage and it did affect their communication — which often takes place via Signal messaging app, also affected by the outage. “From experience this morning, we were using more emails. We went back to our traditional methods,” a commission spokesperson told the press on Monday. In 2020, the commission had to adjust their communication methods because, after the institution encouraged workers of the instituion to start using the encrypted messaging app Signal for internal communication. That followed a scandal related to text messages between president Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer, which raised concerns about transparency and the security of official communications. Owen Carpenter-Zehe is a junior reporter from the US at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Owen Carpenter-Zehe
|
Amazon Web Services went down globally on Monday, affecting services used in Europe. Tech experts used the outage to push for stronger European digital sovereignty.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Digital"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-20T15:16:49.108Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar6c2da1b5
|
Listen: With Frozen funds and pipelines, EU leaders close to reaching a deal for Ukraine
|
Today, EU energy ministers are meeting to decide the future of Russian fossil fuels in the bloc, after years of delays and exemptions. At the same time, leaders are debating how to use frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s defence, hoping to reach a deal this week. But can Europe finally act decisively on both energy and financial support and what will it actually mean for the EU? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Today, EU energy ministers are meeting to decide the future of Russian fossil fuels in the bloc, after years of delays and exemptions. At the same time, leaders are debating how to use frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s defence. But can Europe finally act decisively on both energy and financial support and what will it actually mean for the EU? After years of delays, Hungary and Slovakia are finally facing the end of their carve-outs, which allowed them to keep importing Russian gas and oil despite the war. The EU plans to phase out all Russian fossil fuels by 2028, with a ban on oil and gas imports starting as early as 2026 for certain contracts. At this point, the EU is planning to use a qualified-majority voting system, sidestepping the vetoes of reluctant member states. No more exceptions. Since Russia invaded Ukraine, the EU has drastically reduced its reliance on Russian energy, from 45 percent of gas imports down to 13 percent, and imposed price caps on Moscow’s oil. Hungary and Slovakia, despite years of claiming they had no alternatives, have continued paying billions to Russia, fuelling the Kremlin’s war machine. Brussels has finally decided enough is enough. All this while, European leaders are moving closer to a plan to lend Ukraine €140bn, using frozen Russian central bank assets. The idea is straightforward, Ukraine gets an interest-free loan now, and Russia would eventually cover it as war reparations. The EU insists this is not confiscation, just a way to mobilise assets frozen since the start of the invasion. Ukraine’s financial needs are urgent. It faces a massive budget deficit and estimates suggest €47bn in external support will be required in 2026 alone. Most of this aid will need to come from European allies. Belgium, which holds €183bn of the frozen funds, wants legal guarantees that it won’t be left alone if the scheme collapses. Meanwhile, the European Commission is considering treaty mechanisms to prevent a single member state, aka Hungary or Slovakia, from blocking the plan, a move some lawyers remain sceptical about. Now it looks like the EU is finally acting decisively to cut its energy dependence on a country actively waging war. No more bending to a few holdouts; Brussels is asserting that unity and security come first. On Ukraine, the stakes are equally high. Europe has invested heavily, financially, politically, and morally, in defending the country. Failure to deliver now risks undermining credibility in Kyiv and among EU citizens. And the legal balancing act shows that solidarity in Europe is conditional, negotiated, and sometimes enforced. What’s next? In the coming days, EU leaders will meet in Brussels to finalise the plan for Ukraine, while energy ministers are expected to rubber-stamp the fossil fuel phase-out. Ukraine’s president will join by video, outlining urgent funding needs for 2026, while the EU also debates defence readiness, sanctions, and the green transition. If successful, the €140bn scheme could give Ukraine a lifeline and signal to Russia that Europe can act decisively when pushed. And on energy, the phase-out of Russian gas and oil will finally remove a chokehold that has lasted far too long. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
EU energy ministers are meeting to decide the future of Russian fossil fuels in the bloc, after years of delays and exemptions. At the same time, leaders are debating how to use frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s defence, hoping to reach a deal this week.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-20T11:28:18.496Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arb694ab0d
|
Back to the future: the European biocircular economy
|
The bioeconomy has always been a backbone for Europe. Food and agriculture, of course, but also the forest-based sector, which for millennia has provided housing materials, energy, and trade opportunities. Wood also fuelled early industrial development, particularly in the mining and metals industries, and made European trade and exploration possible through shipbuilding. Over the past couple of centuries, fossil-based solutions have increasingly taken over the economy, with serious consequences for the global climate. Europeans have benefited enormously from the developments, but at the expense of the environment. It is now time to revive and evolve renewable bioeconomy solutions for the benefit of current and future generations. Promoting the forest-based economy In my country, Sweden, this transformation is already underway. Swedish forests provide an ever-increasing and sustainable wood supply for resource-efficient and integrated value chains. Harvested biomass is utilised to its highest value across a wide range of solid wood and paper products, while residuals are used for renewable energy. Recycling is growing rapidly, providing additional opportunities. As a result, Sweden is a world-leading provider of wood-based products, and, at the same time, bioenergy is Sweden's largest energy category accounting for 40 percent of domestic energy production. The forthcoming EU Bioeconomy Strategy can offer important opportunities to expand and promote the forest-based bioeconomy across the Union. This will contribute to economic prosperity, increased self-sufficiency and large-scale climate solutions that help phase out fossil dependence. Politically acceptable pathways toward a low-emission European society must make use of solutions offered by the wood-based economy, as pointed out previously . However, there is a risk that the European Commission is underplaying these opportunities. In three areas, its work must accelerate considerably to avoid a bioeconomy strategy that is irrelevant — or worse: First, the strategy must embrace the bioeconomy as a whole. Current thinking appears exclude aspects covered in other EU regulations, such as food, beverages, bioenergy, pharmaceuticals and personal care. By omitting these major dimensions of the bioeconomy, what remains becomes an incomplete patchwork of biochemicals, textiles, and construction materials. This risks reinforcing an already fragmented regulatory landscape that will not stimulate innovation, investment or integrated value chains. Isolated bioeconomy components will be vulnerable to over-bureaucratisation and to competition from unsustainable alternatives from outside and inside the EU. Second, the bioeconomy strategy should not express any ambition to reduce wood harvesting in the Union. Increasing recycling and reuse is, of course, a key goal that should be promoted, but it must not be framed as a replacement of primary biomass. The task of replacing fossil-based carbon is enormous and requires a significant expansion of the entire wood-based bioeconomy. Setting wood-based recycling against sustainable wood harvesting creates a false dichotomy that works directly against the Green Deal vision. Instead, investments in improved forest management and increased, sustainable wood supply should be central to the bioeconomy strategy. Third, the concept of the "circular economy" must be upgraded to fully encompass the bioeconomy. The prevailing framework tends to exclude harvested biomass, on the grounds that it is a virgin raw material and therefore outside the circular economy. This does not make sense. Valuing the wood-based value chain By its very nature, biomass originates from a circular system. Biological growth captures carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into biomass and through decomposition and oxidation the carbon eventually returns to the atmosphere. Using part of this biomass for the benefit of society — the bioeconomy — is simply part of that circularity. Excluding harvested biomass from the circular economy undermines the EU's overall climate and growth objectives and creates confusion in policy along the wood-based value chain. Calls for reduced wood harvesting are a clear example of this confusion. The bioeconomy strategy provides an opportunity to correct course by expanding the European definition of "circular economy" to fully and formally include the bioeconomy. The bioeconomy strategy should address each of these issues. If not, we may need a high-level EU initiative to develop an overarching vision for strengthening all uses of circular biomass for economic development, prosperity and self-sufficiency, thus laying the foundation for a prosperous, secure and low-emission European society. Such a "biocircular economy" defined Europe's historical development. It must also be a fundamental part of our future. Ulf Larsson is president and CEO of Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget , SCA - Europe’s largest private forest owner. Ulf Larsson is president and CEO of
|
Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget
|
Excluding harvested biomass from the circular economy undermines the EU's overall climate and growth objectives and creates confusion in policy along the wood-based value chain.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-10-20T10:57:27.312Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ared0147b9
|
Holding a Trump-Putin summit in Budapest would be a charade
|
If anyone ever wondered what the overlapping goals of Russian and US foreign policy might be, the announcement of a potential summit between president Donald Trump and Russia’s Vladimir Putin in Budapest leaves little doubt. The joint objectives — at least for this US administration — are unmistakably to weaken and divide the European Union by exposing its vulnerabilities, ridiculing its rules, deepening its internal divisions, and supporting nationalist, radical-right leaders who do the same job from within, such as Hungary’s semi-authoritarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. There is hardly any other explanation for why the US administration would reward the Hungarian regime — which over the past three and a half years has done almost everything possible to undermine EU efforts to support Ukraine and punish Russia for its war of aggression — with such a high-level diplomatic spectacle. Yet Washington appears ready to further elevate Orbán on the international stage as host of the summit, fully aware that this will bolster the Hungarian strongman’s position both against his rising domestic opposition — currently leading in the polls — and against the European mainstream. However, the summit is not primarily about Orbán. It is about the European Union and its perception — both globally and among its own citizens. The EU maintains active sanctions against Putin and key members of his entourage, and its member states are obliged to implement the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against him — except Hungary, which in March declared its withdrawal from the ICC and permformatively hosted Benjamin Netanyahu for a state visit in April. It is already a huge diplomatic gift to Putin that he can meet Trump and parade on the territory of an EU and Nato member state — even if that member is only Hungary, which has gladly hosted him four times since 2014. For his domestic audience, Putin can sell this as proof that the West is divided and must ultimately accept his terms. Assisting in this charade is clearly an unfriendly act by the US administration But it is one thing for Putin to be welcomed in Budapest; getting him there is another matter entirely. How to fly there? Since he would certainly seek to avoid Ukrainian airspace, Putin would have to cross the airspace of at least one, if not more, EU and Nato member states to reach Budapest. This would mean that one EU country, under US pressure, would have to breach its obligations under EU law (sanctions) and international law (the ICC arrest warrant) to grant safe passage to a convicted war criminal and perpetrator of crimes against humanity — the Russian dictator threatening Europe’s security. That is a tough ask, not only from the perspective of EU unity but also considering the domestic political cost of yielding to US and Russian pressure. If Trump is tactful enough to spare his ideological ally, Polish president Karol Nawrocki, from this dilemma, the most likely targets for overflight would be Bulgaria, Greece (with Serbia as entry route to Hungary), Croatia or Slovenia. None of these countries or their governments are necessarily ready to face the wrath — and accusations — of Trump for allegedly undermining his “peace efforts.” European leaders know they cannot risk a fierce reaction that might prompt Trump to walk away from the table or, as he already did earlier this year, suspend US support for Ukraine. They cannot risk that — because of Ukraine. The earlier case in March 2025 demonstrated the immense cost of the suspension of US intelligence sharing for Ukrainian lives and combat capabilities. This, together with the expectation that the Budapest summit will likely yield the same non-results as the previous bilateral meeting in Alaska, explains the cautious and timid response from the European Commission and its president, Ursula von der Leyen. Asked about the planned meeting, the commission stated that “any meeting that moves forward just and lasting peace in Ukraine is welcome.” Yet it is clear that if Trump gets what he wants and proceeds with this ridicule of the EU, he will soon repeat such moves. If one lesson is clear since J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference , it is that the old transatlantic partnership between the US and Europe has degenerated into an abusive relationship — held together only by Europe’s dependency and a kind of political Stockholm Syndrome. Try India or Turkey? To break this vicious circle, EU leaders — especially those who have Trump’s ear, such as Giorgia Meloni and Alexander Stubb — should, after swift coordination with potential partners like India or Turkey, pull a new card from their sleeves. They should offer Trump an alternative: a higher-level, more spectacular summit hosted by Narendra Modi or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. They could discreetly hint at the strong opposition among EU countries neighbouring Hungary to opening their airspace for Putin and remind Trump that he surely would not want to jeopardise the success and spectacle of his meeting with logistical uncertainties and massive public protests — both in Budapest and in front of US embassies in the countries overflown by Putin. Modi might be particularly interested. Hosting such a summit would give him a chance to help resolve the dispute over the 50-percent US tariffs imposed on India for importing Russian oil, while allowing him to play the role of an equal global partner. Even if the plan does not take off — either with the Indians or the Americans — it would still demonstrate more European agency than merely crossing fingers and hoping that the Budapest summit will prove as fruitless as the previous one in Alaska. Anything else could be fatal — for Europe’s standing, for Ukraine, for the transatlantic relationship, or for all three together. Daniel Hegedüs is regional director for central Europe at The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) and research associate at the Democracy Institute of the Central European University (CEU DI). Daniel Hegedüs is regional director for central Europe at The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) and research associate at the
|
Democracy Institute of the Central European University
|
Vladimir Putin would have to cross the airspace of at least one, if not more, EU and Nato member states to reach Budapest. This would mean that one EU country, under US pressure, would have to breach its obligations under EU sanctions and the ICC arrest warrant to grant safe passage to a convicted war criminal and perpetrator of crimes against humanity.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Political",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-20T10:54:47.355Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arfd1246a4
|
EU summit on Ukraine and defence, plus Belarus and Sakharov prize This WEEK
|
EU leaders will meet in Brussels on Thursday (23 October) to discuss four main priorities: defence preparedness, Russia's frozen assets , support for Ukraine, and competitiveness tied to the green transition and digital sovereignty. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to join via videoconference to update leaders on the situation on the ground and Ukraine’s military needs. A key topic is the €185bn in Russian assets frozen in the EU. While EU countries have so far only used profits generated by these funds, discussions are now focusing on how the bloc could deploy the cash balances without outright confiscation — a legal and political red line for several capitals. “The European Council is committed to finding ways to help address Ukraine’s pressing needs for 2026-2027, including for its military and defense efforts. It therefore calls on the commission to present as soon as possible concrete proposals involving the possible use of the cash balances associated with the immobilized Russian assets,” read the draft conclusions seen by EUobserver. But questions remain on guarantees by EU member states and how the money will be spent. “Ukraine should have maximum flexibility when it comes to defending itself and keeping the state running," an EU senior diplomat said. But more money needs to be put on the table. “It is absolutely important that more member states dig deeper in their pockets … to put the money where their mouth has been for the last three years,” the diplomat also said. The EU is also sharpening its wording on Russia, signalling that recent drone attacks reveal Moscow’s “lack of real political will” to end its war of aggression or engage in peace negotiations. This comes in the wake of last week’s Donald Trump announcement he will meet Putin in Budapest to discuss ending the Russian-Ukrainian war. There are many legal and political questions around this summit. It also comes after a meeting between Zelensky and Trump at the White House, where Trump reportedly pressured Ukraine to accept Russia’s terms for ending the war. Not least, it is still unclear whether Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán will support the summit's conclusions on Ukraine. If blocked, EU leaders are expected to adopt the text with the backing of 26, as already seen in previous European Council meetings this year. Between July and August, Ukraine received around €7.5bn in financial and humanitarian aid, with 86 percent sourced from EU institutions, though military aid has plunged by 43 percent compared to the first part of the year, according to Germany’s Kiel institute. On defence, the European Commission will present its 2030 roadmap, which includes the European Drone Defence Initiative, Eastern Flank Watch, the European Air Shield, and the European Space Shield. Talks will revolve around funding, joint procurement, and strengthening Europe’s defence posture without duplicating Nato efforts. Other points on the agenda include the 2040 climate goal linked to EU’s support for traditional industries in the green transition, the Middle East, housing and deregulation. Despite a wave of Israeli airstrikes over the weekend leaving the truce teetering, EU leaders are expected to welcome Trump’s Gaza peace plan , pledge reconstruction aid, press Israel to return funds to the Palestinian Authority, and call for the end of illegal settlements in the West Bank, where Israel killed some 1,000 more people. But there is no mention of media access , sanctions, or International Criminal Court (ICC) accountability. European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde and Eurogroup president Paschal Donohoe will join EU leaders to discuss the economic situation. EU-Egypt summit Preparation for the EU summit will be done by ministers responsible for European affairs on Tuesday (21 October), when they will also discuss commission omnibus packages , the next European long-term budget and the Article 7 procedure against Hungary given breaches of EU law. On Wednesday, the EU will use a bilateral summit with Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to improve its offer to the north African state, which has emerged as a key regional ally of the bloc on migration control and energy. Still on Wednesday, the EU-Uzbekistan cooperation council will take place. Uzbekistan’s exports to EU countries totaled $1.4bn [€1.2bn] in 2024, almost tripling compared to four years earlier. Russian sanctions and fossil fuels EU foreign affairs ministers will meet on Monday (20 October) in Luxembourg to discuss Russian sanctions, currently held hostage by Austria and Slovakia. Despite the current issues, some EU countries want the commisison to start preparing the next round of sanctions to keep the pressure on Russia. They will also address sanctions related to Israel's war in Gaza. “We think that we need to maintain pressure on all parties, and that also means for us that the measures that the commission announced against Israel should not be taken off the table,” the EU senior diplomat said, referring especially to sanctions against Hamas and violent settlers, which are currently being blocked by Budapest. The 27 ministers are also expected to adopt a position regarding EU- Indo -Pacific relations and Sudan. Also on Monday, EU energy ministers are expected to reach an agreement on a proposal to gradually phase out gas and oil imports from Russia, with a ban in place by January 2028. MEPs support the plan but the position of the internal market committee agreed last week calls for a ban on imports of Russian natural gas — both pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG) — from 1 January 2026, with exceptions for short and long-term contracts. From the same date, MEPs also want to stop Russian oil imports. Strasbourg plenary Meanwhile, MEPs will gather in Strasbourg for the second plenary session of October, with a packed agenda. Key debates on Tuesday will focus on the potential use of Russian frozen assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction and defence, and the fragile situation in the Middle East. On the same day, EU lawmakers will assess the commission's work programme for 2026 and vote on new driving licence rules. The commission is also expected to present on Tuesday its annual report on simplification, reflecting on the different omnibus proposals. On Wednesday, MEPs will also hold discussions about their expectations for Thursday's October EU summit, and address the commission proposal to end all energy imports from Russia by 2027. Belarus opposition leaders Sergey Tikhanovsky and Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya will address the plenary on the same day, followed by a debate and a resolution vote on the situation in Belarus. Still on Wednesday, MEPs will also discuss the allegations of espionage by the Hungarian government within EU institutions. The 2025 Sakharov Prize laureate will also be announced this week. Serbian students , journalists and humanitarian air workers in Gaza and imprisoned journalists Andrzej Poczobut from Belarus and Mzia Amaglobeli from Georgia are the finalists of this year’s award.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
EU leaders meet in Brussels to discuss defence, Ukraine aid, Russian assets, competitiveness, and climate goals. Also this week, ministers meet to discuss Russian sanctions and energy, while MEPs debate the Middle East, Belarus, and announce the Sakharov Prize.
|
[
"Agenda"
] |
agenda
|
2025-10-20T05:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/agenda/araff795b4
|
Why is the EU operating a politics of secrecy on chemical safety?
|
While four out five Europeans are worried about the impact of harmful chemicals on their health and the environment, the EU Commission is keeping the public in the dark over lobby battles to regulate toxic products. For example, the commission has spent almost three years refusing to release full documents relating to the reform of its flagship chemicals policy, REACH . Originally intended to improve the regulation of chemicals for human health and the environment, the revision of REACH has been hotly-contested by industry. The commission justified its refusal to share the documents by admitting it is worried that it will not be able to withstand the “unnecessary pressure from stakeholders” ‒ in other words, the lobbying ‒ that could result from the documents’ release. It’s time the commission stands up to corporate lobbyists. 1,000 day battle Corporate Europe Observatory first requested full access to the impact assessment of the commission’s proposal to revise REACH, and the opinion of the secretive yet powerful regulatory scrutiny board on this assessment, in November 2022. REACH reform is long overdue: it often operates at a snail’s pace and provides industry with numerous loopholes to keep problematic chemicals on the market. When the commission documents were released , they were heavily redacted, with the board’s opinion almost entirely blacked out. The European Ombudsman’s office ruled that the commission had committed maladministration by not providing these documents in a timely and unredacted form, citing European case law and the Aarhus Convention, which enables greater access to environmental information for citizens. But despite this, in July 2025 the commission issued a final refusal to provide the documents. This is problematic for many reasons. These are key legislative documents concerning the reform of a vital piece of EU law. They ought to shed light on the commission’s thinking and evidence base for the revision of REACH. Crucially, they would be an indication of the extent to which corporate lobbies have set the agenda of the REACH revision which, in 2020, started off as the centre-piece of a package to ban the most harmful chemicals in consumer products, but which has apparently been substantially diluted in industry’s favour. Unaccountable Commission The documents’ non-release is another example of the lack of accountability and transparency of both the commission (remember Pfizergate ?), and the regulatory scrutiny board, an unelected and largely opaque body, which gets to reject proposals for new EU rules if it’s not satisfied with the evidence base or rationale. But the commission’s reasoning in not publishing these documents in full is hypocritical too. Specifically, its refusal is based on the need to protect the “ongoing decision-making process” and because publishing these documents would “give rise to unwanted external pressure by various stakeholders who have an interest in this process”. It goes on to quantify the “risk of undue and harmful pressure” as “very serious and real”. In short the commission is complaining about lobby pressure. But the EU Court of Justice has made clear that it is the commission’s duty to prevent inappropriate attempts to influence its work — not by withholding access to documents, but by weighing all the interests at stake. Yet, this year alone the EU’s executive has bent over backwards to get chemicals industry voices through its door (for strategic dialogues, high-level dialogues, and more), while health and environmental NGOs have been massively out-numbered at every turn. At a recent commission workshop on chemicals legislation, there were only a handful of NGOs among a 450-strong crowd, mostly industry representatives. The result? Greater exposure to harmful chemicals for EU citizens. The commission recently proposed to grant companies ridiculously-long grace periods during which they can keep using prohibited cancer-causing substances in cosmetics, products that we use in our daily lives. Stop the lobbyists Don’t get us wrong. We too are highly concerned that industry lobbyists are having undue influence. But the answer to tackling lobbying is not more secrecy, but a coherent strategy by the commission to tackle it, starting by avoiding cosy gatherings with big polluters. Then the commission could publish these and other legislative documents safely, and also help to ensure that the reform of REACH ultimately maximises health and environmental outcomes, rather than the interests of the toxics sector. At the end of September the regulatory scrutiny board rejected an updated version of the impact assessment on the REACH revision. Of course, neither this new RSB opinion nor the updated impact assessment are in the public domain. This means that we don’t know which evidence the commission is relying on, how it has been influenced by corporate lobbies, and whether the RSB’s opinion is justified. With the commission, by its own admission , deregulating like mad , armed with industry’s wish-lists of rules that it would like scrapped, now is not the time for more secrecy. Instead, it must confront the Big Toxics lobby. Vicky Cann is a researcher with Corporate Europe Observatory. Dr Julian Schenten is a Senior Law and Policy Adviser with ClientEarth . Vicky Cann is a researcher with Corporate Europe Observatory. Dr Julian Schenten is a Senior Law and Policy Adviser with
|
ClientEarth
|
The EU Commission justified its refusal to share the documents by admitting it is worried that it will not be able to withstand the “unnecessary pressure from stakeholders” ‒ in other words, the lobbying ‒ that could result from the documents’ release.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-10-20T04:32:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar4236b709
|
Privacy and AI fears, in EU bonfire of digital red tape
|
EU data laws are to become more business-friendly after 19 November, when the EU Commission unveils its "digital omnibus" to cut red tape, amid privacy and security concerns. The omnibus will target rules on cookies and other tracking technologies, cybersecurity incident reporting, and tweaks to the EU's flagship Artificial Intelligence Act. "We want an innovation-friendly rulebook: both in the way we apply the rules, and in simplifying the laws where our objectives can be reached at lower costs," said EU digital commissioner Henna Virkkunen in a press release on 16 September. "We aim for less paperwork, fewer overlaps and less complex rules for companies doing business in the EU," she said. But experts warn that merging and amending such a wide range of digital rules could reopen contentious debates on enforcement, regulatory fragmentation, AI liability, and the scope of platforms’ responsibilities and capabilities. And amid fears that protected rights are being disregarded to increase companies' profits, they also warn against 'deregulation in the name of simplification'. EUobserver breaks down the dynamics behind this change and the challenges ahead. Tech politics Zooming in on the likely changes, the commission is expected to put forward a long-awaited simplification of cookies and tracking consent rules, aligning privacy provisions in the ePrivacy directive with GDPR and Digital Service Act standards. It is also expected to harmonise obligations under NIS2 and the new Cyber Resilience Act to reduce duplicate-reporting burdens on companies. Under the AI Act, companies and SMEs are expecting clarifications on high-risk AI categories, obligations for general-purpose AI models, and consistency with data-sharing frameworks. There are calls to ensure that the Data Act and Data Governance Act use more coherent definitions of “data holders,” “intermediaries,” and “public sector bodies.” But big-tech lobbying is pushing politicians for simplification measures to go even further. On 15 October, the computer and communication industry association (CCIA), who represents Apple, Amazon, Meta, and more in Brussels, launched a campaign urging the commission to “unlock innovation” and expand beyond the currently proposed changes. "Slowly the EU's simplification efforts are moving in the right direction, but things are not going fast enough. Now is the time for real ambition and decisive action," said CCIA Europe's vice-president Daniel Friedlaender. France and Germany push France and Germany are uniting their political power to push Europe towards their vision of Europe's digital future. In the Franco-German economic agenda from September, it states: "To unleash our companies' full potential of growth and productivity, it is also urgent to substantially ease the complexity and simplify the European Union’s regulatory environment". The joint agreement also seeks steps beyond what the EU is to proposed, such as looking even deeper into GDPR to identify additional adjustments. Their agenda involves a Berlin Digital Sovereignty Summit on 18 November, led by the two powers, bringing together public and private stakeholders. The meeting is seen as putting pressure on Brussels to balance innovation with strategic autonomy – as many countries call to cut red tape for startups. Meanwhile, Berlin and Paris are also pushing for more investments and stronger control of cloud and AI infrastructure. "Digital sovereignty doesn't mean protectionism. We want to and must be accessible for the global market," Germany's digital minister Karsten Wildberger told Reuters. He said European companies need to "actively participate in this (sector) as players". "There is a huge growth market for technology, innovation, software, data and artificial intelligence," Wildberger said. And in June, French president Emmanuel Macron hosted an exclusive dinner at the Élysée Palace with a special guest: Jensen Huang, the founder and CEO of Nvidia. “ "The problem in Europe and in France is: You are too slow," in terms of tech-law upgrades, Huang joked to the dinner guests, according to AI entrepreneur Eléonore Crespo. "It's like your wine: You wait for it to age, to be perfect," Huang reportedly said. Europe's AI surge There is a surge of initiatives across the continent, both public and private, to build and adopt AI systems in Europe. The commission itself is investing billions to support the expansion and capabilities of European AI systems, including the EU's AI in Science Strategy, Apply AI Strategy, InvestAI, AI Innovation Package, and AI Factories. Looking at one of these initiatives, InvestAI , launched in February this year is aiming to invest €200bn in AI development. "InvestAI will be the largest public-private partnership in the world for the development of trustworthy AI," said commission president Ursula von der Leyen at the artificial intelligence action summit in Paris in February. And Europe also has homegrown private AI companies trying to compete with US and Chinese AI giants, such as OpenAI and DeepSeek. Europe's ventures include Mistral AI, Black Forest Labs, and Aleph Alpha. They also want simplification in order to innovate. Mistral and Black Forest Labs, along with 56 other European companies, signed an open letter calling for simplification and a pause on implementing regulations to commission president von der Leyen. The EU Champions AI Initiative , which authored the letter, is specifically asking for a two-year "clock-stop," on implementing already passed AI regulation requirements. As the law stands, it "jeopardises not only the development of European champions, but also the ability of all industries to deploy AI at the scale required by global competition", they said. Simplify/deregulate what? Simplification isn't inherently bad, and could streamline processes that currently overlap, but experts see a thin line between simplification and deregulation. Currently, numerous cybersecurity regulations require companies to report similar incidents to multiple authorities, with compliance costs amounting to at least €60bn annually , according to the business association Digital Europe – this is an area where simplification can help. However, civil society and academics highlight a difference between fixing overlapping legislation and changing it entirely. In multiple open letters, Civil groups and academics wrote to the commission, arguing against simplification and reopening digital legislation, fearing that regulatory changes would impact essential protections. Academics from the University of Amsterdam's highlighted changes in cookie requirements as an example of questionable change, in remarks to EUobserver. "Simplification of the e-Privacy Directive rules on cookies and 'other tracking technologies' is liable to affect rules that have been providing safeguards against arbitrary or disproportionate state or commercial surveillance," said Plixavra Vogiatzoglou, a PhD candidate, studying digital sovereignty. And the researchers are also concerned about how quickly the changes seem to be moving. "The way the commission is rushing towards digital simplification should be a cause for concern," said Dutch digital law professor Kristina Irion. "The bigger fish to fry is effective implementation and scalable enforcement," she said. Ella Jakubowska, campaigner for European Digital Rights group (EDRi), echoes these concerns. "There's no doubt that this is really about deregulation," Jakubowska said to EUobserver. EDRi does not want the EU to strip protections for short-term economic gain. Jakubowska warned that "weakening of safeguards in the AI Act, for example, could expose all of us to algorithmic harms that this law was designed to stop, for example, AI-driven discrimination." She, like the Dutch academics, believes that guidance, enforcement and support of current legislation is the best way to improve the situation. Rewiring current regulations, "jeopardises the EU's credibility and strength in a very uncertain geopolitical landscape," said Jakubowska. The initiative also has critics in the European Parliament, who worry about citizens' digital safety. "With ePrivacy dismantled, Europeans are left with nothing but the Charter to defend their right to privacy, while US tech giants enjoy a carte blanche to exploit our data for profit," German social-democrat MEP Birgit Sippel told EUobserver. Global AI race Despite the surge in tech investment in recent years, Europe still lags global giants like the US and China, which could keep the EU reliant on others to innovate. The US currently dominates the AI race. US big-tech firm OpenAI's ChatGPT now has 700 million monthly users, and a valuation of $500 bn – for comparison, European Mistral AI has a 2025 valuation of $14 bn . The US also currently holds by far the most AI compute capacity, accounting for around 75 percent of global AI supercomputer capacity — 9 times more than China and 17 times more than Europe — according to the 2025 State of AI report by Nathan Benaich and Air Street Capital. And the US does not intend to limit its technology to its own borders, as president Trump signed an executive order in July specifically focusing on exporting US AI abroad. The Trump order said: "The United States must not only lead in developing general-purpose and frontier AI capabilities, but also ensure that American AI technologies, standards, and governance models are adopted worldwide". As professor Daniel Mügge wrote : "In digital tech, US corporate and political power are increasingly indistinguishable." And the EU's European neighbours have already felt this force too. In September, British PM Keir Starmer hosted Nvidia CEO and other US tech leaders to announce more than £31bn ($35.5bn) in AI funding, sparking criticism that the UK was handing strategic control to the US. Europe is already reliant on other countries' tech for services like email , but experts said that to ensure new innovative tech, like AI, is built the European way, fighting and balancing geopolitical pressure is crucial. "European democracy and the rights and freedoms of European citizens are not for sale, at any price," wrote AlgorithmWatch responding to US pressure to deregulate in an open letter to the commission. Owen Carpenter-Zehe is a junior reporter from the US at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Owen Carpenter-Zehe
|
EU data laws are to become more business-friendly after 19 November, when the EU Commission unveils its "digital omnibus", amid privacy and security concerns.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Digital",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-18T05:35:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar721f4c30
|
EU battles to phase out Russian fossil-fuels by either 2027 or 2028
|
“Russia weaponised energy like it weaponises information, like it weaponises all the possibilities that it has to influence the decisionmaking process in the EU but not only in EU – this is something we have to keep in mind to avoid aggression of Russia in the future,” the Ukrainian ambassador to the EU, Vsevolod Chentsov, told a Brussels event on Friday (17 October). Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Commission has pushed to phase out Russian fossil fuels — but some member states, especially landlocked countries like Hungary and Slovakia, have been reluctant to do so. In May 2022, the commission published the strategy REPowerEU to phase out all Russian fossil fuel imports by the end of 2027. To substitute imports of Russian gas (which accounted for over 40 percent of EU’s gas pipeline consumption in 2022), the EU has turned to others, including Norway, which was the biggest supplier of pipeline gas to the EU in the first half of 2025, accounting for 55 percent. Even though the volumes of Russian gas have fallen sharply since then, Moscow is still a valuable importer of pipeline gas and liquified gas (LNG) to the EU, accounting for 19 percent in 2024. Notably, despite a commitment to phase out energy purchases from Russia, LNG imports have grown by 43 percent from 2021 to 2024, according to Ana Maria Jaller-Makarewicz, an energy analyst working for the Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis (IEEFA) . In June the EU commission started a new push to force countries to stop Russian gas imports. But Hungary and Slovakia have shown reluctance. Both countries benefit from cheap Russian gas and transit revenues and Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orbán and Slovakia's PM Robert Fico have closer ties to Moscow. They openly oppose EU policies they see as anti-Russian, particularly regarding Ukraine support. On Thursday, MEPs responsible for the file backed the proposal, pushing for a ban of Russian fossil fuels by 1 January 2026, with some exceptions, and a full stop by 1 January 2027 – one year before the commission’s proposal. In addition, MEPs deleted a possibility for the commission to temporarily suspend the ban. The vote passed with 83 in favour, nine against, and one abstention. The position still needs to be approved by the plenary in October. On Monday (20 October), EU energy ministers are expected to reach an agreement. National capitals advocate for a gradual phase-out of remaining gas and oil imports from Russia, with a full prohibition in place by January 2028. Before this is adopted, MEPs and representatives from EU member states will enter inter-institutional negotiations to agree on the details – clarifying how long European consumers and businesses will keep funding the Kremlin’s war machine. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Commission has pushed to phase out fossil fuels from Moscow – but some member states, especially landlocked countries like Hungary and Slovakia, have been reluctant to do so.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-17T12:15:38.179Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ara867a0db
|
Trump praised 'crime-free Egypt, but it's the EU who's paying for the repression
|
During last weekend's hastily-arranged Gaza Peace summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, US president Donald Trump stood beside Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi before a hall of cameras and European dignitaries, among them Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen, and declared with satisfaction: “There is very little crime in Egypt; it’s a strong system.” The remark, made during a televised exchange later repeated on Air Force One, was more than diplomatic flattery. It was an endorsement of Egypt’s model of “stability through control” — a message delivered squarely to Western allies. For Europe, whose leaders rely on Cairo for migration management and counter-terrorism, this narrative carries weight. But the image of 'safety' Trump sold on that stage is built not on peace, but on fear. Trump’s assertion paints a picture of serene order. The data expose a harsher truth. In 2020 alone, Egypt’s Gender-Based Violence Observatory recorded 415 violent crimes against women and girls — including murders, rapes, beatings, and electronic blackmail — with cases almost doubling in the year’s second half ( 299 vs 116 ) amid pandemic lockdowns. A national survey found that 15.1 percent of women aged 15–49 experienced physical or sexual violence by a partner within 12 months. The 2005 and 2014 demographic & health surveys revealed that 29.4 percent of ever-married women had faced intimate-partner violence — 26.7 percent physical, 17.8 percent emotional, 4.6 percent sexual. In poor districts like Helwan, about one-third of women reported spousal abuse. Outside the home, the harassment epidemic is relentless: 63 percent of women reported sexual harassment in public spaces , and among those aged 18–29, that figure rises to 90 percent. A UN women study found 99.3 percent of Egyptian women had suffered some form of harassment, with 91 percent saying they do not feel safe in public . Beyond gender-based violence, Egypt grapples with human trafficking, forced labour, and endemic corruption, all operating in opaque networks far from official scrutiny . Yet the most serious crimes are those perpetrated by the state itself. Human-rights groups continue to document arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, torture, and show trials , all justified under broad counter-terrorism laws. Peaceful journalists, lawyers, and activists are jailed for “spreading false news” or “undermining national security.” Refugee women have reported rape and sexual assault in detention with no meaningful investigation . Trump’s “no-crime” narrative, then, doesn’t reveal stability — it conceals systemic violence. 'Strength' through fear and silence What Trump calls “strength” is, for many Egyptians, an omnipresent silence. In a country where oversight is weak and power centralised, “strength” often means domination, not discipline. Civic life in Egypt exists under surveillance. Independent media are censored or blocked; NGOs are forced to register under restrictive laws or close entirely. The line between national security and personal expression has vanished. For ordinary citizens, safety depends on self-censorship: victims of domestic abuse, police brutality, or political persecution stay quiet — not because justice is served, but because complaint itself is dangerous. Under this structure, criticism is criminalised. Tweets, reports, or even private conversations can lead to arrest under anti-terror or cybercrime laws. Courts serve the executive, not the citizen. Prolonged pre-trial detention — sometimes exceeding five years — replaces due process. This is not the 'strength' of an orderly republic; it is the muscle of a security state The absence of visible crime becomes the regime’s proudest proof of success. But it is a silence manufactured by fear. The result is what Egyptians grimly call “the peace of the graveyard.” Every statistic hides a story that the state prefers untold. Forensic data show that most female homicide victims are killed by intimate partners or relatives , often after domestic disputes. Sexual assaults in public events have scarred the national conscience: during Sisi’s 2014 inauguration, a young student was stripped and attacked in Tahrir Square — a scene that briefly exposed the façade of safety before being buried by patriotic rhetoric. Harassment is daily, not exceptional. Women commuting to work, riding the metro, or shopping in markets face groping and verbal abuse that go unpunished. For refugee women from Sudan or Eritrea, the threat multiplies: without legal protection, they endure exploitation and assault with no functional system for redress. Across homes, streets, and prisons, the pattern is the same: violence thrives where accountability dies. Egypt’s so-called stability rests precisely on ensuring that suffering stays invisible. Instead of applause, accountability Trump’s comments in Sharm el-Sheikh were applauded by some, but they deserve scrutiny from Europe. The European Union recently approved a €7.4bn aid package to Cairo, much of it framed around “stability” and “migration control”. If stability means the silencing of dissent, Europe risks funding repression while congratulating itself for peace. True peace demands accountability. European governments engaging Egypt should insist on independent monitoring of detentions and disappearances, transparent investigations into gender-based violence, and space for civil society and free media. Because stability without justice is fragile — and the 'order' maintained through fear is no order at all. A state worthy of respect should not fear inspection; its citizens should not fear speech. If Egypt looks calm from a distance, it is only because its people have learned that silence is the safest sound. If numbers could speak — and even though accurate reporting remains nearly impossible under Egypt’s suffocating authoritarian climate — they would reveal a rise in crime of all kinds: gender-based violence, murder, theft, human trafficking networks, and state-perpetrated crimes such as political arrests, torture, enforced disappearances, and unfair trials. The absence of a free press and the impossibility of expressing ourselves openly in our own language and local media make one wonder: Mr Trump, which “crime” exactly were you referring to? And what did you mean by a “strong regime”? Do you mean a regime so powerful that people fear to speak — that truth itself has become a punishable act, costing years behind bars for those who dare to write it, as happened to the author of this article once before ? Shimaa Samy is an independent Egyptian journalist, and executive director of the Seif Law Foundation for Legal and Research Studies. She is also the project manager for a specialised initiative on migrant and minority women in Egypt.
|
Shimaa Samy
|
During last weekend's Gaza Peace summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, US president Donald Trump stood beside Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and declared with satisfaction: "There is very little crime in Egypt; it’s a strong system.” In fact, the Egyptian regime is based on systemic violence, writes one formerly imprisoned journalist.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Africa",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-17T09:38:30.835Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar953fd940
|
Mainstream loses control of agenda by mimicking far-right, study finds
|
During the 2024 European Parliament election campaign, centrist politicians warned about the threat posed by far-right parties to democracies. Yet experts suggest that the political mainstream itself is partly responsible for their growing success. Far-right parties made significant gains in the June 2024 elections, growing support in 22 of the 27 EU member states. The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), led by Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, and the recently-formed Patriots of Europe (PfE), led by Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán, alongside the Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) of the Alternative for Germany, now collectively hold 187 of the EU Parliament’s 720 seats. While they are far from a majority, they have reached enough strength to actually influence European policymaking. Similar wins, or at least gains, have appeared at the domestic level, where more extremist parties are either winning elections in some countries or joining governing coalitions in others. A recent study , published in the European Journal of Political Research in September, argues that one common strategy of mainstream political parties — adopting the same topics and rhetoric as the far-right — often backfires. Instead of reducing their appeal, it can amplify extremist narratives and legitimise their agenda. Daniel Saldivia Gonzatti , co-author of the research, told EUobserver in an interview that this is closely linked to the idea that many mainstream parties underestimate their own agenda-setting power. “You are driven by the agenda of others, if you cannot control the agenda yourself,” he said. Rather than defining their own political vision, mainstream political parties frequently react to far-right messaging — especially on migration, security, and national identity. When people think about a far-right party and their ideas of the future regarding migration, they have a clear line and a developed vision — despite being a negative one, Saldivia Gonzatti said. “But it doesn’t seem to be the case that democratic, mainstream parties have a developed vision about migration.” The researchers also found that in Germany, traditional parties increasingly mirror far-right priorities. In fact, far-right agenda-setting often predicts what topics mainstream parties will later focus on. What for the EU if Paris or Berlin go far-right? In a separate paper , researchers from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs think tank argue that the influence of the far-right in Brussels/EU politics is already evident. They note that there is no 'cordon sanitaire' against governments with far-right parties in the European Council, where EU member states are represented. In 2000, when the FPÖ entered Austria’s government, 14 EU members imposed sanctions on Austria by freezing bilateral relations — a move that was later reversed. But when the FPÖ again made it into the government in 2017, European partners treated it as entirely normal. Which was equally the case when the PVV became the leading coalition partner in the Dutch government in June 2024. The European People’s Party (EPP) dominates in the EU Council, with 11 of 27 leaders, representing 43.5 percent of the EU population. Three leaders — from Belgium, Italy, and the Czech Republic — belong to ECR, most notably Meloni who plays a central role due to her country’s weight. Orbán remains the only PfE representative. He is increasingly isolated, prompting creative policy manoeuvring, such as issuing European Council conclusions on Ukraine, only supported by 26. The experts note that Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Belgium together represent about 20 percent of the EU population — 21 percent with Slovakia — still short of a blocking minority. But if a major state like France were to elect a far-right government, that threshold could be reached. “[But] the governments of these countries have formed neither a coherent group nor a coordinated political force — the coalition constellations and the ideological lines of the respective far-right parties are currently too diverse for that to happen,” they also said. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
During the 2024 European Parliament election campaign, centrist politicians warned about the threat posed by far-right parties to democracies. Yet experts suggest the political mainstream itself is partly responsible for their growing success.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-17T05:32:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arffb2b2c8
|
MEPs confront Meta about removing political ads
|
MEPs confronted Meta's "allergy to EU legislation" during a debate in the European Parliament on Thursday (16 October) — raising their concerns over the company's decision to end all political, electoral, and social advertising in the EU in the wake of a new law. The scrutiny session in the internal market and consumer protection committee comes amid implementation challenges of the transparency and targeting of political advertising law, which came into force last week, on 10 October. Facebook, Instagram and other platforms, which host major online ad services, have decided to remove all political ads for EU services altogether, rather than adopting a more targeted approach as intended by the new EU rules. But as Meta's actions go beyond what the legislation requires, MEPs requested a discussion with officials from the Silicon Valley giant. "By restricting personalised ads, the regulation limits voters' access to comprehensive and relevant information," said Meta's EU lobbyist Marco Pancini. Pancini outlined the three issues Mark Zuckerberg's company sees with the legislation — limiting the use of collected personal data for targeted political ads, requiring users' specific consent for political ads, and an unclear definition of what is now considered 'political'. These issues, he said, left Meta with "the choice to either offer an ineffective product or withdraw from political ads." While some MEPs acknowledged legitimate issues with implementing the law, such as unclear guidelines and confusion around consent, they disagree with Meta's approach. Responding to the Meta representative, Italian liberal MEP Sandro Gozi, who has been leading the parliament’s work in this field, said: "You just confirm one thing, that Meta has got an allergy to EU legislation. I mean, you're really allergic. Your CEO, Zuckerberg, is allergic." "We are not forbidding, banning, or targeting. We don't want the sensitive personal data to be used," Gozi added, saying the law is "not too complicated. Only it's not in your interest". For her part, Dutch Green MEP Kim van Sparrentak said Meta "cannot sell ads anymore in the way you want." "You cannot target me on the fact that I'm a lesbian anymore, but only based on my location. I think that's quite nice," van Sparrentak said. She argued that Meta’s justification of their decision to withdraw all social and political ads in Europe feels like “it's a big lobby trick from Meta to spread sort of misinformation about all this 'stupid law' because you just don't like it". Meanwhile, a commission official explained that they see Meta's move as a commercial choice, but they do not see a need to remove all political ads. A report by the European Digital Media Observatory found in the 15 member states during the run up to the 2024 European election, nearly 30,000 online political ads were placed, totalling €8.7 m spent. Owen Carpenter-Zehe is a junior reporter from the US at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Owen Carpenter-Zehe
|
MEPs grilled a Meta lobbyist over its decision to cease political ads in the EU after new political advertising regulations
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political"
] |
digital
|
2025-10-16T15:18:57.161Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ar10ebd27b
|
European Investment Fund financed Israeli spyware company Paragon
|
The European Investment Fund (EIF) provided venture capital for Israeli spyware firm Paragon Solutions , confirmed a spokesperson for the European Investment Bank Group, to which the EIF belongs. “In January 2020, the EIF signed a commitment of €21.2m with Aurora Europe SCSp, a fund-of-funds with a total size of €85m and a focus on life sciences and technology”, said the spokesperson. “This fund went on to invest in 31 funds, which collectively went on to invest in over 900 companies.” “One of these funds, Red Dot Capital Partners II LP, which specialises in cybersecurity, AI, and machine learning, invested in 10 companies, including in Paragon Solutions in October 2020. Red Dot divested from Paragon Solutions in December 2024.” In December 2024, Paragon was acquired for $900 m [€772m] by the American investment company AE Industrial Partners. Paragon Solutions has since become part of the American subsidiary RedLattice. It is unclear how much Red Dot initially invested in Paragon Solutions, and how much it earned from the sale to AE Industrial Partners. The EIB spokesperson was unable to provide information on this matter. Apache asked Red Dot for clarification but has not received a response. Horizon 2020 An EIF document designates Paragon Solutions as a that received support under the InnovFin Equity Facility for Early Stage (IFE). This financing instrument was launched as part of Horizon 2020 , the EU's Framework Programme for Research and Innovation from 2014 to 2020. Israel participated in this program as an “associated country”, as well as in its successor, Horizon Europe. According to an EIB spokesperson, the EIF “has necessary safeguards and rules to ensure that EU funds do not support companies or projects that violate EU standards". "The EIF requires its intermediaries to apply relevant eligibility criteria and other applicable obligations to the final beneficiaries. According to the information available to us, the investment met the applicable eligibility criteria at the time,” the spokesperson also said. But knowing where EU taxpayers' money is going is key for many. “This is yet another example of how EU taxpayers are financing an industry that is spying on them with the support of EU institutions”, says Belgian Green MEP Saskia Bricmont , who sat on the PEGA committee that investigated the Pegasus case. “It is deeply troubling that the Union is directly or indirectly enabling tools that erode democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law.” “This raises serious questions about the governance, transparency and accountability of the Union’s funding mechanisms. I strongly call upon the European Commission and member states to implement the recommendations of the European Parliament to strictly regulate the use of spyware and prohibit funding toward this industry," she said. For Frank Vanaerschot, director of Counter Balance, an NGO that monitors the EIB , among others, the selection criteria used by the EIB Group are" too broadly defined" and monitoring is "inadequate”. “The EIB Group assumes that intermediaries comply with the rules, but does not check this itself. The use of different funds, with one private fund investing in another, also makes monitoring more difficult,” he said. Vanaerschot emphasises that, in the context of the Israeli war in Gaza, Counter Balance is calling on the EIB Group to conduct a serious review of all investments in Israeli companies. Italian scandal Paragon Solutions was co-founded in 2019 by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Ehud Schneorson, commander of Unit 8200, an Israeli military intelligence unit, between 2013 and 2017. Paragon Solutions specialises in developing advanced spyware. Graphite, Paragon's software programme, enables users to break into encrypted smartphones. The company sells its spyware to intelligence and security services worldwide. The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently gained access to Paragon's software . At the end of January, WhatsApp announced that the accounts of approximately 90 users, including journalists and civil society activists, had been targeted with spyware from Paragon Solutions. In a report published on 5 June by the Italian parliamentary committee overseeing intelligence services, the Italian government acknowledged the use of Paragon's spyware against two activists. According to the report, it was unclear who had targeted Italian journalist Francesco Cancellato with Paragon's software. According to Israeli media Haaretz, Italy rejected Paragon's offer to further investigate the Cancellato case. Still, the head of the Italian intelligence service DIS said the audit would pose a risk to national security . According to The Guardian, Paragon terminated its contract with Italy after WhatsApp disclosed the hacking, while Italian media later reported that the contract was terminated “ by mutual agreement .” In June, Citizen Lab , an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the University of Toronto, found forensic evidence confirming "with high confidence" that both a prominent European journalist (who requests anonymity) and Italian journalist Ciro Pellegrino were targeted with Paragon’s Graphite mercenary spyware. Jan Walraven is a reporter at Belgian investigative website Apache . Jan Walraven is a reporter at Belgian investigative website
|
Apache
|
The European Investment Fund backed Israeli spyware firm Paragon Solutions in 2020 through a local venture fund, according to a new investigation by Belgian investigative site Apache. Founded a year earlier by former Israeli PM Ehud Barak and an Israeli ex-intelligence chief, Paragon’s spyware has been used against activists in multiple countries, including Italy.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-16T14:15:27.675Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar1b6908da
|
Listen: Inside Greece’s 13-hour workday reform
|
Greece’s parliament is voting today on a controversial labour reform proposed by the conservative government, allowing employees under “exceptional circumstances” to work up to 13 hours a day, for up to 37 days a year. The government insists the measure is voluntary and designed to help workers earn more without having to take on a second job. But why do workers need to take on a second job just to survive in the first place and what does this new bill change for them? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Greece’s parliament is voting on a controversial labour reform proposed by the conservative government, allowing employees under “exceptional circumstances” to work up to 13 hours a day, for up to 37 days a year. The government insists the measure is voluntary and designed to help workers earn more without having to take on a second job. But why do workers need to take on a second job just to survive in the first place and what does this new bill change for them? “We’re giving employees the possibility to work extra hours for the same employer, without commuting, and with a 40 percent pay increase,” said labour minister Niki Kerameus. But unions, much of the opposition and the workers themselves aren’t buying it. They’ve called the bill “worthy of the Middle Ages,” warning that it effectively abolishes the eight-hour workday and paves the way for exploitation. Thousands took to the streets of Athens and Thessaloniki this Tuesday in general strikes, bringing public transport and services to a halt. According to Eurostat, Greeks already work an average of nearly 40 hours per week, compared to the EU average of 36, for some of the lowest wages in the bloc. Supporters of the bill say it modernises Greece’s labour market, making it more “flexible” and competitive. The reform also introduces a four-day week option, digital employment cards, fast-track recruitment via app, and the ability to split annual leave into smaller chunks. But opponents argue this isn’t modernisation, it’s a step backwards. They fear that workers who refuse longer hours could face layoffs or other forms of pressure. And the debate moves to the right to rest, to a private life, and to decent pay, elements that have been central to the European model for decades. A 13-hour workday feels at odds with the EU’s ambitions for a fairer, more sustainable future. And let’s be honest, “voluntary” overtime in a country where power between employers and employees is far from equal sounds very unrealistic. When your job and your rent depends on it, can you really say no? At a time when other parts of Europe are experimenting with shorter workweeks and better work-life balance, Greece seems to be moving in the opposite direction, legalising what was previously a labour rights violation. Of course, the government argues that the measure will boost productivity and respond to staff shortages, particularly in tourism. But critics say this is treating the symptom, not the causes, which are low pay, seasonal work, and chronic underinvestment in workers’ rights. So what now? The bill is expected to pass comfortably, as the ruling New Democracy party holds a majority in parliament. Still, it marks a political turning point. Greece could become a test case, showing whether extreme flexibility strengthens economies or simply normalises overwork. Unions have promised to keep fighting the reform, warning of rising burnout, workplace accidents, and deepening inequality. Meanwhile, the Labour Ministry insists that with unemployment at a 17-year low, workers now have more leverage than ever, a claim that’s hard to believe, given Greece’s persistent low wages and high living costs. Now what happens in Greece may not stay in Greece. If the “optional 13-hour workday” works for employers there, it could soon be presented elsewhere as a model of “modern flexibility.” But if it fails, if workers burn out, protest, and leave, it may serve as a reminder that Europe’s competitiveness cannot come at the cost of its social dignity. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
Greece’s parliament is voting today on a controversial labour reform proposed by the conservative government, allowing employees under “exceptional circumstances” to work up to 13 hours a day, for up to 37 days a year. The government insists the measure is voluntary, but what does this new bill change for workers?
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-10-16T11:13:18.842Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar3a26ee3f
|
This weekend's election in a European country no one recognises: North Cyprus
|
When Turkish Cypriots go to the polls on Saturday (19 October), they will not just be asked to choose a candidate to serve a five-year term as president of the unrecognised Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus — they will be required to make a decision over whether to orient themselves in the direction of Turkey or Europe. The election has two protagonist candidates — the pro-Turkey ally of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Ersin Tatar, who insists that the only solution to the Cyprus problem is a two-state solution, and the pro-Europe opposition-backed Tufan Erhürman, who has stated his intention to return to negotiations based on a federal, reunited Cyprus. Tatar is a firebrand, a straight-talking everyman who swept to power five years ago as a radical, demanding a break from the decades of talks geared towards the reunification of Cyprus under a bi-zonal, federal state and the unadulterated pursuit of a two-state solution instead. He is a true believer in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and a key proponent of integration between Turkey and the TRNC, preaching unity between Turkic nations and emphasising Turkish Cypriots’ Turkishness when and where possible. Erhürman, meanwhile, is more of a pragmatist, who has spent much of the build-up to the election attempting to strike the difficult balance between departing from the two-state rhetoric which Turkey has so enthusiastically endorsed, and not actually alienating Turkey itself. At his biggest rally of the election so far, he promised that “every corner of this island will be Europe” and stressed the importance of acquiring EU citizenship for those Turkish Cypriots who are yet to acquire it, while also calling for a return to talks based on a federal solution. Turkey vs Europe 'referendum'? Both candidates, therefore, have happily typecast themselves, with much of the Turkish Cypriot electorate thus seeing the electorate as a quasi-referendum between not just the two solution models on offer, but between Turkey and Europe. Tatar’s ascent to the Turkish Cypriot community’s highest office was predicated on his promise of a departure from the federal solution model after negotiations to that end had spectacularly collapsed at the Swiss ski resort of Crans Montana in 2017. In this endeavour, he was aided by winning the mandate of Ankara after his election opponent and subsequent predecessor Mustafa Akıncı, the pro-federation and pro-Europe candidate last time out, had an acrimonious fall-out with Turkey’s government during his final years in office. However, with the election won, his train somewhat hit the buffers. Demands for a two-state solution did not survive contact with the international community, which remained unmoved. Even Azerbaijan, Turkey’s closest ally, free of the Karabakh issue (which Akıncı had previously said was the main obstacle to its recognition of the TRNC) did not budge, and even welcomed Greek Cypriot Nikos Christodoulides to Baku as the “president of Cyprus” during COP29 last year. Frozen conflict For five years, therefore, the Cyprus problem has been frozen. No negotiations, no changes to the status quo, and barely any “confidence-building measures” which the UN has oft pushed to attempt to build relations between the two communities. Ordinarily, therefore, October’s election would be a formality. The Turkish Cypriots are a fickle electorate, with only the TRNC’s founding president Rauf Denktaş having won re-election to the role as an incumbent, and all his successors having been turfed out after a single term. However, Tatar’s vehement rejection of a two-state solution has seen him retain a support base which is now treating the election as an existential matter. They believe the choice on 19 October will be between Tatar and capitulation to the Greek Cypriots, which is what they now believe a return to federal negotiations would entail. It would, they insist, be tantamount to an admission that a two-state solution is beyond reach and that the TRNC is unviable. Supporters of Erhürman, meanwhile, see the election as an existential matter for the opposite reason. For them, refusing to return to federal negotiations means hitching their wagon to Turkey for ever, for better and for worse, even if Erhürman himself, keen not to alienate and be alienated by Turkey in the style of Akıncı, will not say this part out loud. Many Erhürman supporters find Turkey’s influence over the TRNC to have stretched too far, particularly in light of the local ruling coalition’s attempts to legalise the wearing of headscarves by girls at public schools earlier this year — a move seen by many to have been made at Ankara’s behest, given the staunchly secular nature of the majority of Turkish Cypriots. Thousands of people took to the streets to protest against the move and the local supreme court overturned it, but many opponents of Tatar took the ordeal as a warning rather than a victory. A second Tatar term would mean further alignment with Turkey , and may put their goal — a reunited, federal Cyprus inside the European Union, beyond reach indefinitely. Tom Cleaver is chief reporter at the Cyprus Mail , who has specialised in covering the Turkish Cypriot community. Tom Cleaver is chief reporter at the
|
Cyprus Mail
|
The election in North Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey) has two protagonist candidates — the pro-Turkey ally of Erdoğan, Ersin Tatar, who insists that the only solution to the Cyprus problem is a two-state solution, and the pro-Europe opposition-backed Tufan Erhürman, who wants to return to negotiations based on a federal, reunited Cyprus.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Political",
"EU Elections",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-16T10:55:24.484Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar45354379
|
Europeans paid €930bn extra due to energy dependency, report finds
|
Between 2021 and 2024, when energy prices spiked in the wake of the pandemic and Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Europe’s fossil-fuel import bill increased by €930bn, a report by the think tank Ember published on Thursday (16 October) found. Overall, the total costs of Europe’s fossil-fuel imports during these three years amounted to €1.8 trillion, with businesses and consumers bearing the burden for increased prices. The skyrocketing prices during the energy crisis partly reflect Europe’s great exposure to disruptions in the energy market. For decades, European countries have imported cheap Russian fossil-fuels. Now, new dependencies are being formed. “It proved to be an incredibly costly gamble when Russia started decreasing supplies to Europe in advance of the invasion in Ukraine and prices started to go up”, Chris Rosslowe, Ember’s analyst and author of the report, told EUobserver. In 2024, over half (58 percent) of the EU’s energy mix was coming from fossil-fuel imports — significantly higher than in countries like China (24 percent) or India (37 percent). This dependency, Ember said, is making European companies and consumers vulnerable to price shocks and supply disruptions. When it comes to LNG, the US was the largest supplier to the EU in 2024. And this situation has already been exploited by the US during the trade negotiations in the summer, Rosslowe said. In addition, he also mentioned how Qatar , a major gas supplier for the EU, has threatened to cut LNG imports unless the bloc watered down its labour and environmental rules. The bloc's top four gas suppliers (Norway (33 percent), US (16 percent), Russia (18 percent) and Algeria (14 percent)) provided 83 percent of imports in 2024. Oil imports are more diversified, although five import countries still covered 54 percent of the oil demand in 2024. For Rosslowe, the only solution for this situation is electrification across all sectors, which can strengthen Europe’s energy autonomy and protect consumers from geopolitical risks in supply chains. “Increasing the use of electricity massively improves efficiency across the whole system so we can simultaneously lower energy consumption”, he told EUobserver. “Electrification is so much more efficient than fossil-fuel alternatives.“ Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Between 2021 and 2024, Europe’s fossil fuel imports cost €1.8 trillion, up €930bn due to price spikes, a new report has found. Heavy reliance on a few suppliers has exposed the EU to risks, prompting experts to call for widespread electrification to foster energy autonomy.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-16T05:01:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arf04ba838
|
EU summit plan still hobbled by Austria-Slovakia on Russia, but no Israel sanctions
|
An Austrian bank and Slovakian cars still stand in the way of further EU action on Russia — while any possible EU Israel sanctions are being put on hold. Austria's ambassador to the EU maintained a "reserve" on the 19th round of Russia sanctions in the EU Council in Brussels on Wednesday (15 October). Vienna is trying to hold out for a "derogation" to let Austria bail out Raiffeisen Bank International from a €2bn fine by using EU-frozen Russian money. Slovakia also kept a "reserve" on Russia, but on unrelated car-industry grounds. Slovak prime minister Robert Fico said on Facebook on Wednesday he had "no interest in dealing with sanctions against Russia", until he saw "more concrete proposals" in draft conclusions of an EU summit, due on 23 October, "on how to deal with the automotive crisis". The RIB and Slovak car reserves aside, the Danish EU presidency has locked in the content of the 19th measures. These include a ban on Russian liquid gas imports, blacklisting 120 'shadow fleet' tankers , and curbing Russian diplomats' travel in the EU. "Russia has increased the intensity of its missile and drone strikes on Ukraine ... demonstrating Russia's lack of real political will to end its war of aggression," leaders aimed to say, according to draft summit conclusions seen by EUobserver. "Russia's assets should remain immobilised until Russia ceases its war of aggression against Ukraine and compensates it for the damage caused," they also aimed to say, referring to some €200bn of frozen Kremlin assets in Belgian financial firm Euroclear. Leaders aimed to pledge "air defence and anti-drone systems, and large-calibre ammunition" to Ukraine. What a Ukrainian army major, speaking to EUobserver last Sunday, wanted were long-range missiles, but the draft EU summit conclusions made no mention of those. EU leaders aimed to help fight Russia's shadow-fleet threat by also "strengthening cooperation with flag states", the draft EU-27 declaration said. And that meant more EU diplomatic "arm-twisting" of top flag-issuing states, such as Panama, to give the EU the legal right to stop and impound 'stateless' vessels. Leaders aimed to voice "strong commitment to ensure full accountability for [Russia's] war crimes" in Ukraine, making special mention of "Ukrainian children ....unlawfully deported and transferred to Russia". Anodyne on Gaza But their joint reaction to the Gaza ceasefire was more anodyne. They aimed to "welcome" the deal, personally feted by US president Donald Trump and eight EU leaders in Egypt on Monday. They planned to call for "unimpeded access and sustained distribution of humanitarian aid at scale" to Gaza, where Israel killed over 67,000 people , in what UN experts called a genocide. They're also to urge "de-escalation in the West Bank", where Israel killed some 1,000 more people. But that was a far cry from EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen's State of the Union speech in September, when she proposed Israel trade sanctions and blacklisting two Israeli ministers. The EU ambassadors in Brussels on Wednesday didn't call for von der Leyen to formally retract her proposal, while focusing on aid access, EU diplomats said. "Now is not the time to sanction, but everything is far from being solved," an EU diplomat said. "It's up to those who care about justice, ending the unlawful occupation and apartheid, to keep the proposals squarely on the table and push for their adoption," said Claudio Francavilla from the Human Rights Watch (HRW) group. EU monitors had been meant to help reopen the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza on Wednesday, but were unable to do so, due to ongoing Israeli restrictions. Foreign correspondents in Jerusalem have also been calling for access to Gaza. They were likely to see phased access, starting with journalists embedded with Israeli Defence Force units, based on past conflicts. But for HRW's Francavilla: "Israel should allow independent monitors, including journalists and UN experts, into Gaza without delay. Reliable, vetted data and information is key to inform international action and will help give a full picture of the scale of the crimes committed over the past two years". The Israeli government press office, which governs access to Gaza, and Israel's EU embassy didn't reply on Wednesday when asked about media access.
|
Andrew Rettman is EUobserver's foreign editor, writing about foreign and security issues since 2005. He is Polish, but grew up in the UK, and lives in Brussels. He has also written for The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online.
|
An Austrian bank and Slovakian cars still stand in the way of further EU action on Russia — while any possible EU Israel sanctions are being put on hold.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-15T17:15:34.303Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar24cf83dc
|
Listen: French PM freezes Macron’s pension law saving the government for now
|
French prime minister Sébastien Lecornu has announced the suspension of Emmanuel Macron’s 2023 pension reform, which had raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. Now, two years after it was passed, its implementation will be paused until after the 2027 presidential election. But how is this suspension saving the government for now? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: On Tuesday, French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu announced the suspension of Emmanuel Macron’s 2023 pension reform, which had raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. The reform, pushed through parliament without a vote, triggered months of nationwide protests and strikes, becoming one of the most divisive policies of Macron’s presidency. Now, two years after it was passed, its implementation will be paused until after the 2027 presidential election. But how is this suspension saving the government for now? In a speech before the National Assembly, Lecornu promised that no increase in the retirement age will take place until January 2028, effectively putting the 2023 law on hold until after the next presidential election. He also pledged something quite extraordinary for French politics: no use of Article 49.3 which is the constitutional tool that allows the government to force laws through without a vote. Instead, he said, the government will propose, parliament will debate, and deputies will vote. A small democratic revolution, perhaps or at least, the promise of one. This change of heart comes before the no-confidence vote for this new government, which was bound to lose. The Socialist Party held the balance of power. By agreeing to suspend the reform and send a friendly text message to Socialist leader Olivier Faure saying, “I’m taking my risk”, Lecornu secured just enough goodwill to survive. In other words, it was less of a grand ideological shift, and more of a political life-saving manoeuvre. The suspension will cost France around €400m in 2026 and €1.8bn the following year, and Lecornu insists that this will need to be offset by “savings”, a word French citizens have learned to approach with suspicion. Now, for the socialists, this is being hailed as the first major victory for the French social movement since 2006, when mass protests forced the government to withdraw the youth employment contract law. For Macron’s camp, however, it’s a humbling moment. The pension reform was meant to be the centrepiece of his economic legacy, proof that France could be fiscally responsible and “modernise” its welfare state. Instead, it’s now frozen, politically radioactive, and costing billions. It also speaks volumes about the fragility of French politics today. The parliament is split into three near-equal blocs, Macron’s centrists, the left, and the far right, and no one has a majority. To survive, the government must now rely on delicate alliances and last-minute deals with opponents. It’s coalition politics, French-style and it’s not going smoothly. Meanwhile, unions like the CFDT have welcomed the decision as proof that street protests still matter. And perhaps they do. The pressure from months of demonstrations, combined with Socialist leverage in parliament, managed to overturn what was once called “non-negotiable”. So, what happens now? The pension reform is suspended, not scrapped. Lecornu insists that the law could return after the 2027 presidential election. In the meantime, his government faces an even tougher task: pushing through a tight austerity budget. France’s deficit is nearly double the EU target, and its debt-to-GDP ratio is close to 120 percent. Lecornu says France must “remain below five percent”, but with spending promises like this, good luck to him. The Socialists have promised not to topple him for now. But they’ve also made it clear: the truce lasts only as long as Lecornu keeps his word.As one MP warned, “The non-censorship applies for Thursday, but not after.” So, the pension reform may be on pause, but France’s political tension certainly isn’t. For now, the Prime Minister has saved his job, but whether he’s saved his government, or just postponed its collapse, it’s something we’ll see. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
French prime minister Sébastien Lecornu has announced the suspension of Emmanuel Macron’s 2023 pension reform, which had raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. Now, two years after it was passed, its implementation will be paused until after the 2027 presidential election. But how is this suspension saving the government for now?
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-10-15T12:37:24.210Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar8f1d6716
|
Global growth steady so far despite Trump tariffs, says IMF
|
The global economy has again proved stronger than expected, though not necessarily healthier, according to the latest World Economic Outlook published on Tuesday (14 October) by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It described a world showing “unexpected resilience” despite Trump-era trade tariffs , but warned risks remain as uncertainty clouds the outlook. Tariffs are at their highest level in decades, averaging 19 percent. But global growth is holding at 3.2 percent this year and 3.1 percent next, roughly in line with pre-pandemic trends. IMF chief economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas speaking at a press event on Tuesday said the pain so far has been blunted by rapid supply-chain redirection, limited retaliation and active government support. The euro area, for example, has seen a modest boost from fiscal expansion in Germany, while emerging economies have benefited from easier financial conditions and a weaker dollar. But this situation could soon change. “The global economy could take a turn for the worse if trade tensions worsen,” said Gonchinchas. Uncertainty is already weighing on investment: “US tech is still attracting money, but overall investment is declining as businesses scale back plans.” In the US, the IMF has revised growth down and inflation up, calling tariffs a “negative supply shock.” Tighter immigration rules are also squeezing the labour force. The fund estimates Trump’s curbs could shave 0.3–0.7 percentage points off GDP, while wage-inflation surges in labour-intensive sectors. Asked if the US AI tech “bubble” keeping growth afloat was about to burst, Gourinchas said: “Nobody can know what will happen.” Much of the IMF outlook dwells on the spread of industrial policies worldwide. While they can “improve economic outcomes,” the fund warns of misallocation and hidden fiscal costs, especially when subsidies and tax breaks are poorly targeted. China, the main target of Trump tariffs, has offset much of the tariff shock through a sharp depreciation of the renminbi and a surge in exports to other Asian and European markets. But according to Gourinchas, China’s growth engine is faltering. “We see rising export volumes matched by falling prices,” which he said was a “sign that global markets are struggling to absorb China’s output” and is fuelling trade frictions. Economic problems are compounded by a real estate sector that continues to shrink four years after an unresolved property bust. The country, Gourinchas warned, is “on the verge of a debt-deflation cycle,” a mix that could have destabilising global consequences. “Our advice to the Chinese authorities has long been the same: rebalance growth towards sustainable domestic demand,” he also said. “Shifting away from heavy dependence on exports would make the economy more resilient in today’s fragile environment.” Experts, however, doubt that will happen as Chinese leadership feels it has strong leverage over other countries because it dominates critical sectors such as batteries or rare earths. “Nobody should be under any illusion that China is going to abandon this heavy, industry-focused model,” said Alexander Brown of the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) at a separate event organised by the Bruegel think tank in Brussels on Tuesday.
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
According to the International Monetary Fund the global economy has shown “unexpected resilience” in the face of sweeping Trump-era trade tariffs, but warned that uncertainty is weighing on investment.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-15T05:31:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar6e40e90a
|
Italy-Albania migrant deal: Millions spent, few results
|
“I found myself in a maximum-security prison without ever having spent a day in prison in my life,” Mustafa recalls. He perfectly remembers the day he entered the migrant detention centre, opened by Italy in Gjadër, Albania. The sound of the gate closing, the towering bars surrounding the structure, the suffocating lack of freedom. “After so many years in Italy, I never thought something like this would happen,” he said. Like Mustafa, 111 people from October 16, 2024, to July 28, 2025, have walked through that entrance in this first operational year of the facilities provided for in the controversial Italy-Albania migration deal. Over 12 months, operations have been suspended several times due to a series of expected legal setbacks by judicial authorities in Italy. But one thing has not changed: the presence of the company Medihospes, which was awarded a €133m contract to provide services within the Shëngjin and Gjadër facilities. This is one of the most important public tenders ever awarded in the migration sector in Italy, with several problematic aspects, including the absence of a signed contract. On 14 October 2024, exactly one year ago, the Italian government abruptly decided to activate the facilities provided for in the agreement signed between Rome and Tirana. Two days later, after several hours of travel by sea, south of the Italian island of Lampedusa, the first 16 people — 10 Bangladeshis and 6 Egyptians — arrived at the port of Shëngjin on board the Libra. The Libra is a military ship that the Meloni government transferred to Albania in mid-September. After the first landing, it was not only the migrants who faced confusion and uncertainty, but also the Albanian employees hired by Medihospes, who had received no prior training. “We were told to maintain an observational role during that operation. We didn't know any other colleagues, nor did we have an overview of how the centres worked. Until the end of December, we didn't even have an office,” recalled a former worker who was granted anonymity to speak freely. He also said that they were being informed about their shifts between nine and 10 o'clock the night before. In its first three months of operation, according to an internal list of workers obtained by the Italian publication Altreconomia, Medihospes Albania, the branch created by the Italian cooperative to manage the centres, hired 99 workers, who were joined by others transferred from Italy. One of them showed us his employment contract, based on Albanian law, highlighting the strict confidentiality clauses that forced many of his colleagues not to talk to journalists. Article 11 is entitled "Confidentiality," the subsequent one “Obligation of loyalty,” which requires workers to “keep secret all information relating to the employer's business, information that has come to their knowledge during their period of employment with the employer.” In addition to the employment contract, workers also had to sign a code of conduct, an internal document that sets out guidelines to ensure ethical and professional standards. If they do not comply with the code of conduct, employees risk penalties ranging from a written warning to termination of their contract. And as several former employees interviewed by Altreconomia claimed, the risk of breaching the duty of confidentiality has led to a widespread fear of reporting potential abuses for fear of legal action or dismissal by the managing body. Many Albanian workers were dismissed in mid-February, after the third failed attempt by the Italian authorities to make the Italy-Albania deal work. The “justification” given by the managing body for making the workers redundant was linked to “a series of contradictory court rulings that did not comply with the guidelines of the Court of Cassation” (the Italian Supreme Court of appeal), as stated in the notice of termination of employment sent to employees by Walter Balice, the administrator of Medihospes Albania. The Italian government attempted three times to transfer people to Albania, but several rulings by Italian courts effectively blocked the possibility of using the two facilities — prompting the Italian home affairs ministry, led by Matteo Piantedosi, to change strategy. “Contrary to official claims that Italian jurisdiction fully applies within the Albanian facilities, the extraterritorial removal operation exposes the limits of this legal fiction,” said Andreina de Leo Legal fiction Earlier in April, part of the Gjader centre in Albania was reopened as a Repatriation Center (CPR), a facility where people without regular residence permits can wait up to 18 months before being repatriated to their country of origin. While there are 10 such centres already operating in Italy, some of the “detainees” from those facilities were transferred to Albania: apart from one case, which was kept secret by the Italian government but discovered by Altreconomia . Later in May, five Egyptian citizens were repatriated directly from Tirana to Cairo, while the other migrants were transferred back to Italy before being expelled again. “Contrary to official claims that Italian jurisdiction fully applies within the Albanian facilities, the extraterritorial removal operation exposes the limits of this legal fiction,” said Andreina de Leo, an expert in European migration and asylum law. “Tirana airport is not under Italian jurisdiction, nor is there any mechanism to ensure oversight by Italian courts or compliance with EU legal standards during the final and most sensitive stage of the return process,” de Leo also said. In order to understand what Medihospes Cooperative’s services and activities consist of and what the associated risks are, it is necessary to take a step back. In mid-March 2024, the local office of the home affairs ministry, the Prefecture of Rome, published a €133m tender, containing a “negotiated procedure.” This is a procedure provided for by Italian law that simplifies the awarding of contracts. Of the 30 bids received in seven days, the prefecture selected three for the final phase, all based in Italy. Two withdrew, leaving only Medihospes, which was awarded the million-dollar contract on 7 May. Noticeably, other bidders' names included the multinationals Ors Italia, and its holding company, the Serco group, as well as Renco Asset Management, whose parent company is an Italian giant in the energy sector. Medihospes, with 4,504 employees, 82 percent of whom are part-time, was expected to achieve a turnover of €179m in 2024 No binding contract Medihospes award did not go unnoticed: the Rome-based cooperative is well-known in Italy because it is the operational arm of the social welfare services of the La Cascina Consortium, which was subject in 2015 to a judicial investigation known as ‘Mafia Capitale’, which uncovered a system of corruption linked to public contracts in the capital. In the decade since the judicial scandal, which led to La Cascina being placed under administration, the criminal infiltrations were subsequently “cleaned up”, and the consortium has built a respectable reputation. So much so that Medihospes in early July 2025, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) awarded it the ‘WeWelcome 2024’ badge , highlighting “the significant commitment shown in promoting specific measures for the integration of refugees in the labour market”. The award does not mention the organisation's activities in Albania, but rather those in Italy, where it has dozens of contracts from north to south. Between 2022 and 2024, the amount received from nine prefectures in Italy for the reception of asylum seekers and refugees grew from €34m to around €52m. Most of the contracts concern the prefecture of Rome: in 2024, they account for 55 percent of the total of money received. Thanks in part to these contracts, Medihospes, with 4,504 employees, 82 percent of whom are part-time, was expected to achieve a turnover of €179m in 2024. However, the Albanian case remains exceptional compared to other immigration-related contracts - since winning the contract, Altreconomia has revealed that Medihospes has not yet signed the final agreement. In Italy, the maximum period between the award and the signing of the contract is normally 60 days, but in the case of the Shenjin and Gjader facilities, at least 478 days have passed already. Last August, the contract had not yet been finalised - instead, there was only a preliminary agreement signed the day before the arrival of the ship Libra in Albania, with the first migrants on board. “A peculiar procedure,” said Sergio Foà, professor of administrative law at the University of Turin in Italy. Parallel realities This aspect raises a second problem related to the unrealistic promises made by Medihospes in the original tender. For example, the Medihospes Cooperative committed to ensuring that detainees in Albanian facilities had access to Sky, Prime Video, Netflix, and Dazn, so that they could watch subtitled films every evening and attend a biweekly film forum “to encourage discussion among guests”. In addition, the tender promised many workshops, including one on “basic literacy” and “information days”, with the help of a language mediator, aimed at sharing and disseminating some basic rules and regulations on personal hygiene. There is also mention of mixed-team basketball and five-a-side soccer tournaments, which will seek to involve as many participants as possible (some candidates will be referees and linesmen), as well as creative workshops twice a week (the art workshops will cover basic techniques such as drawing and painting of landscapes and still life). However, life inside the centre is very different. In just 13 days in April 2025, Italian MP Rachele Scarpa and MEP Cecilia Strada reported 2.7 critical incidents per day. Of these, about 10 were suicide attempts, “mostly by strangulation or hanging,” reports Scarpa and Strada, who managed to look at the registry of critical events inside the facility. But that's not all: Medihospes is also committed to providing numerous activities for minors, women, and vulnerable people. These ranged from breastfeeding areas to clowns, slides, swings, merry-go-rounds, and rockers. “Vulnerable individuals, such as minors, women, the elderly and frail persons, will not be taken to Albania,” said Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni in June 2024. In fact, only male adult migrants are supposed to be detained in Albania, but the Medihospes Cooperative is nonetheless committed to providing these services and assistance. To date, Medihospes has recorded approximately €1.2m in costs for its Albanian “branch” (“Medihospes Albania Srl”) and €563,000 in debts in its 2024 financial statements. For services guaranteed in 2024, the Prefecture of Rome recognised a total amount of €570,372. In its financial statements, the Cooperative emphasises that the contract involved “a great organisational effort and a significant professional challenge,” noting that there is ongoing debate about the nature and rules of engagement of such structures, and expressing its hope for “the full implementation of the management of reception and detention centres referred to in the Italy-Albania protocol.” This implementation has not yet materialised. On 7 October 2025, there were only 17 people detained in Gjader. Luca Rondi is a journalist for and co-author of (2024), (2022), and contributor to (2024). Kristina Millona is an investigative journalist and PhD candidate in Vienna, focusing on migration, border violence, and the criminalisation of Albanian migrants. Lorenzo Figoni is a lawyer and freelance investigative journalist in Italy, specializing in migration policies and co-author of (2024). Luca Rondi is a journalist for and co-author of (2024), (2022), and contributor to (2024). Kristina Millona is an investigative journalist and PhD candidate in Vienna, focusing on migration, border violence, and the criminalisation of Albanian migrants. Lorenzo Figoni
|
is a lawyer and freelance investigative journalist in Italy, specializing in migration policies and co-author of
|
Migrants were detained in Albanian centres under an Italy-Albania deal, managed by the Medihospes cooperative on a €133m contract, but legal, operational, and ethical issues persist, an investigation reveals.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Migration"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-14T15:53:36.603Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar124e4323
|
Listen: EU ministers discuss mutual deportations as new migration fix
|
European interior ministers met in Luxembourg this week, with the meeting continuing today to discuss how to better manage migration, or at least how to convince voters that they’re doing so. At the centre of the talks is a proposal that would make deportation orders issued by one EU country automatically recognised by all others. But how would that actually work, and could it be the fix for the EU’s migration system? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: European interior ministers met in Luxembourg yesterday, with the meeting continuing today to discuss how to better manage migration, or at least how to convince voters that they’re doing so. At the centre of the talks is a proposal that would make deportation orders issued by one EU country automatically recognised by all others. But how would that actually work, and could it be the fix for the EU’s migration system? So according to this proposal if Greece rejects an asylum claim and that person moves to Sweden, Sweden would have to deport them without opening a new case, nor a new review. At the moment, this kind of mutual recognition is voluntary. And it’s not working. Only around one in five people ordered to leave the EU are actually deported. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has called that figure “far too low” and fixing it is one of her top political priorities. Denmark, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency, has been pushing hard for a deal before the end of the year. But several governments, including Germany, France, and the Netherlands, raised concerns during the meeting about legal confusion, administrative overload, and differences in national procedures. Critics warn that mandatory recognition could even encourage countries at the EU’s borders, like Italy and Greece, to reject asylum claims quickly, knowing someone else will be forced to enforce the deportation later. The meeting also touched on the creation of so-called “return hubs” in non-EU countries, where people denied asylum could be sent while they await deportation, a plan that has already raised human rights concerns. And once again, Poland made its position clear: no migrant relocations. Warsaw argues it has already faced what it calls “hybrid attacks” from Belarus, which has been accused of pushing migrants across the EU border to destabilise the bloc. Now, all this is about who controls the narrative. Across Europe, populist and far-right parties have been gaining support by making migration a central issue. Centrist leaders, anxious not to lose ground, are adopting tougher language and stricter policies, often at the expense of their own previous values. According to the Migration Policy Group, governments say they’re getting tough to keep the far right out of power, but by doing that, they’re letting the far right set the agenda. And that’s what makes this so important. Europe’s migration debate has become a kind of political mirror: when leaders talk about efficiency, they often mean faster deportations; when they talk about solidarity, they usually mean financial contributions instead of shared responsibility. The EU says it wants a system that’s fair and humane, but so far, it mostly looks like a system designed to pass the problem on. What happens next? The Danish presidency floated a compromise yesterday: giving member states up to three years before the mutual recognition rule becomes mandatory. That proposal will now move forward to the European Council, where leaders are expected to discuss it again in December. Meanwhile, the European Commission is preparing to publish its “solidarity pool”, a mechanism meant to share asylum responsibilities across the bloc, whether through relocations, funding, or staffing. But with Italy, Greece, Poland, and Hungary all resisting parts of the deal, progress is likely to be slow. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
European interior ministers met in Luxembourg this week, with the meeting continuing today to discuss how to better manage migration, or at least how to convince voters that they’re doing so. At the centre of the talks is a proposal that would make deportation orders issued by one EU country automatically recognised by all others.
But how would that actually work, and could it be the fix for the EU’s migration system?
|
[
"Migration"
] |
migration
|
2025-10-14T10:48:06.586Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ar0cab2def
|
The Várhelyi affair: When an EU member state spies on Brussels
|
Brussels has always been a spy capital. Nato and the EU headquarters have long made it a magnet for Chinese, Russian, and other hostile intelligence services. But this threat comes from within. The European Commission is investigating allegations that Hungary ran a spy operation within EU institutions — not from a hostile foreign capital — but under Olivér Várhelyi's watch, who then served as Hungary's permanent representative (2015-2019). Várhelyi now serves as EU commissioner. An investigation by Hungary's Direkt36 , Germany's Der Spiegel , Austria's Der Standard , and Belgium's De Tijd reveals that as tensions escalated between Brussels and Budapest, Hungarian intelligence officers operated under diplomatic cover at Várhelyi's mission, aggressively recruiting Hungarian EU officials, obtaining non-public documents, and influencing commission reports critical of Orbán. The network collapsed in 2017, yet these details emerge only now, with Várhelyi already in his second term as commissioner. These allegations cast serious doubts on Várhelyi's suitability to serve in his current capacity under treaty obligations. The alleged activities would appear fundamentally incompatible with the principle of independence required of all commissioners under Article 17(3) TEU and the duty of loyalty to the union enshrined in the Code of Conduct of Commissioners . Commissioners must act solely in the general interest of the union and refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. While it remains unclear whether and to what extent Várhelyi was aware of espionage activities and which of his diplomats were involved, the question is not necessarily one of criminal culpability. Rather, whether Várhelyi's position as superior to these intelligence officers, and his role as an end-user of their intelligence fundamentally compromised the principle of independence required of him as commissioner, since at least 2019 when he first sworn in as EU commissioner. Even if he did not directly participate in operational matters, the mere perception of continued alignment with Budapest's interests over the union's general interest may be disqualifying. Who's responsible? The primary responsibility to vet and then oversee EU commissioners' fitness falls to the EU commission president, who must have the necessary confidence in each commissioner. This is shared with the EU Parliament — and notably the Legal Affairs Committee and the ENVI/AGRI Committees — which greenlighted then-commissioner designate Várhelyi for the job. Their public hearings last July were intended to assess, among other matters, his beyond-doubt independence, general competence, and European commitment as required by Article 17(3) of the Treaty. The commission president holds decisive power here. Von der Leyen has power to sack She can, at any time after taking office, compel the resignation of an individual commissioner. While this power has never been formally exercised, its mere threat led to the voluntary resignations of John Dalli and Phil Hogan. In the first case, it was von der Leyen's predecessor, Jose Manuel Barroso, and in the latter, von der Leyen herself, who had de facto withdrawn confidence following reports of alleged misconduct during their mandates as commissioners. Várhelyi's case is arguably more serious. Unlike previous cases of commissioner misconduct —such as Dalli or Hogan — where improprieties occurred during their terms of office, the allegations against Várhelyi concern conduct predating his appointment and potentially vitiating his eligibility from the outset. Should Várhelyi resist, he could be referred to the Court of Justice, which has powers to compulsorily retire him or strip his benefits - though the only precedent, commissioner Edith Cresson, resulted in no sanctions. However, the institutional response could become particularly significant here: upon von der Leyen's demand, the commission may decide not to fill the vacancy. This isn't merely a procedural option — it would be a strategic choice with implications extending until the end of this commission's mandate in 2029. Punishing Hungary Leaving Várhelyi's post unfilled would serve multiple purposes. It would avoid rewarding Hungary with a replacement commissioner while questions about its loyalty to EU institutions remain unresolved. It would signal that systematic espionage against EU institutions carries concrete institutional consequences. It would also create a tangible cost for member states that treat the Union as hostile territory rather than a common project. This may reveal yet another sanction in the EU's arsenal to hold its most rebellious countries accountable — not through the conventional Article 7 procedures that have proven politically impossible, but through the commission president's own powers over her college. Did Magyar know? Yet there is an irony in the Várhelyi scandal. Péter Magyar , the primary political opponent of Várhelyi's master — Hungary's PM Viktor Orbán — also served in the EU Permanent Representation of Hungary. As his time at the permanent representation largely coincided with these aggressive intelligence operations and the establishment of the Information Office's special unit focused on the European Union, it is reasonable to question whether he knew. The scandal may chase not only Várhelyi and Orbán, but Magyar too, thus revealing that it's Hungary's entire political class and system at risk of losing the EU's trust. The ball is now in Ursula von der Leyen's court and in the hands of the European Parliament. They must determine whether sufficient confidence exists between Várhelyi, the government that nominated him, the council that made his appointment, the commission president, and the parliament itself. That confidence is not a formality — it is the foundation upon which commissioner independence rests. But the decision before them transcends one commissioner's fate. It poses a question the European Union has never had to answer so starkly: what happens when a member state treats the institutions it helped create not as a common project, but as hostile territory to be infiltrated and undermined? The allegations against Várhelyi emerge against a backdrop of increasingly compromised commissioner independence. Recent years have witnessed persistent concerns about commissioners maintaining overly close relationships with their national capitals, effectively re-nationalising an institution designed to transcend member state interests. Yet Várhelyi's case represents something far more serious: where other commissioners may have informally coordinated with home governments, the alleged presence of intelligence operatives within his mission represents systematic institutional infiltration rather than mere policy alignment. This case serves as a definitive stress test. Either the union enforces the 'beyond doubt' standard of commissioner independence with meaningful consequences — including the unprecedented step of leaving Hungary's commissioner seat vacant — or it tacitly admits that this principle has become a polite fiction that member states may violate with impunity. The decision will determine not just one commissioner's fate, but whether the EU's founding principle of institutional independence retains any real meaning when tested by a member state willing to spy on Brussels itself. Alberto Alemanno is an academic, author and one of the leading voices on the democratisation of the EU. He is Democracy Fellow at Harvard University , Jean Monnet Professor at HEC Paris and founder of The Good Lobby . Alberto Alemanno is an academic, author and one of the leading voices on the democratisation of the EU. He is Democracy Fellow at Harvard University , Jean Monnet Professor at HEC Paris and founder of
|
The Good Lobby
|
The Várhelyi spying allegations pose a question the European Union has never had to answer so starkly: what happens when a member state treats the institutions it helped create not as a common project, but as hostile territory to be infiltrated and undermined? asks Alberto Alemanno.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-10-14T09:22:10.492Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/arfb57f7e9
|
Meta and Google stop political ads, hurting research on EU
|
Political researchers have raised concerns their work would be affected due to Meta and Google's decision to cease their official political ad services and adjust their ad archives – a move responding to the EU's new advertising regulations. With the EU's new regulation on the transparency and targeting of political advertisements (TTPA), and its enforcement on 10 October , US tech giants Meta and Google decided to stop serving political ads in member states due to what they believed were unattainable added complexities and legal liabilities. But political observers had relied on ads on Meta and Google's ad platforms for their analysis, studying both who bought ads and what political narrative each ad pushed. For example, studies analysing digital political advertising have found populist actors exploited digital platforms to circumvent traditional media. The changes also affected researchers such as Trisha Meyer, who authored a 2025 report for the European Digital Media Observatory on political-ad transparency, compliance, and targeting on Meta and Google's platforms during the last European election. She argued that political advertising will just become less visible. "I don't think it's going to take place less," she told EUobserver. Instead, Meyer thinks ads will move to users' feeds, such as direct posts from political parties' accounts or influencer marketing. "We've now just moved that into a space that is harder to research," she said, explaining that the change "shifted the blind spot," because there was less access to data for researchers. Meyer sees political ads as crucial for understanding the state of democracy in Europe, highlighting an insight from her report that further substantiates claims that far-right parties went on spending sprees in the last election in 2024. Her research found the far-right Belgian Vlaams Belang spent €429,000 in the run-up to the European election in May, and Hungary's Fidesz comprised 71.5 percent of the country's online ad spending. She believes such insights are now much more difficult to calculate due to changes in the platforms and archives — a sentiment that's shared by transparency researchers across the board. Modern elections "We're not going to find it easy to adapt. It really did change the tone of the type of work that we would be trying to do in the EU," Sam Jeffers, executive director and co-founder of Who Targets Me , a political advertising transparency non-profit, told EUobserver. The non-profit used this data to create a resource for real-time political ad accountability intended for researchers and journalists. Who Targets Me relied on the ad transparency data, which Meta opened to the public in 2018 , and Google in 2023 , containing historical ads. Launching these tools after calls for transparency when the 2016 US election of president Donald Trump and the Brexit referendum demonstrated the political power of targeted online advertising. To respond to this power, the EU decided to concretise its TTPA rules, hoping to improve the practice of online political advertising – rules that caused that Meta and Google to change their services Now, in Google's Ads Transparency Centre, when searching for political ads in the member states, it goes to a page listing supported regions with political ads, which excludes the EU. And in Meta's Ad Library , you can still find archived-ad metadata, which includes info on who purchased ads, how much they spent, and how many ads they bought, but the "issues, elections, or politics" category no longer appears for searches about EU nations, and you cannot see the ads themselves. The pulling of political ads online comes at an inopportune time for researchers, as political parties and organisations rapidly shift their campaigns online. According to a 2024 AdLens report , political advertising in Belgium on Google and Meta rose to €15m in 2024. "Digital campaigning is a huge part of the modern reality of trying to win elections. And, I think we were trying to help the discipline of that to improve," said Jeffers. Jeffers explains how the work is now "harder for us in a world where actually the majority of what's going to be needed now is more investigatory work." Investigatory work Meta saw their position as an unintended consequence of the significant obligations added by the new regulation, but confirmed that they were not removing access to archived ads from their libraries. In a statement to EUobserver, a commission spokesperson explained that they were aware of the impact the new regulations have and will continue to discuss this topic. The commission believes the regulation will still help with political-ad transparency and emphasised it "does not ban political advertising," the spokesperson said. "We are also in contact with stakeholders and member states to assess the possible impact of Meta's commercial decision," they said. To support compliance, the European Commission released practical guidelines
|
on 8 October, two days before enforcement.
|
Political researchers have raised concerns their work would be affected due to Meta and Google's decision to cease their official ad services – a move responding to new EU regulations.
|
[
"Digital"
] |
digital
|
2025-10-14T06:14:55.872Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ar63b2aab1
|
The idea of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine – explained
|
“The evidence of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine is plain to see. Unpunished crimes only encourage new atrocities,” said EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas on Monday (13 October), as she pledged €10m to support the creation of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. Kallas made the announcement during a press conference in Kyiv alongside Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha. The topic was also discussed on Monday by EU ministers for home affairs during a meeting in Luxembourg. But what exactly would such a tribunal mean in practice? Special tribunals are a dedicated international court created to prosecute specific crimes, separate from existing institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC). From a legal point of view, the tribunal is necessary since the ICC cannot legally prosecute Russia for attacking Ukraine because Russia never ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC. But the special tribunal is designed to work alongside the ICC, coordinating with it. Already in 2023, EU justice commissioner Reynders admitted that going through the ICC was the "gold solution" and called setting up the special tribunal the "silver" solution. The golden solution was always very unlikely since such an attempt would have been blocked by Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council with a veto right. “If we want to prevent wars in the future, we must punish the states and leaders who start wars now,” said Oleksandra Matviichu, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer and head of the Centre for Civil Liberties. “A lot has changed since the Nuremberg tribunal, but Ukraine had to make enormous efforts to convince the international community that we should not wait and make justice dependent on the outcome of the war,” she said. The tribunal will have the power to investigate and prosecute Russian political and military leaders considered responsible for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. The crime of aggression, dubbed the "mother of all crimes" or “the supreme international crime” as no other war crimes would be committed without it. It involves using armed force against another state's sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence, according to the UN. The tribunal will be established within the Council of Europe's institutional structure. And it will prosecute crimes that occur only in Ukraine. Even if a tribunal is legally sound, it has struggled to gain global credibility, especially among countries of the Global South, which see the establishment of special tribunals as selective by Western states, with examples such as the invasion of Iraq or the lack of action against Israel over Gaza fuelling scepticism. “The complete absence of any accountability for those responsible at the leadership level at the time shows a strange understanding of the so-called rule-based international legal order, which should guarantee the same application of the law for everyone,” Kai Ambos, a German jurist and professor of criminal law at the University of Göttingen, argued in 2023. Ambos also wrote that the regional initiative under the Council of Europe only provides “limited legitimacy” and that setting up a fully operational tribunal — with its own staff, buildings, and procedures could take years. The Ukrainian tribunal is often compared to the Nuremberg Trials (1945–1946) where, after World War II, and for the first time in history, state leaders were held personally responsible for launching illegal wars. But legal scholars argue that the comparison is misleading since the International Military Tribunal was a result of the Allies winning the war and the military defeat of Nazi Germany — which seems unlikely when it comes to Russia. Another of the challenges is how this special tribunal will be funded, leaving it up to voluntary contributions, which increases the uncertainty. The tribunal will be run and funded by the countries that choose to participate, under the so-called "enlarged partial agreement". The Council of Europe said that the exact costs are still being worked out and that they are likely to be similar to other international or internationalised criminal tribunals. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) which was set up by the UN Security Council to prosecute crimes linked to the genocide in the African country, spent about $1bn [€860m] over its first 10 years , delivering one verdict. Costs are often cited as surpassing $2bn. So Monday’s announcement of €10m, the first concrete such pledge, remains far from what would in total be needed. In February, senior legal experts from the European Commission, the European External Action Service, the non-EU Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, Ukraine and 37 states laid down the legal foundations for the establishment of a special tribunal in the “Schuman draft Statute”. The creation of this special tribunal was officially requested by the Ukrainian authorities on 13 May 2025 — a few days after a coalition of states gathered in Lviv to endorse the move, including Kallas and other EU high-ranking officials. Finally, in July, Ukraine and the Council of Europe signed an agreement to establish this tribunal, including the
|
statutes
|
EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas has pledged €10m to support the creation of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. But what exactly would such a tribunal mean in practice — and what are the difficulties?
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-14T05:34:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar29f676fd
|
AI and green trends in workplace will hit women harder
|
Three major transitions — digital, green and demographic — influence the current labour market, and women are disproportionately affected by these shifts, experts warn. During a panel discussion held in Brussels on Monday (13 October), trade union representatives voiced concerns that future-oriented jobs in the digital and green sectors remain significantly male-dominated, with men representing over 60 percent of employees in these fields. Jobs in construction, transport, industry, and agriculture are those often regarded as “future-oriented occupations" or, in other words, they are expected to grow and remain relevant in the future. Earlier this year, the European Commission published a report on the future of jobs in the EU, revealing that women are concentrated in professions most vulnerable to automation and the growing influence of AI — making them more at risk of job displacement. Men tend to work in fields where higher digital skills are needed and are more likely to finish training that enhances these digital skills, Nora Wukovits-Votzi, co-author of the report, said during the discussion on Monday. It is estimated that about one-in-five jobs could be affected by AI, with the most hit areas being financial services, education, public administration, health services and construction. In so-called “green jobs,” a term used for occupations connected to sustainability and the environment, the commission found that women account for only 28 percent of the workforce. “The high digitally-skilled male-dominated jobs [are] being much more prioritised," warned Agnieszka Piasna, a senior researcher from the European Trade Union Institute ( ETUI ), referring to the new competitiveness policies currently driven by the commission. She added that female-dominated professions are often overlooked in the name of economic growth. In addition, Europe's current AI workforce, those working and having the expertise to build and sustain AI systems, is seen as small and predominantly male. Stan De Spiegelaere, director of policy and research at UNI Europa reminded participants that major shifts in the labour market are nothing new. As an example, he noted that while the decline of the retail sector has long been predicted, it continues to expand in absolute numbers. Yet, this sector, which is predominated by part-time contracts and precarious employment conditions, remains largely female-dominated. To counter the problems women are likely to face the commission brought forward a STEM education plan with the goal to increase the number of girls and women enrolled in STEM fields to at least 45 percent by 2030. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Women are more likely than men to suffer from evolutions in the workplace, as they are underrepresented in digital and green jobs.
|
[
"Green Economy",
"Health & Society",
"Labour"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-10-13T15:44:08.008Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar1ee4615c
|
Listen: Hostages freed ahead of peace summit in Egypt without Hamas
|
After more than two years of war between Israel and Hamas, all remaining living hostages have been released, a ceasefire has taken hold, and world leaders are gathering in Egypt to talk peace, but only one side of the conflict will be there. So, what kind of peace can be built without Hamas at the table? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: After more than two years of war between Israel and Hamas, all remaining living hostages have been released, a ceasefire has taken hold, and world leaders are gathering in Egypt to talk peace, but only one side of the conflict will be there. So, what kind of peace can be built without Hamas at the table? The Israeli military confirmed that the final hostages held by Hamas in Gaza have now been freed. Seven people were released first and followed by a second group of thirteen, marking the release of all 20 living hostages still held in Gaza. Their freedom comes as part of a major deal in which Israel approved the release of 1,718 Palestinian prisoners and expects the return of the bodies of 28 Israeli hostages who died in captivity. In Tel Aviv, an estimated 65,000 people gathered at what’s now known as Hostages Square to celebrate, while US president Donald Trump was landing in Israel. Trump, who has taken credit for brokering the ceasefire, declared before take-off that “the war is over.” After addressing the Israeli parliament, he’s heading to Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt to co-host what’s being called the Summit for Peace with Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. More than 20 world leaders are attending: France’s Emmanuel Macron, Spain’s Pedro Sánchez, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, and EU Council president António Costa, among others. The aim, according to the Egyptian presidency, is to “end the war in the Gaza Strip, enhance peace and stability in the Middle East, and open a new page of regional security.” And in a last-minute change, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu will attend the summit, joining Trump and al-Sisi as co-chairs. It was previously thought Israel would not take part, but the Egyptian presidency confirmed Netanyahu’s participation just hours before the meeting. Hamas, however, has said it will not attend, calling the event a “peace summit” that excludes the very people under siege. Of course, the release of the hostages is being hailed as a historic moment, especially for families who have waited more than 700 days for news of their loved ones. But beyond the celebrations, the future looks uncertain. Trump’s 20-point peace plan, which remains unpublished in full, includes the disarmament of Hamas, the withdrawal of Israeli troops, and the creation of a new Palestinian security force backed by international partners. A “board of peace,” chaired by Trump himself, is meant to oversee Gaza’s post-war governance. Yet none of this has been agreed by the parties involved. Israel’s government has not pledged a full withdrawal from Gaza, and far-right members of Netanyahu’s coalition have warned that any such move would collapse the government. At the same time, Hamas has shown little sign of surrendering arms. Reports from Gaza say the group has already re-established checkpoints and clashed with rival factions in areas evacuated by Israeli troops. So what’s next? Well the peace meeting will set the tone for the future that leaders hope will focus on reconstruction and governance. The World Bank estimates rebuilding Gaza could cost around $53bn. Egypt has proposed a reconstruction plan and will host a donors’ conference later this year. The UK has pledged £20m for water and sanitation projects, and Germany has said it will co-host the recovery conference. But the main problem is the political governance of Gaza. Israel rejects any role for the Palestinian Authority. Hamas refuses to disarm. And with both sides absent from the peace summit, the ceasefire’s future depends largely on the ability of outsiders like Egypt, Qatar, and Trump, to hold it together. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
After more than two years of war between Israel and Hamas, all remaining living hostages have been released, a ceasefire has taken hold, and world leaders are gathering in Egypt to talk peace, but only one side of the conflict will be there. So, what kind of peace can be built without Hamas at the table?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-13T14:15:13.211Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar77debac7
|
The S&D's plan for a European social leasing revolution for electric cars
|
Cars have long been a cornerstone of Europe’s economic strength. However, today the continent’s automotive industry is under pressure, as trade disruptions, rising energy costs, raw material shortages, and shrinking demand for European cars converge. Most concerning is the rapid rise of non-European competitors, steadily gaining ground in global markets. To protect Europe’s industrial backbone, we must make electric mobility accessible to all Europeans by boosting demand through a bold commitment to social leasing. Some in the European automotive industry still pin their hopes on ever-more efficient combustion engines to secure their future. Yet, history shows the danger of such a path of dependency: Nokia once dominated the mobile phone market but failed to respond to the iPhone revolution. Faster, more efficient keyboard phones were no match for touchscreens and apps. We must ensure that our car manufacturers don’t fall into the same trap. Europe, therefore, stands at a crossroads. The race is on to put green, European-made, and affordable electric vehicles (EVs) on our roads—– before Chinese EVs seize the market entirely. The European Commission recognises this urgency. In her State of the Union address , EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced a forthcoming ‘small affordable cars initiative’, creating a new ‘e-car’ category aimed at affordable, lightweight and clean vehicles. It is a clear sign of the times. This shift in focus is highly welcome. Today, it is bankers, consultants, and lawyers — those who can already afford electric vehicles — who benefit most from tax breaks and subsidies. For many other Europeans, however, an EV still remains out of reach — especially for working people who would benefit the most from affordable clean mobility: farmers, social care workers, and factory workers — those who depend on cars to do their jobs, often working irregular hours, in areas poorly served by public transport, or when multiple daily trips are unavoidable. The race is on to put green, European-made, and affordable electric vehicles (EVs) on our roads—– before Chinese EVs seize the market entirely That’s why the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) Group in the European Parliament is pushing for a European Social Leasing Plan — so that clean mobility is not a privilege for the few, but a right for all. Our European social leasing plan The concept is straightforward: make EVs affordable for low- and middle-income households through a modest monthly leasing fee. A points-based system taking into account income, family size, place of residence, and commuting needs would guarantee fairness. Priority would go to those with the fewest alternatives: rural residents, shift workers, and families struggling on lower incomes. To qualify, EVs would need to meet the highest social and environmental standards, alongside strict data storage rules. In practice, this means only EU-made vehicles would be eligible. In doing so, Europe not only supports its citizens, but also strengthens its industry and support its workers. Member states don’t need to wait for permission to start. In their social climate plans, they are already required to submit a list of measures to target transport-poverty directly. One obvious solution lies in social leasing; a measure the commission itself encourages governments to adopt. Yet, we need action on a European scale. Europe has proven before — most strikingly with the joint purchase of Covid vaccines — that it can wield real power when it acts together. By pooling their efforts, member states could once again mandate the commission to negotiate a European deal with manufacturers and leasing companies, tailored to each country’s needs but backed by the strength of collective demand. Three birds with one stone A recent study by the Oeko-Institut e shows that from 2026 to 2032, social leasing could support up to three million households in just a few member states. Scaled across the EU over a decade, that figure could surpass ten million households. The benefits are threefold. First, our automotive industry becomes more competitive through a reliable market for small EVs, which in turn spurs domestic battery production. Today, China dominates the battery value chain, while Europe urgently needs its own capacity. Second, Europe takes a decisive step towards its climate goals by further boosting the supply and uptake of electric vehicles. Thirdly, citizens gain access to affordable mobility options. While public transport remains vital for lifting millions of Europeans out of transport poverty, the social leasing of EVs can expand access to work, education, and leisure for households and regions where cars are indispensable. All of this has a knock-on effect on the second-hand car market. Today, used EVs remain prohibitively expensive, slowing wider adoption. By expanding access now, we can accelerate the necessary growth of a healthy, affordable second-hand car market, bringing electric mobility within reach of even more Europeans. A European promise Clinging to combustion engines offers nothing but false hope and risks blocking the development of new and innovative players. By contrast, a European Social Leasing Plan could be the catalyst for the growth of our industries of tomorrow. Imagine every town and neighbourhood where the cars driven daily by farmers, factory workers, and nurses are electric. Consider that this will lead everyone to breathe cleaner air, while these quieter cars create a calmer atmosphere: quieter streets, more room for the sounds of nature, or an undisturbed chat in a café by the street, becoming the new soundtrack of the European way of life. All this thanks to greener cars, made in European factories that provide quality jobs. This would serve as a visible sign that Europe stands with its citizens, honours its climate commitments, and invests in its industrial future. Social leasing delivers on all three. By creating additional and stable demand for affordable EVs, Europe can fight transport poverty, advance its climate commitments, and ensure that the next generation of cars is proudly built in Europe. Iratxe García Pérez is a Spanish MEP and president of the Progressive Alliance of the Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. Mohammed Chahim is a Dutch MEP and S&D vice-president for the Green Deal for Industry, Energy and Climate and Financing the Just Transition. Iratxe García Pérez is a Spanish MEP and president of the Progressive Alliance of the Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.
|
Mohammed Chahim
|
To protect Europe’s industrial backbone, we must make electric mobility accessible to all Europeans by boosting demand through a bold commitment to social leasing, write the president and vice-president of the Socialists & Democrats.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-10-13T10:22:02.270Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar58e492a2
|
Dutch government takes control of Chinese chip-maker under rare law
|
The Dutch government has imposed sweeping restrictions on Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia, citing “serious governance shortcomings” at the semiconductor manufacturer. The minister of economic affairs Vincent Karremans, announced late on Sunday (12 October) that he had invoked the Goods Availability Act on 30 September to prevent “a situation in which the goods produced by Nexperia (finished and semi-finished products) would become unavailable in an emergency.” Under the measure, Nexperia is barred for one year from moving company assets, appointing new executives, or making key strategic decisions without explicit government approval. The ministry did not specify what governance shortcomings triggered the decision. Nexperia, formerly part of Dutch chipmaker NXP, was acquired by Chinese holding company Wingtech in 2019 and produces large volumes of standard semiconductors used in cars, consumer electronics and other industries, making it a crucial link in Europe’s technology supply chains. Corporate coup The Dutch move came just hours after Wingtech filed a complaint at the Shanghai Stock Exchange, accusing the Netherlands of freezing Nexperia's assets. In a WeChat statement ( since deleted ), it called the move a “politicised coup” orchestrated by the Dutch government and “foreign executives.” But Dutch newspaper NRC reported on Sunday that the measure was partly driven by fears Nexperia might transfer chip-related know-how to China. Insiders indicated that a leak of sensitive intellectual property appeared imminent. And on Monday, during a midday press briefing, EU Commission spokesperson Olof Gill said the EU executive had been in “close contact” with The Hague on the matter. “We recall that protecting technological security is a priority of the EU’s economic security strategy,” he added. The Amsterdam Enterprise Chamber has also suspended Nexperia's chief executive Zhang Xuezheng as an emergency measure. The decision followed an urgent petition filed on 1 October by Nexperia's Dutch chief legal officer, Ruben Lichtenberg, with the support of chief financial officer Stefan Tilger and chief operating officer Achim Kempe — both German nationals. The three executives asked the court to launch a corporate investigation into Nexperia's governance and to impose immediate provisional measures to protect the company's independence and decision-making. After a fast-track hearing on 6 October, the court granted one of those measures by suspending Zhang and appointing a temporary non-Chinese executive to replace him. 'Excessive intervention' “The Dutch government's decision to freeze Nexperia's global operations under the pretext of 'national security' constitutes excessive intervention driven by geopolitical bias, rather than a fact-based risk assessment,” the Chinese firm said in its filing. “We have initiated all available legal and diplomatic measures to demand that the Dutch government immediately revoke its erroneous order,” it added. “The semiconductor industry is a product of globalisation. Its future depends on collaboration, not confrontation,” Wingtech said. “Governments should provide a fair, non-discriminatory business environment.” The Dutch government said it made the “highly exceptional move” to “prevent governance shortcomings” specifically at Nexperia and that the measure is not directed at other companies. While Nexperia can continue normal production, the government now has the power to block or reverse any of its business decisions. Company decisions may be overturned “if they are (potentially) harmful to the interests of the company, to its future as a Dutch and European enterprise, and/or to the preservation of this critical value chain for Europe,” the ministry stated. Following the announcement from The Hague, Wingtech shares fell by the maximum daily limit of 10 percent on the Shanghai Stock Exchange.
|
Wester is a journalist from the Netherlands with a focus on the green economy. He joined EUobserver in September 2021. Previously he was editor-in-chief of Vice, Motherboard, a science-based website, and climate economy journalist for The Correspondent.
|
The Dutch government has imposed sweeping restrictions on Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia, citing "serious governance shortcomings."
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-13T08:47:57.509Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar40fad961
|
From skills gaps to growth: How the EIT Is powering Europe’s talent
|
Europe is facing growing challenges to stay competitive, as the Draghi report recently underlined. For the EU to remain a global leader, it must address one of its most urgent priorities: closing the European skills gap. Across sectors — from digital technology to clean energy — employers struggle to find people with the right expertise, while millions of Europeans risk being left behind by industrial transformation. Yet the issue goes beyond mere shortages. Europe needs to rethink how it learns, teaches, and innovates. Learning can no longer stop at graduation; it must become a lifelong process that connects education, research, and business. And beyond technical know-how, Europe needs people equipped with the entrepreneurial mindset to transform ideas into impact. Europe’s education powerhouse for innovation This is where the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) comes in. Through its unique model that unites education, research, and business, the EIT prepares Europeans of all ages with the skills needed to drive the green and digital transitions. Rather than training in isolation, learners are immersed in Europe’s largest innovation ecosystem, gaining hands-on experience and entrepreneurial skills alongside technical expertise. Already, more than 1.3 million learners have been trained through EIT-supported programmes — from school students inspired by Girls Go Circular, to universities transformed by the Higher Education Initiative, to professionals re-skilled through the EIT Skills Academies. Together, these initiatives ensure that education translates directly into new startups, jobs, and competitiveness for Europe. Targeted skills intelligence for Europe’s industrial transition A core element of the EIT Skills Academies is their data-driven “skills intelligence” approach. Each academy uses detailed mapping to identify what kinds of competencies are needed, at what level, and in which regions — ensuring that training matches the real demands of industry and the labour market. “There’s a clear link between geography and skills demand,” explains Ilaria Tagliavini, head of operations responsible for innovation, education and communication at the EIT. “By analysing regional patterns, we can design trainings that directly respond to local needs.” This evidence-based methodology allows the Skills Academies to channel investments and curricula where they can have the strongest impact — aligning education with Europe’s clean-tech, digital, and industrial priorities. Implementing the EU’s skills policy priorities The European Skills Academies are a cornerstone of this mission. As the EU’s designated implementer of the net-zero industry academies, the EIT is helping build the skilled workforce needed to deliver Europe’s clean-tech transition and industrial competitiveness. To date, four academies have been launched by the EIT Community: the European Battery Alliance Academy (EBA Academy) the European Solar Academy ; the European Raw Materials Academy ; and the European Advanced Materials Academy . Together, they address Europe’s most strategic industrial value chains — batteries, solar energy, raw materials, and advanced materials — each critical to Europe’s strategic autonomy. The EBA Academy, launched in 2022, provides specialised training for workers entering the battery sector and continuous upskilling for existing professionals. The Solar Academy focuses on re-skilling workers in solar photovoltaic manufacturing within three years. The Raw Materials Academy and Advanced Materials Academy, both launched in 2025, will jointly upskill professionals across mining, recycling, circular economy, and advanced manufacturing sectors. Training Europe’s deep tech workforce To complement these industrial academies, the EIT Deep Tech Talent Initiative , launched in 2022, equips Europeans with the skills to develop and deploy technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, cybersecurity, and biotechnology — helping Europe lead in the next wave of innovation. Through a growing network of partners, the initiative has already trained over one million learners in deep tech fields. It brings together companies, training providers, and institutions that have pledged to train students, employees, and the wider public in areas such as machine learning, biotechnology, cybersecurity, and semiconductors. The initiative has also built an open directory of more than 230 certified courses, making advanced training opportunities accessible across Europe and helping learners connect directly with industry needs. “To give an example, a big corporate pledger has created specialised courses on semiconductors,” shares Tagliavini. “They began by training their own workforce but later also made it available to other companies and SMEs involved either in their own network, or in the networks of the EIT KICs (Knowledge and Innovation Communities). It’s a perfect example of how collaboration can multiply impact.” Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets Entrepreneurship lies at the heart of the EIT’s education model. The EIT Higher Education Initiative (HEI) helps universities embed innovation and entrepreneurship institutionally, strengthening their collaboration with industry and their role in technology transfer. “So far, more than 1,000 organisations, including 500 universities, including large corporations and SMEs, have participated,” says Tagliavini. “We’ve already seen over 160 new start-ups created by students involved in these projects — proof that when education and innovation come together, new businesses and jobs follow.” The EIT also nurtures entrepreneurial mindsets from an early age to widen Europe’s talent pool. The Girls Go Circular programme – soon to evolve into Girls Go STEM – promotes gender equality by equipping young women with digital, entrepreneurial, and sustainability skills to prepare them for leadership in STEM and business. Through interactive learning modules and annual challenges on themes such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, the programme helps young women explore innovation as a tool to break barriers and lead change. “Participating in an entrepreneurial course at such a young age and seeing inspiring models who actually break barriers is an incredible thing,” Tagliavini notes. “We want to show these girls that it is possible to have a family, kids, but also to be a successful professional or a start-up’s founder” With more than 90,000 girls from 1,000 schools already engaged, the initiative is opening doors for a new generation of women in STEM and business leadership. Looking ahead: future-proofing Europe All these initiatives will come together at the EIT Education & Skills Days on 15–16 October in Brussels, where policymakers, educators, and innovators will explore how Europe can build the talent base to drive its green and digital future. The event will feature major announcements, new partnerships, and awards celebrating Europe’s most promising learners and educators. The European Institute of Innovation & Technology is an EU body that drives innovation by linking education, research, and business to turn ideas into impact. This article was produced in collaboration with EUobserver.
|
The European Institute of Innovation & Technology
|
As Europe faces mounting pressure to stay globally competitive, the skills gap has become one of its biggest obstacles. The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) is stepping in with a model that links education, research, and business to train a new generation for the green and digital transitions.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-10-13T04:30:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/ar7259ed1a
|
Working for women’s rights in a hostile committee
|
“We need to resist all of those who are violating these basic values and rights of women. Unfortunately, these are together with us in this parliament”, said the vice-chair of the committee on women’s rights and gender equality, Croatian S&D MEP Marko Vešligaj, during a plenary debate on Thursday (9 October). And she wasn't joking. The chair of the committee, Spanish MEP Lina Gálvez Muñoz from the same party, told EUobserver something similar: “They [the far-right] are using women’s rights and gender equality for supporting [a] xenophobic and anti-immigration agenda.” Since the European Parliament election in 2024, the majority in the parliament is centre-right to far-right. This has made working for gender rights more difficult, said Gálvez Muñoz. The Spanish Social Democrat is concerned that the centre-right European People's Party is now able to form an alternative majority with the far-right parties in the parliament and the committee. As an example, she pointed out that the EPP sided with the far-right groups when it came to the topic of feminist foreign policy: “Just because the majority, an alternative majority, decided that 'feminist' is not a word to use.” During the plenary in Strasbourg, MEPs with commissioner Jessika Roswell discussed the EU Commission's Roadmap for Women’s Rights and the Declaration of Principles for a Gender-Equal Society published in March. Gálvez Muñoz described the commission as a bigger ally than the council, adding that many member states pose a problem while others are pioneers when it comes to gender equality. However, she noted that the roadmap was not ambitious enough for her. She expects the new Gender Equality Strategy 2026-2030 , to be published early next year, will be where "we are finally able to bring equality to all policies and to all policy cycles”. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
A plenary debate in Strasbourg on gender equality showed just how active and outspoken rightwing MEPs have become. Chair of the women's rights and gender equality committee, MEP Lina Gálvez Muñoz, is concerned about the power they now have.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-10-10T14:07:22.589Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/are841b3e1
|
Listen: With EU politicians contaminated with PFAS, will Brussels finally act?
|
Over the summer, a group of 24 European politicians, ministers, commissioners, senior officials, agreed to have their blood tested for toxic PFAS chemicals. The results that now came out showed that every single one of them tested positive. But will these results push Brussels to act or to water down its own rules again? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: These are the so-called “forever chemicals”, man-made substances used to make things non-stick, waterproof, and stain-resistant. You’ll find them in outdoor clothing, cookware, cosmetics, even food packaging. The problem is, PFAS don’t break down naturally. They linger in our water, our soil, and, as it turns out, our bodies. They’ve been linked to cancer, liver damage, fertility issues, and developmental problems. Half of the EU politicians tested had contamination levels high enough to suggest potential health impacts. Denmark’s environment minister, Magnus Heunicke, called his results “a frightening reality.” And EU commissioner Jessika Roswall admitted she tested positive for six types of PFAS, some known to harm reproductive health. The testing was part of an initiative launched by Denmark during its EU Council presidency, in partnership with NGOs like the European Environmental Bureau and ChemSec. And the results confirm what scientists have warned for years: PFAS contamination spares no one. Now ChemSec estimates that 99 percent of the global population already has PFAS in their blood. And cleaning up the contamination across Europe could cost up to €2 trillion over the next two decades, plus billions more in annual health costs. These findings landed just as Brussels faces growing pressure to weaken parts of its chemical protection laws, supposedly to help European industry remain “competitive.” The UN’s special rapporteur on toxics, Marcos Orellana, even warned that these rollbacks risk undermining the EU’s credibility as a global green leader. So, on one hand, we have mounting evidence that PFAS are harming people and ecosystems. On the other, we see proposals to dilute the very laws meant to protect us from them. So, what happens now? Five countries, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, have jointly proposed an EU-wide phase-out of thousands of PFAS chemicals. The European Chemicals Agency is currently assessing it, but industry groups are already lobbying hard for exemptions. They argue PFAS are “critical” for things like semiconductors, batteries, and pharmaceuticals, conveniently some of Europe’s most profitable sectors. Meanwhile, NGOs are calling for a universal ban with no loopholes and no exceptions. And some results do offer hope. One official, the head of the European Environment Agency, showed a decline in PFAS levels compared to previous tests, proving that where restrictions are in place, exposure falls. So, regulation works. The European Commission says it will propose limits on consumer uses of PFAS next year and is preparing a major revision of its chemicals law, REACH. But as with so many green files in Brussels these days, the timeline is uncertain and the politics are messy. So, while Europe debates the definition of “acceptable risk,” the chemicals keep spreading. Into the rivers, into the food chain, and into our blood. Maybe “forever” isn’t just a chemical property, it’s how long it’ll take Europe to clean up its own toxic mess Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
Over the summer, a group of 24 European politicians, ministers, commissioners, senior officials, agreed to have their blood tested for toxic PFAS chemicals. The results that now came out showed that every single one of them tested positive. But will these results push Brussels to act or to water down its own rules again?
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-10-10T13:21:30.755Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar308cb9c0
|
China's PR offensive in Europe rings hollow
|
China's ambassador to the EU, Cai Run, has been busy since he arrived in Brussels a year ago. On social media, in luncheons with business, at this month's National Day reception and on the pages of this site , he has been striving to present a vision of peaceful cooperation, mutual success, and shared prosperity between China and Europe. His call for closer ties is grounded in the powerful appeal of anniversaries: 50 years of EU-China relations, for which the Chinese Mission organised an art contest, or 80 years since the end of World War Two (or as ambassador Cai and the Chinese state have begun to say, “the World Anti-Fascist War”) and the founding of the United Nations. While these narratives may appear clunky or innocuous, they are sustained by the dangerous omission of the human rights realities that define daily life to many people in mainland China, as well as those in Taiwan. Over the last several years, the Chinese government has issued high-level statements about the importance of peace and positioned itself as a broker between Russia and Ukraine, the Myanmar junta and armed groups, and Iran and Saudi Arabia. But at the same time, they have allowed the export of arms and materiel to Sudan and Myanmar and of censorship and surveillance technologies to Pakistan, Kazakhstan and the Solomon Islands, just as examples. They have made it clear that, when it comes to Russia, the two countries are “true friends” and “good neighbours” — and that China’s markets remain open to Russian business. Taiwan Nowhere else is the contradiction between lofty Chinese diplomatic ideals and calculated action more clear than in Taiwan. Recent years were already marked by increasing military build-up of the People’s Liberation Army and aggressive remarks, including from president Xi Jinping. But now Taiwan is facing escalating military threats from the Chinese military, as fighter jets and warships routinely cross the median line of the Taiwan Strait and large-scale blockade drills are staged around the island. In addition, the decision-making mechanisms under Xi Jinping are highly opaque, making it hard to assess the current level of danger. All of this is raising the risk of violent confrontation, jeopardizing lives and instilling fear and uncertainty among civilians. Vulnerable groups like older people and children are especially affected. These acts are not only symbolic — they expressly attempt to intimidate and destabilize the public and civil society on the island. They present a clear and present danger to human rights. Simultaneously, according to Taiwan’s National Security Bureau, Chinese disinformation campaigns included up to 2.4 million cyberattacks per day in 2024, and other forms of hybrid warfare that erode Taiwan’s peace and stability and infringe upon the basic rights of its people. Authorities in mainland China and Taiwan both must ensure an enabling environment for freedom of expression, including by promoting a free, independent and diverse communications environment. This aggressive posture stands in stark contradiction to the peaceful rhetoric China promotes in Europe. If China truly understands the devastation of World War II — as it claims in its commemorative reflections — it should recognise that threatening the lives and freedom of millions in Taiwan is a betrayal of the very lessons it proclaims to have learned. Another measure of China’s commitment to dialogue and cooperation is the extent to which those activities — inherent in the “genuine multilateralism” that the government claims to uphold — actually result in concrete improvement at home. The absence of these is clearly reflected in the concluding observations of various human rights treaty reviews and the outcome of its Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations. The Chinese government, despite having a good track record in responding to and engaging with those human rights mechanisms, has taken little to no meaningful steps in the last 10 years to implement the recommendations they set out. Uyghurs, Hong Kong, Tibet Key examples include the repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and the criminalisation of the defence of human rights across the country, the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong and the ongoing efforts to curtail cultural and linguistic rights of Tibetans. These are not isolated incidents — they are systemic violations that demand international scrutiny. And yet when European countries seek dialogue on these issues — on the occasion of bilateral visits, or for the EU-China Summit — China consistently dismisses efforts to raise human rights concerns as “interference in internal affairs” and attacks on its sovereignty. Instead of issuing a standing invitation to UN human rights expert mechanisms, as most European countries have done, China has played an extreme game of pick-and-choose. The foreign ministry of China has ignored repeated requests for more than a decade from special procedures mandate-holders focused on a range of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, but fast-tracked the visits of others — such as the UN specialrapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures. This arbitrary approach to multilateralism erodes trust and undermines the very principles of cooperation and peace that China claims to uphold, and it should serve as a red flag warning to European leaders: if they find it convenient to take Chinese officials at their word, they should also be prepared to insist on accountability for Chinese government actions. China’s narratives of partnership will remain hollow until it ceases its threats against Taiwan and others and addresses the human rights abuses within its own borders. Only by confronting these contradictions can we build a future grounded in genuine peace, justice, and mutual respect. E-Ling Chiu is executive director of Amnesty International Taiwan . E-Ling Chiu is executive director of
|
Amnesty International Taiwan
|
The Chinese government has issued statements about the importance of peace and positioned itself as a broker between Russia and Ukraine, the Myanmar junta and armed groups, and Iran and Saudi Arabia. But at the same time, they have allowed the export of arms to Sudan and Myanmar and of censorship and surveillance technologies to Pakistan, Kazakhstan and the Solomon Islands.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-10T10:34:14.097Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar15f34f02
|
MEPs discuss proxy voting for pregnant women and new mothers
|
Allowing MEPs who are pregnant women and new mothers to vote via proxy was discussed at the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee (AFCO) on Thursday (9 October). The parliament wants to change the rules when it comes to voting in the plenary. However, the mandate for MEPs is personal and cannot be transferred — thus, until now, it is not possible for pregnant women or who recently gave birth and therefore can’t attend the plenary sessions to cast their vote. And at the moment there is no possibility of maternity leave for MEPs. In June parliament president Roberta Metsola called for a modernisation of the rules to support MEPs who are becoming parents. All parties in the AFCO committee agreed on the draft and supported allowing women to vote by proxy. However, MEPs from the Greens, the Left and the liberal Renew Europe pointed out that fathers were missing in the draft and demanded including them in the amendment as well. For the centre-right European People's Party, Romanian MEP Loránt Vincze said his party would not support including fathers and paternity leave in the draft as giving birth is something only a woman can do. The far-right parties — Patriots for Europe and European Conservatives and Reformists — presented similar positions. Juan Fernando López Aguilar, a Spanish Socialists & Democrats MEP responsible for the dossier, pointed out that — while he supported the idea of including fathers — that the member states in the council would not agree to that. The draft can now be amended until middle of October and will most likely be voted on during the next AFCO committee meeting on 4 November. After that the council has to agree on it unanimously before the matter will be taken to the national parliaments. Currently, another draft of changing the electoral law of the EU lies with the council and has been discussed since 2022. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
The European Parliament wants to allow pregnant MEPs absent from the chamber to vote in plenary sessions. But it's expected that the European Council’s consent will be difficult.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-10-09T13:04:05.931Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar294e7e18
|
Ceasefire, yes. Now what about accountability for Israel's genocide?
|
For nearly two years we called to stop the genocide in Gaza. And now, the genocide suddenly stopped, as we all knew it will — by a simple decision of the Trump administration in Washington. Not by the United Nations, not by the orders of the International Court of Justice, and clearly not by any European government or the European Union, which were totally irrelevant. It was only Washington that could decide when exactly enough is enough. Pax Americana. But pax means peace and this is just a ceasefire. A fragile one, as the Israeli regime may resume its military assault on Gaza in the coming months or in the coming years. We have seen some periods of relative calm already before, and that did not transform the situation in any meaningful way. Obviously, we welcome the ceasefire. In a way, we should be happy, and somehow, we even are. We can breathe again, in relief for the end of the daily killing, the starvation, the human suffering beyond imagination, beyond words. The fire has ceased. But again, this is only a ceasefire. Not peace. But most importantly, this much-needed and welcomed ceasefire does not change the simple fact that Israel has just committed a genocide in Gaza . We got so much used to this term now, that the G word has become almost normal. But let this acknowledgement sink in for a moment: Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza. Where do we go from here? The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 has basically two parts. First, preventing genocide, which the world, including European states, clearly failed to do, even though it is a clear legal and moral obligation. So, we already failed in doing that. In fact, in many ways, European governments enabled and even supported this genocide, notably by delivery of arms to Israel and by providing the Israeli regime diplomatic and full political support — at least until recently. The second part of the convention is about the punishment of the ones responsible for this crime of crimes. You do not commit a genocide and then simply go back to business as usual. Otherwise, this is normalisation of this crime. It shows everyone around that you can commit a genocide and get away with it. But this is exactly what the European governments and the EU are doing at this moment. Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire? We freeze all the debate on possible sanctions against Israel. They sign a deal? We go back to exactly where we were before with the EU-Israel association agreement and move on with our lives. This is impunity. As an Israeli, I often ask myself: how did we get here? How the Israeli society, in which I grew up, ended up in committing a genocide? Total impunity Impunity is one of the first answers that come to mind. For decades, Europe has granted Israel and Israelis total impunity, never holding us accountable for our crimes against the Palestinians: ongoing military occupation, the construction of illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories, unlawful killing, entrenching apartheid in the West Bank , the blockade of Gaza strip and the previous military operations there with thousands killed, and the list is long. Very long. It is also this policy of impunity, this business as usual, this normalisation of occupation and apartheid, that brought us this disaster on us — Palestinians and Israelis alike. But enough is enough. We cannot afford to normalise genocide . Normalisation of these crimes is exactly how we got here in the first place. And if we do not change this pattern of impunity, the Israeli regime may very well go back to its criminal behaviour and practices, like criminals often do, committing the same crime again — against Palestinians in Gaza, and probably also in the West Bank, as it already started doing in the past two years. So, when we ask ourselves now what the next step is, the first step is rather simple: holding Israel accountable for the crime of genocide. And holding the European governments and leaders, and the EU and its leaders, for their complicity in this terrible crime. Accountability is necessary to stop these crimes from repeating themselves. The Israeli political leaders and military commanders who are responsible for the genocide must be brought to justice and punished for their crimes. We cannot just move on. Back to business as usual is not an option. Normalisation of the crime of genocide is not an option. And normalisation of the current Israeli genocidal regime is not an option either. This regime must be held accountable for what it has done. Otherwise, they will do it again. European governments and the EU do have a role to play here in showing to the world, to Israelis and the Palestinians, to the Europeans, that those who commit a genocide will be held accountable. That a regime that commits a genocide is not a privileged trade partner with the European Union. And its representatives are not welcome in Europe. Any other option is more of the same – granting total impunity to the Israeli regime. And we have seen where it got us. Europe must hold Israel accountable for the Gaza genocide. Dr Yoav Shemer-Kunz is a political scientist and co-founder of European Jews for Palestine (EJP). Dr Yoav Shemer-Kunz is a political scientist and co-founder of
|
European Jews for Palestine
|
This much-needed and welcomed ceasefire does not change the simple fact that Israel has just committed a genocide in Gaza. We got so much used to this term now, that the 'G' word became almost normal. Where do we go from here? asks Dr Yoav Shemer-Kunz of European Jews for Palestine.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2025-10-09T09:39:38.927Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/arc1563476
|
MEPs call for stronger enforcement of digital regulation
|
MEPs called on Wednesday (8 October) for stronger enforcement of digital rules, amid concerns over external pressures that can undermine Europe’s digital sovereignty. The European Commission has outlined how they are enforcing the EU’s digital regulation, citing this year's decision to impose multimillion-euro fines on both Apple and Meta for breaching rules under the bloc's flagship Digital Market Act (DMA). “It's not up to companies to decide whether to comply with our rules, and it's not up to them or the other countries to decide how we enforce our rules," EU commissioner for digital affairs Henna Virkkunen told MEPs. "Europe decides for itself.” But Malta socialist MEP Alex Agius Saliba argued that the Brussels executive had to be stricter in showing teeth in implementing the rules. "This is not only a question of imposing fines. It is a situation where the European Commission should show that it is against how these platforms are operating," he said. The plenary debate comes amid US president Donald Trump's threats of additional tariffs and US tech companies repeatedly disregarding EU rules — and lobbying against them. Trump has threatened to impose additional tariffs and sanctions on countries that implement digital taxes or regulations perceived to disadvantage US Big Tech companies. The threats have raised concerns about potential retaliatory measures, which could impact trade negotiations, and have a negative impact on key European sectors. "We have to work to keep a united west, but at the same time, we need to develop a guarantee of technical sovereignty for our continent," said rightwing Italian MEP Stefano Cavedagna of the European Conservatives and Reformists. For her part, French Left MEP Leila Chaibi called the commission "a vassal of the US" that "does what Trump says." Meanwhile, some MEPs have called for more rules to protect Europeans from the abuses of Big Tech —despite the upcoming digital omnibus expected to be unveiled in November. "In order to avoid a wild west, we need more legislation," Danish socialist MEP Christel Schaldemose said.“For far too long, their business model has been at the detriment of our data and our welfare.” Owen Carpenter-Zehe is a junior reporter from the US at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Owen Carpenter-Zehe
|
MEPs have called for stronger enforcement of digital rules and ways to reduce technological dependency on non-EU actors, amid concerns over external pressures that can undermine Europe’s digital sovereignty.
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political"
] |
digital
|
2025-10-08T16:31:16.472Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ar6a99cb3e
|
Listen: Austria’s bid to free Russian assets tests EU unity on sanctions
|
EU ambassadors are once again meeting in Brussels this Wednesday trying to agree on a new round of sanctions against Russia. But this time Austria, besides Hungary and Slovakia, has thrown a spanner in the works. But why does Austria want to unfreeze money linked to sanctioned Russian oligarchs and where does that leave the rest of the EU? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: EU ambassadors are once again meeting in Brussels this Wednesday trying to agree on a new round of sanctions against Russia. But this time Austria, besides Hungary and Slovakia, has thrown a spanner in the works. Vienna is pushing for what it calls a “derogation”, a kind of legal exception, that would allow frozen Russian assets to be released under certain conditions. But why does Austria want to unfreeze money linked to sanctioned Russian oligarchs and where does that leave the rest of the EU? And here is the script:EU ambassadors are once again meeting in Brussels this Wednesday trying to agree on a new round of sanctions against Russia. But this time Austria, besides Hungary and Slovakia, has thrown a spanner in the works. Vienna is pushing for what it calls a “derogation”, a kind of legal exception, that would allow frozen Russian assets to be released under certain conditions. But why does Austria want to unfreeze money linked to sanctioned Russian oligarchs and where does that leave the rest of the EU? At the heart of it all is Raiffeisen Bank International, Austria’s biggest bank, and one of the few Western lenders still operating in Russia, as the EU Observer reports. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the EU froze Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s €2bn stake in the Austrian construction company Strabag. But Russian courts later fined Raiffeisen the same amount, €2bn, and said that the fine could be “paid” by handing over those frozen Strabag shares, you see what they did. So, the problem is that EU sanctions make that impossible, unless, of course, Austria’s proposal passes. The plan would allow Austria’s authorities to release the frozen shares to Raiffeisen, supposedly as “compensation” for losses in Russia. But other EU countries, including the Baltics, Poland, the Nordics, and the Czechs, see it differently. They say it’s a dangerous loophole that lets Russian oligarchs and courts manipulate sanctions for their own gain. As one EU diplomat put it: “Now is the time to strengthen sanctions, not weaken them.” Now, if the bloc allows one member state to bend the rules, even for what it calls “rational” reasons, it risks sending a clear message to Moscow: that pressure works, and exceptions can be negotiated. Analysts warn that if Austria gets its way, other companies with frozen assets, from France, Italy, or Germany, could start demanding the same treatment. And that would be catastrophic for Europe’s unity on Russia. Let’s not forget that European companies still hold between €70bn and €100bn in assets in Russia. If the EU starts unfreezing some of that, Russian courts could use similar tactics to grab even more Western assets in retaliation. And while Austria argues it’s simply protecting its banking system, critics see something else, the return of old habits. Oleg Deripaska, after all, was a familiar face in Austria’s elite circles, with cosy ties to European politicians. So to many, this looks less like sound policy and more like a favour to old friends. So what’s next? Well the rest of Europe is debating how to actually use frozen Russian money, not return it. Belgium, which holds around €190bn in Russian central bank assets through its Euroclear system, is under pressure to back a plan that would use those funds to support Ukraine. The idea is to create a so-called “reparations loan”, about €140bn, with the profits from frozen assets used to finance Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. But Belgium’s prime minister, Bart De Wever, is nervous about it. He wants the other EU countries to share the legal risk in case Russia sues or refuses to pay reparations later. Other leaders aren’t impressed because as one diplomat put it: “Belgium spent three years saying Euroclear is Belgian when it came to profits, now it wants to share the risks.” So, on one hand, you have Austria trying to release Russian money. On the other, Belgium trying not to touch it without guarantees. And somewhere in between lies the European Union divided, hesitant, and still struggling to agree on how to hold Moscow accountable. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
EU ambassadors are once again meeting in Brussels this Wednesday trying to agree on a new round of sanctions against Russia. But this time Austria, besides Hungary and Slovakia, has thrown a spanner in the works.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Political"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-08T10:50:00.216Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar98fb3891
|
October 7 redux — so now what from the EU?
|
Now entering its third year, Israel’s genocidal devastation of Gaza, following the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, has exposed and deepened multiple dangerous divides across Europe. Three of these require immediate EU action. First on the list: adoption of European Commission proposals for the partial suspension of the trade provisions of the EU-Israel Association Agreement . Securing a qualified majority to adopt the proposal, which requires getting Germany and Italy on board, was already proving difficult. Predictably now, US president Donald Trump’s “peace plan” and ongoing ceasefire talks have become a convenient excuse for Berlin and Rome, and other hesitant EU capitals, to try and delay EU action. Trump’s plan, backed by most EU leaders and several Arab and Muslim states, may or may not lead to a durable ceasefire and an end to starvation in Gaza. Negotiations will probably take a while. The EU, on the other hand, cannot afford to waste more time. Coming on top of two years of inaction and half-hearted initiatives, any further EU hesitation on (limited) sanctions on Israel will add to the serious reputational damage that the bloc has already suffered. Further delays and endless arguments will also reinforce perceptions, both in Europe and outside, that the EU’s commitment to human rights depends on the colour, faith, and geography of the victims. Complacent EU officials in Brussels may shrug off accusations of double standards as part of a new geopolitical reality. But others know that no amount of clever spin or PR can hide the difference in the EU’s treatment of Ukrainian and Palestinian lives . “In the past, it was the bad guys who accused us of hypocrisy when we lectured them on human rights,” one EU diplomat tells me. “Now it’s the people who once believed in us who feel betrayed.” In any case, Israel’s attacks on Gaza have continued as the talks begin, adding more people to the list of 67,000 Palestinians who have been killed so far. Thousands are still under the rubble and more than 169,000 people have been injured, many with life-altering wounds. At least 20,000 children are among the dead, with one child killed every hour for the past 24 months. According to UNICEF estimates , 3,000 to 4,000 children in Gaza have lost one or more limbs and 154 children have died due to starvation. 'In the past, it was the bad guys who accused us of hypocrisy when we lectured them on human rights,' one EU diplomat tells me. 'Now it’s the people who once believed in us who feel betrayed' EU leaders should let those figures sink in. And whatever the prospects of a ceasefire, when they meet later this month, they must focus on enforcing their commitment under the EU-Israel agreement to protecting human rights. They must also remember their international obligation to ensure accountability for war crimes. Secondly, EU governments must immediately stop the steady, dangerous slide in democratic standards when interacting with their citizens who work for justice in Gaza. Most EU governments and institutions have been shockingly silent as European citizens, trying to deliver food to famine-struck Gaza on humanitarian flotillas , were illegally intercepted, arrested and mistreated . Banning Palestine protests as displacement activity As peaceful demonstrations calling for justice for Palestinians grow in number and frequency, the state response has been getting more and more violent. A recent Amnesty International demand for an investigation into protest bans and police brutality in Brussels highlights how European authorities are seeking to crush peaceful dissent. There is also dissent within European governments and EU institutions but calls for stronger action to end the genocide and starvation in Gaza by EU staff for peace and justice and former senior officials have gone unheeded. Human rights experts tell me that when they hear EU bureaucrats call for “impartiality” when war crimes are being committed or their attempts to sanitise internal reports to protect Israel, they are reminded of what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil.” Third, European politicians — and those working in EU institutions — must stop stoking division between Europe’s Jewish and Muslim communities. As illustrated by attacks on synagogues and mosques and repeatedly highlighted by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency, both antisemitism and Islamophobia are rising across Europe. Yet instead of uniting communities, European leaders too often inflame tensions. Solidarity with Palestinians is demonised as support for Hamas, while Jewish identity is carelessly and dangerously equated with Israel itself — erasing Jewish voices who oppose the war. Contrary to what many politicians try and make us believe, the vast majority of those protesting Israel’s collective genocidal punishment of Palestinians also condemn attacks on Jewish people and seek the release of Hamas-held Israeli hostages. Creating simplistic and competitive false binaries between European minorities is dangerous and irresponsible. A ceasefire in Gaza, if it comes, will not erase these fractures. Asking for a seat on Trump’s plans for transitional authority or “Board of Peace” for Gaza will not elevate the EU’s global credibility. As we commemorate Palestinians and Israelis killed over the last two years and hope for the release of those held hostage and imprisoned, we face a defining choice. Do we accept a world where “might is right”, the innocent are killed, and war criminals enjoy impunity? Or can we recommit to universal and inclusive human rights, equality for all, and agree that the promise of “never again” is meant for everyone, everywhere? The answers will define the future of humanity but also of European democracy and Europe’s place in history. Shada Islam is an EUobserver columnist, and independent EU analyst and commentator who runs her own strategy and advisory company New Horizons Project . She has recently won the European Woman in Media award and the Media Career Award 2023 for her outstanding work and powerful voice on EU affairs and focus on building an inclusive Union of Equality. She now writes a substack, Simply Shada . Shada Islam is an EUobserver columnist, and independent EU analyst and commentator who runs her own strategy and advisory company New Horizons Project . She has recently won the European Woman in Media award and the Media Career Award 2023 for her outstanding work and powerful voice on EU affairs and focus on building an inclusive Union of Equality. She now writes a substack,
|
Simply Shada
|
Complacent EU officials in Brussels may shrug off accusations of double standards as part of a new geopolitical reality. But others know that no amount of clever spin or PR can hide the difference in the EU’s treatment of Ukrainian and Palestinian lives, writes Shada Islam.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"EU Political",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-08T10:31:06.640Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar0a1a35c6
|
The fight for fair traineeships across the EU
|
On Wednesday (8 October), the European Parliament adopted its position on fair traineeships in the EU, paving the way for negotiations with EU member states. With youth unemployment being twice as high as the overall unemployment rate, traineeships are seen as a way to enter the labour market. There are over three million trainees in the EU, and the number is expected to rise by 16 percent by 2030. In 2023, the parliament called on the European Commission to propose better conditions on traineeships in the bloc. In response, the commission brought forward the traineeship directive in March last year. Last week, the committee on employment and social affairs finally agreed on a joint position. Now the plenary session in Strasbourg has adopted it as a mandate for inter-institutional negotiations. MEPs say traineeships should be time-limited, focus on entry-level work, and be governed by a written agreement outlining pay, tasks, learning goals, and duration, with access to social protections like health insurance. These rules should apply to all traineeships except those required for academic credit or formal apprenticeships. Unpaid or poorly structured traineeships lacking training or mentorship should be considered abusive, and organisations should appoint a contact person for trainee support. Spanish socialist MEP Alícia Homs Ginel, the lead MEP in this file, said that said that payment for traineeships was at the centre of her work. “We need minimum wages on that. When I talk on payment [for trainees] it's not like giving a compensation. No, I'm talking about payment,“ she told EUobserver. For her, this should imply at least the national minimum wage, as well as social protection and access to trade unions working in the interests of trainees. Polish centre-right Jagna Marczułajtis-Walczak, viewed it differently and stressed that the parliament doesn’t specify a level of payment to trainees: “it merely establishes the principle that interns should receive payment for their work.” Opposition to the directive comes from small businesses. SMEunited is a European social partner representing employers. They are concerned that more administrative and financial burdens will be put on SMEs with little resources. The SMEunited policy director Valentina Guerra told EUobserver that it was not clear in detail what “guidance and support for SMEs” meant — and that financial support is needed if the changes planned by the parliament will be implemented. She further complained that the parliament's amendments would lead to “legal uncertainties” because they would blur the difference between a worker and a trainee. For Slovenian MEP Irena Joveva, from the liberal Renew Europe, that is a key element. She said that recognising trainees as workers would guarantee social security and fair payment. MEP Homs Ginel, however, explained that the goal is to keep administrative burdens for companies as low as possible in a bid to ensure that these traineeships are "fair". "That is not a cost. We cannot see that as a cost”. After the adoption of the mandate by the parliament follows negotiations with the council, representing EU member states. Tough negotiations are expected during the so-called trilogue meetings as the council’s position is viewed as “inflexible” and “not ambitious at all” by the MEPs EUobserver talked to. Beyond all formal traineeships that are part of education, EU member states also want to exclude all those undertaken to help individuals find a job (which account for nearly 80 percent of traineeships). Spain and Slovenia opposed the text, as they saw it as far too unambitious Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
MEPs want to end unfair traineeships, triggering backlash from small businesses who warn the rules will strangle opportunity. But the real fight is yet to come: trilogues where the EU parliament and member states will have to find a compromise in what promises to be a tough negotiation over labour rights of Europe's next generation.
|
[
"Labour"
] |
labour
|
2025-10-08T10:08:42.648Z
|
https://euobserver.com/labour/ar38e9d488
|
Listen: Two years since 7 October - Fragile Gaza peace talks continue
|
This Tuesday marks two years since Hamas carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history, when militants entered the Nova music festival, killing 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducting 251. Since then, many captives have been released in deals or ceasefires, but around 48 hostages remain in Gaza. Israel believes about 20 of them are still alive. Negotiations for their release, and for Trump’s Gaza peace plan, started this week and are continuing in a “positive” atmosphere aimed at reaching a ceasefire. In these two years, Israel’s retaliatory offensive on the Gaza Strip has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians and displaced around 90 percent of Gaza’s roughly two million people. Entire neighbourhoods have been razed, humanitarian aid has been severely restricted, and famine is widespread. Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Today it’s two years since Hamas carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history, when militants entered the Nova music festival, killing 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducting 251. Since then, many captives have been released in deals or ceasefires, but around 48 hostages remain in Gaza. Israel believes about 20 of them are still alive. Negotiations for their release, and for Trump’s Gaza peace plan, started on Monday and are continuing in a “positive” atmosphere aimed at reaching a ceasefire. In these two years, the war has widened. Israel’s retaliatory offensive on the Gaza Strip has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians and displaced around 90 percent of Gaza’s roughly two million people. Entire neighbourhoods have been razed, humanitarian aid has been severely restricted, and famine is widespread. The United Nations has published investigations concluding that Israel’s actions amount to genocide, something that Israel rejects, saying it is acting in lawful self-defence and blaming Hamas for embedding its fighters among civilians. Inside Israel, the failure to bring all hostages home has inflamed deep divisions. Families of the hostages have organised mass protests and openly criticised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership. In the same spirit some memorials this week were organised by families separately from the state’s official ceremony, showing sharp signs of political rifts. On the diplomatic front, indirect talks between Israel and Hamas resumed in Egypt this week around a US proposed ceasefire plan, with mediators from the US, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey present. Reports from the first day described a “positive atmosphere,” but key sticking points remain like the sequencing and guarantees of troop withdrawals, disarmament, and who will govern Gaza afterwards. Now, the war has reshaped regional security and global foreign policy. It has drawn in Iran-backed proxies, risked wider confrontations with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and complicated relations between European governments and their partners. For Europe, the humanitarian responsibility is real: millions of displaced civilians, collapsing healthcare, and hunger in Gaza demand a response, morally and politically. But for now, European leaders have frozen negotiations on possible sanctions against Israel. Domestically, the conflict has deepened polarisation both inside Israel and across European societies. Protest movements, calls for sanctions, and debates over arms sales have forced EU capitals to take clear political and moral positions. Which matters because the credibility of global and European leaders on human rights and international law is at stake. And with the hostage crisis unresolved and no durable political solution in sight, the security shockwaves will continue to ripple. Short-term military gains will not stabilise the region if neither side sees a viable future. What’s next? Right now, negotiators in Sharm el-Sheikh are trying to turn a fragile, US proposed roadmap into reality, one that includes an exchange of prisoners and captives, a ceasefire, and phased withdrawals. The positive tone on day one is welcomed, but the outcome is what matters. Key questions remain: who will verify any withdrawal? Will Gaza’s future governance be acceptable to Palestinians and regional states? And will the release of hostages be lasting, or just another pause before renewed violence? Two years on, the human toll is vast and the political landscape so fractured. If the current negotiations lead to a genuine, verified ceasefire and a credible path for Gaza’s governance and reconstruction, that would be a rare piece of good news. If they fail, the alternative the region faces is more of the same: war, displacement, anger, and instability. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
This Tuesday marks two years since Hamas carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history. In these two years, Israel’s retaliatory offensive on the Gaza Strip has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians and displaced around 90 percent of Gaza’s roughly two million people.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-07T11:08:33.262Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ara9806b2c
|
Why 7 October is our collective failure
|
7 October was one of the worst days of my life. When it happened, I was at Emmanuel Macron's annual party conference as his parliamentary group’s Middle East adviser. I quickly realised I had a friend among the families of the hostages. Udi Goren and I had been exchanging messages for years as he wanted to visit Egypt. My family had long been involved in the peace process since the 1990s. On 7 October, Tal Haimi, Udi's cousin, was killed and his body is withheld by Hamas to this day. For two months, his pregnant wife and two kids believed and hoped that he had been captured alive, until the terrible news of his death came. Udi had the courage to keep campaigning for the remaining hostages still, urging the Israeli government to return to negotiations for a ceasefire and a deal. Nothing, however, came out in this direction from Benjamin Netanyahu. When I drafted the European Parliament's resolution on the aftermath of the 7 October attacks with MEPs, we had to meet with Israel's ambassador at his urgent request. I seized the opportunity to tell the ambassador that the families of the hostages were desperate for a ceasefire to negotiate their release, that most did not understand the logic behind the killing of thousands of Palestinian civilians to achieve this goal. "We do not represent the families of the hostages. We represent the State of Israel," the ambassador coldly replied, only to then continue — complaining that our resolution supported international law and the work of the International Criminal Court to prosecute war criminals on all sides. I remember exchanging afterwards with Udi and we agreed that the wrong people were getting too much airtime. The governing Israeli far-right could not care less about his message to "bring them home." However, to my surprise even a majority of MEPs naively sided with Israel's far-right. For four months, the EU could not bring itself to call for a ceasefire and negotiations. Neither could a majority in the European Parliament, despite the fact half of the hostages had been successfully released, precisely after a week of negotiations thanks to a ceasefire in November 2023. Netanyahu's calculation Netanyahu selfishly broke the talks to avoid a likely prison sentence for corruption. He could either reach a political solution with Hamas to free all remaining hostages, then his far-right allies would withdraw from the coalition and he would lose his immunity in court. Or he could continue to destroy Gaza as such, to please his political allies and stay in power. He chose the latter. Shockingly, even in January 2024 as I was back from Rafah's crossing and negotiating the parliament's second resolution on Gaza, many of what I could call moderate MEPs voted against a ceasefire regardless of the hostages' appeals. How much did Europe actually care about 7 October? Sure, planes and specialised medical teams were sent to Israel to help treat the thousands of wounded and repatriate some EU citizens. Hours of vague speeches and minutes of silence for the victims were held, to which I proudly took part. Yet I felt deeply betrayed, terrified even, by Europe's amateurism. 7 October saw the murder in cold blood of 800 civilians in Israel, including 36 children, by Hamas and other militant groups, on top of almost 400 members of Israel's security forces. The EU rightfully condemned this horrendous massacre in the strongest terms, but carefully avoided the hard truths that it had happened precisely because the peace process had been so marginalised and the occupation so normalised — with our complicity. True friends speak the truth to one another When in 1988 Palestine's Yasser Arafat recognised Israel, renounced armed resistance and conceded to abandon much of historical Palestine, Israel was supposed to withdraw from the remaining occupied territories. My family proudly co-founded Seeds of Peace in 1993 with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Arafat and Bill Clinton because we believed in the Oslo process. However, shortly after the assassination of Rabin by a far-right Israeli, a narrowly-elected Netanyahu started derailing the peace process in 1996. He resumed the construction of illegal settlements and stopped military withdrawals. As Palestinian hopes for peace were dwindling, support for Hamas grew steadily. The EU itself recognised Hamas had won in the ballot box in universities, unions, local and even legislative elections in 2006. As Israel's nationalists went back to square one with the occupation, so did Hamas with armed resistance. Yet the EU was foolish enough to reverse its policy of constructive engagement and instead follow Israel's nationalists. They expected Hamas to first recognize Israel, renounce to armed resistance and commit to Oslo, regardless of the fact that Israel had not. The EU foolishly ignored Hamas's readiness to cease its attacks if serious peace negotiations resumed. We fell into the Israeli illusion that it could live in security and continue to flout international law and Palestinians' equal right to security. Netanyahu and his allies kept weakening the Palestinian Authority and funding Hamas ostensibly, while the EU gave market access to Israeli settlements, went almost silent on Israel's Gaza siege and its apartheid in the West Bank. Why did the EU — especially the governments that claim to support Israel's long term interests — not listen to Palestinian and Israeli peace activists? Why do a number of EU member states, like Germany, continue to arm Israel and to block meaningful sanctions? Part of the reason lies in a paper that was released last week by German and international Middle East experts, which I have endorsed: it is high time for a reset of Germany's Staatsraison doctrine of unconditional support to Israel . I am angry today, like all of my friends from Israel and occupied Palestine, because we, progressive voices, have been disregarded by most regional actors, including many EU member states, while countless innocent lives have been lost in Israel and occupied Palestine. If we want to show respect to the victims of 7 October and say 'never again' once and for all, we must learn our lessons and confront Netanyahu’s destructive legacy. The EU must isolate the Israeli government until a permanent ceasefire and a political solution is found to end Israel's occupation of the State of Palestine. Schams El Ghoneimi was the Middle East and North Africa adviser to the Renew Europe group in the European Parliament, and is French-Egyptian. The article reflects his personal views only. Schams El Ghoneimi was the Middle East and North Africa adviser to the
|
Renew Europe
|
"We do not represent the families of the hostages. We represent the State of Israel," the ambassador coldly replied, only to then complain that our resolution supported international law and the work of the International Criminal Court to prosecute war criminals on all sides, recalls the then MENA advisor to Renew Europe.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-07T10:27:45.706Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar4ed8efe5
|
Secrecy Tracker: Israel info withheld, 15 docs max 'rule' & vanishing texts
|
Dear reader, We are back after the summer break with new episodes of transparency stonewalling and affronts to access to information. I am Maria Maggiore , from Investigate Europe. I wrote this edition with my colleagues Harald Schumann and Pascal Hansens , as well as Elena Sánchez from EUobserver and Alexander Fanta from Follow the Money. Withholding Information on Israel In recent months, the European Commission has repeatedly shown itself reluctant to share information involving Israel, from EU research or defence-funding agreements and reports citing breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza. In April, I requested documents from the European Commission's directorate-general for defence and space to see statements the Greek government sent to Brussels regarding the company Intracom Defense. Based in Athens, Intracom Defense has signed 15 European Defence Fund (EDF) projects since 7 October 2023. It is owned by Israeli Aerospace Industry (IAI), Israel's largest public arms manufacturer. Earlier this year, Investigate Europe and Reporters United showed how IAI, as the owner of Intracom Defense, was ultimately benefiting from millions of EU funds for EDF projects, including the development of combat drones. We knew the Greek government had sent some kind of assurances to Brussels concerning the security or ethical risks posed by Infracom Defense’s ownership by a foreign company, but we didn’t know what they said. Months after my request, DG DEFIS told me that it wouldn’t share the documents due to the “protection of commercial interests and intellectual property”. We rejected this, given that Regulation 1049 on access to documents states that the protection of commercial interests does not apply if there is an “overriding interest” for citizens to know important facts. Our questions in the press room as to whether DG DEFIS intended to reopen an investigation into the Greek-Israeli company's compliance with ethical principles, were also to no avail. A deafening silence surrounds this story. EUobserver helped bring to light two important documents on Israel: an EU foreign service review of the human rights situation in Gaza dated 23 June 2024 and a foreign service review from 20 June 2025 on Israel's compliance with Article 2 of its EU association agreement, concerning human rights. Both these documents referenced alleged Israeli crimes, such as "starvation ... torture ... apartheid", in language that bore a stark contrast to EU officials' soft public statements on Israel. EUobserver also raised the alarm on misleading EU communications on Israel's compliance with ethics rules in the Horizon research programme in an article on 4 September , . The EU Commission had previously told EUobserver that an independent ethics advisor was looking into the drone-kill video and the Israeli grantee might lose EU money as a result. In fact, Horizon's ethics advisor had no mandate to investigate, so there was no investigation at all. EUobserver only learned this after contacting the advisor informally. And that’s not all. The European Commission refused to give public access to an internal note from its own legal service on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. EUobserver decided to take the matter to the EU Ombudsman, but the commission still refused to publish this internal note. Big Tech: Proposal for a mysterious ‘fair solution’ On 31 July, the first day of my colleague Pascal Hansens’ long-awaited vacation, it arrived: a message from DG Connect with the mysterious subject line “Proposal for a fair solution”. It answered a request sent two months earlier by Investigate Europe, concerning specific minutes and related documents of six meetings between a Big Tech company and the commission. DG Connect said that as our request covered a very large number of documents, “approximately 50”, they proposed a “fair solution”: unilaterally reducing the disclosure to “a maximum of 15 documents”. Why 15? Which criteria guided this selection? And by whom were they applied? That remains the institution’s secret. A glance at the well-known regulation 1049/2001 on public access led Hansens to Article 6(3), which states that in the event of an overly broad application, the institution may “confer with the applicant informally, with a view to finding a fair solution.” Though that article makes no reference to any explicit number, several other journalists told Hansens they had also been informed they could only request a maximum of 15 documents, pointing to an institutional policy. The commission assured us that there is no cap on documents per request, but each is assessed individually. It did not spell out what the criteria are. Ombudsman investigates UVDL text messages – again! Months after the landmark ruling in the Pfizergate case, the European Ombudsman has launched a new investigation into commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s use of text messages. In the Pfizergate ruling , the EU’s General Court had blasted the commission for its lack of transparency in handling a request for messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla in the course of a pandemic-era vaccines purchase. The commission has since admitted to losing the messages — but only after Follow the Money’s Alexander Fanta had asked for them. This time, the watchdog is scrutinising a text sent by French president Emmanuel Macron to von der Leyen amid efforts to lobby her over the Mercosur trade agreement, as first reported by Politico . In a reply letter to Follow the Money’s Fanta 18 months later, the commission admitted von der Leyen had received the text via the messaging app Signal, but said there was no need to keep it because the “message reiterated a well-established position already communicated by France to the commission in the past”. The commission also said that von der Leyen never keeps any of her Signal messages, but instead uses the app’s “disappearing messages” feature to auto-delete all exchanges, including those with EU leaders ( see FTM’s report ). While the commission insists text messages may only be used for non-confidential, short-lived communication, it also told Fanta that it auto-deletes all messages “to prevent major data leaks”. Somewhat baffled, Fanta made a complaint to the Ombudsman. The watchdog has already sent the commission a letter asking for details about how it dealt with the request, as well as its wider practices in regard to access requests and texting. The probe is likely to drag von der Leyen’s secretive attitude towards her personal communication into the spotlight once more. In Brief After 14 years of deadlock, the EU Commission quietly shelved a long-overdue reform of the regulation on public access to documents from the Commission, Council and Parliament. The proposed update to Regulation 1049, which dates from 2001, was dropped from the EU executive branch’s 2025 work programme. These rules are essential for civil society, lawyers and journalists, with transparency guaranteed in the Lisbon Treaty. “Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizens,” Article 10 states. A commission spokesperson told Investigate Europe’s Harald Schumann that case law had since evolved, and that the proposal had been hamstrung by disagreement among the EU institutions since 2011. It “continues to provide an appropriate and efficient legal framework,” Olof Gill said. However, by maintaining the it means officials can still deny access to documents if they believe that their publication "would undermine the protection of international relations" or "the financial or economic policy of the community or a member state." Consequently, the inner-workings of council negotiations, for example, will continue to be shrouded in secrecy. Slovak MEP Veronika Ostrihonova (Renew Europe) told Investigate Europe that her group was disappointed by the decision to scrap the reform of the regulation, saying that she intended to draft an own-initiative report (INI) demanding at least a “transparency-by-design, proactive publication of all documents with limited and clearly defined exceptions”. The Greens also support the initiative, but without a majority in the parliament, any genuine reform will be some way off. As EUobserver reported, lawyers from the London-based NGO ClientEarth have sued the European Commission for illegally changing its transparency rules to prevent the public from accessing crucial documents for their health and the environment. Earlier this year, ClientEarth lawyers asked the commission to repeal fresh rules blocking access to key documents — such as drafts, legal advice, environmental impact assessments, and messages of its officials. The commission refused to do so, leaving no alternative but a judicial challenge to uphold democratic accountability and the right to know. “Despite the damning ruling that exposed secrecy at the highest levels of the EU and the political backlash culminating in a no-confidence vote, the commission is still choosing a path of secrecy. This is a direct assault on transparency, EU treaties guarantee openness, and the commission cannot simply rewrite the rules in secret”, said Ilze Tralmaka, ClientEarth lawyer.
|
European journalists know how difficult it is to get a sit-down audience with von der Leyen. But now things have reached a new low: the Leading European Newspaper Alliance (LENA) was able to publish an interview with the German politician, but the answers were provided in writing to written questions, with no possibility of follow-up or changing a single comma in the translation imposed by the commission's services.
|
Our latest edition of the Secrecy Tracker exposes new cases of EU secrecy: refusals to disclose documents on Israel’s defence funding and its Gaza reports, a so-called 'fair solution' limiting transparency of Big Tech, Ursula von der Leyen’s deleted texts, stalled document-access reforms, and lawsuits over hidden environmental rules.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"EU Political"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-10-07T06:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ar3d7faee1
|
Tests find 100% of EU officials have 'forever chemicals' in bloodstream
|
Medical results published on Tuesday (7 October) show that all EU officials tested have the so-called 'forever chemicals' in their bloodstream. Among the officials tested was EU environment commissioner Jessika Roswall and Peter Javorčík director-general for transport, energy, environment and education. For half of the 24 officials, the contamination exceeded the point at which health impacts are considered possible. The experiment happened during an informal council meeting in July , where the Danish ministry of environment and gender equality called on 32 officials to get tested for PFAS in their blood. Ultimately, 24 participated in the blood test. It was one of the first initiatives by the Danish government during its six-month rotating European Council presidency. Forever chemicals are man-made PFAS chemicals dubbed for their high persistence in the environment. The technical name is per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Often, they are found in cosmetics or outdoor clothing as well as in packaging, electronic devices or pans. ChemSec , a Swedish non-profit organisation, says that PFAS can now be found in the bloodstream 99 percent of the world’s population. The result of the study on EU officials thus is not surprising. The risks associated with toxic forever chemicals range from cardiovascular diseases to cancer, asthma, liver damage and infertility. In nature, PFAS have been found in water, soil and air. The Forever Pollution Project , which last year found more than 17,000 sites contaminated by forever chemicals around Europe, puts the price of EU-wide cleanup costs at up to €2 trillion over the next two decades, plus €52-84bn annually in health expenses. But campaigners argue that strong regulatory measures would offer a feasible and economical way to prevent additional pollution. Six of the 13 PFAS tested are already regulated in the EU – under the EU POPs Regulation or the REACH Regulation. The commission previously announced it would introduce a new chemicals industry package that will “simplify" REACH regulations. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Forever chemicals are everywhere: bloodstream, drinking water and outdoor clothing. A new study shows that they are also in European officials.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-10-07T04:19:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar7a0b31e0
|
Listen: French PM quits hours after unveiling cabinet plunging the country into chaos
|
France’s prime minister Sébastien Lecornu has resigned less than a month after being appointed and just 12 hours after presenting his new government. French president Emmanuel Macron accepted the resignation this morning, with the Élysée Palace confirming the decision in a short statement. But what led to the resignation and what happens now? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: France’s prime minister Sébastien Lecornu has resigned less than a month after being appointed and just 12 hours after presenting his new government. President Emmanuel Macron accepted the resignation this morning, with the Élysée Palace confirming the decision in a short statement. But what led to the resignation and what happens now? Lecornu was appointed on the 9th of September to replace François Bayrou, who was removed following controversy over proposed budget cuts. Lecornu became the seventh prime minister under Macron and was tasked with overcoming deep divisions in parliament. His resignation came only hours after unveiling a cabinet that was largely unchanged from the previous government. The line-up faced immediate criticism from across the political spectrum, including from members of Macron’s own camp. Lecornu said that “the conditions were no longer met” for him to exercise his duties, citing three reasons: that political parties ignored what he called “a profound rupture” marked by his decision not to use Article 49.3 of the Constitution, that opposition parties continued to behave as though they each held an absolute majority, and that “partisan appetites,” linked to the upcoming presidential election, had made it impossible to govern. Following the resignation announcement, the Paris stock exchange fell by more than two percent, with banks such as BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole among the hardest hit , while the euro declined slightly against the dollar. Now, Lecornu’s departure deepens a political crisis that began more than a year ago when Emmanuel Macron called snap parliamentary elections. Those elections produced a highly fragmented National Assembly, with no group able to secure an absolute majority. Since then, successive governments have struggled to pass legislation. The use of Article 49.3, a constitutional tool that allows laws to pass without a vote, sparked widespread criticism and protests. Lecornu’s decision to avoid using it was meant to mark a shift toward dialogue and compromise. However, his attempt to form a broad-based cabinet failed. The inclusion of familiar figures such as Bruno Le Maire, reappointed to the defence ministry, and Gérald Darmanin, who remained at justice, was widely interpreted as a sign of continuity rather than renewal. Within hours of the announcement, both far-right and far-left leaders called for the dissolution of the National Assembly. Jordan Bardella of the National Rally said “stability can only be restored through a return to the polls,” while Jean-Luc Mélenchon of France Unbowed called for “immediate consideration” of a motion to remove the president. The result is renewed uncertainty at a crucial time. France’s next budget must be agreed in the coming weeks, and the absence of a stable government could delay fiscal negotiations and economic planning. So what now? President Emmanuel Macron hasn’t reacted publicly at least not while I’m recording this episode, but the story is developing so we will hear from him soon. Technically he must appoint a new prime minister, his eighth since taking office. We don’t know when that would happen or who it could be either. We do know that Macron faces increasing pressure from opposition parties demanding new parliamentary elections. The National Rally, France Unbowed, and parts of the conservative Republicans have all called for a return to the polls. However, analysts say Macron is unlikely to dissolve parliament right now, as another election could reproduce the same stalemate or strengthen the far right. For now, the outgoing ministers remain in place to handle day-to-day affairs until a new government is formed. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
France’s prime minister Sébastien Lecornu has resigned less than a month after being appointed and just 12 hours after presenting his new government. But what led to the resignation and what happens now?
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-10-06T12:24:53.450Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar4c02099d
|
Extra year delay to EU law will increase deforestation, chocolate firms warn
|
European chocolate makers, including Nestlé, Mars and Ferrero, have condemned the EU Commission’s plans to delay the bloc’s landmark anti-deforestation law by another year , warning that it would actually lead to more deforestation. In an open letter to the EU executive on Friday (3 October), the firms state that they have been actively preparing and investing “in good faith that the European legislative framework and timeline were reliable”. They added that a further delay will “undermine industry trust in Europe’s regulatory commitments, create considerable uncertainty and compliance costs for businesses, and put forests worldwide at risk.” Last week, the commission blamed massive overuse of its in-house IT system , which companies must use to declare compliance with the law for its decision to postpone its implementation for a second consecutive year. Use of the system is expected to be 10-times higher than initially anticipated, with up to one billion due diligence certificates per year. However, the commission also wants to water down the legislation by creating a new 'no-risk' category as part of the benchmarking regime, which determines compliance — which would effectively exempt many countries from the regulation entirely. The commission has previously warned that another year’s delay would result in around 230,000 hectares of deforestation globally. In the letter, the firms urged the EU to avoid using the IT issue as grounds to reopen, delay, or change the EUDR. Last year, the commission also requested its first one-year delay and sought to water down the scope of the regulation to ensure that only multi-national importers and buyers are covered. The EU’s deforestation regulation (EUDR) was designed to require sellers of products like beef, coffee, chocolate, palm oil and wood to demonstrate that their goods are traceable to land that has not been deforested after 31 December 2020, and was passed by a wide majority in the European parliament and among EU governments. But since then, a raft of EU lawmakers and governments, particularly conservatives and the rightwing, have got cold feet about a series of laws, including the deforestation regulation, that are part of the EU’s Green Deal. There are also concerns that the extra compliance burden will make EU firms less competitive than their rivals in the US or China . The deforestation law was also drawn up with the support of much of the cocoa and chocolate industry, with many arguing that supplier due diligence and implementing traceability systems, which are at the heart of the EUDR, will lead to responsible raw material sourcing and good business practice. A letter signed by the same companies in June urged the Commission that fresh delays “would severely undermine one of the EU’s flagship policies for tackling global deforestation and nature degradation”. However, Mondelēz, previously among the strongest corporate supporters of the legislation, has recently warned that the chocolate industry was already struggling with "record prices and supply shocks." In their letter on 3 October, the companies added that “clear, predictable, and comprehensive regulations on environmental and human rights responsibilities are important for the EU’s long-term competitiveness."
|
Benjamin Fox is a seasoned reporter and editor, previously working for fellow Brussels publication Euractiv. His reporting has also been published in the Guardian, the East African, Euractiv, Private Eye and Africa Confidential, among others. He heads up the AU-EU section at EUobserver, based in Nairobi, Kenya.
|
A group of Europe's leading chocolate makers — including Nestlé, Mars and Ferrero — have condemned the EU Commission’s plans to delay the bloc’s landmark anti-deforestation law by another year, warning that it would lead to more deforestation.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Africa",
"Green Economy"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-03T14:39:22.005Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar350219fb
|
Plight of Roma in EU 'one of the greatest human rights scandals on the continent'
|
Michael O’Flaherty, the commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, can quickly list many signs that show just how much racism is still a central part of life in Europe. “We had that dreadful attack on the synagogue in Manchester in the UK. We have attacks on Muslims. We have attacks on people because of the colour of their skin. And we have attacks on Roma", the 66-year-old Irish lawyer reeled off in an interview with EUobserver. This week, on 1 October, O’Flaherty published a book called The Unheard 12 Million covering the ongoing discrimination against Roma in Europe. One day later, the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) published a report on the situation of Roma in Europe — concluding that no EU member state will hit the 2030 targets set out in the EU Roma strategic framework . Talking to EUobserver, O’Flaherty, who is also the former director of the FRA, called the situation of Roma “one of the greatest human rights scandals on the continent”. With his new book, he hopes to raise awareness of a scenario happening in the midst of European societies. “That's the largest minority on the continent, and its situation is deplorable in terms of lack of respect for their human dignity, human well-being, being targeted for hate, exclusion, and shoved to the edges of our societies," he said. “What that looks like in practice is, for example, people living in the worst slums I've ever seen on the face of the planet. It's quite dreadful, and it's hiding in plain sight. We just go on about our business.” The Council of Europe is a non-EU body, headquartered in Strasbourg, covering 46 countries, including all 27 EU member states. However, O’Flaherty complimented the EU for its framework on Roma and the approach to work Roma and not simply them. Yet the data shows that not much has changed since the EU framework was agreed on. One of the reasons for that, he cited, is the Covid crisis — and its enormous impact, especially on marginalised groups like Roma. A spokesperson for the EU Commission, in response, said the ‘Union of Equality’ was a priority for the commission and they would keep on working for Roma inclusion at national and EU level, but admitted: “Many Roma continue to face deep-rooted inequalities and anti-gypsyism". For his part, O’Flaherty simply points out that racism is a main driver of Roma discrimination. “We have to call out the racism in our societies. We are burdened by a remarkable degree of racism in Europe. It manifests itself in different ways. We have to, day by day, week by week, recognise that combating racism is a major challenge for our continent”, O’Flaherty said. He pointed to three explanations why the general human rights situation in Europe was in a problematic state: the war in Ukraine, the willingness of political leaders to sell out human rights for their own political objectives, and the influence of populist scapegoating. “When certain politicians inflate fears and identify certain groups as the problem in our society, for personal or party gain... and this has been gaining force, as we see, across multiple countries in a way... that's very frightening”, he explained. A specific threat fuelling the impact of populism is disinformation, according to O’Flaherty. AI 'carelessly spreading lies' “Increasingly in the last year, we see the role of generative AI, which is not deliberately spreading lies, but is carelessly spreading lies”, he explained. “The EU has the Digital Services Act. It has the AI Act. These are two decent pieces of legislation. They're good. They need to be enforced. And that's where I would watch closely what the EU is doing to make sure that these instruments are promoted and enforced.” He added: “And [it's important] that we challenge the disinformation about regulation. There's this myth out there that it's these instruments, and that type of regulation, that stifles innovation in Europe. There's no evidence for that.” Looking to the future, O’Flaherty is hopeful that a better time for human rights in Europe will come, but stressed: “I think we have to navigate a very difficult period. "And we're not remotely through it yet. There are very strong forces internationally which are not compatible with a commitment to international human rights standards. There's a lack of awareness of what we're losing if we don't stand up and defend human rights," he said. “Time and time again, when the general population is surveyed on attitudes, we find a commitment to decency, which is a basis for my hope. And there's no plan B," he added. "And so, I believe human decency will win out." Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
"[Roma] are the largest minority on the continent and their situation is deplorable in terms of lack of respect for their human dignity, human well-being, being targeted for hate, exclusion, and shoved to the edges of our societies," European Council commissioner for human rights Michael O’Flaherty told EUobserver in an interview.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Health & Society"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-03T14:17:54.423Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar15f268c1
|
ALLOW ALL? Brussels deregulation drive to make rejecting cookies harder
|
Simplification has become the latest buzzword in Brussels — now they're coming for cookie banners. Behind the annoyance and the catchy name 'cookies' lies a powerful safeguard against technologies that track every click, shopping habit, and health app update. 'Simplifying' cookie banners should mean making it easier for people to say 'no' in a single click. Instead, the European Commission's Digital Omnibus proposal risks stripping away the very rule that ensures we can refuse tracking at all: Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive . This rule is what keeps our devices under our control. Without it, companies could quietly harvest data from our maps, browsers, and connected gadgets, while governments could lean on the same systems to expand surveillance. What looks like a technical clean-up could turn into a deregulatory shortcut that risks leaving people in the EU with less choice, less control, and less privacy. Most people know ePrivacy only through the banners that clutter websites. But those pop-ups are just the surface. The law’s real purpose runs much deeper: it protects every bit of information stored on or sent from our devices. Article 5(3), in simple terms, says: websites, apps, and other digital services cannot store or access information on your device without your consent. In other words, it makes clicking the “No” button on a cookie banner actually meaningful. Article 5(3) blocks spyware from being installed in secret. This is not an abstract fear: many EU countries have already deployed commercial spyware like Pegasus against journalists, activists and politicians — tools that hijack phones invisibly, siphoning off messages, call and location data without a trace. Without this rule, such intrusions risk being normalised. It also prevents companies — from telecom networks to the apps and websites we use every day — from stockpiling data without consent, data that can quickly become a goldmine for law enforcement surveillance. And it shields us from hidden tracking technologies designed to monitor our private lives. O One example is fingerprinting: a way of building a unique profile of your device so you can be followed online even if you delete cookies or refuse pop-ups. A 2024 study of some of Europe’s most-visited websites found fingerprinting to be widespread, even though almost none of their privacy policies mentioned it. Without Article 5(3), practices like this could easily become routine. Together with the GDPR, ePrivacy forms a double lock on our rights. The GDPR governs how personal data can be collected, used, and shared, while ePrivacy safeguards the confidentiality of our communications in the very first place. Remove one, and the other cannot fully protect us. Without Article 5(3), companies could claim to follow GDPR rules, while still quietly harvesting sensitive information from devices. Enter the 'Digital Omnibus' package The Commission seemingly wants to alter Article 5(3) through its so-called 'Digital Omnibus' package. The official justification? To reduce 'cookie fatigue.' The effect, however, would make it easier for companies and governments to tap into our devices without consent. The approach is just as troubling as the substance. By tying ePrivacy changes into a large legislative package, the European Parliament and the Council are pressured to approve them wholesale. Normally, legislation is examined piece by piece, with opportunity for debate and public input. The Omnibus sidesteps that, creating a fast track where negotiations happen quickly, far from view, and favour corporations and governments over the people whose rights are at stake. Open one door and a dozen of protections, including fundamental rights, risk being dragged open alongside it. Consent should be given, not negotiated. And while in the digital world it may look like a simple click, in practice, it is the thin line between individuals deciding what happens on their devices and companies or governments deciding for them. Weakening Article 5(3) could erase that line. The stakes are real. Commercial and state surveillance are deeply intertwined. The very same systems that allow advertisers to follow our clicks, locations, and contacts can be repurposed for governmental surveillance. Weakening ePrivacy does not just mean more intrusive advertising, it creates infrastructures that can be tapped for political monitoring, social scoring, or law enforcement overreach. The consequences reach far beyond annoyance: it is about control over our lives and our digital spaces. Yes, people are tired of banners. But the problem is not the law itself: it is weak enforcement and the tricks used by the advertising industry. Many pop-ups are engineered to make accepting tracking easy and rejecting it difficult. The result is far from a real choice. There is a better answer: privacy signals. These simple settings in a browser or device let people decide whether they want to be tracked and then automatically communicate that choice to every website or app. No more fatigue, no hidden tracking, no endless clicking. These technical solutions could genuinely simplify life without eroding privacy. Itxaso Domínguez de Olazábal is a policy advisor at the European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi), a network of 50+ NGOs defending online privacy. Itxaso Domínguez de Olazábal is a policy advisor at the
|
European Digital Rights Initiative
|
The EU Commission seemingly wants to alter the obscure Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive, through its 'Digital Omnibus' package. The official justification? To reduce 'cookie fatigue.' The effect, however, would make it easier for companies and governments to tap into our devices without consent.
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
digital
|
2025-10-03T10:49:38.816Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/ard653a0af
|
Former PM Babiš set for clear election victory in Czech Republic
|
Andrej Babiš, billionaire businessman and leader of the populist ANO party, is once again at the centre of Czech politics. Polls give him a commanding lead ahead of this weekend’s parliamentary election, but his return to the prime minister’s office is far from certain. Coalition arithmetic, legal battles , and a skeptical president could all stand in his way. The 71-year-old former prime minister and businessman — one of the richest men in the country — is almost certain to finish first during the elections this weekend on 3 and 4 October. According to polls, his populist party ANO can hope for about 30 percent of the vote. ANO is the Czech word for "Yes." At the party’s founding in 2011, it was also an acronym for "Action of Dissatisfied Citizens." Even now, protest against what Babiš calls the current “anti-social government” is the central theme of his campaign. The economic crisis following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 still weighs heavily on prime minister Petr Fiala’s centre-right government. Skyrocketing energy prices and a temporary record inflation of 18 percent remain vivid in many voters' memories. Inflation has long since fallen again — just 2.4 percent in September. But even though some stability has returned, the economy recovered only slowly overall. According to a widely discussed analysis by the PAQ Research Institute, a third of Czech households are still worse off than they were in 2021. Babiš is striking exactly that chord — and successfully, it seems. Fiala’s governing conservative coalition Spolu (“Together”) is trailing in second-place, about ten percentage points behind ANO. Babiš also accuses the government of spreading fear of Russia and the war. He does not pursue overtly pro-Russian rhetoric. But since the Czech Republic is currently one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters, the narrative that the government cares more about Kyiv and war refugees than about its own population resonates with many. Difficult partners Nevertheless, whether and how Babiš, who was already prime minister from 2017 to 2021, could become premier again is entirely unclear. One key question is possible coalition options. Few believe that Fiala’s Spolu and the co-governing liberal mayors’ party Stan could retain enough support. Even with the Pirate Party, which left the government last year, the current prime minister would struggle to reach a majority. But Babiš, too, does not have a free pass. “It could well happen that ANO gets fewer seats this time than in the 2021 election,” explains political scientist Ladislav Cabada of Prague’s Metropolitan University. The reason: polls suggest that in Babiš’s own political camp, there are now three other parties and alliances with chances of entering parliament. Previously, there was only the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) party of Czech-Japanese politician Tomio Okamura. Now the far-left alliance Stačilo (“Enough”) and the rightwing populist Motoristé party are also pushing for seats. Alliance with Kickl and Orbán All of them could, in principle, work with the billionaire Babiš, who last year in Vienna co-founded the EU-sceptical alliance “Patriots for Europe” with Austrian FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl and Hungary’s national-conservative prime minister Viktor Orbán. But the devil is in the details: Brussels-bashing is also a cornerstone of Babiš’s rhetoric, but referendums on a possible EU or Nato exit, as demanded on both extremes by SPD and Stačilo, are not acceptable to him. The Motoristé, who present themselves as staunch social conservatives and define themselves primarily by defending combustion engines and fighting the EU’s Green Deal, also reject exit referendums. But their entry into parliament is far from guaranteed, and a majority with ANO has recently seemed unlikely. Even cooperation between ANO and parts of the current government camp is therefore not entirely ruled out. Legal problems Babiš faces challenges beyond difficult coalition talks. During his first term in office, he had to transfer his holding Agrofert — one of the largest companies in the Czech Republic — into a trust, as required by conflict-of-interest law. The conglomerate, active mainly in agriculture, chemicals, and food, is now back under his ownership. But the law has since been tightened. It would no longer be as easy for Babiš to simply place the company in the hands of close relatives, as he did last time. And then there is president Petr Pavel, who defeated Babiš decisively in the 2023 presidential election. Unlike his predecessor Miloš Zeman, who always opened doors for Babiš, Pavel would look very closely at potential conflicts of interest and at the still-pending court case over alleged EU subsidy fraud linked to the Čapí hnízdo (“Stork’s Nest”) leisure resort before appointing him. Karel Havlíček as a joker? That is why one name is increasingly mentioned in the Czech Republic as a possible head of government instead of Babiš: Karel Havlíček, deputy head of ANO and former minister of industry and transport. Could boss Babiš step back into the second row after all? Perhaps — but only formally, believes political scientist Ladislav Cabada. Babiš, after all, not only keeps a tight grip on his conglomerate but also on his party: “Even if he himself doesn’t become prime minister, but Havlíček does, Babiš knows he could easily control him.” Gerald Schubert is the foreign affairs editor at the Austrian daily Der Standard . Gerald Schubert is the foreign affairs editor at the Austrian daily
|
Der Standard
|
Former prime minister Andrej Babiš and his populist party ANO have been miles ahead in the polls for months. But it is by no means set in stone that the billionaire will become prime minister again.
|
[
"EU Political",
"EU Elections"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-10-03T08:17:51.531Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/arce1f645d
|
It’s time to put children before Big Tech and limit social media to over-15s only
|
Ensuring that children are safe online, just as in the physical world, should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, that is not the reality today. Far too many children and teens experience stress, anxiety, sleep problems and declining well-being from extensive use of social media, where addictive feeds, harmful content, and endless scrolling is not the exception — but the norm. This is not an accident. It’s a business model, in which our children’s unrestrained attention is the currency. Meanwhile, the American and Chinese tech giants behind these platforms operate with virtually no accountability. Instead, parents are left to fight alone against algorithms deliberately designed to keep children glued to their screens. The forces at play are too great for families to manage alone. Political action is needed. Society must support families to ensure that children grow up in a safe digital environment — not in an online experimental lab. Important steps are already being taken. Norwegian example In Norway, the Social Democratic government has proposed banning social media platforms from offering their services to children under 15. Meanwhile, Denmark has leveraged its EU council presidency to put protection of minors at the top of the EU’s agenda and is working hard for a European social media ban for kids under 15. In the European Parliament, Swedish and Danish Social Democrats have joined forces to push for stronger protection of minors. We can go a long way at national level, but we can longer together. The tech giants behind the social media platforms are global, with revenues greater than many countries’ national GDPs. Recently, we have even seen examples of political weaponisation of these companies - with the Donald Trump administration threatening to sanction European countries regulating US Big Tech . In this context, Europe must stand united to defend not only our rule of law but ultimately our children. Today, there is no unified approach in Europe to protect children against harmful online content and exploitative business models. Instead, we have a patchwork of national solutions, age barriers and control systems. This makes it harder to hold tech giants accountable. The EU’s Digital Services Act has been a crucial first step placing hard requirements on online platforms to protect users. However, there is still a long way to go. It is time for European leaders to act - and as Scandinavian Social Democrats, we are ready to lead the way. We want a strong and unified approach on our continent to take on the battle for a responsible digital world and to defend every child’s right to a safe childhood. Free from addictive algorithms designed to serve foreign commercial purposes and experimental digital trials. This is why we call for European unity for a social media limit at 15 years old. We would never accept a physical product knowingly designed to make children addicted or ill. This is why we introduced seat belts in cars and set age limits on alcohol. Yet today, many children spend hours every day in a digital world stacked against them, with well-documented harms as a result. For this generation - this is where we need to draw a line. In Europe we face a choice: to build a digital world that serves children, or one that exploits them. As Social Democrats, our choice is clear. Adnan Dibrani is a Swedish Socialists & Democrats MEP. Karianne Tung is Norway's minister of digitalisation and public governance, from the Social Democrat party. Christel Schaldemose is a Danish S&D MEP, and vice-president of the European Parliament. Adnan Dibrani is a Swedish Socialists & Democrats MEP. Karianne Tung is Norway's minister of digitalisation and public governance, from the Social Democrat party.
|
Christel Schaldemose
|
Today, foreign tech giants freely profit from our children’s attention — while we know that social media can have profoundly negative effects on their health and well-being. This needs to stop to protect children from a digital world run by algorithms beyond control. That is why we call for a European age limit of 15 for social media.
|
[
"Digital",
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
digital
|
2025-10-03T05:31:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/digital/arcfded93e
|
Listen: France seizes Russian-linked tanker as unidentified drones appear over Germany
|
The French authorities have detained two crew members of a Russian-linked oil tanker suspected of belonging to the so-called “shadow fleet”. The vessel is also thought to be involved in recent Russian drone activity, while Germany has reported sightings of unidentified drones over critical infrastructure. So, where does this leave Europe? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: The French authorities have detained two crew members of a Russian-linked oil tanker suspected of belonging to the so-called “shadow fleet,” the vessel is thought to be involved in recent Russian drone activity, while Germany has reported sightings of unidentified drones over critical infrastructure. So, where does this leave Europe? The French navy intercepted and boarded the tanker, the Boracay, off the coast of western France suspecting it as one of the ships that Russian drones were flown by.The local prosecutor in Brest confirmed that the two men, who introduced themselves as the captain and first mate, were arrested after failing to prove the ship’s nationality and refusing to cooperate with French officials. The vessel is currently anchored near Saint-Nazaire while investigations continue. The Boracay, which sails under a Benin flag, had recently changed its name from Pushpa. It was travelling from the Russian oil terminal in Primorsk, near Saint Petersburg, to Vadinar in India, carrying 750,000 barrels of crude oil. French president Emmanuel Macron described the investigation as a “very important operation.” The ship was tracked, in late September, in the seas around Denmark at the same time as unexplained drone sightings forced temporary airport closures in Copenhagen and Aalborg. Danish officials believe the drones were launched from ships in the area, though no clear link to these vessels has been established. The drones, likely larger fixed-wing types, can be launched from catapults carried on large ships. At the same time, German officials reported drone incursions in the north over sightings like a power plant in Kiel, a shipyard, and a university hospital. Authorities there are still investigating, and while some incidents may be provocations, Germany, like Denmark, has not identified a definitive source. Now, These incidents highlight three things. First, Russia’s shadow fleet is not just about oil exports and sanction evasion. The movement of such ships also raises questions about security and surveillance in European waters. Second, the drone incursions in Denmark and Germany expose vulnerabilities in civilian and military infrastructure and Nato countries were put on alert, but without a lot of action being taken. And third, this is happening as EU leaders gathered in Copenhagen, where discussions were dominated by both the drone incidents and the wider question of Europe’s security posture. The arrests in France add to the sense that Europe is facing coordinated pressure on multiple fronts. What’s next? For now, French prosecutors are pursuing charges against the detained crew for refusing to comply with orders and failing to prove their vessel’s nationality. In Denmark and Germany, inquiries into the recent drone sightings continue, with investigators examining whether ships in the Baltic Sea could have been used as launch platforms. For now Europe is treating the shadow fleet and the drone incidents as part of the same security challenge. The next steps will depend on how much evidence investigators can gather and how far European governments are willing to go in countering these threats. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
The French authorities have detained two crew members of a Russian-linked oil tanker suspected of belonging to the so-called “shadow fleet”. The vessel is also thought to be involved in recent Russian drone activity, while Germany has reported sightings of unidentified drones over critical infrastructure. So, where does this leave Europe?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-02T15:43:39.942Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar6748b6fb
|
One million Europeans demand Brussels fund safe abortions
|
Mirella from Croatia, Isabella from Poland and Andrea, visiting Malta from the United States, all needed urgent abortions. All three women sought medical care for serious health reasons, but instead of help, they encountered obstacles. For one of the women, that proved fatal, as she died from an infection because the doctors didn't want to perform an abortion. The pan-European platform argues that, under current restrictions, many doctors prioritise avoiding legal repercussions over safeguarding women’s fundamental human rights. But they decided to challenge the status quo. On Wednesday (1 October), activists brought their demands directly to EU equality commissioner Hadja Lahbib, calling on the European Union to set up a fund to guarantee safe and legal access to abortion, after collecting more than one million signatures for their European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). An ECI is the most bottom-up form of policymaking in the EU, as it gives all EU citizens the opportunity to bring their demands directly to the European Commission. Once an initiative gathers one million signatures, a meeting with the commission is arranged. According to the activists from My Voice, My Choice more than 20 million women in the EU don’t have access to safe abortions, which puts them at risk of physical harm or economic as well as mental stress. “We know that people resort to unsafe abortions if they can’t get an official one. They come with tragic risks for patients, sometimes even death”, explained Alicia Baier, a gynaecologist and founder of the Berlin-based NGO Doctors for Choice Germany . The idea is for the EU to establish a specific fund to support women who are in need of abortions by paying for the procedure. “It will be an opt-in mechanism for the member states so that it is not mandatory for every country”, explained Nika Kovač, leader of My Voice, My Choice. Kovač explained that, under such a mechanism, people who needed an abortion but couldn’t get one in their country would be supported by this fund in undergoing the procedure elsewhere. While the activists were campaigning for signatures in many of the member states, they also approached the political groups in the European Parliament. “The support was much bigger than we expected”, said Kovač, stating My Voice, My Choice is backed by the Left, the Greens, S&D, Renew and many MEPs from the EPP. Malta represents one of the most notorious cases within the EU. Aside from a few exceptions, abortion is prohibited. Women who have an abortion face a prison sentence. In July, a 28-year-old woman was sentenced to 22 months in prison after buying abortion pills online. “Being able to have an abortion should not be a matter of luck and where in Europe you have been born”, said Belle de Jong, a Maltese activist. Activists from My Voice, My Choice will present their initiative at a public hearing in the European Parliament on 2 March 2026. Ultimately, it is up to the EU Commission to decide if and what actions will be taken in response to the initiative. In 2024, the European Parliament adopted a resolution stating that the right to abortion should be included in the EU charter of fundamental rights. But this would need treaty change, which requires unanimity among EU member states, making it highly unlikely. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
This week, the pan-European platform My Voice, My Choice brought its demands directly to equality commissioner Hadja Lahbib, calling on the EU to set up a fund to guarantee safe and legal access to abortion as an essential aspect of women’s rights and healthcare across all member states.
|
[
"Health & Society"
] |
health-and-society
|
2025-10-02T15:14:47.398Z
|
https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar0cf7bdcb
|
Torture weapons are being used on Europe's streets to put down protests
|
In this era marked by democratic volatility, spiraling prices and calls for social change, peaceful protests are increasingly being policed with a heavy hand. The risk of anti-authoritarian protest feels particularly high. In Europe — and beyond — security forces are maintaining order through often brutal tactics, which utilise weapons and other instruments that have no purpose apart from inflicting excessive pain. In July, the European Union quietly adopted a revised anti-torture regulation, binding on its 27 member states, that restricts trade outside Europe of certain law enforcement items and requires authorisation for companies trading in other equipment that has the potential to be misused to torture. They must be praised for their leadership on this issue, as the only political region to have adopted binding rules. Similar legislation has been adopted or is under consideration in Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Switzerland, and the UK. Yet this commitment is not matched in other countries, which appear to be taking matters into their own hands. Georgia Take Georgia, where security forces late last year dispersed protesters demonstrating against the government’s decision to suspend EU accession negotiations, by the indiscriminate use of rubber bullets and cannons allegedly infused with undisclosed chemical irritants that caused hundreds of injuries and widespread distress. The percentage of individuals who sustained serious head trauma and facial injuries from police action was also uncommonly high. Serbia Earlier this year in Serbia, an EU candidate country , there were alarming reports that an experimental acoustic weapon was unleashed on protesters. This caused a stampede, with protestors fainting, vomiting, experiencing heart palpitations, sweating excessively, being disoriented and even suffering from leg paralysis. Eyewitnesses of this strange weapon noted that the loud and unpleasant sound was accompanied by a sudden thrust of air and vibrations . Proper investigations are needed. Belarus and Turkey The list goes on — in Belarus, security forces have been condemned for firing rubber-coated steel bullets into crowds , and in Turkey recently anti-government protestors were sprayed with tear gas and water. More than 2,000 people were arrested . EU states are not exempt — in France, civilians have been injured and killed by explosive stun grenades . I have also documented prohibited items on display for sale at major arms and security fairs, including in France and the UK - a reminder that constant monitoring and vigilance is essential. In 2023 at the UN General Assembly I called on United Nations member states to introduce a global agreement to govern the use and trade in law enforcement items with the view to prevent torture and other degrading treatment. I distributed a list of 20 different types of torture instruments that are currently widely in use, which are inherently torturous and which should be immediately removed from production and trade. All are now considered illegal by international monitoring bodies . My prohibited list includes a range of restraints from cage beds to thumb screws. It also bans spiked — as well as electrically charged — batons and shields. Skin-heating weapons Also included are the particularly terrifying experimental millimetre wave weapons, which use a form of directed energy to inflict pain by heating the skin from a distance. Weighted gloves – reportedly used to beat peaceful protesters in Hong Kong - dramatically increase the force of an impact and can cause excessive pain are also on my list. All of these items are now on the new EU’s banned list. At least 23 European countries — and approximately 76 European companies — were manufacturing or selling items on my list of inherently abusive equipment . They will now need to adjust their inventory to reflect the new EU rules. Also on my prohibited list — but not yet banned in the EU — are automatic multi-barrel launchers that can fire up to 36 tear gas projectiles or rubber bullets at the same time. They do not satisfy the rules on safe deployment of less lethal weapons as they are both inaccurate and indiscriminate. More than 130 countries have experienced significant protests since 2017, with around a quarter of all protests lasting more than three months. Sales are booming. The trade in equipment used for law enforcement is forecast to grow considerably, with an annual growth rate of eight percent to $27bn [€23bn] by 2028. Apart from the EU, major producers and exporters of items for law enforcement include China, Israel, Russia, the UAE and the USA. Companies in emerging economies like Brazil, Turkey and South Africa also produce for their domestic market and export widely. A different world is possible, one where inherently abusive equipment is not in the hands of untrained police officers or ruthless leaders because its manufacture and trade have been banned. Where other equipment is regulated, and where states are required to sound an alarm when they observe repression of the right to protest by excessive means. While regulatory measures in Europe are to be lauded, the trade is global. Every protester, whether on the streets of Berlin or Delhi or Johannesburg, has the same rights to assemble peacefully and safely, and to do so free of cruelty and excessive force. A global torture-free trade agreement could just achieve that. Dr Alice Jill Edwards is the UN special rapporteur on torture.
|
Dr Alice Jill Edwards
|
Rubber bullets, chemical substances, experimental acoustic weapons have been used recently by various police on Europe's streets against peaceful protests, writes the UN special rapporteur on torture.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-02T09:49:31.695Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar6c6cda93
|
No EU member state likely to hit targets on reducing Roma poverty, report finds
|
Europe's Roma population is still facing far-reaching discrimination and the EU is unlikely meet its own goals set in the Roma Strategic Framework, according to a new report from the European Agency for Fundamental Rights on Thursday (2 October). Roma families are still four times more likely to live in poverty than other citizens, the report found, and the agency concludes member states are now unlikely to meet their targets set for 2030 in the EU Roma Strategic Framework . The report says that 70 percent of Roma and travellers live in poverty. Just over half of the Roma have a job, compared with an average across the EU of 75 percent. Differences are already visible in the early years, according to the findings. Just over half of Roma and traveller children attend kindergarten or preschool. In the EU on average 95 percent of children do. This is followed by only a third of Roma children finishing upper secondary education compared to 84 percent in the general population. Additionally, when looking for a job, 36 percent of Roma felt discriminated against. That number has doubled from 16 percent in a 2016 Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) report. “For centuries, Roma and travellers have faced negative stereotyping, marginalisation and exclusion. This stems from the age-old practice of othering as well as the lack of public knowledge or awareness of their historical experiences — from forced assimilation to Roma genocide during the Holocaust”, said Siobhán McInerney-Lankford, head of equality, Roma and social rights at FRA. “Moreover, EU countries have been rather slow in adopting and implementing comprehensive inclusion strategies that would effectively address structural inequalities. All this manifests today in high poverty rates, poor housing, early school leaving, lack of job opportunities and ultimately lower life expectancy, harming generations of Roma and Travellers and their children.” In 2020 the EU Commission published its strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation for 2020-2030, with various targets, including: a plan to lift a majority of Roma out of poverty and ensure a 70-percent enrolment quota of Roma and traveller children in pre-school. According to the FRA report no member state is likely to reach those targets. McInerney-Lankford commented: “It is a sad fact that in 2025 Roma and travellers in the EU still face high levels of discrimination and exclusion and do not enjoy their fundamental rights on an equal basis with everyone else. "It is also important to understand Roma and travellers across Europe are not a unified nation — they constitute a very heterogenous group of people. As such, effective approaches to improving their living situation and their position in society must account for variations across countries and communities.” Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Roma still face ethnic discrimination in Europe and struggle with poverty, their children have less access to education and they are below the EU average when it comes to paid employment, according to a new report.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Health & Society"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-10-02T05:31:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arfb47aa5a
|
Listen: EU leaders debate 'drone wall' in Copenhagen after airspace violations
|
Today, Europe’s leaders gather in Copenhagen under unusually tight security. Outside, a German frigate sits in the harbour, signalling Europe’s military mood. Meanwhile, Danish authorities have banned all civilian drone flights this week, with Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frideriksen stressing that Europe’s “hybrid war” isn’t some abstract concept, it’s already playing out in the skies above us. Inside, leaders will spend barely four hours debating how to fortify the EU’s defences, support Ukraine, and how to overcome Hungary’s endless vetoes on basically anything Viktor Orban doesn’t like. What else is on the agenda? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Today, Europe’s leaders gather in Copenhagen under unusually tight security. Outside, a German frigate sits in the harbour, signalling Europe’s military mood. Meanwhile, Danish authorities have banned all civilian drone flights this week, with Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frideriksen stressing that Europe’s “hybrid war,” isn’t some abstract concept it’s already playing out in the skies above us. Inside, leaders will spend barely four hours debating how to fortify the EU’s defences, support Ukraine, and how to overcome Hungary’s endless vetoes on basically anything Viktor Orbán doesn’t like. What else is on the agenda? So on the table are five thorny issues. First up of course is defence. The European Commission wants to take the lead on flagship projects like a so-called “drone wall” along the eastern flank, but big players like Germany, France and Italy would rather keep control, because there’s the small matter of money, a discussion that revolves between joint EU borrowing versus national funding. Everyone agrees Europe needs a defence roadmap by 2030, but no one agrees who should pay. Then it’s Russia’s frozen billions. Brussels is floating the bold idea to use €140bn in sanctioned Russian assets to fund a loan for Ukraine. Kyiv would repay it only when Moscow finally pays reparations. Which is creative but legally might be a violation of international law. And Hungary, Slovakia, and even Belgium, where the money is actually held, are anything but enthusiastic. Of course on the agenda is also Ukraine’s EU membership. All 27 member states must agree, and Hungary is, again, the stumbling block. European Council president António Costa has suggested shifting from unanimity to qualified majority voting for opening accession talks, an elegant way of saying, “let’s stop letting Orbán hold everyone hostage.” Predictably, Paris, The Hague, and Athens are sceptical about this. In the same spirit will also be the negotiation for the new sanctions. The EU’s 19th package targets more Russian and foreign companies. But as usual, Budapest threatens to block, until Viktor Orbásn feels like it. And finally there are Germany’s demands. Chancellor Friedrich Merz is showing up with a laundry list, including watering down the EU’s combustion engine ban. Sweden, among others, is firmly opposed. So expect sparks there. Now all these talks are urgent because the recent drone incursions over Poland, Estonia, Romania and even Danish airports have underlined just how vulnerable Europe still is. And then there’s the money. Financing Ukraine’s survival with Russia’s frozen billions sounds clever, but it risks shaking global trust in the euro. Imagine if central banks start pulling their reserves from Europe because they fear Brussels might just “repurpose” them one day. So that doesn’t just make geopolitics shaky, but also jobs, savings, and even energy bills. And the political stakes are just as high. If the EU can’t overcome its own internal deadlock on sanctions, defence, Ukraine’s future it hands Moscow exactly what it wants: a divided, paralysed Europe. So, what happens next? Today’s Copenhagen summit is informal. Leaders won’t take binding decisions, just test the waters. In three weeks, at the formal European Council, they’ll have to actually commit on building that “drone wall,” on freeing up Russian assets, on how to fund defence, and on whether Ukraine finally takes its next step towards EU membership. Whether Europe’s leaders can move as fast as the threats they face will be crucial and judging by the pace of EU decision-making, that might be the biggest challenge of all. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
Today, Europe’s leaders gather in Copenhagen under unusually tight security, with Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frideriksen stressing that Europe’s “hybrid war” isn’t some abstract concept, it’s already playing out in the skies above us. But what else is on the agenda?
|
[
"EU Political"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-10-01T11:24:50.111Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ara48fcb16
|
'Cementing over our own future': Europe's nature loss is 600 football pitches daily
|
Europe is losing green spaces that once sheltered wildlife, supplied food and removed carbon from the atmosphere at an alarming rate, a new investigation reveals. Today, in the first investigation of its kind across Europe, the journalism project , which worked with scientists from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), can reveal the true extent of lost nature and cropland on the continent. The cross-border investigation was conducted by Arena for Journalism in Europe and Norwegian broadcaster NRK, together with other newsrooms in 10 countries across Europe. Using satellite imagery, artificial intelligence and on-the-ground reporting, their project quantifies how much land we are losing to construction. Every year, Europe loses 1,500km² to construction, their analysis found. Between January 2018 and December 2023, Europe lost approximately 9,000km² — an area the size of Cyprus. This is close to 30km² destroyed every week, the equivalent of 600 football pitches every single day. Nature accounts for the majority of these losses, at about 900km² a year. But the research shows agricultural land accounts for 600km² a year, with grave consequences for food security and health on the continent. These numbers also show that undeveloped land in Europe is disappearing up to one and a half times faster than previously estimated. New methodology Until now, the best Europe-wide estimates of nature loss have been based on official figures produced by the European Environment Agency (EEA) , using a methodology that only detects large-scale construction projects from satellite imagery. The methodology developed, however, was able to identify much smaller constructions, as well as many narrow roads and railways. Reporters found that four-out-of-every-five instances of construction occurred within populated areas already transformed by human activities. These include parks and green spaces in urban areas, essential for recreation, flood regulation and shade as summer temperatures soar. They also found many examples of precious nature, bulldozed to accommodate commercial activities, luxury homes and tourism. But the most common interventions, accounting for the majority of all cases, were to build housing or roads. Scientists have long studied the impact of the large-scale destruction of nature in places like the Amazon rainforest. But in Europe, we heard repeatedly that we have relatively little nature left. The research shows the grave impacts of cumulative small-scale losses of nature and cropland: “It's a slow-burning issue,” says Jan-Erik Petersen, ecosystem expert at the EEA. “It just accumulates over time.” Guy Pe’er, conservation biologist from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research , says: “If we allow these small-scale losses to continuously happen, we risk driving the system to a complete collapse. We are literally risking our health and security.” In 2021, the EU set a goal to offset land taken for construction with an equal area of nature restoration elsewhere. The “no net land take by 2050” strategy is non-binding, and, the research shows, has so far failed to significantly reduce construction on previously unbuilt land. No country spared While the losses are Europe-wide, there are patterns in the data. In Scandinavia, forests are particularly affected. In southern Europe, coastal areas are being erased. Cropland loss is more prevalent in Central Europe, in places like Germany and Denmark, where nature has been depleted by years of pre-existing developments. All countries are losing their natural and agricultural areas, but some are losing more than others. In absolute terms, Turkey tops the list with 1,860km² of nature and cropland lost between 2018 and 2023, an area bigger than Greater London. Poland is next with more than 1,000km² lost, followed by France and then Germany. If adjusted based on the size of the country, then the Netherlands and Belgium, smaller but more densely populated, come out top. These countries build on a higher proportion of their total surface area each year compared to large countries with fewer inhabitants, such as Norway, Sweden, or Finland. But if adjusted based on population size, Scandinavian countries fare worse. Norway’s construction translates to roughly six square metres of nature and cropland every year for each resident. In Switzerland, per capita losses are ten times less. 'We cannot live in a stone desert' In Italy, reporters discovered that Lake Garda, a world-famous biodiversity hotspot, is being overrun with developments in the name of 'sustainable tourism'. In Poland, investment properties have popped up around land intended for protection by the EU. In Finland, areas of endangered nature were turned into a highway. “You hear all the time that, ‘Oh, we gave this building permission because it was only 2,000m², so what?” But if you add up all those permissions all over Europe, it’s a lot.” Reporters investigated a golfing resort sprawling across a nature reserve in Portugal and a harbour for luxury yachts sunk into a wetland in Turkey. Alongside these major developments, in Lapland, they found the kind of small-scale interventions that are more common. Multiple tiny encroachments to service the desires of tourists, each one making a dent in the pristine nature that those same tourists come to see. The investigation showed it is the small-scale losses that really add up. Peter Verburg, professor in environmental spatial analysis at VU University Amsterdam says that the cumulative impact of many tiny developments is leading to global change: “You hear all the time that, ‘Oh, we gave this building permission because it was only 2,000m², so what?” But if you add up all those permissions all over Europe, it’s a lot.” Building on habitats means losing not just animals or native plants, but also crucial natural defences against extreme weather and rising temperatures. More buildings bring more heat and a higher risk of flooding, at a time when Europe, along with the Arctic, is warming faster than any other continent. Gunnar Austrheim, professor in biology at NTNU in Trondheim, co-authored an IPBES report which concluded in 2018 that Europe and central Asia were facing a crisis that would require profound societal changes to change course. Our investigation, he says, shows that politicians failed to act, instead embracing “business as usual”. 'Cementing over our own future' Lena Schilling, a Green MEP, says that every forest, fertile field, and biodiversity hotspot destroyed for short-term profit is a betrayal of the promises we made to young people. “For years, the EU has promised to lead on climate and nature protection, but what this investigation shows is that we are literally cementing over our own future,” she says. In 2024, the EU approved the Nature Restoration Regulation – a pioneering law that aims to revive 90 percent of degraded habitats across the EU by 2050. For the first time, national governments are obliged to set deadlines and meet targets on nature conservation. The regulation has faced intense pushback from the farming and forestry sector. Questions remain about how these measures will be financed and enforced, as the EU has promised to cut red tape for businesses and has rolled back a number of its ambitious environmental goals in the past year. Existing laws protecting nature might be next on the chopping board, warn environmental NGOs responsible for a petition, signed by 200,000 EU citizens, calling for current measures to be maintained. Meanwhile, forthcoming EU soil legislation makes no commitment to “no net land take by 2050”. In September, the European Environment Agency admitted in its state of the environment report that the EU target of no net land take by 2050 is unlikely to be met. Peter Verburg from VU University Amsterdam says that to reach no net land take by 2050, European countries need intermediate, legally-binding goals. “This determines our future, we cannot live in a stone desert,” Verburg says. “We need green space. We need to see trees. We need nature to support us, especially with climate change.” Zeynep Şentek is a Turkish investigative journalist focused on corruption, human rights, and environmental issues. Jelena Prtorić is an investigative journalist covering migration, climate, social movements and gender across languages. Hazel Sheffield is a UK-based multimedia and investigative journalist, founder of Far Nearer, writing on business, alternative economies, and the environment. Léopold Salzenstein is an investigative data journalist in France. Zeynep Şentek is a Turkish investigative journalist focused on corruption, human rights, and environmental issues. Jelena Prtorić is an investigative journalist covering migration, climate, social movements and gender across languages. Hazel Sheffield is a UK-based multimedia and investigative journalist, founder of Far Nearer, writing on business, alternative economies, and the environment.
|
Léopold Salzenstein
|
Every year, Europe loses 1,500km² to construction. Green spaces that once sheltered wildlife, supplied food and removed carbon from the atmosphere at an alarming rate, a new investigation reveals.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-10-01T07:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar43246a8b
|
Listen: What the Gaza peace plan means for Palestinians, Israel, and Hamas
|
After a meeting at the white house Donald Trump and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu have presented what they’re calling a 20-point peace plan for Gaza. They presented this as a historic breakthrough and the basics go like this: a ceasefire would begin immediately, Hamas would have 72 hours to release all the hostages it still holds, and Israel would free around 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including women and children. But is this really the start of peace? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: After a meeting at the White House, Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have presented what they’re calling a 20-point peace plan for Gaza. They presented this as a historic breakthrough and the basics go like this: a ceasefire would begin immediately, Hamas would have 72 hours to release all the hostages it still holds, and Israel would free around 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including women and children. But is this really the start of peace? Now, Hamas, in exchange, would have to disarm completely, dismantle its tunnels and military infrastructure, and give up any role in governing Gaza. An international security force would move in, and aid would finally flow in large amounts, overseen by international bodies like the UN and the Red Cross, whose operations have been hindered by the Israeli bombings. Gaza’s administration, for now, would be run by a temporary “Board of Peace,” headed, believe it or not, by Trump himself, alongside former UK prime minister Tony Blair. Down the line, if conditions are met, the Palestinian Authority might take over. And if it reforms properly, with a very big “if”, there could one day be a path to Palestinian statehood. One day. But Netanyahu’s government has consistently opposed a Palestinian state, and Hamas wasn’t even consulted before this plan was announced. European leaders, though, rushed to applaud it. Emmanuel Macron, Giorgia Meloni, Roberta Metsola, Antonio Costa, Ursula von der Leyen, they all said Hamas must accept. Germany’s foreign minister even urged countries like Qatar and Egypt to lobby Hamas hard. Now, on the surface, this looks like a peace plan, but looking closer it’s more like an ultimatum. Hamas has to surrender or face destruction, which of course they wouldn’t want or lose control over Gaza, remember they’re there catering to their own interests and not to those of Palestinian people. For Israel, the gains are obvious: hostages return home, Hamas neutralised, and the Israeli army still holding a security perimeter around Gaza and holding control. For Palestinians, the benefits are much more uncertain. Aid and reconstruction are promised and the plan insists there will be no expulsions from Gaza. But after almost two years of devastating war the promise of “maybe statehood, someday” is hardly reassuring. And a temporary administration run by a board chaired by Trump and Tony Blair doesn’t exactly scream Palestinian self-determination. So where do things go from here? Hamas negotiators have said they’ll review the proposal “in good faith.” But the terroristic group has so far made it clear that it won’t disarm unless Israel ends the war and withdraws completely. Netanyahu, for his part, has promised that if Hamas refuses or accepts and then resists later, Israel will “finish the job”, meaning exactly what you understood. Which is not exactly the language of compromise. The bigger question is whether this moment can be turned into a genuine negotiation, or whether it’s more political theatre designed to shift blame. If Hamas says no, Trump and Netanyahu will claim they offered peace and were rejected. If Hamas says yes, but conditions crumble, the cycle of war could start again under the cover of “we tried.” And the people living in, or fleeing from, Gaza cannot afford another failed peace plan. In fact, many cannot even afford the price of leaving, while enduring Israeli bombings and the flattening of their city. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
After a meeting at the White House, Donald Trump and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu have presented what they’re calling a 20-point peace plan for Gaza. But is this really the start of peace?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-30T18:56:58.110Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar9c522ba9
|
Behind the scam: how an alleged criminal network set a trap for thousands of Europeans to fall for ‘fake’ investments and raked in millions
|
At first glance, Olympus Prime looked more like a thriving tech start-up than one of the numerous, non-descript call centres popping up across Serbia’s capital city. Housed in a high-spec design building amongst a growing business neighborhood in Belgrade, the company shared space with a Chinese cultural complex and an upscale hotel. Yet when Serbian police entered the premises of the Olympus Prime call centre one rainy morning in January 2023, they uncovered a financial “boiler room” operation at the centre of a suspected international scam syndicate. On the surface, “the offices were completely normal like any other corporate office — plenty of desks, chairs and computers,” says Boris Majlat, head of the Serbian High Tech Crime department. Equally surprising were the 50 staff sitting behind the computers who appeared unflustered by the entrance of armed officers. In fact, employees had been prepped for events like this. In a training video seized during the raid, managers instruct employees on how to behave in case police come calling. “Tell them you’re only offering educational materials,” the manager says to the camera, “nothing more.” The coordinated raid was part of a Europol-led operation spanning 22 locations in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Cyprus, involving extensive police and intelligence from Germany. In addition to Olympus Prime, officers stormed three other connected call centres throughout Belgrade. Inside, workers manned specific team desks to target European citizens in their own languages. Using fake names, identities and scripted pitches, they posed as brokers to gain trust and fleece victims out of their money — and some of their life savings. The network is believed to have targeted over 70,000 people worldwide, profiting an estimated €250m by duping people into fake Forex and cryptocurrency investment trading, German authorities revealed in an email response to this investigation. In Serbia, 21 people have now been indicted on fraud charges by the public prosecutor and are awaiting court for their alleged involvement in the scheme. And while those caught up in the dragnet are suspected to be part of an organised criminal network, those ultimately behind the alleged scheme remain elusive to authorities. Now Investigate Europe and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (Birn) can reveal how businessman Eliran Oved and his wife Liat Kourtz Oved from Tel Aviv are connected to multiple firms and brands implicated in the call-centre raids via a network of shell companies and frontmen. Investigate Europe and Birn reviewed court and police documents as well as dozens of emails, databases, text messages, financial records and interviews with victims, which detailed certain alleged links to the couple. The Oveds’ suspected involvement highlights the challenges of cross-border enforcement to tackle financial fraud schemes, and the difficulty in identifying those ultimately responsible for the operations. Globally, the financial scam industry siphoned away over €1 trillion in 2023, with only four percent of victims recovering their losses, according to estimates from the Global Anti-Scam Alliance The Oved paper trail On social media, the Oveds appear to be just another successful family, posting photos on social media of exotic foreign holidays. Eliran Oved, who also owns the Israeli football club Bnei Yehuda , recently received an award from Israel's president for the team's community work . Yet the Oveds’ public persona hides a lucrative business taking place away from the lights of football stadiums and awards ceremonies. This investigation has tied Eliran Oved, a convicted money-launderer who was sentenced to a year in prison over operating an illegal gambling website, and his wife to the alleged scam call centres. Over the last six months, our investigative team analysed dozens of documents from corporate trade registers to expose the Oveds’ business links to the suspected multimillion-euro fraud. Investigate Europe and Birn discovered one lawsuit filed in Israel against the Oveds by plaintiffs from around the world, as well as two regulatory actions targeting Oved-owned companies, which resulted in a license being revoked in the UK and a multimillion-dollar fine in Australia. Olympus Prime, the call centre raided in January 2023, is owned by a trusted proxy of the Oveds. Other call centres part of Serbian probes were also found to have links back to the couple. A number of the brands housed in the offices of Olympus Prime and the other implicated call centres link to the Israeli couple or their business associates, this investigation found. The brands include FXVC — a former corporate partner of English Premier League club Leeds United — as well as brands PrimeOT, Greenfields Capital, and others that offered online trading in crypto, foreign currencies and other products. The websites were flagged as high-risk by regulators and are now offline. In total, the four call centres connected to the Oveds allegedly netted victims in Germany, the UK, Ireland, Switzerland and Austria, alongside Australians and Canadians. Lists of victims found at Olympus Prime and obtained by Investigate Europe and Birn through a source close to the investigation show some people lost a few hundred euros, while others lost over €1m. Reporters spoke to victims across the continent, including in the UK, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany. The Oveds failed to respond to detailed requests for comment for this story by the time of publication. One of the alleged scams seemingly linked to the Oveds was Wingroup, an investment brand that operated from the Olympus Prime office. Our investigation uncovered that Wingroup clients’ losses were connected to the Oveds. A former Belgian IT manager for a bank who asked to remain anonymous told how he deposited €250 with Wingroup in 2020 after seeing an ad on Facebook. A financial broker called him shortly after, helping him to begin “short selling” of stocks, a form of trading the IT manager had done before and felt familiar with. After that, he says: "Every day he called me, and every time he asked to invest more.” He saw his account balance rising to €3,000 when he was suddenly locked out of his account and unable to access his funds, a common fraud manoeuvre. Invoices that he shared with Investigate Europe and Birn show that his deposit was handled by Coinshype, a cryptocurrency exchange. Our investigation found that Coinshype was controlled by the Oveds via two companies in Estonia and Australia. Investment fraud is a key threat identified by Europol, the EU's police agency, in its latest report on organised crime , with its scale and scope increasing at an alarming pace. Globally, the financial scam industry siphoned away over €1 trillion in 2023, with only four percent of victims recovering their losses, according to estimates from the Global Anti-Scam Alliance . Artificial Intelligence has become a potent tool to deceive more people with realistic (often cloned) websites, scripts and videos, with social media becoming a common vector to ensnare consumers. 'We are not dealing with amateurs. This is organised crime, and unless we respond accordingly, they will simply move elsewhere and start again' Leeds United partnership and company proxies Perhaps one of the Oveds' most infamous investment brands, FXVC, became an official partner of Leeds United in 2020. Documents seen by Investigate Europe and Birn suggest FXVC operated from the Olympus Prime offices. The Premier League partnership deal gave them unprecedented exposure to the British market: FXVC’s branding was displayed across the club’s stadium , reaching millions of viewers each week. It was only in April 2021, that the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) revoked FXVC's licence for using "misleading financial promotions". Leeds United said they severed all ties with FXVC after learning about the ruling, according to a BBC investigation in 2023. The club failed to respond to questions related to the partnership for this story. A Freedom of Information request to the FCA reveals that FXVC has faced no fines and was not required to compensate British victims. On paper, FXVC appeared to be owned by a Cypriot holding fronted by nominees. But a closer look at the fine print in the company's accounts disclosed Kourtz Oved as the ultimate beneficiary. A similar pattern was identified across the alleged scam network, where trading websites were fronted by the Oveds’ business partners. Key associates included Cypriot ex-footballer Nikos Andreou, Bulgarian lawyer Vera Nachkova Andonova, and Miloš Radivojevic, a Serb with Bulgarian citizenship understood to be Andonova’s husband. Radivojevic is the only one currently under investigation by Serbian authorities in connection to a money laundering probe, according to details of the case shared with Investigate Europe and Birn. The three partners collectively served as directors for five Oved companies, and held shares in 14 firms linked to the alleged network. Andonova and Radivojevic failed to respond to detailed requests for comment. Andreou could not be reached at the only email address found for him online. Another of the brands seemingly connected to the Oveds and operating out of Belgrade call centres named in the indictment was PrimeOT. According to a UK Financial Ombudsman decision in 2022, one of the victims of PrimeOT , who lost nearly €150,000 in fake investments, was instructed to send their money to the Oved-controlled Coinshype. Brands like PrimeOT lured victims in through targeted ads on Google and Meta platforms. Once people clicked through the advertisement and entered their details, the high-pressure tactics began. ‘I’ll get you three houses in Spain’ In late 2017, Malcolm, a semi-retired oil industry manager from north-east England, opened a Google ad for Greenfields Capital, a brand managed by the Oveds' associates and targeting UK citizens. After an initial investment of £500, a “broker” called, urging him to put in far more the very next day. “He persuaded me to invest £34,000,” Malcolm recalls. “He told me he’d double it within a week and pay the gains straight into my bank. Needless to say, the week came and went, and no gains were received. All the investments he set up were at zero.” Alarmed at his sudden large losses, Malcolm began to scrutinise the company. He realised the London address displayed on Greenfields Capital's website was a fake. Investigate Europe and Birn found that the UK and Vanuatu entities behind Greenfields Capital listed Vera Nachkova Andonova as a shareholder. A trusted proxy of the Oveds, she has served as director in four of their companies. Malcolm's story is one of many. When John, a 64-year-old Scottish builder, stumbled upon an ad on Google in 2018 FX Trade Market – a brand linked to Oved associates – it seemed like a golden opportunity. The site even claimed to be endorsed by Dragon's Den, a popular British TV show where entrepreneurs pitch ideas to millionaire investors. The man who phoned him the next day sounded credible and John did not realise the call likely came from Belgrade. "He was quite amicable and really charming," John says. "I told him I'd love to buy a house in Spain and he told me: ‘I'll get you three houses in Spain.’" Between 2018 and 2019, he poured in £25,000 and even persuaded his daughter to invest. Online, his portfolio appeared to skyrocket, climbing to £130,000. "My wife didn't know very much about it, and I was hoping to surprise her with a big chunk of money,” he recalls. Then one day, as he was checking his accounts, he realised all his money was gone. His calls went unanswered and the man who once promised him three houses had vanished. "When all that money disappeared and I couldn't get in touch with anybody,” John recalls, “it must have taken years off my life.” Inside Belgrade boiler rooms While exploiting clients like John and Malcolm, fake brokers enjoyed some of the best working conditions in Belgrade. With Serbia’s average monthly wage around €700, call centre agents were among the country’s top earners. Best performers raked in staggering bonuses. In November 2022, one agent pocketed an extra commission-based bonus €63,000, while another took home €84,000. Five teams at Olympus Prime worked around the clock, divided by language and region. A German-speaking team nicknamed "Panzer" preyed on German victims, whereas others focused on Scandinavian and English-speaking countries. Internal chats uncovered by police revealed just how little sympathy call centre agents had for their victims, at times labelling them “idiots” for entrusting their money with them. In one exchange, after an agent stated that a target had €40,000 to invest, a colleague replied: “Great, snatch it!” Employees at the call centres used language-specific code names such as “Jack Weiss” or “James Eastwood”, details from the indictment seen by Investigate Europe and Birn show. After getting clients to make initial small investments into their accounts on cloned websites which they believed were real transactions, clients were encouraged to keep investing after seeing fake profits. One noted incident in the indictment obtained by Investigate Europe and Birn through a source close to the investigation, describes a Swiss customer who “continued to deposit money in the total amount of €50,000, and when the injured party requested a payout, his account showed that there were no funds.” Serbian prosecution says the Olympus Prime call centre relied on a tiered hierarchy: Israeli managers at the top, senior Serbian staff running day-to-day operations, and local call agents targeting victims. Our investigation found that Olympus Prime is owned by Cypriot ex-footballer Nikos Andreou, a key associate that appeared to act as a frontman for the Oveds in Coinshype. “We are not dealing with amateurs. This is organised crime, and unless we respond accordingly, they will simply move elsewhere and start again,” says Boris Majlat, the Serbian prosecutor on the case. ‘Unless we respond, they will simply move elsewhere’ Although people were arrested during the January 2023 raids and more were charged later, several key individuals are still on the loose and Majlat admits his frustration. “We’re facing organised, transnational, crypto-based fraud, yet the court treats it like a basic scam," he says. "These are not cases for ordinary prosecutors. We need specialised units. Without them, we cannot win." Since 2019, German prosecutor Nino Goldbeck has been heading a special task force out of Bamberg dedicated to tackling online investment fraud. “If, for example, we search a call centre with 200 employees, only a small fraction will end up in the dock at the end of the day,” he says. “This is due to resource constraints, prioritisation, and jurisdiction issues.” Since 2019, Bamberg investigators have carried out 15 raids across Europe in coordination with other national law enforcement agencies. So far, around 80 individuals have been convicted in financial scams in German courts. Serbian authorities say their investigation is ongoing around the Belgrade call centre raids, but with key figures abroad and multiple jurisdictions involved, justice is proving elusive. When approached for comment about the Oveds’ ties with the alleged financial scam network, Majlat said he “cannot comment on the ongoing investigations.” In Germany, the Public Prosecutor General’s Office in Karlsruhe is working alongside Serbian law enforcement to continue to investigate the raided Belgrade call centres. They were unable to provide further comment on the matter. The Oveds and their associates have not been charged of any crime related to the Serbian call centre scheme named in this investigation. However, Oved businesses have previously been involved in cases related to potential scams. In 2020, Australia’s financial regulator fined a firm 20m Australian dollars for “unconscionable conduct” after investors lost over 11m in just a year. While the ruling did not explicitly name the Oveds, this investigation has identified Liat Kourtz Oved as the main shareholder of the concerned firm. Elsewhere in Australia, Coinshype - the cryptocurrency exchange platform linked to Belgrade call centre profits - saw a director arrested this March for allegedly handling scam proceeds. In Israel, 38 plaintiffs sued the Oveds and several others in 2020, accusing their companies of promoting alleged scams, including UK-targeted Greenfields Capital. It is understood that the case was settled out of court. Despite these legal hurdles and amid European authorities' struggle to close in on the Oveds, the couple continued to expand their ventures. An offshore vehicle owned by the Oveds and associated with the former Leeds sponsor FXVC launched two new trading brands: Klips.com and 50K.trade. The Klips trademark was even registered by one of the couple’s Israeli firms, linking their direct involvement.
|
Meanwhile, many victims still grapple with what happened to them. Some of those approached for this investigation refused to speak, afraid they might be targeted by scam agencies again. For others, the memories were simply too painful to revisit. "It is the worst thing to talk about," says one woman who lost €54,000 to Greenfields Capital, “because as a victim, you are trying to forget it.”
|
A suspected scam network operating out of Serbia duped an estimated 70,000 people worldwide into making bogus investments, profiting €250m in the process. The transnational scheme involved a former Premier League team sponsor and a convicted money launderer, Investigate Europe and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network can reveal, in the first part of our Scam Europe series.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Investigations",
"Health & Society"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-30T06:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arf605a31b
|
Four EU states paid more for Russian LNG than they gave to Ukraine
|
France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands together spent more money on Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) than in financial support for Ukraine, according to a new report by Greenpeace published on Tuesday (30 September). Those three member states, which are the EU countries importing the most Russian LNG, together spent €34.3bn between 2022 and June 2025 — while their combined support for Ukraine was €21.2bn. Greenpeace found that in the first half of 2025, the EU as a whole imported 12.8 billion cubic metres of Russian LNG — an increase of 67 percent compared to the first quarter of 2021, before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Before the February 2022 invasion, Russian gas (including both pipeline and LNG) accounted for 45 percent of Europe’s energy demands. Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Europe has been trying to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. The EU Commission has recently put forward a proposal for member states to stop importing all Russian fossil fuels by 2027. And while most EU member states backed the plan, Slovakia and Hungary opposed the move. Russian energy has been subjected to economic sanctions imposed by the EU, the US, and other allies. Pipeline gas and LNG have been targeted through bans on transhipment, restrictions on investments, and the planned phase-out of imports under new contracts. In the latest 19th sanction package against Russia, which is yet to be approved by member states, the commission proposes to stop the import of Russian LNG by the end of 2026 – reportedly one year ahead of the initial plans, in response to transatlantic pressure from Donald Trump. Most of the LNG that comes to Europe is exported by the Russian company Yamal LNG. According to the report, the company is estimated to have increased revenue by €34bn between 2022 and 2024 and paid an estimated €8bn in tax to the Russian state. Greenpeace estimates that Russia could have bought 270,000 Shahed attack drones with that sum. In March 2025, an estimated 1,000 of those drones were used to attack Ukraine each week. As national capitals try to move away from Russian LNG, the EU plans to import more LNG from the US. In 2021, 28 percent of the EU’s LNG imports came from the US. By 2024, that share had risen to 45 percent. Greenpeace warned that the EU is on the verge of stumbling from one dependency (Russia) to another (US). "Europe would be foolish to swap this dependence [from Russia] for one on American gas," said Thomas Gelin, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace EU. "Fracked gas from the US does outrageous damage to the climate and local communities' health, and Trump won't hesitate to use gas imports as a lever to bully the EU if European households are vulnerable to this volatile market." Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Some EU member states paid more for Russian LNG than they gave in financial support for Ukraine, a new report by Greenpeace Belgium shows. With that €8bn Russia could have bought 270,000 Shahed attack drones.
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
*
|
2025-09-30T04:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/arbcfebfe0
|
Listen: EU climate watchdog report finds most green targets off track for 2030
|
A new flagship report from the European Environment Agency says that the continent is struggling to meet most of its 2030 climate and environmental targets. While Europe has managed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 37 percent since 1990, more than the US or China , almost everything else looks grim. With water scarcity threatening one in three Europeans, heatwaves scorching the south and governments rolling back green rules, how much longer can Europe afford to delay climate action before the damage becomes irreversible? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: A new flagship report from the European Environment Agency says that the continent is struggling to meet most of its 2030 climate and environmental targets. While Europe has managed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 37 percent since 1990, more than the US or China, almost everything else looks grim. With water scarcity threatening one in three Europeans, heatwaves scorching the south and governments rolling back green rules, how much longer can Europe afford to delay climate action before the damage becomes irreversible? More than 80 percent of protected habitats are in poor or bad condition. Europe’s forests, once a reliable carbon sink, have lost around 30 percent of their absorption capacity in just a decade because of logging, wildfires and pests. Emissions from food and transport haven’t really budged since 2005. Water stress now affects one in three Europeans and will only get worse. Biodiversity is collapsing, 60 percent of species are in poor condition and the EU has already missed its target to halt biodiversity loss by 2020. And yet, despite record floods in Valencia last year or wildfires in southern Europe every summer, member states are still failing to adapt to extreme weather at the pace required. So yes, Europe has saved lives by cutting air pollution. But out of 22 environmental policy targets for 2030, only two are on track. The findings from the European Environment Agency are blunt, especially about the very foundations of Europe’s economy and quality of life. Healthy ecosystems regulate water, feed us, protect us from disasters and without them, our so-called European way of life starts to look very fragile. And yet, the political response is weak. Instead of doubling down, many EU leaders are rowing back on green rules in the name of “competitiveness” and “simplification”, which leads to deregulation. Far-right parties who openly deny climate science are gaining ground, and even allies across the Atlantic, like the US government, are pushing Europe to buy fossil fuels and relax standards on imports. The irony is hard to miss. EU officials warn that the real threat to Europe’s competitiveness comes not from climate action, but from climate inaction. Every flood, every drought, every wildfire carries a financial toll. In Slovenia last year, floods caused damages worth 16 percent of the country’s GDP. If that’s not an economic burden, I don’t know what is. So what now? The report says it clearly, Europe needs to step up. That means enforcing existing laws, not watering them down. It means finally addressing unsustainable consumption and production, because recycling rates creeping up by one percentage point in a decade is not a strategy. It means investing in adaptation so homes, farms and hospitals can withstand the reality of extreme weather. The choice, as some EU officials put it is simple to either act now, or pay much more later. Sustainability is not about luxury after all, it’s survival. So while Brussels debates “simplification” and competitiveness, the real long story is that without a liveable environment, there is no economy, and there certainly isn’t a European way of life left to defend. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
A new flagship report from the European Environment Agency says that the continent is struggling to meet most of its 2030 climate and environmental targets.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
green-economy
|
2025-09-29T10:50:28.375Z
|
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar2ceb55f9
|
'Temporary protection' leaves Ukraine refugees in limbo and liable to rightwing backlash
|
Activation of the EU-wide Temporary Protection (TP) mechanism following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was one of the few success stories in the operations of the Common European Asylum System in recent years. Despite earlier concerns regarding the mechanism’s viability, it proved capable of providing millions of Ukrainians with meaningful protection across the Union mere days after the full-scale invasion. In the conflict’s fourth year, however, the very features of TP that made it such a convenient instrument for tackling rapid, large-scale displacement can now be seen as flaws. The periodic extension mechanism effectively traps Ukrainian refugees in a perpetually ‘temporary’ situation and leaves them vulnerable to anti-Ukrainian sentiment. From emergency to perpetual ‘temporariness’ Temporary protection is a mechanism designed specifically to respond to situations that would overwhelm ‘regular’ asylum systems. Instead of requiring everyone to submit individual asylum claims, TP confers immediate protection and meaningful status on, in principle, all those displaced, as defined in the Council implementing decision . The underlying assumption of TP is that, after its activation and operation for a limited period, temporary protection either ends when return to the country of origin becomes possible, or transitions into a more lasting status. It has been described as ‘a prelude’ to the normal operation of the 1951 Refugee Convention, on which the Common European Asylum System is largely based. The periodical extension mechanism was embedded in the Temporary Protection Directive precisely to prevent TP’s entrenchment beyond what is justified by the crisis situation. It has now been more than three years since TP was first triggered. The European Council, prompted by the EU Commission, has taken the controversial decision to extend it beyond what was previously assumed to be a three-year limit. The dominant interpretation of Article 4 of the directive was that it functioned as a safeguard, making it impossible to rely on periodic extensions of TP for longer than three years. Having crossed that bridge, it is now theoretically possible to continue relying on extensions in the years ahead, leaving millions of Ukrainians dependent on political whims in Brussels and in the member states tasked with implementing TP in their domestic jurisdictions. Poland Consider the case of Poland, where the issue of entitlements for Ukrainian refugees has been especially contentious in recent months. Quickly branded a ‘humanitarian superpower’ in 2022, Poland is now increasingly turning against Ukrainian refugees, and a recent debate on yet another extension of TP became a pretext to further dilute their rights. Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, brewing for years since 2022 mainly outside mainstream politics, came to the fore during the 2025 presidential campaign. Tellingly, it was an ostensibly liberal candidate — Warsaw mayor Rafał Trzaskowski — who, in an apparent pitch to rightwing voters, first proposed conditioning some of Ukrainians’ social benefits on their participation in the job market. Setting aside the senselessness of this, it inevitably backfired when the new president — nationalist Karol Nawrocki — challenged the ruling liberals to deliver on their promise. Using his veto power, he refused to sign into law the bill that would have extended the Polish incarnation of TP beyond September — leaving hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in the country fearing they might become undocumented migrants and, understandably, flooding the authorities with applications for alternative residence statuses. The government was effectively forced to propose another version of the extension bill — one that strips Ukrainians who do not participate in the job market of certain social entitlements, and this time, the president agreed to it. The president put forward his own extension bill, which includes restrictions on Ukrainians’ social rights and, among other more or less absurd measures, the criminalisation of ‘propagating the ideology of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists’ — further fuelling deep-rooted Polish-Ukrainian animosities. What’s next? Given the above, there is a persistent need to decouple the question of the status of Ukrainian refugees across the Union from the political atmosphere of the moment. Although TP provides them with enhanced rights, it simultaneously keeps them in a state of perpetual ‘temporariness’ and leaves them vulnerable to shifting tides in European and national politics. In this context, the recently adopted Council Recommendation on a coordinated approach to the transition out of temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine comes far too late. It does, nevertheless, envisage the eventual phasing out of TP (currently in place until at least 4 March 2027) and encourages member states to allow Ukrainians to transition to alternative residence statuses and to facilitate voluntary returns to Ukraine. Much remains unanswered in the recommendation. It appears to lean toward phasing out TP in favour of either return or statuses primarily based on the economic activity of Ukrainians. This is concerning for those who are unable or unwilling to return, yet also ineligible to secure employment-based residency or a similar status. In this context, it is unclear why the recommendation does not encourage the grant of ‘regular’ protection statuses, in the form of refugee status or subsidiary protection. Finally, the eventual termination of TP may provide an opportunity for governments to further restrict Ukrainians’ rights. It is thus crucial to ensure that the strictly voluntary nature of eventual returns is respected. That said, the debate on the termination of TP is long overdue. In the fourth year after the 2022 invasion, it is no longer necessary to rely on an emergency-based mechanism, particularly because its periodic extension mechanism leaves Ukrainians in a protracted limbo, vulnerable to rising anti-immigrant trends. Maciej Grześkowiak is a Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute in Florence and an expert in migration and asylum law. Maciej Grześkowiak is a Max Weber Fellow at the
|
European University Institute in Florence
|
In the fourth year of the Ukraine war, the very features of the EU's "temporary protection" that made it such a convenient instrument for tackling rapid, large-scale displacement can now be seen as flaws. The periodic extension mechanism effectively traps Ukrainian refugees in a perpetually ‘temporary’ situation and leaves them vulnerable to anti-Ukrainian sentiment.
|
[
"Migration",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
migration
|
2025-09-29T10:29:31.808Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/ard0f466c0
|
Informal EU summits and deregulation This WEEK
|
EUobserver's weekly agenda is back, just in time to close 'hard September' and open 'back-to-business October' — where Brussels swaps rentrée receptions for the usual crisis summits. EU heads of state and government will be meeting in Copenhagen on Wednesday (1 October) for an informal discussion on Ukraine, Russia's frozen assets, common defence and Israel sanctions. The high-level talks come amid concerns over Russia's recent airspace violations and drone incursions in Europe, including last week's sighting of drones near Copenhagen airport, which grounded all take-offs and landings for hours. The incidents have raised questions over the security of Europe's airspace and its readiness to handle security threats. Discussions on Ukraine are also influenced by US president Donald Trump's recent shift in tone, saying Ukraine "can win all of Ukraine back in its original form". Polish PM Donald Tusk, though, has cautioned that this is more rhetorical pressure than a clear policy reversal. "Behind this surprising optimism lies a promise of reduced US involvement and a shift of responsibility for ending the war to Europe. Better truth than illusions," the Polish leader said. The EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas has also stated that there are "no signs" Russian president Vladimir Putin was interested in a negotiated peace absent Ukrainian capitulation — a stance echoed by other Western nations, such as the UK. And with winter coming and Russia being expected to ramp up attacks on the country's power grid, energy security is a major concern, alongside Ukraine's budget and war economy remaining under pressure. Meanwhile, a debate on EU plans to use frozen Russian assets held in the EU as a "reparation loan" to Ukraine will also be on the table, as the mood in the room is changing, with Germany now supporting the idea. Other countries, such as Belgium, remain sceptical. The so-called 'informal EUCO' will take place ahead of the European Political Community summit — an also informal meeting, which brings together leaders from across the continent, including the Western Balkans, Turkey, the UK, Ukraine, and Moldova. By that time, Moldova will be facing the aftermath of its parliamentary elections, which are expected to have consequences beyond the former Soviet country . A press conference by German centre-right MEP Michael Gahler, the head of the European Parliament delegation observing parliamentary elections in Moldova, will take place on Monday (29 September). Also on Monday, EU foreign ministers of Poland, France and Germany meet in Warsaw. Simplification EU ministers will discuss on the same day the €410bn European Competitiveness Fund, one of the main chunks of the €2 trillion EU budget running from 2028 to 2034. The 27 ministers will also be briefed by EU commission vice-president Stéphane Séjourné on the annual progress report on simplification Afterwards, Italian PM Enrico Letta, who authored a report on the structural issues of the single market, will join the ministers for a discussion. "The easiest and most effective step [for simplification] is to phase out directives and move exclusively to regulations ... The level of simplification this would bring is enormous because it addresses both the number of rules coming from Brussels and the inconsistency in how these rules are applied across member states," Letta told my colleague Wester van Gaal in February. The EU Startup and Scaleup Strategy, the EU's plan to help startups grow larger, will be the topic of discussion on Tuesday (30 September), when they will also have a first exchange of views on the next EU's research programme, Horizon, worth €175bn. Also on Tuesday, the European Commission is expected to present a package of proposals to create new financial products that encourage people and institutions to invest their money in ways that can support businesses, startups, and economic growth. Europe has money, but not enough of it is being invested in businesses as equity to help them expand, innovate, and compete globally with other countries like China or the US. This package aims to partially fix that gap. UEFA to suspend Israel This week, the executive board of the European football body UEFA is also reportedly set to make a decision on whether Israel will be suspended from European competition over the atrocities in Gaza. However, Israel may still be allowed to play in World Cup qualifiers, which are run by FIFA. German Unity Day celebrations will take place on Friday (3 October), marking the anniversary of Germany’s reunification in 1990.
|
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
|
An informal EUCO will take place in Copenhagen, where EU leaders will focus on Ukraine, defence, and using Russian frozen assets. Also this week, leaders from all of Europe will gather in Denmark for the summit of the European Political Community. Meanwhile, ministers will meet to discuss the EU budget, startup support, and simplifying rules - while UEFA may suspend Israel from European competitions over the war in Gaza.
|
[
"Agenda"
] |
agenda
|
2025-09-29T04:30:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/agenda/ar05843125
|
'Biodiversity loss, extreme weather and water scarcity' is Europe's future, report warns
|
A new report on Monday (29 September) from the European Environment Agency (EEA) starkly warns that the state of the environment in Europe is in "bad or poor condition." The biggest challenges will be extreme weather events catalysed by climate change, biodiversity loss and insecurity in the water and food system. “More than 60 percent of the species in Europe are in a bad or poor condition”, said Catherin Ganzleben of the EEA. The decline of biodiversity and ecosystems is expected to continue. Saving biodiversity in Europe will be one of the biggest challenges in the next few years, as the report cites unsustainable production and consumption habits especially in the food system as main drivers. With unhealthy ecosystems come challenges to food and water security. Water scarcity currently affects 34 percent of the European population. “We see water scarcity in the southern European countries, Spain, Portugal, Italy, also across Romania, Turkey, the Balkans, but not just that, we also see water scarcity in Belgium, in the Netherlands, also in Denmark. And the link there is very much to the use of water in agriculture.” Europe is experiencing warming at double the global average, with climate change fuelling extreme weather events like droughts or floods experienced this year already in several member states. In 2024 floods in Valencia claimed 250 victims and wildfires are becoming a lethal part of every summer. Since the second term of Ursula von der Leyen as EU Commission president environmental policy has started to unwind or be repealed. Environmental regulations like the anti-deforestation rule are postponed while competitiveness and economic growth became priorities. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Europe's environment is in a "bad to poor" state, according to a new report from the European Environment Agency. While there are some positive developments the general situation remains dire.
|
[
"Green Economy"
] |
*
|
2025-09-29T04:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/arf0e991da
|
How the rightwing in Czech Republic and Hungary is targeting Ukrainian refugees
|
Fuelled by misinformation spread by politicians about Ukrainians exploiting social welfare systems , anti-Ukrainian sentiment is on the rise across Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania. This backlash is fuelled by social tensions and nationalist rhetoric, leading to increased polarisation, public hostility, and in some cases, the risk of discriminatory policies or acts targeting Ukrainians seeking refuge or employment. ‘Poland first, Poles first’ Earlier in August, Polish president Karol Nawrocki vetoed an amendment to the law on aid for Ukraine. He publicly voiced his opposition to a provision that would provide child benefits only to those Ukrainians who work and pay taxes in Poland. "The law on aid to Ukrainian citizens does not stipulate this. (...) I believe that is wrong. Poland first, Poles first” is not just an election slogan," he said, referring to his campaign promise. However, according to a Deloitte report for the National Bank of Poland, 78 percent of Ukrainian citizens residing in Poland are employed. Ukrainians contributed 15 billion PLN (Polish złoty) [€3.52bn] to the Polish economy and contributed to a 2.7 percent increase in GDP. In contrast, the 800+ benefit payments to them cost the economy only 2.8 billion PLN. On this issue, Nawrocki, the presidential candidate for the nationalist rightwing PiS (Law and Justice) party, shares similar views to Konfederacja party politicians, who make similar demands. This is a trend of other political parties throughout Europe with similar ideological and agenda-driven stances. Babiš and the extreme right In the Czech Republic, a month away from parliamentary elections , Andrej Babiš’ Action of Dissatisfied Citizens (ANO) is leading in the polls by 32 percent, competing — with anti-Ukrainian slogans — with Tomio Okamura's far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) party, on 12 percent. In June, Okamura criticised the idea of granting maternity pay to Ukrainian women living in the Czech Republic. "The Fiala [Petra, Czech prime minister] government intends to rob Czech families of their money and give it to Ukrainian families? That's crazy," Okamura said. A few days later, Babiš virtually repeated the same thing. "The government is introducing maternity leave for Ukrainian women. You heard right. So nothing for Czech mothers, and everything for Ukrainian women. It is clear that Fiala is fighting for Ukraine, and certainly not the Czech Republic," said the former prime minister in a video. There are two myths spread widely in Czech society by populists and the far-right. One is that Ukrainian refugees are treated better than Czech citizens. The other is that Ukrainians are wealthy enough that they do not need help, or that they have come from regions where there is no war. Myths about Ukrainian refugees alive and kicking The first myth most likely comes from the fact that the Czech Republic was especially involved in helping Ukrainian refugees during the first year of the full-scale invasion. They were entitled to free public transport, their children were guaranteed school places, and those who took in Ukrainian families received compensation from the state almost equal to that of market rates for hotels. Many Czechs believe that Ukrainians are still receiving these privileges. Politicians from the aforementioned ANO, SPD, and pro-Russian party Stacilo (‘Enough’, on eight percent) are taking advantage of this sentiment. As part of their campaign, Okamura's ANO party is promising to deport all Ukrainian refugees who are not in full-time work. Babiš, albeit slightly more moderate on this issue, also wants to win over rightwing voters. He proposes ‘only’ sending back those who are not in work at all: if they have a casual job, they can remain in the Czech Republic. He also vows to make sure that Ukrainians are not generally favoured over Czechs. Some hard facts The facts, however, do not support the narrative that Ukrainians are favoured by the state when it comes to support. There are 373,000 Ukrainian refugees registered in the Czech Republic, of which only 89,000 receive benefits; of those, half are children, one third are pensioners, and the rest are people with disabilities and women on maternity pay. Half of the refugees are employed and do not receive any benefits. In the Czech Republic, the benefits amount to €180, about €10 less than the minimum support provided to unemployed Czech citizens. The data also shows that the Czech economy is benefiting significantly from Ukrainian refugees. In the first quarter of this year, total expenditure on refugees amounted to €155m, while they paid €286m in taxes during the same period. In the Czech Republic, the pre-election coalition ‘Enough!’ brings together part of the leftwing around the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, as well as various other movements, often ultra-nationalist, and focuses on criticising military support for Ukraine. The ruling coalition in the Czech Republic, ‘Together’, began supplying weapons to Kyiv at the beginning of the invasion. And non-partisan president Petr Pavel has assembled a coalition of countries that have supplied Ukraine with over two million pieces of artillery ammunition. Orbán's slanted referendum In Hungary, politicians are focusing on the same issue, as well as the (still theoretical) question of Ukraine's accession to the European Union. The government of Viktor Orbán conducted a nationwide poll on the issue in June. The letter sent to every household began by stating that Ukraine's accession would be an economic blow to Hungary and that it would contribute to a worse standard of living for its citizens, going on to highlight that crime would increase in the country. It also claims that millions of Ukrainians will have to be paid pensions belonging to Hungarians. The government claims to have received two million completed questionnaires back, in which 95 percent of Hungarians expressed their disagreement with Ukraine's accession to the European Union. However, Peter Magyar, leader of the opposition TISZA party, claims , citing sources in the Hungarian postal service, that only half a million completed questionnaires were returned to the government. Neither he nor Fidesz are able to provide evidence to support these claims. 'Russian propaganda remains extremely aggressive, and those who support it, regardless of their political affiliations, are very vocal' In Hungary, the Ukraine question is politically sensitive. In 2022, a misrepresented statement by then-opposition leader Peter Marki Zay about allegedly sending Hungarian troops to war with Russia greatly damaged his campaign. Many of Magyar's supporters interpret his recent statements with caution. In an interview with Gazeta Wyborcza in August, he stated that it was Ukrainian politicians who contributed to the deterioration of relations with Hungary, and not the other way around, asking: If you have been at war for so long, does it make sense to upset your neighbour by putting pressure on the Hungarian minority and taking away their rights?" This is one of the few public statements he has made on Ukraine. The leader of TISZA is mindful not to broach this subject in Hungary, aware that it could be exploited by the propaganda machine of Orbán's party, Fidesz. In recent years, Viktor Orbán's government has done everything in its power to discourage people from seeking asylum in Hungary. According to UNICEF, there are currently 61,000 Ukrainians in the country, 47,000 of whom have only temporary protection. Anti-Ukrainian sentiment on the rise in Romania In Romania, only 21 percent of respondents to a survey perceived Ukrainian immigrants as a major threat. And yet, a shift in public attitude against Ukrainians is noticeable there, too. In September 2023, 64 percent of Romanians believed that Russia should withdraw its army and return the occupied territories to Ukraine. This percentage has now fallen to 56 percent. There has also been an increase in willingness to cede occupied territories to Russia, which stood at 24 percent two years ago, compared to 33 percent now. "If this trend continues, these percentages are likely to reverse, though it is not certain. Nevertheless, Russian propaganda remains extremely aggressive, and those who support it, regardless of their political affiliations, are very vocal," said Remus Stefureac, founder of the renowned INSCOP institute, which conducted the study. According to him, the 21 percent of respondents who consider Ukrainian emigration to be a major threat are becoming the perfect target for extremist parties — and could tip the balance for parties seeking to seize power. Earlier in September, the EU agreed to extend temporary protection for millions of Ukrainians who cannot return to their country until March 2027. Michał Kokot reports for Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland), Petr Jedlička writes for Deník Referendum (Czech Republic), Kata Moravecz is affiliated with EUrologus (Hungary), and Nicolae Cotruț contributes to HotNews.ro (Romania). Michał Kokot reports for Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland), Petr Jedlička writes for Deník Referendum (Czech Republic), Kata Moravecz is affiliated with EUrologus (Hungary), and
|
Nicolae Cotruț
|
Fuelled by misinformation spread by politicians about Ukrainians exploiting social welfare systems , anti-Ukrainian sentiment is on the rise across Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania.
|
[
"Migration",
"Ukraine"
] |
migration
|
2025-09-26T11:30:48.652Z
|
https://euobserver.com/migration/arcbd70077
|
European rights court sides with Austria on deporting 19-year old Syrian
|
Austria will be allowed to deport a 19-year old Syrian after the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights lifted an injunction. The case may lead to similar deportations as Europe clamps down on asylum seekers and refugees. In a statement on Wednesday (24 September), the court said the 19-year old didn’t face any “real and imminent risk of irreparable harm” should he be returned to Syria, following the collapse of the Assad regime in December of last year. Not named in the court documents, the 19-year old fled to Austria in October 2022 in the hopes of escaping a war that reportedly forced young men from government-held areas of his native region in the Hasaka governorate in northeastern Syria to join pro-Assad regime ranks. Once in Austria, he was denied international protection and ended up jailed for shoplifting and robbery. After serving his sentence he was sent to an immigration detention centre pending his removal from the country. But last month, the Strasbourg court imposed so-called “interim measures” to postpone his deportation given the potential dangers and risks once returned to Syria. Those measures have now been lifted by the court amid claims the current general security situation in Syria poses no immediate risk. Recent rulings from Austrian courts also highlight that he has family in Syria. They also said he spoke the local language, was healthy, and could rely on a social network when he returned. Meanwhile, Austria has so far only deported two people to Syria since the fall of the Assad regime, when extremist troops toppled the ruler and took power. According to reports from Amnesty International the situation on the ground is not clear and especially in northern and eastern Syria still in turmoil. The first deportation in July was the first-ever from an EU member state to Syria since the war had started in 2011. According to his family and legal representation in Austria, the man disappeared after Austrian authorities handed him over to Syrian representatives in Istanbul. The UN committee on enforced disappearances has asked the Austrian government to inquire with the Syrian authorities about his whereabouts. Last week, a second man was deported directly to the Syrian capital of Damascus. Critics say such moves seek to conflate migration and crime in order to crack down on people seeking safety in Europe. The ruling paves the way for other European countries to follow suit — amid rising anti-migration sentiments and European centre-right parties desperately trying to win rightwing voters over. The Strasbourg-court’s decision from Wednesday is likely to please nine member states which had last May condemned the institution for being outdated , especially when it comes to deporting people with criminal convictions. Signed by Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy, and Poland, the joint letter in May condemned the court for placing rights restrictions on deportations of "criminal foreign nationals". Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Austria will be allowed to deport a 19-year old Syrian, after the European Court of Human Rights lifted an injunction. The case may lead to similar deportations as Europe clamps down on asylum seekers and refugees.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Migration",
"Rule of Law"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-25T13:25:18.653Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arf312ad55
|
EU needs to build 'drone wall' fast - and exclude Hungary and Slovakia for now
|
On Friday (26 September), a pivotal meeting will take place as ministers of defence from seven EU member states on the eastern border convene with Ukraine and the European Commission. Their agenda is not routine; it is a response to an urgent and escalating threat: the need to build a 'drone wall' to counter continued violations of EU and Nato airspace by Russian military equipment. The situation is serious and the provocations from Russia are both intentional and ongoing. If European leaders once believed they had years to prepare for heightened tensions with Russia, that luxury has vanished. To restore balance and re-establish effective deterrence, Europe must act now. This meeting cannot be another forum for discussion; it must set in motion a fast-track effort to construct a complex system of sensors and effectors. The 'drone wall' should offer a militarily effective and economically sustainable way to respond to the expected future waves of Russian drones. To achieve this, the meeting should deliver clear outcomes in three priority areas. First and foremost, the meeting must produce a clear political mandate that reflects the gravity of the situation. The participating nations should send an unequivocal message of their readiness to work together, overcoming the usual bottlenecks that hinder the development of military capabilities. This includes a shared willingness to accelerate national administrative and decision-making procedures to get the necessary equipment produced as quickly as possible. Ukrainian advice In this, Ukraine’s role is paramount; its experience in countering these exact threats is an invaluable contribution to European and transatlantic security that must be formally appreciated. For its part, the EU Commission must signal a clear intent to deploy all available financial and, if needed, legislative tools to support the rapid build-up of this defensive shield. This collective action will serve as a powerful statement that this is a direct response to Russia’s attempts to escalate its war into EU and Nato territory, and that they are committed to defending their populations and infrastructure with the support of EU and Nato allies. Second, the ministers must commission the rapid development of technical requirements for a system that can be replicated across the entire Eastern border. This task should begin immediately following Friday’s meeting and be entrusted to a dedicated group of expert staff and military personnel from the member states, the commission, the European Defence Agency, and ideally, Nato. This group must operate under an ambitious timeline to provide actionable procurement options for governments. The involvement of relevant defence and dual-use companies from both the EU and Ukraine will be critical to realistically define requirements and delivery timelines. Third, while no final procurement decisions are expected on Friday, the meeting must outline a clear and rapid path to delivery. Joint procurement should be the priority, as it can unlock European funds. Drones and counter-drone systems are already a priority for the Strategic Action for Europe (SAFE) funds, and the participating EU states have a preliminary allocation of almost €80bn from which to draw. This would make the Drone Wall one of the first flagship projects under this framework. Successful models for such cooperation already exist, such as the joint procurement of Leopard 2A8 tanks by Germany, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands. The context for this urgency is inescapable. Facing an aggressive Russia and a potentially unreliable United States, Europe has no choice but to step up its defence game. This initiative can send a reassuring message to citizens on the Eastern border and a clear signal of resolve to the Kremlin. Exclude Putin-friendly Slovakia and Hungary Initially, Slovakia and Hungary were not invited to these urgent consultations, a reflection of their current foreign policy and the risk their participation could pose to a frank discussion about the Russian threat and Europe´s possibilities and plans to defend itself. While they have disqualified themselves from the initial planning, Slovakia is now expected to join Friday's talks. Should they refuse any collaboration, a giant gap will remain in Europe's Drone Wall, as their shared border with Ukraine spans more than 200 kilometres. This meeting is another chance for the European Union to prove its value to its members. The threat is clear, the path forward is defined, and the time for hesitation is over. Martin Sklenár is director of the Future of Security Programme at the Globsec think-tank in Bratislava. Martin Sklenár is director of the Future of Security Programme at the
|
Globsec
|
On Friday, a pivotal meeting will take place as ministers of defence from seven eastern EU member states plus Ukraine and the EU Commission for talks on building a 'drone wall'. Initially, Slovakia and Hungary were not invited — a reflection of the risk their participation could pose to a frank discussion about the Russian threat and Europe's plans to defend itself.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-25T11:15:58.276Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar99573647
|
Why are Western Balkans ignoring renewables and locking themselves into gas?
|
For years, the European Union has invested in fossil gas as a 'bridge fuel'. That gamble has backfired: Europe is still gripped by soaring bills, supply disruptions, and geopolitical risk. To fill the gap left by Russian imports, EU countries have locked themselves into expensive and polluting liquified natural gas (LNG) deals with the US. Now, several Western Balkan countries have a rare opportunity to skip fossil gas altogether and leapfrog straight to building a renewable energy system. Doing so would save billions in public spending, bolster energy security, improve public health, and strengthen real resilience. The six countries of the region collectively use the equivalent of just one percent of the EU’s total gas consumption. In fact, three — Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro — barely use gas at all. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, gas makes up just three percent of available energy. And North Macedonia and Serbia still have much lower gas-dependence than the EU. Their governments should recognise this as a strategic advantage, not a weakness. At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate its fossil fuel phase-out and decarbonisation of the economy, the Western Balkans can lead the way. Yet, rather than building on that lead, almost every government in the region, except for Kosovo, is planning a massive gas infrastructure expansion. If completed, this would increase the region’s import capacity to triple its 2023 gas consumption, creating decades of dependence or leaving countries stuck with stranded assets. Gas expansion plans need a reality check In 2023, together with Global Energy Monitor, we identified plans for€3.5bn worth of proposed gas infrastructure in the region. We’ve now updated the data and found that despite EU funding sources for gas drying up, the plans have remained remarkably steady in the last two years. Of the 2,715km of pipelines planned in 2023, 2,551km are still on the table. And plans for power plants have increased from 2.4 gigawatts (GW) to 2.9 GW. The scale of this gas build-out reflects more than just bad planning. It’s the result of an induced addiction: one nurtured by fossil-fuel lobbyists and short-termist energy diplomacy, and enabled for too long by international financiers and the EU. Unlike the EU, no Western Balkan country has a strategy to reduce gas use The Western Balkans are being nudged from one fossil trap (coal) into another (gas). Decision-makers in the region seem unaware that these plans are unrealistic. Unlike the EU, no Western Balkan country has a strategy to reduce gas use. The projects now on the table are expensive and rely heavily on unpredictable funding from outside the region. Failure is likely, but only after precious time and resources are wasted. Azerbaijan and US Policymakers often claim that new infrastructure will reduce dependence on Russian gas. But in reality, it just shifts dependence to other import sources like Azerbaijan or the US, without solving the deeper issues of affordability and security. Households and businesses will ultimately bear the brunt of these price shocks. Serbia, for example, is negotiating another long-term gas deal with Russia, citing a lack of cheaper alternatives. It is also planning new interconnections with Romania and North Macedonia, which would encourage increased consumption. And the financial risks are about to increase. From 2026, the carbon border adjustment mechanism will penalise carbon-intensive electricity exports. The Western Balkan countries can circumvent this only by introducing their own carbon pricing. They will anyway have to do so once they join the EU, where the cost per tonne of CO2 has been constantly above €60 since 2022. Any gas plants built today risk becoming a financial liability long before their lifetimes end. The Western Balkans already have the ingredients for a better future. Wind and solar costs are plummeting. Clean heating solutions like heat pumps, geothermal and solar thermal are ready to scale. With smart policies like insulating homes, cutting grid losses, scaling up decentralised renewables, the region could jump directly from coal to a resilient, affordable and fully renewable power and heat sector. This would not only reduce emissions and improve air quality, it would also free up scarce public money for investments that pay off and create local jobs The region stands at a crossroads. One path leads to decades of fossil fuel lock-in and stranded assets. The other leads to energy independence, EU integration and a fair renewable energy system that works for everyone. The right choice is clear. But the EU must do its part, by sending a clear message to avoid gas lock-in and prioritising investments in renewables and clean flexibility. Supporting the Western Balkans to break free from fossil fuel addiction is not just in Europe’s interest, it’s essential for a just and climate-safe future. Pippa Gallop is southeast Europe energy policy officer at CEE Bankwatch Network Pippa Gallop
|
is southeast Europe energy policy officer at
|
The Western Balkans are being nudged from one fossil-fuel trap (coal) into another (gas). Why?
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-25T09:26:45.378Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar7a4ff63b
|
Labour rights in Europe 'at worst state for a decade'
|
Workers' rights in Europe are in decline to their worst point in a decade, according to a report from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). Their June report showed the worst conditions for labour in Europe since their Global Rights Index started gathering data back in 2014. “It should be a matter of deep shame to politicians and employers that Europe has seen the biggest decline in workers’ rights anywhere in the world over the last decade,” said European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) general secretary Esther Lynch. “The European Commission must stop its plan to undermine labour law and collective agreements in the name of deregulation,” she added. While Europe is considered one of the least repressive regions in the world for workers, the decline this year follows a steady deterioration over the last four years. According to the report, the worst ratings within the EU go to Greece and Hungary. Both countries are rated at four out of six, which stands for a systemic violation of rights. The report explicitly mentions several Hungarian journalists who lost their jobs only days after forming a union. And in Greece, there is a growing number of so-called 'yellow unions', which means they are highly-influenced by employers. ETUC has warned that the already bad situation in the EU is on the verge of becoming even worse should the commission push forward the planned “28th regime”. The “ 28th regime ” refers to a proposed optional EU-wide legal framework for companies. Unions fear that this could lead to the watering down of workers' rights in some countries. The growing influence of far-right political parties and movements across Europe, and also globally, poses an increasing threat to workers’ rights and union protections, according to the ITUC report. Policies under the Finnish government led by centre-right PM Petteri Orpo are mentioned as an example by the report. Since the far-right coalition government went into office, several laws that curtail the right to strike have been implemented. The report also notes a similar situation in Italy, where policies by the current government headed by hard-right prime minister Georgia Meloni proposed the criminalisation of protests and strikes. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
The Global Rights Index for 2025 shows that conditions for European workers are the worst since the index started monitoring labour rights back in 2014.
|
[
"Labour"
] |
labour
|
2025-09-24T14:57:44.008Z
|
https://euobserver.com/labour/ar6cd98898
|
The EUDR has a new opportunity for smallholder inclusion
|
The European Union's Deforestation Regulation was set to come into force in December . Yet, as it stands, for Indonesia's 2.7 million palm oil smallholder households — who manage 40 percent of the national plantation area — the regulation poses an existential challenge that ongoing delays alone cannot solve. A new proposal this week to delay – and potentially revise – implementation presents a new opportunity to alter this path. Over the past month, Jakarta's Institute for Development of Economics and Finance (INDEF) has conducted workshops with palm oil, cocoa, rubber and coffee farmers across Indonesia. The data reveals a fundamental implementation gap. While 94 percent of smallholder plots have remained stable since 2015, proving this requires polygon mapping costing €500-1,200 per farmer — equivalent to four months' income for households earning €150-300 monthly. The regulation's requirement for plot-level GPS coordinates and digital documentation through the EU information system assumes infrastructure that does not exist in rural Indonesia, where only eight percent of farmers own smartphones capable of running mapping applications. Visit to Brussels Last week, nine women smallholder representatives presented these figures to EU officials in Brussels. Their cooperatives, representing 12,000 farmers, report that assembling EUDR-compliant documentation takes 40-60 hours per farmer, with translation and verification costs reaching €400. For plantations, dedicated compliance teams reduce per-hectare costs to under €5. This disparity means the regulation's December 2020 deforestation cut-off date, while technically neutral, creates a two-tier system where industrial agriculture proceeds while small-scale farmers face exclusion. The timing is particularly problematic. This week's finalisation of the EU-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement promises duty-free access for palm oil from 23 September. Yet EUDR compliance barriers could reduce smallholder participation in export supply chains by 60-75 percent, affecting farmers who currently generate €800m in annual export income. Zero tariffs become meaningless if producers cannot meet regulatory requirements to clear customs. The contrast with other EUDR critics is instructive. US exporters and European business associations cite administrative complexity and request delays or "negligible-risk" classifications for commodities from countries where deforestation ended decades ago. Indonesia's position differs fundamentally. Going forward as the EU reconsiders its implementation path, it must reconsider smallholders: We seek not exemption but inclusion — practical pathways for farmers who produce 35-40 percent of our palm oil output to remain in global supply chains. Indonesia has reduced deforestation rates by 75 percent since 2017. The country does not oppose the EUDR's objectives. However, excluding smallholders from European markets — which represent 14 percent of global palm oil consumption and offer prices 12-18 percent higher than alternative destinations — will push production toward unregulated markets in India, China and Pakistan. This displacement effect undermines both environmental goals and development commitments. Beyond economics, the exclusion of 2.6 million households risks of pushing farmers into poverty (according to the INDEF in 2024). Solutions exist within current frameworks. The commission's guidance acknowledges that certification and third-party verification can support risk assessment. The Team Europe Initiative on Deforestation-Free Value Chains has allocated funding for transition support. These mechanisms should prioritise smallholder inclusion through specific measures: group compliance systems allowing cooperative-level due diligence could reduce per-farmer costs by 70 percent; public financing for geolocation and cadastral verification would address the €125m infrastructure gap; recognition of credible national traceability schemes would prevent duplicative requirements. The EU-Indonesia agreement's cooperation chapters provide institutional architecture for implementation. Joint committees could establish a dedicated smallholder transition facility, develop interoperable data standards reducing documentation from 40 to 10 hours per farmer, and ensure verified smallholders maintain market access during the phase-in period. Such measures would cost less than two-percent of annual bilateral palm oil trade value. The regulation's micro and small enterprise provisions, set to take effect in June 2026, acknowledge differentiated capacity. This principle should extend to production as well as trading. Simplified requirements for plots under five hectares, phased implementation linked to capacity-building milestones, and recognition of jurisdictional programmes delivering traceability would align the EUDR with development objectives. Europe faces a choice about what sustainable trade means. The existing implementation trajectories will create compliant supply chains by excluding those lacking resources for compliance, not those causing deforestation. This approach contradicts the EU's €350 million commitment to Indonesian sustainable development programmes and broader climate justice principles. The smallholder women who travelled to Brussels were not seeking special treatment. They requested tools to meet standards that large plantations satisfy through economies of scale. Their exclusion would not protect forests — satellite data confirms their plots are not expanding. It would, however, demonstrate that regulations designed for a green transition can, in practice, deepen inequality rather than address it As of this week , the EU has another opportunity to grasp this opportunity. Imaduddin Abdullah is a director at INDEF , a Jakarta-based research organisation. In addition to advising the Indonesian government, he has worked with Germany’s GIZ and the United Nations Development Programme. Imaduddin Abdullah is a director at
|
INDEF
|
The EU’s Deforestation Regulation, which was set to come into force in December, poses steep compliance hurdles for Indonesia’s 2.7 million palm oil smallholders, who manage 40 percent of the country’s plantations. Mapping and documentation costs far exceed household incomes, risking exclusion from EU supply chains despite stable land use and falling deforestation.
|
[] |
stakeholders
|
2025-09-24T13:41:08.118Z
|
https://euobserver.com/stakeholders/arbacbaf06
|
Listen: Nato’s response tested and the EU’s ‘drone wall’
|
Over the past two weeks, Russian drones and fighter jets have repeatedly strayed into Nato airspace, from Poland and Romania to Estonia, and possibly Denmark, near Copenhagen airport. Nato chief Mark Rutte has called it a “dangerous pattern,” warning the alliance is ready to defend every inch of its territory. But what is Russia trying to achieve with its incursions into Nato airspace and what options do these violations leave for the West? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: Over the past two weeks, Russian drones and fighter jets have repeatedly strayed into Nato airspace, from Poland and Romania to Estonia, and possibly Denmark, near Copenhagen airport. Nato chief Mark Rutte has called it a “dangerous pattern,” warning the alliance is ready to defend every inch of its territory. But what is Russia trying to achieve with its incursions into Nato airspace and what options do these violations leave for the West? Denmark and Norway were forced to shut down their main airports following further drone incursions, while German jets scrambled to intercept a Russian reconnaissance plane flying unresponsive in neutral airspace. Days before, Russian MiG-31s flew over Estonia with their transponders switched off. Nato members are, now, signalling that the next time, Russian aircrafts might not leave so easily. Even Donald Trump, who has questioned Nato's value in the past and seems to have a change of heart this week about the war in Ukraine, backed the idea this week. Speaking at the UN alongside Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he said Nato's countries should shoot down Russian planes if they enter their airspace. Russia, of course, denies everything. But as analysts put it: we’re more likely to discover Paddington Bear is real than to find Moscow telling the truth about airspace violations. Now, for Nato, this is about credibility. The alliance is built on the promise that an attack on one is an attack on all. If Russia can keep testing Nato's air defences without consequence, that promise starts to look flimsy. And that’s exactly the game the Kremlin is playing. But there is a problem. Europe isn’t prepared. Recruiting multi million-euro jets to chase down cheap drones is hardly sustainable. In Poland, most of the nineteen drones that entered earlier this month weren’t even detected until they crashed. Defence officials openly admit there’s a glaring gap in Nato's ability to deal with drones which are small, low-flying, often made of plastic or wood, and hard to track on radar. Meanwhile, Russia is deploying drones every single night in Ukraine. They cost Moscow near to nothing, but they drain Kyiv’s finances and its air defences. Europe has known about this vulnerability for years. Yet procurement has been slow, defence industries are reluctant to innovate cheaply, and governments are more comfortable kicking the can down the road. But that road has now run out. What’s next? Nato has launched “Operation Eastern Sentry,” sending extra jets and assets from Britain, France, Germany and Denmark to shore up the alliance’s skies. Estonia has gone further, calling a UN Security Council meeting and warning it will not tolerate another violation. But Nato jets alone won’t fix the drone problem. That’s why EU defence ministers are floating the idea of a “drone wall”, a network of radars, cameras, and electronic warfare tools stretching across the eastern frontier. Brussels says the first detection systems could be ready within a year. A full defensive shield will take much longer. For now, the message to Moscow is meant to be clear, the next incursion could be the last. But Russia is skilled at pushing limits until someone pushes back. The question for Nato is whether its leaders, Trump included, are ready to follow through on their words when the next drone or fighter jet crosses the line. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
What is Russia trying to achieve with its incursions into Nato airspace and what options do these violations leave for the West?
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Digital"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-24T11:15:08.460Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar847e7fde
|
I spent 10 days in the West Bank, watching the impunity of Israeli settlers
|
In August, I spent 10 days in the West Bank, Occupied Palestinian Territories. Here is some of what I saw and heard there during my visit. First, the settlers’ violence. Forget about statistics. Forget about the record numbers of incidents. On the face of it, the number of actual fatalities, of Palestinians getting killed by settlers, is not so high. But the feeling of fear and terrorism is extremely present. I stay the night at the village of Umm al-Khair, in Masafer Yatta, southern West Bank, a tiny Bedouin community of around 200 inhabitants. The quiet desert landscape with the special light during sunset is very misleading. Three weeks earlier, end of July, an Israeli settler, Yinon Levy, shot dead Awda Hathaleen. Hathaleen was a prominent human rights defender , a well-known peace activist and a beloved community leader of this small Bedouin village. Awda was 31-years old, father of three small children and a beloved English teacher in the village’s school. The killer, Yinon Levy, is a known violent settler who already had international sanctions against him due to previous violent incidents. He lives in the nearby settlement of Karmel, which was built right next to Umm al-Khair. The community practices popular non-violent resistance since many years, through documenting the human rights violations and by hosting international solidarity activists, including many Jewish Israelis. Funeral harassment Despite all the video footages of the killing of Hathaleen, from different angles, including from Hathaleen's own cell phone — he was filming at the time of the shooting — as many Palestinians do while they are being harassed and attacked by settlers, the Israeli court released the killer later that day to home arrest, and five days later was free once again, without any restrictions besides "not to harass the family of the victim". At the time when we visited the village, he was already back to terrorise the community once again — holding the same gun which killed Hathaleen. In fact, following the killing of Hathaleen, the Israeli army arrested many young men of the village for a few days with no reason, just to release them a few days later. Israel also refused to release Awda’s dead body to allow the family to mourn him properly according to the Bedouin tradition and to bring him to burial. The Israeli authorities kept Hathaleen's body for 12 long days, during which the community experienced a prolonged trauma and psychological torture. This only added more pain to the community already in shock and mourning. More injustice. As most men of the village were under arrest during this time, the women of the village launched a hunger strike, demanding the return of Hathaleen's body. Israel finally accepted, but the army blocked the roads to the village so not to allow Israeli and international activists to arrive to the funeral. Mind-boggling impunity In the neighbouring village of al-Tuwani, in the same region of Masafer Yatta, the house of Basel al-Adra, the Oscar-winning director of the documentary film ‘No Other Land’ , is a dynamic hub of Israeli and international solidarity activists. Israeli activists babysit his nine-month-old daughter while Basel talks to foreign delegations. These activists practice ‘protective presence’, as they call it, protecting the Palestinian communities from settlers’ violence. But as one veteran Israeli activist tells me bitterly, their presence there is no longer protecting anyone. The settlers attack them as well. Indeed, one week later, settlers attack a village nearby, hitting people with metal pipes. One of the Israeli activists I met at Basel’s house, a young girl called Ta’ir, is injured. A friend shows me her photo on his cell phone, with blood all over her face. The settlers also broke her arm. They also attacked the Israeli activists’ car, smashing the car windows and cutting the wheels. Needless to say the obvious — there were no arrests of any Israeli settler involved in the attack. This is routine. The level of impunity and injustice you see in the West Bank is just mind-boggling and unbelievable. Settler violence in the West Bank is not only getting worse by the day. It is now done by daylight, with absolutely no consequences whatsoever by the Israeli authorities. Hence, the settlers become even more violent, their attacks more frequent. And more dangerous. What is behind this Israeli policy of total impunity? What is the aim? What are the objectives? For the many Palestinians I talked to during these ten days in the West Bank, the answer is clear: They want us to let go. They try to break our spirit. That we lose hope. They want us to leave. According to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, 41 Palestinian communities were forcibly transferred since October 2023, mainly due to settlers’ violence. The current EU policy of sanctions against a handful of Individual violent settlers is totally ineffective: the fact of the matter is that these extremist settlers are not deterred by the international sanctions against them. The issue here is not the individual settlers but rather the Israeli regime’s lack of any meaningful action to protect the Palestinian civilians under its control, to prevent the settler violence and to bring violent settlers to justice. An effective EU policy to seriously tackle this issue needs to acknowledge that settler violence is state violence , enabled and tolerated by the Israeli regime’s policy of complete impunity. A meaningful EU policy should put effective pressure on the Israeli government, not on individuals. Anything less than that is yet more symbolic and rhetorical gestures that do not have any real impact on the situation on the ground. Yoav Shemer-Kunz is a political scientist, affiliated faculty at Syracuse University–Strasbourg Center and co-founder of European Jews for Palestine . Yoav Shemer-Kunz is a political scientist, affiliated faculty at Syracuse University–Strasbourg Center and co-founder of
|
European Jews for Palestine
|
In August, I spent ten days in the West Bank, Occupied Palestinian Territories. Here is some of what I saw and heard there during my visit.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Opinion"
] |
*
|
2025-09-24T10:14:17.590Z
|
https://euobserver.com/*/arc2d7dba9
|
Activists lead three-day march on Brussels against EU's 'deregulation wave'
|
“People over Profits” and "Climate Justice" are painted on shields and written on flags. Protesters gathered on Tuesday (23 September) near Place Schuman in the heart of the European Quarter in Brussels. Right in front of the protesters is the headquarters of the European Commission and the seat of the European Council. After a six-hour and 20km march on Tuesday, the protesters have reached the Belgian capital. They wanted to be heard at the heart of EU decision-making. In total, they have been marching from Maastricht (the Netherlands) to Brussels for the last three days, since 21 September, in what they call the “Back to the Future March”. They want to draw attention to what they call a "deregulation-wave" in the European Union. For the protesters, sustainability goals and social rights are at risk under the guise of competitiveness. For the EU commission, this is all about the simplification of European legislation. For that, the EU executive has unveiled in recent months six so-called ‘Omnibus’ simplification packages filled with revisions to reduce the number of rules for businesses and sectors. Last week, EU commission president Ursula von der Leyen attended an event in Berlin where she talked to leading German industry and trade associations. There she stated: “We see eye to eye on the goal. What is stopping you? What is holding you back? What makes life difficult for you? And that we will try to get rid of.” Possible obstacles for industry that the president mentioned were sustainability reporting and supply chains. Among the protesters was Lara Wolters, a Dutch socialist MEP, who has been one of the lead MEPs on a due diligence file, which aims to promote sustainable and responsible business practices in European companies and their global supply chains. “Deregulation is not going to solve the problems it's supposed to solve. If we are serious about making Europe more robust, more future-proof, then this is not the way to do it," Wolters told EUobserver. "All we're doing here is selling out human rights and environmental progress that we made in the name of a more competitive economy. The problem is that it's not going to work,” she also said. The protesters also argued that the issue of deregulation is not just an internal matter for the EU. If Europe weakens its environmental and social protections, others will follow suit, undermining global sustainability goals and the EU’s role as a leader in climate and social justice policy. “I'm here because I'm very concerned about the direction of travel that the EU is taking. Especially when it comes to deregulation of a lot of really vital climate and human rights,” added one of the protesters. Many protesters feel reassured in their demands by the news that wandered through Brussels on Tuesday. The commission will now delay for one year the anti-deforestation regulation, which would force importers of certain goods like palm oil, coffee or cocoa, among others, to prove that the products were not grown on deforested land. This follows another one delay announced last year. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
NGOs and trade unions want to draw attention to what they call a "deregulation wave" in the EU. They have been marching from Maastricht (the Netherlands) to Brussels for the last three days, claiming that the commission is putting the environment as well as social and labour rights at risk by prioritising competitiveness.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy",
"Labour"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-24T06:51:05.364Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar876a94a6
|
Listen: Most of the EU and two-thirds of the UN recognise Palestine. What now?
|
On Monday night in New York, European Council President António Costa announced that a majority of EU member states, 16 in number, now officially recognise the State of Palestine. The list includes Belgium, Cyprus, Spain, Ireland, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, Portugal, Malta, France and Luxembourg. Costa didn’t directly call for other countries to follow, but his tone made clear he viewed this as a positive development, without him necessarily pointing that out. Still, the EU remains deeply divided over its reaction to the Gaza war. But what does this recognition mean for Palestinians, for Israel’s retaliation, and for the EU countries? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: On Monday night in New York, European Council President António Costa announced that a majority of EU member states, 16 in numbers, now officially recognise the State of Palestine. The list includes Belgium, Cyprus, Spain, Ireland, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, Portugal, Malta, France and Luxembourg. But what does this recognition mean for Palestinians, for Israel’s retaliation, and for the EU countries? Costa didn’t directly call for other countries to follow, but his tone made clear he viewed this as a positive development, without him necessarily pointing that out. Still, the EU remains deeply divided over its reaction to the Gaza war. And this division can be very evident as Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, who was standing next to Costa, had a more reserved stance and avoided endorsing immediate recognition. She repeated that peace depends on a two-state solution, acknowledged that this goal is “in grave danger,” and promised more EU support for Gaza’s reconstruction. Of course France’s Emmanuel Macron stole the show. At the special conference he co-chaired with Saudi Arabia, Macron declared France’s formal recognition of Palestine with the majority of the leaders present at the United Nations moving to rare applause. Germany and Italy attended the meetings but stopped short of recognising Palestine, even as tens of thousands marched back home in Italy, where protests in major cities like Rome and Milan turned violent. At the same time, the White House repeated Donald Trump’s view that recognising Palestine “rewards Hamas” and “does nothing to end this conflict.” Trump is due to address the General Assembly later this week. Secretary-General António Guterres reminded leaders that Palestinian statehood is “a right, not a reward.” And the European commissioner for crisis management Hadja Lahbib said recognition must go beyond symbolism, stressing the urgent need for humanitarian aid and respect for international law. The announcements mark a shift within Europe. Until recently, most Western nations declined recognition, insisting it could only come through direct negotiations with Israel. Now, several major EU countries, like France, Spain and Ireland, moved ahead regardless. But the stance of Germany, Italy and others prevents the EU from acting as a united foreign policy actor, weakening Europe’s voice in the Middle East, especially compared to the United States, which continues to reject recognition outright. So what now? France and its allies hope momentum builds and more states follow. But Israel has already signalled it may respond with unilateral measures,Prime minister Netanyahu is under pressure from his far-right coalition to pursue annexation, but the UAE, a key player in the 2020 Abraham Accords, has warned it would be a “red line,” without clarifying the consequences. So under the pressure Netanyahu says he will decide the retaliation after his meeting with Donald Trump in Washington next week. Palestinians remain politically divided between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, making international recognition hard to translate into real sovereignty. To address this, France and Saudi Arabia proposed a UN-backed plan for a reformed Palestinian Authority to govern both territories, which won overwhelming support with 142 votes in favour. But Hamas still rejects a two-state compromise, and peace talks have been frozen since 2009. Advocates of the two-state solution say that without a Palestinian state, Israel will have to decide between the status quo, in which millions of Palestinians live under military occupation without equal rights, or a binational state that might not have a Jewish majority. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
A majority of EU member states, 16 in number, now officially recognise the State of Palestine. But what does this recognition mean for Palestinians, for Israel’s retaliation, and for the EU countries?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-23T10:59:52.302Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar28b6b794
|
Moldova's progress is real but fragile — this weekend's election could reverse that
|
As Moldova heads into parliamentary elections this Sunday (28 September), the political stakes could not be higher. The country stands at a critical juncture, with its democratic trajectory and European aspirations under sustained pressure from pro-Russian actors , both domestic and foreign. And yet, despite these challenges, Moldova has made real, measurable reform progress. Democratic institutions have been reinforced, governance is becoming more transparent, and reforms aligned with the European Union accession criteria are advancing. According to the Eastern Partnership Index 2025 , Moldova now ranks at the top of the region, a direct contradiction to the Kremlin’s persistent narrative that nothing has changed for the better. Yes, reform is work in progress, and challenges are substantial. But the gains made are genuine and provide a solid foundation for further transformation, if Moldova stays the course. Moldova’s reform path accelerated following the 2021 parliamentary elections, when president Maia Sandu’s Action and Solidarity Party (PAS) secured a governing majority. This mandate enabled the government to launch an ambitious reform agenda focused on dismantling systemic corruption, reforming judiciary, aligning policies with EU standards, and ensuring energy independence from Russia. Civil society has played an important role in supporting the implementation of these reforms. Referendum approval for EU A major boost to Moldova’s reform agenda came in June 2024, when the EU formally opened accession negotiations, a historic milestone in the country’s EU integration path. Later that year, in October 2024, a nationwide referendum narrowly approved a constitutional amendment enshrining EU membership as a strategic national objective. According to the findings of the Eastern Partnership Index 2025, Moldova remains the leading country in the region in public administration reform, with its score rising from 0.74 to 0.78 (on a 1-point scale) since 2023. The country has made Regulatory Impact Assessments mandatory for all legislation, signalling progress toward greater transparency, though implementation across agencies remains uneven for now. Moldova has also developed one of the most advanced gender equality frameworks in the region, including a National Strategy for Ensuring Equality between Women and Men (2023-2027). This focus on inclusivity complements broader efforts to strengthen public administration. A notable example is the SPRINT programme, which provides professional development opportunities for young civil servants and aims to strengthen administrative capacity while making public sector careers more attractive. However, significant challenges persist. Low salaries in the civil service continue to drive high turnover, undermining institutional stability just as Moldova enters the resource-intensive phase of implementing the EU acquis. Sustained investment in human capital and institutional capacity will be essential to maintain reform momentum and prevent the risk of stalled progress. Moldova's state accountability score rose sharply from 0.72 to 0.87, a reflection of enhanced parliamentary oversight, revitalised cooperation between civil society and parliament, and greater fiscal transparency since the previous assessment of the Eastern Partnership Index (2023). The 2024 Law on Access to Public Information significantly improved public oversight, while initiatives such as the Citizens’ Budget, the BOOST database, and an Open Data Platform expanded access to budgetary data. An important milestone occurred on 3 November 2023, when the government approved the Open Government Partnership Action Plan, developed with civil society's input. The plan promotes transparency, accountability, and public participation. Spies, police, judges? At the same time, civilian oversight of intelligence services and law enforcement is still weak, and entrenched interests continue to resist deeper reform. Political polarisation, fuelled in part by pro-Kremlin factions, adds further strain. The 2023 ban on the Shor Party, for unconstitutional and destabilising activities, was a step toward safeguarding democratic processes, but the battle is far from over. Anti-corruption efforts saw modest but important gains, with Moldova’s score rising from 0.77 to 0.79 in the span of the last two years, as assessed by the Eastern Partnership Index. Key measures included restructuring anti-corruption agencies, appointing specialised judges, and launching the National Integrity and Anti-Corruption Programme (2024–2028). A slight decline in the judiciary score, from 0.90 to 0.88, reflects ongoing difficulties in reforming this area and the deeply entrenched risks of politicisation. Nevertheless, Moldova remains a regional leader. It climbed from 82nd to 64th place in the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index (2020–2024), thanks in part to the vetting of judges. This process exposed serious financial irregularities and led to governance reforms, though mass resignations of judges and institutional fragility still pose significant hurdles which will need to be overcome. Moldova experienced a drop of 0.11 in the score on democratic rights, elections, and pluralism. This decline is largely attributed to significant external interference favouring Moscow-leaning parties, vote buying recorded by the observers, and foreign meddling that undermined election integrity. Although the administration of the elections was technically efficient during the last elections in 2024, weaknesses such as an unreformed Central Election Commission and low public trust in electoral institutions persisted. Political tensions have escalated ahead of the 2025 elections. Though the Shor Party was banned, its networks persist, particularly in Gagauzia, under new names and backed by illicit funding and Russian influence. Meanwhile, the Bloc of Communists and Socialists (BCS), the main opposition, has intensified its pro-Russian rhetoric. In March 2025, BCS lawmakers introduced a controversial 'foreign agents' bill targeting NGOs, closely mirroring Russian legislation and drawing strong condemnation from civil society — it appears the party is trying to mimic the Georgian Dream scenario of democratic backsliding under the guise of national sovereignty. The 2025 parliamentary elections are more than a political contest; they are a referendum on Moldova’s future. Will the country continue building a democratic, European state, or will it be pulled back into the Kremlin’s orbit through disinformation and political sabotage? Moldova’s reform progress is real and backed by data. But it is also fragile. Reversing course would not only stall the country’s EU integration , but it would also unravel years of hard-won gains. The world, and Moldovan voters, must not be misled by Russian narratives. What is at stake on 28 September is nothing less than the democratic future of Moldova. Yana Brovdiy is policy advocacy manager and Antonella Aloia is advocacy officer at the Eastern Partnership Index (EaP Index), a data-driven tool that tracks the progress of six countries — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine — in their efforts toward sustainable democratic development and European integration. It is developed by the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum , a regional platform that unites civil society organisations from the EU and six Eastern Partnership countries. Yana Brovdiy is policy advocacy manager and Antonella Aloia is advocacy officer at the Eastern Partnership Index (EaP Index), a data-driven tool that tracks the progress of six countries — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine — in their efforts toward sustainable democratic development and European integration. It is developed by the
|
Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum
|
Moldova has made real, measurable reform progress. According to the Eastern Partnership Index 2025, Moldova now ranks at the top of the region — a direct contradiction to the Kremlin’s persistent narrative that nothing has changed for the better.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Rule of Law",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-23T10:43:18.616Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar55d8b0c3
|
Brussels protest against Belgium's LNG imports funding Russia's war
|
Blue and yellow flags fluttered in the Brussels wind, as around 40 people gathered at the Place de la Liberté in the Belgian capital on Monday (22 September). The Ukrainian national anthem sounded through the streets as people held up signs demanding “Hit Russia Where It Hurts: Their Wallet“ or "Full Embargo On Russian Oil And Gas“. The protest was organised by the Ukrainian campaign group Razom We Stand , Bond Beter Leefmilieu (a Flemish environmental network) and Ukrainian activists. They are demanding Belgian officials end the country's dependency on Russian LNG. According to Ivan Hortal Sánchez, the EU campaigner at Razom We Stand, Belgium is among the three member states in the EU that import the most Russian LNG. “One third of the Kremlin's revenues are from fossil fuels. So, when you are buying gas and oil from Russia, you are funding the war. The only way to stop this is if you produce homegrown renewables,” he explained. Razom We Stand is a Ukrainian climate movement working to stop the flow of money that still goes to Moscow. It advocates for a shift to renewables, and challenges the fossil-fuel industry and its political backers who profit from Russian gas and keep Europe dependent on it. Iryna, a young Ukrainian woman there, told EUobserver: “I find it surprising that we keep supporting Russia by still buying its gas. I do find it hypocritical.“ Another protester, Olena, who lived in the east Ukrainian town of Donezk before she fled in 2014, noted: “Every euro the EU spends on fossil fuels is going directly to Russian rockets and bombs.” Since last Friday, there has been renewed pressure on member states and energy companies from the EU Commission. The 19 sanction package saw the EU's plan to stop Russia's LNG gas flow by 2027 — one year earlier than initially planned, and more in line with Donald Trump’s demands that the EU should immediately stop buying Russian fossil fuels. But before those sanctions take effect, the EU's member states have to adopt them unanimously. “I think this is a victory for civil society groups like ours because we've been pushing for that”, said Hortal Sánchez. He added: “What we would propose is to do it already next year. So, 1 January 2026.” Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
Ukrainian activists from Razom We Stand protested on Monday in Brussels to demand Belgium bans Russian LNG and gas.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Green Economy",
"Ukraine"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-22T14:06:48.050Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arc7c33a5e
|
Russia's post-imperial self-image holds key to peace in Europe
|
In contrast to the former colonial powers of Western Europe, Russia has maintained a deep attachment to its imperial tradition into the 21st century. Restoring long-term stability to the European continent will require Russia to develop a robust sense of nationhood — one that respects the independence and sovereignty of its neighbours. It should be the task of Nato and Nato member states to create a geopolitical environment conducive to this outcome. From a Western perspective, the fall of the Soviet Union symbolised the ‘end of history’ — the triumph of liberal-capitalist democracy over the ideological threat of communism. The assumption was widely held that the states that once belonged to the Eastern Bloc would naturally embrace democratic values after decades of communist oppression. But the Soviet collapse had a profound effect on the Russian national psyche. It had destroyed the statehood (‘gosudarstvennost’) that had defined Russia’s self-identity for over a thousand years. The loss of Ukraine came as a shock in particular. It was the site of the ancient Orthodox state of Kievan Rus, which many Russians believe to be the origins of their state. This new reality of diminished geopolitical standing, combined with the socio-economic turmoil of the 1990s, led Russia to associate the post-Soviet transition with trauma and instability. These conditions made it difficult for Russia to come to terms with the loss of its great-power status. The Kremlin refused to accept a post-Cold War international order that consigned Russia to the fringes of eastern Europe. At the same time, the United States was taking steps that Russia perceived as an encroachment on what it considers to be its traditional sphere of influence. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Nato conducted a bombing campaign in Kosovo and expanded eastwards to include the former Warsaw Pact states. Mass demonstrations in support of democracy erupted in Georgia and Ukraine. The need for an assertive state that can defend Russia’s interests in a hostile world formed the conceptual foundation of Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian rule. Russian Orthodoxy The Russian people have a deeply-rooted belief that their country is a distinct civilisation and deserves recognition as a great power. Following the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow portrayed itself as the last remaining defender of Orthodoxy — what Russians believe to be the true form of Christianity as opposed to the Roman Catholicism of Western Europe. Situated on the vast Eurasian plain with few natural defences against external invasion, Moscow used expansionism to protect the Orthodox faith. This practice of empire-building, or ‘the drive to gather the Russian lands’, would leave a lasting impact on Russia’s understanding of its self-identity. In the Soviet era, Stalin justified his invasion of Poland in 1939 as a ‘national liberation’ of Belarusian and Ukrainian ‘brothers and sisters’. Putin’s decision to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was not an isolated event that either the Ukrainians or Nato-provoked. Rather, it is the latest revival of Russia’s centuries-old imperial tradition, which was supposed to be over in a matter of days, presenting another fait accompli similar to the annexation of Crimea. The Russian president has frequently made clear his goal to eradicate Ukraine and its right to existence. In 2014, Putin reintroduced the Tsarist concept of ‘Novorossiya’ — a large swathe of territory covering one third of modern-day Ukraine (including Crimea) that Catherine the Great captured from the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s latest foreign policy concept, published in 2023, confirmed the Kremlin’s long-term expansionist intentions; declaring Russia a ‘unique country-civilisation’ that ‘brings together the Russian people and other peoples belonging to the cultural and civilisational community of the Russian world’. For the foreseeable future, Nato can expect to contend with a Russia that shows no respect for postwar international norms or values and is prepared to use force to achieve its aims. Nato and Nato member states should therefore commit to confronting the systemic security challenge of Russian imperialism. Russia cannot be dismissed as a short-term issue that poses a problem solely for Ukraine. Ukraine’s successful national defence is critical to countering any further Russian expansionist ambitions in Europe. In 2024, Estonia committed to spend 0.25 percent of its GDP annually on military support for Ukraine. Following the Estonian example would be a good starting point as the prospect of a peace agreement looms. Ultimately, peace and stability in Europe can only be sustained when Russia accepts the loss of its empire and consolidates a clearly-defined set of national interests as a post-imperial country. Ukraine’s courageous resistance has afforded the West a historic chance to achieve this. The question is whether Ukraine’s allies have the political willingness and resolve to do so. Hugo Blewett-Mundy is a non-resident associate research fellow from the EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy in Prague. Hugo Blewett-Mundy is a non-resident associate research fellow from the
|
EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy
|
Ultimately, peace and stability in Europe can only be sustained when Russia accepts the loss of its empire and consolidates a clearly-defined set of national interests as a post-imperial country.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Ukraine",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-22T12:38:11.164Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar450b22e1
|
Listen: Can Macron’s UN Assembly push for Palestinian statehood be a diplomatic win?
|
This week, the spotlight is on the United Nations General Assembly and it isn’t just on global crises like climate change, war in Ukraine, or artificial intelligence. It’s also firmly on France’s Emmanuel Macron, who is pushing for formal recognition of a Palestinian state. But will this move, backed by a handful of Western countries, actually change the political reality on the ground? Production: By Europod , in co-production with Sphera Network . You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading: This week, the spotlight is at the United Nations General Assembly and it isn’t just on global crises like climate change, war in Ukraine, or artificial intelligence. It’s also firmly on France’s Emmanuel Macron, who is pushing for formal recognition of a Palestinian state. But will this move, backed by a handful of Western countries, actually change the political reality on the ground? The French president has made it clear that simply targeting Hamas isn’t a political solution, and if peace is ever to be achieved, Palestinians need to see their statehood as more than just a distant possibility. And that’s why France, alongside Saudi Arabia, is hosting a meeting in New York to rally support for a two-state solution. Several Western countries have already jumped in: the UK, Canada, Australia, Portugal, Belgium and Luxembourg are now joining the more than 145 nations that already recognise Palestine. France and a few others are expected to make it official this week. But not everyone’s on board. Germany and Italy are notably absent, and the EU itself remains divided, there’s no common position on Palestinian statehood, and top EU officials are keeping their distance. Meanwhile, the United States and Israel have dismissed Macron’s initiative as reckless, even branding it a “publicity stunt.” Israel has hinted at possible retaliation, including annexing more West Bank land. So, a bold move from Macron, but one that risks widening divisions both internationally and inside Europe. Now this moment is about whether Europe can or even wants to play a bigger role in shaping peace in the Middle East. Macron clearly wants to seize that role, even as his political star fades at home. His critics say that he’s looking for his de Villepin moment, meaning a grand speech to be remembered long after the politics of the day are forgotten. But behind the theatrics lies a harsh reality. Gaza is in ruins and the humanitarian toll is staggering. And with Israeli on land operations in Gaza and the seizing of land in the West Bank, the two-state solution is slipping further out of reach. For Palestinians, recognition isn’t just symbolic, it’s about international legitimacy and the faint hope that negotiations could one day restart. For Europeans, though, the question is awkward: do they follow Macron’s lead and risk a split with Washington and Tel Aviv, or do they play it safe and watch the idea of Palestinian statehood wither? So what can we expect? Macron will make his pitch at the UN later today, but don’t expect miracles. Recognition by Western countries may shift the conversation, but it won’t shift Israeli or US policy any time soon. In fact, it could harden positions. Israel is already preparing possible reprisals, and US officials are warning of consequences for states that back Macron’s initiative. Still, symbolism matters. If Macron’s gambit snowballs, Europe could find itself leading a new diplomatic push, whether or not the EU institutions are ready to follow. And while the United Nations itself is weakened, underfunded, and often accused of irrelevance, moments like these remind us why it still matters, as it’s one of the few stages left where small and big nations alike can force difficult issues into the open. Evi Kiorri is a Brussels-based journalist, multimedia producer, and podcaster with deep experience in European affairs.
|
Evi Kiorri
|
This week, the spotlight is on the United Nations General Assembly and France’s push for formal recognition of a Palestinian state. But will this move, backed by a handful of Western countries, actually change the political reality on the ground?
|
[
"EU & the World"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-22T11:14:45.140Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arec34c030
|
How Serbia could use EU Digital Services Act for state censorship
|
Two weeks ago, a leaked audio recording obtained by the Organized Crime and Reporting Project and Serbian investigative outlet KRIK confirmed that the CEOs of the state-owned Telekom Srbija and the Netherlands-based United Group discussed plans to remove the chief executive of United Media, a subsidiary of United Group that operates several outlets in the country, including the leading opposition outlet N1 — potentially at the behest of Serbian president Alexander Vucic. This has raised serious concerns over the state of media freedom in Serbia — especially as independent journalists are already facing increased violence for reporting on ongoing anti-corruption protests. At this perilous moment for media freedom, Serbia, an EU candidate, is preparing to adopt three of the EU’s digital regulations: the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA), and the Media Freedom Act (MFA). The DSA governs online platforms, such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and TikTok. The AIA will categorise AI systems by the risk they present to fundamental rights and require levels of transparency and accountability for the developer and the deployer. The MFA requires additional steps from online platforms when moderating content from media service providers. All three laws will apply when social media companies use AI to help with content moderation. While the MFA aims to strengthen media freedom by ensuring plurality and access to reliable information, the DSA and the AI Act aim to create safer and more transparent online spaces while protecting citizens' fundamental rights. And an essential part of the DSA’s effective implementation is the designation of an independent Digital Services Coordinator (DSC), a national authority tasked with overseeing platform compliance. The DSC will designate and oversee trusted flaggers , individuals who report illegal content directly to platforms. Reports from these people will be given special priority, as social media platforms are obligated to create dedicated channels to process them efficiently. Unintended consequences As the Center for News, Technology & Innovation (CNTI) has previously established , however, oversight authorities have a great deal of power that can lead to unintended consequences. For the DSA to be implemented in the spirit of the EU’s goal, the DSC, and therefore the trusted flaggers, must not be influenced by the government. However, meeting sufficient levels of independence from the ruling party will be challenging in Serbia. Early indications from the Serbian government suggest that the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) is likely to become the country’s DSC. This appointment has raised significant concerns among civil society organisations, independent journalists, and international observers , who warn that the REM lacks independence from the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and has already contributed to the country’s decline in press freedom. Political and business elites already control or influence the majority of mainstream media outlets, which they have used to spread political disinformation during the protests Since November 2024, the Serbian government has responded to massive student-led, pro-democracy protests and blockades with greater restrictions on media freedom . Political and business elites already control or influence the majority of mainstream media outlets, which they have used to spread political disinformation during the protests. As a result, independent journalists, whistleblowers, and civil society activists increasingly rely on digital platforms to reach the public and disseminate information that traditional media may ignore or suppress. If the REM gains control over digital platforms through the DSA, however, it could require companies to delete legitimate content that does not fit the party line, and independent news media could lose social media as a vector of communication. Therefore, in the current Serbian context, there is a risk that EU legislation could be misused as an instrument of repression. How to head off that threat For Serbia’s implementation of the DSA to have a positive impact, the EU can take steps to guarantee that its digital policies strengthen, not undermine, freedom of expression, media freedom, and democratic resilience. One way this could be achieved is through the integration of Serbia and other Western Balkan countries into the EU Digital Single Market before EU accession, which is a step Serbian civil society organisations, such as Partners Serbia , advocate for. By joining the EU Digital Single Market, the EU would have a larger oversight role than it does for countries that are candidate members for full membership in the EU. Another possible route to preserve the intended goals of these EU policies is the intersection of multiple policy instruments. The AI Act’s human oversight requirements can help protect the information environment if the independence of local DSCs is compromised. Under the AIA’s risk classification system, automated content moderation systems used by Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) are likely to be designated as high-risk applications due to their potential to significantly affect individuals’ rights , such as freedom of expression, access to information, and non-discrimination. Consequently, these systems will be subject to additional requirements under the AIA, including the need for the online platforms to create risk management frameworks, ensure quality data governance, and perform effective human oversight. Meaningful human oversight can be helpful in environments lacking adherence to democratic principles, where regulatory authorities may be captured or lack independence. If the government influences the DSC, there is a heightened risk that content moderation practices, including notices sent by trusted flaggers, might be used as a tool for political censorship rather than in the public interest. By including human oversight, the content from trusted flaggers will not only be reviewed by AI systems, but by people at the social media companies, too, before it is deleted. An additional safeguard for media services using online platforms is introduced in the MFA. One of its key objectives is to prevent the removal of legitimate content published by media service providers. Article 18 of the MFA requires that VLOPs treat media service providers with preferential consideration during content moderation. Article 17 adds further protection: if a VLOP intends to restrict content from a media service provider, it must inform the provider at least 24 hours in advance and allow them to present their case. For countries like Serbia, these provisions could play a critical role in safeguarding independent or government-critical media outlets from excessive takedowns under the DSA. However, there are risks. The status of “media service provider” is determined by self-declaration. (VLOPs can challenge this status, but they would have to refer to the national regulatory authority, which in Serbia would be REM. The regulatory authority cannot initiate these challenges, so it would be difficult for them to use this policy tool to penalise dissident media.) As a result, actors wishing to spread disinformation or illegal content could exploit this loophole, allowing content that would normally violate community guidelines to remain online for at least 24 hours, if not longer. In other words, the MFA is more likely to protect media content that violates guidelines in an environment like Serbia’s than to remove media content that does not. The implementation of the DSA in Serbia and other countries lacking an independent DSC risks becoming an EU-based tool for state repression, enabling ruling parties to suppress dissent under the guise of compliance. However, admission to the EU Digital Single Market and the interplay of the DSA, the AI Act, and the MFA can serve as safeguards, helping prevent the removal of legitimate content and protecting critical voices and independent media in Serbia — thus helping Serbia and other Western Balkan nations realise the democratic goals of the DSA. Emily Wright is a research assistant at the Center for News, Technology & Innovation . She was previously a Fulbright research fellow and research associate at Partners Serbia in Belgrade, where she focused on the implications of new digital policies for civil society activists and investigative journalists. Ana Toskić Cvetinović is the executive director of Partners Serbia . Milica Tošić is a legal advisor at Partners Serbia . Emily Wright is a research assistant at the Center for News, Technology & Innovation . She was previously a Fulbright research fellow and research associate at Partners Serbia in Belgrade, where she focused on the implications of new digital policies for civil society activists and investigative journalists. Ana Toskić Cvetinović is the executive director of Partners Serbia . Milica Tošić is a legal advisor at
|
Partners Serbia
|
The implementation of the EU's Digital Services Act in Serbia and other countries lacking an independent digital services coordinator risks becoming an EU-based tool for state repression, enabling ruling parties to suppress dissent under the guise of compliance.
|
[
"EU & the World",
"Digital",
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-and-the-world
|
2025-09-22T10:34:50.493Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/arf48ebc3d
|
EU Commission sued over lack of environmental transparency
|
On Monday (22 September), the London-based NGO ClientEarth is expected to sue the European Commission for what it says is an anti-transparency push which will weaken public scrutiny of EU decision-making. “With this legal case, we want to defend citizens’ fundamental right to know – what pesticides end up in our food, what chemicals are hidden in everyday products, and what action is (or isn’t) being taken to protect our health from pollution and climate breakdown”, said Ilze Tralmaka, a lawyer working at ClientEarth. The case will be heard at the General Court of the European Union (EGC) in Luxembourg. According to the NGO, the transparency rules implemented by the commission in December 2024 prevent European citizens from accessing documents with information on health and environment. ClientEarth argues they are unlawful, breaking the Aarhus Convention , a UN treaty for which the EU and its member states are all parties, that grants access to environmental justice. Named after a costal Danish town, it protects the right of every person to live in a healthy environment. Three guarantees of the convention are key: access to information on the environment and policies regarding the climate, public participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice. Various EU directives have incorporated the convention into European legislation. At the start of 2025, ClientEarth asked the commission to repeal its new transparency rules. Pushing back, the commission stated in July it would stand by those rules, namely on the keeping of the confidentiality of drafts, internal exchanges and administrative procedures, arguing that they are within its legal framework. The General Court will now examine the annulment application from ClientEarth and decide on the legality of the commission’s transparency rules. According to procedural rules, the commission has two months to file a defence. Hannah Kriwak is a junior reporter from Austria at EUobserver, covering European politics.
|
Hannah Kriwak
|
According to NGO ClientEarth, the EU Commission is illegally holding back information which should be public on health and the environment — and they are suing at the European General Court in Luxembourg for a change in transparency rules.
|
[
"Rule of Law",
"Green Economy",
"Health & Society"
] |
rule-of-law
|
2025-09-22T05:01:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/ara284d07a
|
The European Parliament rapporteur is wrong about the digital euro
|
The European Parliament’s rapporteur on the digital euro file, centre-right MEP Fernando Navarrete, in a recent article , claimed to offer a “rational common ground” to discuss the proposal for a European Central Bank digital currency (CBDC). However, his approach reflects a fear of transition: warning of financial instability, lost innovation, and privacy risks, while ignoring the costs of maintaining the status quo. He also disregards the numerous calls by civil society, academics and research institutions for digital public money since the 2008 financial crisis. A digital euro would give people universal access to safe electronic money, strengthen financial resilience, and deliver lower prices and better services. As with any political debate, arguments are informed by different perspectives on what kind of society we want. Navarrete reasons from a competitive market economy perspective, where state action is justified only in cases of clear market failure. In this view, markets are better suited to meet social needs, with state intervention kept to a minimum. But the EU treaties enshrine a highly competitive market economy. In this perspective, markets drive prosperity, and the state upholds social cohesion and guarantees universal access to essential goods and services, including money and payments Two types of 'money' To understand the potential of the digital euro, the difference between the two types of money is key. Cash, created by central banks, is public money. Bank deposits, by contrast, are private money and created by commercial banks when they issue loans. They are a claim on the bank to make payments on your behalf and give you cash if you ask for it. This distinction matters: if a bank fails, deposits are at risk, while cash remains safe. Today, more than 85 percent of the money in circulation is private bank money. Declining public cash reflects not just digitalisation but also banks closing ‘unprofitable’ branches and ATMs. Without a digital euro, people risk becoming entirely dependent on private money and private infrastructures. This dependency deepens exclusion: eight percent of eurozone residents lack a payment card, and around one-fifth lack either a card or a payment account, with higher rates among lower-income groups. A digital public alternative ensures inclusion and strengthens resilience. Navarrete parrots the banking lobby’s claim that a digital euro would trigger bank runs and cripple lending. But he ignores research showing the risk is low — or that CBDCs could even reduce it by giving policymakers real-time data to shore up weak banks early, lowering the incentive to run. The digital euro would offer a public alternative that increases competition, delivering better services at lower costs. To appease banks, the ECB narrowed the digital euro’s ambition: restricting its use mainly to payments, not saving, with no interest and per-user holding caps. These choices weakened the case for broad uptake as a safe public alternative to private bank money. But these limits are political, not technical. Gradually raising holding limits could strengthen financial resilience in the long run without destabilising banks. Leaning one way? Unlike the ECB, Navarrete (of the centre-right European People's Party) is an elected representative whose duty is to weigh society’s broader interests. Yet, since taking office in July 2024, 77 percent of Navarrete’s meetings on the digital euro have been with the private payment service providers and banks, and he has had only one meeting with an NGO. Navarrete also argues that the digital euro would undermine competition. But Europe’s banking sector is already plagued by insufficient competition, high prices, and poor service. When the ECB raised interest rates after 2022, European banks earned over €100bn annually on their deposits at the central bank, while passing almost nothing on to savers. In Belgium, public frustration forced the government to issue a one-year state bond at higher rates, but the impact was short-lived. In 2024, the Dutch authority for consumers and markets revealed that the Dutch savings market has features of a silent cartel. The digital euro would offer a public alternative that increases competition, delivering better services at lower costs. Navarrete’s privacy arguments lean heavily on fears, evoking surveillance scenarios popular in conspiracy circles. The irony is that his alternative leaves people’s data with corporations that monetise it. Privacy matters, and the ECB has repeatedly said it would never see people’s identities or spending habits. It only requires minimal, pseudonymised data to settle transactions, not much more than it already sees today. The ECB has even proposed going further than the current proposal: cash-like anonymity for offline use and stronger privacy for low-value online payments. As rapporteur, Navarrete could help ensure that high privacy safeguards are enshrined in the final law and design of the digital euro. In the end, Navarrete’s analysis is less a “rational common ground” than a defence of the status quo. Tellingly, he writes: “I am personally not eager to be part of the transitional generation, and I presume that is the case for most EU citizens.” Yet the developments he cites — eroding trust and alternative visions of money — demonstrate that people are willing to upend systems that no longer serve them. Civil society and academics have long argued for digital public money precisely because the status quo is not good enough. The digital euro is an opportunity to embrace transition and build a better, more inclusive and resilient monetary and financial system. Vicky Van Eyck is a former executive director of Positive Money EU and a digital euro policy expert. Dr Martijn Jeroen van der Linden is a professor of practice in new finance at The Hague University of Applied Science . Laura Casonato is senior policy manager at Positive Money EU . Vicky Van Eyck is a former executive director of Positive Money EU and a digital euro policy expert. Dr Martijn Jeroen van der Linden is a professor of practice in new finance at The Hague University of Applied Science . Laura Casonato is senior policy manager at
|
Positive Money EU
|
The European Parliament’s rapporteur on the digital euro file is parroting the banking lobby’s claim that a digital euro would trigger bank runs and cripple lending — this is just not the case.
|
[
"EU Political",
"Health & Society",
"Opinion"
] |
eu-political
|
2025-09-20T06:00:00.000Z
|
https://euobserver.com/eu-political/ar65be9a5c
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.