Tag: eu

EU Court Rules Catholic Poland Must Recognize Foreign Same-Sex Marriages Despite National Law

The globalist empire just fired another shot at Christian Europe: Luxembourg’s activist court, the European Court of Justice (ICJ), has ordered majority-Catholic Poland to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed abroad, even though the Polish Constitution explicitly defines marriage as one man and one woman.

Two Polish men—one also holding German citizenship—went to Berlin in 2018, got a German marriage certificate, and then demanded Warsaw register it as a marriage for residency and benefits.

When Poland said no, the EU’s chief cultural globalism-enforcement court screamed “discrimination.”

The ECJ claims refusing to recognize the Berlin paperwork violates “freedom of movement” and “family life”—the same tired excuses Brussels always uses to nullify national sovereignty.

Apparently, no EU country is allowed to protect traditional marriage once a single member state adopts it.

Polish Christians are furious, and rightly so. Law and Justice MP Marcin Romanowski called it “a blatant violation of conferred competences” and a “perverse interference” in Poland’s sovereign right to define family.

Former Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro went even harder, branding the ECJ “the most politicized quasi-court in Europe” that now tramples all over Poland’s Constitution and the clear will of its Catholic majority.

The court, in a press release detailing the judgment, wrote: “Member States are therefore required to recognize, for the purpose of the exercise of the rights conferred by EU law, the marital status lawfully acquired in another Member State.”

Member states “enjoy a margin of discretion to choose the procedures for recognizing such a marriage,” the court added.

The ruling does not obligate countries to introduce same-sex marriage under their national laws, the court said.

Despite that, the ruling is designed specifically to blow the doors wide open: foreign same-sex certificates will now be used to collect spousal benefits, residency rights, and eventually adoption of kids bought on Western surrogacy markets.

Keep reading

Chat Control 2.0: EU Moves Toward Ending Private Communication

Between the coffee breaks and the diplomatic niceties of Brussels bureaucracy, a quiet dystopian revolution might be taking place. On November 26, a roomful of unelected officials could nod through one of the most consequential surveillance laws in modern European history, without ever having to face the public.

The plan, politely titled EU Moves to End Private Messaging with Chat Control 2.0, sits on the agenda of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, or Coreper, a club of national ambassadors whose job is to prepare legislation for the European Council. This Wednesday, they may “prepare” it straight into existence.

According to MEP Martin Sonneborn, Coreper’s diplomats could be ready to endorse the European Commission’s digital surveillance project in secret.

It was already due for approval a week earlier before mysteriously vanishing from the schedule. Now it’s back, with privacy advocates watching like hawks who suspect the farmer’s got a shotgun.

The Commission calls Chat Control 2.0 a child-protection measure. The branding suggests moral urgency; the text suggests mass surveillance. The proposal would let governments compel messaging services such as WhatsApp or Signal to scan users’ messages before they’re sent.

Officials insist that the newest version removes mandatory scanning, which is a bit like saying a loaded gun is safer because you haven’t pulled the trigger yet.

Keep reading

Ukraine & Europe Reject Trump’s Russia Peace Plan, Prepare Emergency Call

By all estimates, this is the first ever US-proposed peace plan which actually demands major concessions from Ukraine, but it also seeks to provide assurances for Kiev’s future protection modelled on NATO article five, according to Axios.

Among President Zelensky’s top objectives has long been to obtain a robust US and European security guarantee, and this new 28-point plan appears to give just that:

President Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine includes a security guarantee modeled on NATO’s Article 5, which would commit the U.S. and European allies to treat an attack on Ukraine as an attack on the entire “transatlantic community,” – writes Axios.

Such a pledge could be recipe for future war, however, and that’s precisely how Moscow might see it, especially if other pressing issues of territory or military NATOization on Russia’s doorstep aren’t resolved. The security guarantee would be for up to a decade and could be renewed, according to the draft.

There are also reports that the US is already advancing a very ambitious timeline – that it wants to see the plan signed by Thanksgiving, or as soon as next week.

There are even lines for signatures on the document, indicating places for Ukraine, Russia the US, and even NATO and the EU. It’s unclear just which representatives would sign from each country or bloc, and its as yet unclear whether Putin himself must sign.

A senior Kremlin official cited in Axios said he was “optimistic” about the plan’s prospects, arguing that it aligns more closely with Moscow’s views than previous diplomatic efforts. This is especially as a large portion of the Donbas will be recognized as under Russia’s control, and the size and capability of the Ukrainian army will be scaled back, which a commitment to no foreign troops on Ukrainian soil as well.

And yet, as predicted by many, Ukraine and its European backers stand ready to rejected the plan – though it’s still only in its draft form and hasn’t been seriously negotiated over by the warring sides. Newsweek reports:

European leaders are preparing an emergency call to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to end the war in Ukraine.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz cancelled a scheduled appearance to join the discussion, which will also include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron.

The 28‑point plan caught European capitals off guard. Leaders were not directly involved in the U.S. effort and learned the details only after the document was made public.

Indeed Ukraine wasn’t involved either, and the emerging complaint is that it too closely resembles earlier Russian talking points and proposals for ending the war.

EU High Representative Kaja Kallas said Thursday, “We have always supported a lasting and just peace, and we welcome any efforts to achieve it, but for any plan to work, Ukrainians and Europeans are needed.”

Keep reading

US & Qatar Force EU Climate Policy U-Turn – End of the ESG Era?

While former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock calls for a fight against climate-driven global apocalypse at COP30, Brussels is being forced into political restraint by pressure from the US and Qatar. On the horizon, the end of the EU’s grand climate machinations is becoming visible.

November 13, 2025, could mark a turning point in European Union history. We may have witnessed the beginning of the end of European climate socialism. 

Media coverage of the day in Parliament downplayed its significance, focusing instead on the reform of the supply chain law, while fundamental changes unfolded at a different level.

Politically, the event cannot be overstated; perhaps it should even be called a singularity in recent EU policy: The European Parliament paved the way for a dramatic dilution of corporate reporting obligations under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the so-called due diligence rules (CSDDD). The unstoppable march toward a climate dictatorship has been abruptly halted.

The End of the ESG Machine

Advocates of the ESG doctrine—under which private industry is forced by lawmakers to integrate party-circulated environmental and social standards into corporate governance—suffered their first major setback. Reporting and due diligence obligations for companies have been so weakened that previously required climate-aligned transition plans at the corporate level are now eliminated. Responsibility for violations of the remaining rules now rests with national authorities, not Brussels, freeing multinational supply chains from massive oversight. The economy can, to some extent, escape the regulators’ grip—good news.

For companies in the fossil energy sector, new market incentives emerge: exports to Europe can be conducted more easily, as regulatory hurdles are lowered and bureaucratic reporting requirements drastically reduced. Overall, the adjustment allows companies greater flexibility in supply chains, reduces the compulsion to invest in renewable or CO₂-neutral projects, and makes European markets more attractive to fossil energy exporters.

Reality Check

The EU Commission has recently faced mounting pressure from both Washington and the key LNG supplier, Qatar. US Trade Secretary Howard Lutnick had months earlier called on US companies to simply ignore Europe’s ESG framework if it significantly impeded operations—a direct affront to Ursula von der Leyen, who likes to portray herself as the morally superior, untouchable guardian of EU trade.

Together, these forces launched an offensive to bring Brussels’ climate defense to its knees, where cognitive dissonance had taken hold and the undeniable drift of geopolitical power was being ignored.

We have clearly entered the era of resource dominance. Europe imports roughly 60% of its required energy. Its irrational war on baseload energy sources such as nuclear and coal has only deepened dependence.

In Brussels and EU branch capitals, the lesson is now unavoidable: being a resource-poor trading partner in negotiations reveals how Europe’s capital base has been massively weakened by EU policy. Europe has lost its historic dominant position. US President Trump, during negotiations with the EU, merely displayed what behind closed doors was already clear to everyone.

Keep reading

EU’s Weakened “Chat Control” Bill Still Poses Major Privacy and Surveillance Risks, Academics Warn

On November 19, the European Union stands poised to vote on one of the most consequential surveillance proposals in its digital history.

The legislation, framed as a measure to protect children online, has drawn fierce criticism from a bloc of senior European academics who argue that the proposal, even in its revised form, walks a perilous line. It invites mass surveillance under a veil of voluntarism and does so with little evidence that it will improve safety.

This latest draft of the so-called “Chat Control” law has already been softened from its original form. The Council of the European Union, facing mounting public backlash, stripped out provisions for mandatory on-device scanning of encrypted communications.

But for researchers closely following the legislation, the revised proposal is anything but a retreat.

“The proposal reinstates the option to analyze content beyond images and URLs – including text and video – and to detect newly generated CSAM,” reads the open letter, signed by 18 prominent academics from institutions such as ETH Zurich, KU Leuven, and the Max Planck Institute.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

The argument, in essence, is that the Council’s latest version doesn’t eliminate the risk. It only rebrands it.

Keep reading

RAMPANT CORRUPTION: European Leaders Pressure Zelensky Over Energy Kickback Scandal

People surprised by corruption in Ukraine are like people surprised that Joe Biden was senile – not paying attention.

So bad is the corruption scandal unfolding in Ukraine that Globalist EU leaders find themselves obliged to breach the usual taboo on criticizing Ukraine or Volodymyr Zelensky in public.

Out of the public eye, the Europeans are seeking ‘reassurances’ from Ukraine regarding further financial support to the country.

This comes after the anti-corruption agencies – that Zelensky wanted to dismantle – are unleashing a corruption probe that has revealed a $100 million kickback scheme tied to the critical energy sector.

Several of Zelensky’s close associates are involved in the plot, so the Kiev leader had to issue sanctions against his own business partner and also to dismiss several senior ministers.

Keep reading

The Disguised Return of The EU’s Private Message Scanning Plot

A major political confrontation over online privacy is approaching as European governments prepare to decide on “Chat Control 2.0,” the European Commission’s revised proposal for monitoring private digital communications.

The plan, which could be endorsed behind closed doors, has drawn urgent warnings from Dr. Patrick Breyer, a jurist and former Member of the European Parliament, who says the draft conceals sweeping new surveillance powers beneath misleading language about “risk mitigation” and “child protection.”

In a release sent to Reclaim The Net, Breyer, long a defender of digital freedom, argues that the Commission has quietly reintroduced compulsory scanning of private messages after it was previously rejected.

He describes the move as a “deceptive sleight of hand,” insisting that it transforms a supposedly voluntary framework into a system that could compel all chat, email, and messaging providers to monitor users.

“This is a political deception of the highest order,” Breyer said.

“Following loud public protests, several member states, including Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Austria, said ‘No’ to indiscriminate Chat Control. Now it’s coming back through the back door disguised, more dangerous, and more comprehensive than ever. The public is being played for fools.”

Under the new text, providers would be obliged to take “all appropriate risk mitigation measures” to prevent abuse on their platforms. While the Commission presents this as a flexible safety requirement, Breyer insists it is a loophole that could justify forcing companies to scan every private message, including those protected by end-to-end encryption.

“The loophole renders the much-praised removal of detection orders worthless and negates their supposed voluntary nature,” he said.

He warns that it could even lead to the introduction of “client-side scanning,” where users’ devices themselves perform surveillance before messages are sent.

Unlike the current temporary exemption known as “Chat Control 1.0,” which allows voluntary scanning of photos and videos, the new draft would open the door to text and metadata analysis. Algorithms and artificial intelligence could be deployed to monitor conversations and flag “suspicious” content.

Keep reading

Brussels Aims at WhatsApp in the Next Round of Speech Control

Meta’s WhatsApp platform is set to come under tighter European oversight as regulators prepare to bring its “channels” feature under the European Union’s far-reaching censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), the same framework that already pressures Facebook and Instagram.

According to Bloomberg, people familiar with the matter say the European Commission has informed Meta that WhatsApp’s channels are being prepared for designation as a “Very Large Online Platform.”

That classification carries extensive responsibilities for content censorship. Although no public date has been announced, the Commission’s notice indicates that WhatsApp will soon face some of the most demanding digital rules in the world.

Channels, which allow public updates from news outlets, public figures, and organizations, function more like social media feeds than private chats.

WhatsApp reported earlier this year that these channels reached around 46.8 million users in Europe by late 2024, slightly above the DSA’s 45 million-user threshold for stricter oversight.

Once a service crosses that line, it must perform regular assessments of how illegal or “harmful” content circulates and develop strategies to limit its spread. Platforms are also required to publish user figures twice a year and risk fines of up to 6 percent of global revenue for failing to comply.

The DSA does not apply to private, encrypted communication, so WhatsApp’s core messaging service will remain unaffected.

Still, the EU’s decision to expand its regulatory reach into new areas of online conversation has caused concern that these rules could burden companies and discourage open dialogue in the name of safety.

The European Commission has remained cautious about providing details, saying only that it “cannot confirm the timeline for a potential future designation.”

For Meta, the move adds another chapter to its ongoing disputes with European regulators.

Keep reading

EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech

European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.

Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.

At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”

The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.

One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.

The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”

Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”

In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.

The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.

Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”

The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organisations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”

In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.

Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.

The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”

Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.

Keep reading

‘Bloody hydra’ of Ukrainian corruption stretches worldwide – Moscow

A “many-headed bloody hydra” is draining Western taxpayers’ money through sprawling corruption schemes in Ukraine, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has warned, arguing that the latest scandal in Kiev exposes a network far larger than a simple case of graft.

In a social media post on Thursday, she described a global structure “wrapped around the planet,” channeling funds from Western taxpayers to the elites who profit from the conflict.

Her remarks followed the launch of a major probe by Ukraine’s Western-backed National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) into alleged embezzlement at the state nuclear operator Energoatom.

According to Zakharova, officials in Kiev serve merely as instruments within a broader machinery involving institutions such as the European Commission and NATO, while the real beneficiaries sit in the inner circles of Western liberal democracies.

Keep reading