Datasets:

SinclairSchneider
/

euobserver_com

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

End of preview. Expand in Data Studio

README.md exists but content is empty.

Downloads last month: 35

Size of downloaded dataset files:

2.72 MB

Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:

2.72 MB

Number of rows:

742

Collection including SinclairSchneider/euobserver_com

International Newspapers

Collection

6 items • Updated Nov 4