Tag: eu

Europe’s Populist Parties Keep Gaining Ground, But Cannot Get Into Power

Across the European continent, despite gaining considerable proportions of the vote, populist parties are increasingly being frozen out of governing in coalitions by political opponents who regard them as extremist.

Proponents of the tactic known as a “cordon sanitaire” or “firewall” say it’s not an attack on democracy but a defense of it. But one war expert said the tactic will only arouse anger in voters and that “there is no potential for peaceful political change.”

Coalitions are part and parcel of political life in many European countries.

But the cordon sanitaire, a measure normally directed at keeping out fringe outliers, is now being used to keep out parties that are gaining majority-level support.

Such parties include the Alternative for Germany, France’s National Rally, Austria’s Freedom Party, Spain’s Vox, and the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom.

They all deny being “far-right” as they are often dubbed by media, opponents, or academics, but their political opponents regard them as beyond the pale and have formed coalitions on the promise of shutting them out of governance.

Keep reading

Professor Of War Warns Many European Countries Are In A ‘Pre-Civil-War’ State

One of the globe’s leading experts on war has warned that many European countries are on the verge of civil war and may already be past the point of no return.

David Betz, Professor of War in the Modern World at King’s College London, says his research shows is a statistically significant chance of a civil war breaking out within five years in a major European country, with a distinct possibility that the conflict could spill over to neighbouring Nations.

Speaking to documentarian Andrew Gold, Betz further noted that it is likely too late to prevent things getting “very much worse” in Europe, and that governments may only be able to better prepare for the inevitable.

“I would probably avoid big cities. I would suggest you reduce your exposure to big cities if you are able,” Betz chillingly urged.

He added, “there isn’t anything they can do, it’s baked in. We’re already past the tipping point, is my estimation… we are past the point at which there is a political offramp. We are past the point at which normal politics is able to solve the problem.”

Betz emphasised that “almost every plausible way forward from here involves some kind of violence in my view.”

“Anything the government tries to do at this point… you can solve one kind of problem, but it will aggravate another kind of problem in doing so, and you get back to violence,” the professor continued.

“The question really is about mitigating the costs, to my mind, not about preventing the outcome, I’m sorry to say… I have not heard a credible political way forward and I don’t see a single political figure who is credible in the role of national saviour, or even inclined to do so,” he added.

“The bottom line is I don’t think there is now a political solution to this which takes the form of everything just working out OK after some period of difficulty,” Betz grimly concludes, noting “Things are bad now, but they are going to get very much worse.”

“Hopefully after they will get better, but you will have to go through the period of very much worse before you get there,” he predicted.

It’s a downward spiral, essentially.

Keep reading

EU transfers €1 billion in aid to Ukraine — von der Leyen

The EU has transferred €1 billion of macro-financial aid to Ukraine, bringing its total spending on supporting Kiev since the beginning of the special military operation to €150 billion, European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen wrote on X.

“Today we disburse a new €1 billion to Ukraine, bringing our total support to almost 150 billion,” she wrote.

Keep reading

European Union Unveils International Strategy Pushing Digital ID Systems and Online Censorship

As part of a broader campaign to expand its global influence in the digital era, the European Union has introduced a sweeping International Digital Strategy that leans heavily on centralized infrastructure, digital identity systems, and regulatory frameworks that raise significant questions about online freedoms and privacy.

The European Commission, in announcing the initiative, stressed its intent to collaborate with foreign governments on a range of areas, prominently featuring digital identity systems and what it calls “Digital Public Infrastructure.”

These frameworks, which have garnered widespread support from transnational institutions such as the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, are being marketed as tools to streamline cross-border commerce and improve mobility.

However, for privacy advocates, the strategy raises red flags due to its promotion of interoperable digital ID programs and a surveillance-oriented model of governance under the guise of efficiency.

According to the strategy documents, one of the EU’s objectives is to drive mutual recognition of electronic trust services, including digital IDs, across partner nations such as Ukraine, Moldova, and several Balkan and Latin American countries. This aligns with the EU’s ambitions to propagate its model of the Digital Identity Wallet, an initiative that privacy campaigners warn could entrench government control over personal data.

The strategy also outlines measures to deepen cooperation on global digital regulation, including laws that govern online speech.

While framed as promoting “freedom of expression, democracy, and citizens’ privacy,” these efforts are closely tied to the enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates extensive platform compliance and systemic risk monitoring.

Keep reading

J.D. Vance Was Right About Censorship

In February 2025, U.S. Vice President, JD Vance stood before the Munich Security Conference and delivered a stark warning. Europe’s greatest threat was not external aggression, but internal decay — specifically, the erosion of free speech.

At the time, his words were met with scorn from European elites, dismissed as populist provocation — even “misinformation”. Yet, just months later, the cultural tide is turning. The May 2025 edition of the Economist is entirely devoted to exposing Europe’s censorship crisis, with the cover piece subtitled “J.D. Vance was right”. Key members of the UK’s previous Conservative government, responsible for implementing various censorship laws in Britain, have now found a voice to call for free speech. In a few short months, the zeitgeist has shifted: we now see that Vance’s critique was not only timely, but prescient.

Vance highlighted the case of Adam Smith-Connor, a British army veteran convicted for the “crime” of silently praying near an abortion facility in Bournemouth. Smith-Connor stood alone, for 3 minutes, across a road from the facility in a green public space — prayerfully remembering a child he had lost through abortion. He obstructed no one, spoke to no one, yet was prosecuted under a “buffer zone” law designed to prevent harassment, abuse, and “expressions of approval or disapproval” of abortion within the large public area. He was sentenced to a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £9,000 in prosecution costs.

This case is not isolated. Livia Tossici-Bolt, also from Bournemouth, was convicted for offering consensual conversations near an abortion facility. Her “crime”? Holding a sign reading “here to talk, if you want” in the area. Inviting consensual conversation. She was ordered to pay £20,000 in prosecution costs.

Similar cases have arisen in Birmingham and in Scotland, where citizens have been prosecuted just for holding a certain point of view on abortion near a clinic or hospital, and either praying, or simply being willing to talk if someone wants to engage with them.

Vance’s speech, derided by European elites at the time, resonates with a public that is increasingly frustrated with their taxes going towards silencing themselves.

Keep reading

EU Tech Laws Erect Digital Iron Curtain

Over the past decades, Europe has created little of real relevance in terms of technological platforms, social networks, operating systems, or search engines.

In contrast, it has built an extensive regulatory apparatus designed to limit and punish those who have actually innovated.

Rather than producing its own alternatives to American tech giants, the EU has chosen to suffocate existing ones through regulations such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The DSA aims to control the content and internal functioning of digital platforms, requiring the rapid removal of content deemed “inappropriate” in what amounts to a modern form of censorship, as well as the disclosure of how algorithms work and restrictions on targeted advertising. The DMA, in turn, seeks to curtail the power of so-called gatekeepers by forcing companies like Apple, Google, or Meta to open their systems to competitors, avoid self-preferencing, and separate data flows between products.

These two regulations could potentially have a greater impact on U.S. tech companies than any domestic legislation, as they are rules made in Brussels but applied to American companies in an extraterritorial manner. And they go far beyond fines: they force structural changes to the design of systems and functionalities, something that no sovereign state should be imposing on foreign private enterprise.

In April 2025, Meta was fined €200 million under the Digital Markets Act for allegedly imposing a “consent or pay” model on European users of Facebook and Instagram, without offering a real alternative. Beyond the fine, it was forced to separate data flows between platforms, thereby compromising the personalized advertising system that sustains its profitability. This was a blatant interference in its business model.

That same month, Apple was fined €500 million for preventing platforms like Spotify from informing users about alternative payment methods outside the App Store. The company was required to remove these restrictions, opening iOS to external app stores and competing payment systems. Once again, this was an unwelcome intrusion and a direct attack on the exclusivity-based model of the Apple ecosystem.

Other companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and even X are also under scrutiny, with the latter particularly affected by DSA rules, having been the target of a formal investigation in 2023 for alleged noncompliance in content moderation.

Keep reading

Only One European Country’s Cannabis Policy Is Actually Undermining The Illicit Market

In the last several decades, Europe has made significant strides in its approach to legalized cannabis use, moving from strict criminalization and prohibition to decriminalization and legalized medical and adult-use models. In addition to expanding healthcare and adult-use access to cannabis use, it’s also important to discuss what impact these varying policies have in counteracting the foothold of illicit cannabis markets throughout the European Union.

Under E.U. law, many countries encounter hurdles in legalizing adult-use commercial cannabis, as they likely would be subject to penalties under the European Court of Justice. For this reason, several countries—including the Netherlands, Malta, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Germany—have taken unique approaches to cannabis policy.

Germany, however, stands out in terms of producing a measurable impact to push back against the illicit cannabis market.

The Netherlands: A Tolerance Model Without Market Control

Long seen as a pioneer, the Netherlands’ approach to cannabis is based on tolerance rather than legalization. Adults can purchase small quantities of cannabis from Dutch “coffee shops,” which are tolerated but not fully legalized. These shops are forced to source products from an illegal supply chain due to a lack of legal production.

In terms of impact, the tolerated model might seem like a considerable way to go, as every adult in the Netherlands can access coffee shops. However, in terms of control, product safety and regulation, the Dutch cannabis system is vulnerable, as the whole value chain is not regulated and the products are produced illegally for the coffee shops.

Due to the drawbacks of the tolerance model, the Netherlands has just initiated its Weed Experiment. The experiment will allow coffee shops in 10 municipalities to sell legally produced and supplied cannabis. A report on the results of the closed-loop experiment is expected for 2028.

Malta: Liberal on Paper, Constrained in Practice

Malta decriminalized cannabis use in 2015 and, in 2021, became the first European Union country to allow the cultivation and private personal use of cannabis. However, the market remains heavily restricted.

The government permits adult cultivation of cannabis (up to four plants) and personal possession of seven grams when away from home and 50 grams at home. The country also legalized nonprofit cannabis associations that can distribute cannabis to their members. These clubs are limited to 500 people, and membership is only available to residents. However, the public consumption, transportation and sale of cannabis are still banned and can result in fines.

With club membership strictly limited, public consumption outlawed and no other options for adults to legally purchase cannabis outside of the nonprofit associations, the market remains very limited. As of May 2025, no public information is available detailing the exact amount of cannabis provided by these associations to their members.

Luxembourg: Legalization Without Access

In 2021, Luxembourg legalized cannabis cultivation for adult use. However, it wasn’t until two years later, in 2023, that the country defined its legal cultivation and possession rules for personal use. Under the law, adults can grow up to four plants and possess three grams. However, consumption, transportation, and sale in public spaces are still banned and can result in fines.

As reported by the Luxembourg Times, 46.3 percent of the country’s residents have tried cannabis at least once in their lives, including 14.2 percent who have used the plant within the last year and 7.8 percent in the past month, according to an ILRES poll. Just under seven out of ten people who grow cannabis at home said they started cultivation after the government legalized home grow, amounting to just 11.5 percent of recent users.

Despite homegrow gaining moderate interest from residents after legalization, there has not been a significant growth in users, and this has not resulted in an explosion in the market. For now, the market remains stagnant and limited in counteracting illicit sellers due to the country’s lack of legalized sales marketplaces as well as restrictions on public consumption.

Switzerland: Research-Oriented but Limited in Scope

Switzerland has taken a scientific approach through pilot programs across seven major cities to determine the viability of cannabis legalization and controlled distribution within the country over 10 years.

While the pilot programs are set up to allow recreational cannabis commerce at a local level, in terms of true societal impact, this initial rollout does not serve as a solution to counteract the illicit cannabis market. This is mainly due to the limited availability of the majority of Swiss residents. Only Swiss residents who have previously established histories of using cannabis can purchase through the pilot program entities. These pilot programs are also limited to a maximum of a few hundred or a few thousand participants.

Germany: A Functional, Scalable Legal Medical Market

Germany’s cannabis market is widely hailed as one of Europe’s most progressive. On April 1, 2024, the country passed The Cannabis Act (CanG), reclassifying cannabis as a non-narcotic. Through this, administrative burdens were eased for medical cannabis patients and prescribing doctors. CanG also allows possession of up to 25 grams of cannabis and cultivation of up to 3 plants, and it permits the rollout of not-for-profit cannabis clubs.

In January 2025, my medical cannabis company, Bloomwell Group, released its “Cannabis 2024 in Germany: A new era for patients in Germany” report. According to the report, in December 2024, the number of prescriptions issued increased by a little less than 1,000 percent compared to March 2024, following the reclassification of cannabis. The rise of patients who are now able to access cannabis for various medical conditions signals a shift in the perception of cannabis being used for its wellness properties in the medical space.

Telemedical technology in the sector has also positively impacted growth and counteracted the illicit market. Telemedical platforms offer convenience for patients and the physicians who prescribe their treatment. This is extremely helpful to patients who are located in rural or isolated areas of Germany and have geographic limitations in accessing healthcare professionals for their medical needs.

The Bloomwell report also revealed that medical cannabis prices dropped to an all-time low by the end of 2024. During October and November 2024, select strains were available for just €3.99 per gram, a stark contrast to previous pricing models. These decreases are due to a steady supply and increased demand for medical cannabis as the number of self-paying patients continues to soar.

Such demand continues to open doors for international imports of medical cannabis to supply the growing market. Just in the first quarter of 2025, more than 37 tonnes of cannabis for medical or scientific purposes have been imported to Germany, according to the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM).

Unlike other legalized markets, like California in the U.S., which fell victim to being dwarfed by a behemoth illicit market, the passage of CanG served as a catalyst to boom the German medical market, and with more patients able to access cannabis, prices of the plant actually decreased. This allowed the legalized medical market to stay competitive with the illicit market.

Keep reading

Shocking Data Shows Massive Demographic Transformation In Europe

New data showing the percentage of people not speaking German at home in Austria underlines just how massive the demographic transformation has been in the country, according to a Hungarian economist.

“Ominous winds are blowing in the West,” economist Géza Sebestyén posted on his Facebook page, along with some astonishing data.

“According to the latest Austrian statistics, one-third (32.8%) of primary school pupils in Austria are non-native German speakers. In cities, the proportion is even higher: in Salzburg, for example, one in two children (51.8%) do not speak German at home,” he noted. 

The post featured a map breaking down each region of Austria, showing the huge share of children not speaking German at home as their first language.

Sebestyén, the head of the MCC Economic Policy Workshop, showed that Hungary could have ended up like Austria if it had not followed the policies of Viktor Orbán, who sealed the border and rejected mass immigration. He warned that Hungary could feature a multiculturalism that Austrians increasingly find alienating and fraught with crime.

Keep reading

EU Commissioner Defends EU’s Censorship Law While Downplaying Brussels’ Indirect Influence Over Online Speech

As the European Union moves aggressively to shape online discourse through the Digital Services Act (DSA), EU Commissioner for Technology Henna Virkkunen has been deflecting scrutiny abroad, pointing fingers at the United States for what she describes as a more extensive censorship regime.

Relying on transparency data, she argues that platforms like Meta and X primarily remove content based on their own terms and conditions rather than due to DSA directives. But this framing misrepresents how enforcement works in practice, and downplays the EU’s systemic role in pushing platforms toward silence through legal design, not open decrees.

Virkkunen highlighted that between September 2023 and April 2024, 99 percent of content takedowns occurred under platform terms of service, with only 1 percent resulting from “trusted flaggers” authorized under the DSA. A mere 0.001 percent were direct orders from state authorities.

On paper, this paints a picture of platform autonomy. But in reality, the architecture of the DSA ensures that removals appear “voluntary” precisely because they are incentivized by looming regulatory consequences.

Under the DSA, platforms are held legally accountable for failing to remove certain types of content.

This liability drives a strong incentive to err on the side of over-removal, creating a culture where companies preemptively censor to minimize risk. Virkkunen frames these decisions as internal, but in truth, many of them reflect anticipatory compliance with European legal expectations.

The fact that content is flagged and removed “under T&Cs” does not indicate independence, it reflects a strategy of risk avoidance in response to EU enforcement pressure.

This dynamic is by design. The DSA doesn’t rely on high numbers of direct takedown orders from governments. Instead, it outsources content control to the platforms themselves, embedding speech restrictions in the guise of corporate policy.

The regulatory burden falls on private actors, but the agenda is shaped by Brussels. Delegating enforcement doesn’t dilute state influence; it conceals it. The veneer of decentralization does not remove the fact that the state has created the framework and exerts ongoing leverage over what platforms consider acceptable.

Keep reading

European Commission Launches €5.69M European Fact-Checking Funding Network to Advance “Democracy Shield” and Expand Censorship Infrastructure

The European Commission has launched a €5 million initiative presented as a fact-checking support program; but beneath the surface, it reads as yet another calculated step toward institutionalizing censorship across the European Union.

This call for proposals is marketed as a tool to “protect democracy” and combat “disinformation,” but the structure, goals, and affiliations of the program point clearly to the opposite: a top-down, publicly funded apparatus for narrative enforcement.

Slated to run until September 2, 2025, the project is open not only to EU Member States but also to candidate countries like Ukraine and Moldova; jurisdictions framed as highly vulnerable to “foreign interference,” especially pro-Kremlin disinformation.

This strategic framing serves a dual purpose: justifying increased surveillance of content and securing narrative dominance in geopolitically sensitive areas.

The program’s core deliverables; protecting fact-checkers from so-called “harassment,” creating a centralized repository of “fact-checks,” and building emergency “response capacity;” sound benign to some. But stripped of the euphemism, this is a blueprint for constructing a continent-wide content control grid.

The “protection scheme” offers legal and cyber assistance to fact-checkers, but more crucially it reinforces the narrative that opposition to these groups constitutes abuse rather than legitimate disagreement.

The “fact-check repository” enables centralized curation of what counts as “truth,” and the “emergency response” function gives the Commission a pretext to fast-track suppression efforts in politically sensitive moments.

Most telling is the program’s requirement that participating organizations be certified by either the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) or the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

Many of their members, such as AFP and Full Fact, already work directly with major social media platforms like Meta under third-party moderation schemes. This effectively means the EC is reinforcing an exclusive gatekeeper class, already aligned with corporate censorship programs, now endowed with taxpayer funds and the backing of the European bureaucracy.

At least 60% of the funding will go to third parties, who must co-finance their participation.

Keep reading