Tag: eu

Eurocrats Propose “One Market Act,” Digital Euro

European Union leaders are proposing new measures to deepen regional integration on the road to becoming a full-fledged federal state.

On February 11, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen announced the “One Europe, One Market” initiative, which aims to impose full market integration in all economic sectors. At the EU leaders’ summit held the following day in Belgium, Eurocrats endorsed implementing this initiative by the end of 2027, and von der Leyen is expected to unveil an “EU-wide, single legal framework” on March 18.

Previous Calls for Integration

This proposal has been years in the making. For example, former Italian prime ministers Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta, at the request of the European Commission, published reports in 2024 calling for deeper EU integration.

As we reported in the October 31, 2025 “Insider Report,” Draghi, a Bilderberg Group member who also served as president of the European Central Bank, has called for “a new pragmatic federalism” — consistent with his previous calls for a full-fledged federal European superstate — that would require EU member nations to give up their veto power.

Meanwhile, Letta is advocating for the EU to pass the “One Market Act,” which would implement von der Leyen’s “One Europe, One Market” proposal. In an op-ed published in Politico on February 26, Letta argued:

In a world reshaped by Trump and by the accelerating logic of geopolitical competition, Europe needs an answer that is both realistic and ambitious. The strongest response the EU can offer is to complete the single market….

In the areas that matter most, we still do not have one market. We have the sum of 27 national markets.

This fragmentation is not a technical flaw. It is a political and strategic weakness….

This is why we need a bold political commitment to strengthen and complete the single market. We need an agreement that creates a fast track for the steps required to complete it, endorsed by the presidents of the EU institutions. It should have a name that matches its ambition: the One Market Act.

In 1992, Europe moved from a common market to a single market. Now we need the next step: one market.

Multiple EU member states openly support Draghi’s and Letta’s proposals, As we reported in the February 6 “Insider Report,” European national leaders are working on their own initiatives to promote and implement the same goals.

Keep reading

Europe Is Building a Digital Identity System for 450 Million People

The European Union is quietly constructing what may become one of the most sweeping digital identity systems ever attempted. Under new legislation, every EU member state must provide citizens with a government-approved “European Digital Identity Wallet” by 2026. This system will allow people to store official documents, verify identity, access government services, sign legal contracts, and potentially interact with financial institutions through a single digital platform. It is being marketed as a modernization effort designed to make life easier for citizens navigating an increasingly digital economy.

Supporters claim the digital wallet will simply replace physical paperwork. Instead of carrying passports, driver’s licenses, or other credentials, individuals will be able to verify their identity online with a government-issued digital key. The European Commission argues that this will streamline bureaucracy and allow citizens to interact with both public and private services more efficiently across all 27 member states.

Yet the implications extend far beyond administrative convenience. Once identity becomes centralized within a digital framework controlled or approved by government authorities, participation in everyday life increasingly depends on that system. Access to banking, employment verification, healthcare services, travel documentation, and legal contracts can all be integrated into the same identity infrastructure. What begins as a convenience quickly becomes a gateway through which access to modern society is managed.

Governments have always maintained population registries in one form or another. What makes digital identity systems fundamentally different is the speed and scale at which they operate. When identification becomes digitized and interconnected across borders, the ability to monitor economic and social activity expands dramatically. Identity verification can occur instantly, records can be updated in real time, and information can be shared between institutions with unprecedented efficiency.

This development becomes even more significant when viewed alongside other technological initiatives currently underway in Europe. The European Central Bank continues to explore the creation of a digital euro, a central bank digital currency that would exist entirely within electronic financial systems. If digital identity platforms and digital currency systems eventually intersect, financial activity and identity verification could become closely linked within the same infrastructure.

Keep reading

Britain and Europe are struggling economically; their response? Regulate the world

It used to be said that the sun never set on the British Empire, so far-flung were its possessions. Britain has long since retreated from most of those territories, most recently, and controversially, in its attempt to relinquish control of the Chagos Islands. Yet even as it sheds physical dominion, Britain appears increasingly eager to export something else: its laws and regulations. 

In that project, it is joined enthusiastically by its former partners in the European Union. If the Old World has one major export left, it is bureaucracy.

The most obvious current target is X, Elon Musk’s platform, and its Grok AI tool. Some users of questionable taste quickly discovered that Grok could be used to generate deepfake images of celebrities in revealing attire. More seriously, it was alleged that the technology had been used to generate sexualised images of children. In response, last month the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, opened a formal investigation under the Online Safety Act, citing potential failures to prevent illegal content. The possible penalties are severe, ranging from multi-million-pound fines, based on the company’s global revenue, to a complete ban on the platform in the UK.

Senior British officials were quick to escalate the rhetoric. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall publicly condemned X and emphasised that all options, including nationwide blocking, were on the table. The message was unmistakable; compliance would be enforced, one way or another.

Two days later, X announced new restrictions to prevent Grok from editing images of real people into revealing scenarios and to introduce geo-blocking in jurisdictions where such content is illegal. Ofcom described these changes as “welcome” but insufficient, insisting its investigation would continue. Meanwhile, pressure spread outward. Other governments announced restrictions, and the European Commission expanded its own probes under the Digital Services Act. What began as a British enforcement action quickly morphed into coordinated global pressure, effectively pushing X toward worldwide policy changes.

This is the crucial point. British regulators were not merely seeking compliance for British users. They were pressing for changes to X’s global policies and technical architecture to govern speech and expression far beyond the UK’s borders. What might initially have been framed as a failure to impose sensible safeguards on a powerful new tool has become a test case for whether regulators in one jurisdiction can dictate technological limits everywhere else.

This pattern is not new. Ofcom has already attempted to extend its reach directly into the United States, brushing aside the constitutional protections afforded to Americans. Since the Online Safety Act came into force in 2025, Ofcom has adopted an aggressively expansive interpretation of its authority, asserting that any online service “with links to the UK,” meaning merely accessible to UK users and deemed to pose “risks” to them, must comply with detailed duties to assess, mitigate, and report on illegal harms. Services provided entirely from abroad are explicitly deemed “in scope” if they meet these criteria.

The flashpoints have been 4chan and Kiwi Farms, two US-based forums notorious for unmoderated speech and even harassment campaigns. In mid-2025, Ofcom initiated investigations into both for failing to respond to statutory information requests and for failing to complete the required risk assessments. It ultimately issued a confirmation decision against 4chan, imposing a £20,000 fine plus daily penalties for continued non-compliance, despite the site having no physical presence, staff, or infrastructure in the UK.

Rather than comply, the operators of both sites filed suit in US federal court, arguing that Ofcom’s actions violate the First Amendment and that the regulator lacks jurisdiction to enforce British law against American companies. The litigation frames the dispute starkly: whether a foreign regulator may, through regulatory pressure, compel changes to lawful American speech.

That question has now spilt into US politics. Senior American officials have criticised Ofcom’s posture as an extraterritorial threat to free speech, and at least one member of Congress has threatened retaliatory legislation. What Britain views as online safety increasingly appears, from across the Atlantic, to be regulatory imperialism.

Keep reading

Trump Admin To Launch New Free-Speech Site To Combat Censorship Abroad

In response to what the Trump administration says is a rising tide of censorship in Europe, the State Department is launching a new app that will give users worldwide access to content that has been censored in other countries.

This includes not only Europe but also China and Iran. The platform, called Freedom.gov, will go live over the next several weeks, according to the State Department, and will be operable on iOS and Android devices.

“Freedom.gov is the latest in a long line of efforts by the State Department to protect and promote fundamental freedoms, both online and offline,” the State Department stated in an email to The Epoch Times. “The project will be global in its scope, but distinctly American in its mission: commemorating our commitment to free expression as we approach our 250th birthday.”

Lauding the move, Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a civil rights legal group that has been critical of recent EU speech laws, stated on X that “for 250 years, this is what America does,” citing examples such as Radio Free Europe, which broadcast into communist countries during the Cold War.

“If Europe’s bureaucrats don’t want you to see it, that tells you everything,” Tedesco stated. “Because even if your government fears freedom—ours doesn’t.”

The First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. government from “abridging the freedom of speech,” has provided a legal restraint against government censorship that most other countries lack. 

Recent European speech laws, most notably the Digital Services Act (DSA), were ostensibly written to combat what lawmakers deemed “hate speech,” “harmful speech,” and “misinformation,” as well as pornography and abusive AI deep fakes. But critics of European speech codes say they are becoming increasingly draconian.  

In 2025, Virginie Joron, a French member of the European Parliament, called the DSA a “Trojan horse for surveillance and control.”

In Finland, Paivi Rasanen, a member of parliament, was charged for quoting Bible verses online in 2019, criticizing her church’s participation in a gay pride event. 

“I never imagined that quoting the Bible in a Twitter post would lead to years of criminal charges, yet this is now the reality in Europe,” she told The Epoch Times.

Keep reading

EU Defends Censorship Law While Commission Staff Shift to Auto-Deleting Signal Messages

A senior European Union official responsible for enforcing online speech rules is objecting to what he describes as intimidation by Washington, even as his own agency advances policies that expand state involvement in digital expression and private communications.

Speaking Monday at the University of Amsterdam, Prabhat Agarwal, who leads enforcement of the Digital Services Act at the European Commission, urged regulators and civil society groups not to retreat under pressure from the United States. His remarks followed the February 3 release of a report by the US House Judiciary Committee that included the names and email addresses of staff involved in enforcing and promoting Europe’s censorship laws.

“Don’t let yourself be scared. We at the Commission stand by the European civil society organizations that have been threatened, and we stand by our teams as well,” Agarwal said, as reported by Politico.

The report’s publication came shortly after Washington barred a former senior EU official and two civil society representatives from entering the United States. European officials interpreted those moves as an effort to deter implementation of the DSA, the bloc’s flagship content regulation framework governing large online platforms.

Keep reading

US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

The U.S. State Department is developing an online portal that will enable people in Europe and elsewhere to see content banned by their governments including alleged hate speech and terrorist propaganda, a move Washington views as a way to counter censorship, three sources familiar with the plan said.

The site will be hosted at “freedom.gov,” the sources said. One source said officials had discussed including a virtual private network function to make a user’s traffic appear to originate in the U.S. and added that user activity on the site will not be tracked.

Headed by Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, the project was expected to be unveiled at last week’s Munich Security Conference but was delayed, the sources said.

Reuters could not determine why the launch did not happen, but some State Department officials, including lawyers, have raised concerns about the plan, two of the sources said, without detailing the concerns.

The project could further strain ties between the Trump administration and traditional U.S. allies in Europe, already heightened by disputes over trade, Russia’s war in Ukraine and President Donald Trump’s push to assert control over Greenland.

The portal could also put Washington in the unfamiliar position of appearing to encourage citizens to flout local laws.

In a statement to Reuters, a State Department spokesperson said the U.S. government does not have a censorship-circumvention program specific to Europe but added: “Digital freedom is a priority for the State Department, however, and that includes the proliferation of privacy and censorship-circumvention technologies like VPNs.”

The spokesperson denied any announcement had been delayed and said it was inaccurate that State Department lawyers had raised concerns.

Keep reading

EXPOSED: EU’s Desperate Push to Ram Ukraine Into the Bloc by 2027 — Ignoring Treaties, Crushing Sovereignty, and Setting Up for Epic Failure Just Like the Russian Assets Fiasco!

In a brazen display of bureaucratic overreach that’s straight out of a globalist nightmare, the European Union’s elite are hell-bent on forcing Ukraine’s accession by 2027, trampling on treaties, national sovereignty, and common sense.

It’s the same rigged game we saw with the attempted confiscation of Russian assets – all hype, no substance, and destined to crash and burn. Spoiler: It ain’t happening, folks.

Let’s break it down. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is demanding a fixed 2027 deadline for EU membership as part of any peace deal with Russia, claiming it’ll lock Ukraine away from Moscow’s grip.

He’s pushing hard, saying Ukraine will be “technically ready” by then and warning that without it, Russia will sabotage the process.

Rather tellingly, when Zelensky addresses his European partners who are generously funding him, he never asks; he demands. As if the world owed him something. He did the same with his previous financial backers: the Americans.

Sounds bold, right? But reality check: The EU’s own treaties and rules scream “impossible.” The Copenhagen criteria – those ironclad requirements on rule of law, human rights, and economic stability – take years, if not decades, to meet.

No shortcuts, no exceptions. Yet here we are, with Brussels hatching wild schemes like “partial membership” or “reverse enlargement” to jam Ukraine in early, reforms be damned.

The Balts are psychologically at war

Germany, the EU’s economic powerhouse, isn’t buying it. Chancellor Friedrich Merz slammed the door shut, declaring Ukraine’s 2027 entry “out of the question” and “not possible.” He insisted on full compliance with the criteria, a process that drags on even in peacetime. No fast-track for Kyiv, period.

Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever? He’s even more blunt. De Wever diagnosed the Baltic states as “psychologically at war with Russia,” willing to drag the entire continent into their paranoia.

He’s already proven his spine by torpedoing EU plans to loot frozen Russian assets for Ukraine aid, forcing a humiliating backdown.

Luxembourg Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel straight-up told Zelensky to stop issuing ultimatums, reminding him that EU rules aren’t optional. “Don’t give ultimatums – it’s not in your interest,” Bettel said, echoing what sane leaders across Europe are thinking.

Despite these massive red flags, the EU Commission under Ursula von der Leyen is pulling every dirty trick.

They’re floating “unprecedented” plans for gradual integration, like giving Ukraine early access to membership perks without full reforms.

The zealots in the Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania – are leading the charge, obsessed with poking the Russian bear at any cost.

As De Wever nailed it, they’re ready to “do anything, absolutely anything” to impose their worldview on Europe. Outlets like Politico, partially bankrolled by EU cash, are spinning this as a done deal.

Their “5 steps to get Ukraine into the EU in 2027” reads like propaganda, claiming the only real hurdle is, of course, Hungary – that “fascist” holdout, Viktor Orbán.

Ah, Hungary – the lone wolf standing against the globalist tide. Orbán blasted the 2027 plan as an “open declaration of war” against his country, vowing no Hungarian parliament will approve it “in the next 100 years.”

This whole circus mirrors the Russian assets debacle to a T. Remember how the EU hyped confiscating $300 billion in frozen Russian funds to rebuild Ukraine? They pushed hard, ignoring legal risks and Russian retaliation threats.

But Belgium balked, fearing lawsuits and economic blowback, forcing a watered-down “indefinite freeze” instead of outright seizure. Billions in “reparation loans” got floated, but the grand plan fizzled amid vetoes and reality checks.

Same script here: Overpromising, underdelivering, and trampling treaties in the name of “rule of law.” Hypocrisy much? Why the madness?

Simple – the Baltic bloc’s worldvision is infecting Brussels, desperate to yank Europe into endless conflict. Russia, Russia, Russia. But the world ain’t buying it anymore.

This fantasy will flop harder than the assets grab. The EU’s bureaucratic Quasimodo is exposed – bloated, corrupt, and out of touch.

Keep reading

EU Law Could Extend Scanning of Private Messages Until 2027

The European Parliament is considering another extension of Chat Control 1.0, the “temporary” exemption that allows communications providers to scan private messages (under the premise of preventing child abuse) despite the protections of the EU’s ePrivacy Directive.

A draft report presented by rapporteur Birgit Sippel (S&D) would prolong the derogation until April 3, 2027.

At first glance, the proposal appears to roll back some of the most controversial elements of Chat Control. Text message scanning and automated analysis of previously unknown images would be explicitly excluded. Supporters have framed this as a narrowing of scope.

However, the core mechanism of Chat Control remains untouched.

The draft continues to permit mass hash scanning of private communications for so-called “known” material.

According to former MEP and digital rights activist Patrick Breyer, approximately 99 percent of all reports generated under Chat Control 1.0 originate from hash-based detection.

Almost all of those reports come from a single company, Meta, which already limits its scanning to known material only. Under the new proposal, Meta’s practices would remain fully authorized.

As a result, the draft would not meaningfully reduce the volume, scope, or nature of surveillance. The machinery keeps running, with a few of its most visibly controversial attachments removed.

Hash scanning is often portrayed as precise and reliable. The evidence points in the opposite direction.

First, the technology is incapable of understanding context or intent. Hash databases are largely built using US legal definitions of illegality, which do not map cleanly onto the criminal law of EU Member States.

The German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) reports that close to half of all chat control reports are criminally irrelevant.

Each false positive still requires assessment, documentation, and follow-up. Investigators are forced to triage noise rather than pursue complex cases involving production, coercion, and organized abuse.

The strategic weakness is compounded by a simple reality. Offenders adapt. As more services adopt end-to-end encryption, abusers migrate accordingly. Since 2022, the number of chat-based reports sent to police has fallen by roughly 50 percent, not because abuse has declined, but because scanning has become easier to evade.

“Both children and adults deserve a paradigm shift in online child protection, not token measures,” Breyer said in a statement to Reclaim The Net.

“Whether looking for ‘known’ or ‘unknown’ content, the principle remains: the post office cannot simply open and scan every letter at random. Searching only for known images fails to stop ongoing abuse or rescue victims.”

Keep reading

Massive TikTok Fine Threat Advances Europe’s Digital ID Agenda

A familiar storyline is hardening into regulatory doctrine across Europe: frame social media use as addiction, then require platforms to reengineer themselves around age segregation and digital ID.

The European Commission’s preliminary case against TikTok, announced today, shows how that narrative is now being operationalized in policy, with consequences that reach well beyond one app.

European regulators have accused TikTok of breaching the Digital Services Act by relying on what they describe as “addictive design” features, including infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and personalized recommendations.

Officials argue these systems drive compulsive behavior among children and vulnerable adults and must be structurally altered.

What sits beneath that argument is a quieter requirement. To deliver different “safe” experiences to minors and adults, platforms must first determine who is a minor and who is not. Any mandate to offer different experiences to minors and adults depends on a reliable method of telling those groups apart.

Platforms cannot apply separate algorithms, screen-time limits, or nighttime restrictions without determining a user’s age with a level of confidence regulators will accept.

Commission spokesman Thomas Regnier described the mechanics bluntly, saying TikTok’s design choices “lead to the compulsive use of the app, especially for our kids, and this poses major risks to their mental health and wellbeing.” He added: “The measures that TikTok has in place are simply not enough.”

The enforcement tool behind those statements is the Digital Services Act, the EU’s platform rulebook that authorizes Brussels to demand redesigns and impose fines of up to 6% of global annual revenue.

Keep reading

EU Targets VPNs as Age Checks Expand

Australia’s under-16 social media restrictions have become a practical reference point for regulators who are moving beyond theory and into enforcement.

As the system settles into routine use, its side effects are becoming clearer. One of the most visible has been the renewed political interest in curbing tools that enable private communication, particularly Virtual Private Networks. That interest carries consequences well beyond “age assurance.”

A January 2026 briefing we obtained from the European Parliamentary Research Service traces a sharp rise in VPN use following the introduction of mandatory age checks.

The report notes “a significant surge in the number of virtual private networks (VPNs) used to bypass online age verification methods in countries where these have been put in place by law,” placing that trend within a broader policy environment where “protection of children online is high on the political agenda.”

Australia’s experience fits this trajectory. As age gates tighten, individuals reach for tools that reduce exposure to monitoring and profiling. VPNs are the first port of call in that response because they are widely available, easy to use, and designed to limit third-party visibility into online activity.

The EPRS briefing offers a clear description of what these tools do. “A virtual private network (VPN) is a digital technology designed to establish a secure and encrypted connection between a user’s device and the internet.”

It explains that VPNs hide IP addresses and route traffic through remote servers in order to “protect online communications from interception and surveillance.” These are civil liberties functions, not fringe behaviors, and they have long been treated as legitimate safeguards in democratic societies.

Keep reading