❌

Normal view

Protesters in Brussels press EU on ‘broken promises’ over caged animals

28 September 2026 at 15:49

The European Commission is being pressed to deliver an animal cage ban by 2027 after failing to meet previous commitments.

Several hundred animal rights activists gathered at the EU’s office for health and food safety in Brussels on Monday (28 September) to encourage a ban on poultry cages and on the killing of male chicks. 

The commission’s livestock strategy had committed in July to proposing legislation to outlaw the two practices by the end of 2026, with similar legislation on pig welfare expected to follow by mid-2027.

The legislation stems from a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) signed by 1.4 million people in 2021 to ‘End the Cage Age’. A vast majority of MEPs also subsequently voted to endorse the transition to improved animal welfare. 

And while the commission had originally promised to table a proposal by 2024, this was derailed by farming lobbies and the deadline elapsed.

“We are here [at Monday’s protest in Brussels] because the EU has been delaying meaningful reforms for animals for years,” said Ombretta Alessandrini from Animal Equality, which organised the rally.

Person stands infront of EU institute.
Ombretta Alessandrini is campaign manager at Animal Equality. (Source: EUobserver)

“Our democratic ask needs to be respected. We feel betrayed by the EU’s broken promises and we want the commission to do what they say,” she told EUobserver.

Animal Equality has also joined legal action against the commission over its broken promises, in a case examined at the European Court of Justice in March.

The commission is legally obliged to respond to a citizens’ initiative once it reaches 1m or more signatures. 

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

What the new De Gaulle film leaves out on how WWII ended for eastern Europe

28 September 2026 at 10:32

The new biopic about the wartime leadership of general Charles de Gaulle is a must-watch. The two-part epic depicts the transformation of France’s fortunes from defeat and collaboration to victory and sovereignty, exemplified by de Gaulle.

He arrives in London with nothing but moral authority and self-belief, and — if this is a plot spoiler I apologise — returns home in triumph as his country’s leader and liberator, albeit with a little help from the British, Americans, and others.

The film, a box-office record-breaker in France, has many virtues, chiefly the impeccable acting of Simon Abkarian in the title role, and Simon Russell Beale as Churchill (speaking admirably understandable, if accented, French). But other aspects of the story hit me the hardest. 

One was the all-too-topical depiction of the United States: vital for victory, yet misguided, sometimes even perfidious. In the cartoonish, goodies-and-baddies version of wartime history, few remember that US president Franklin Roosevelt did not back de Gaulle and his “Free French”.

Following the fall of France in 1940, the administration in Washington established full diplomatic relations with the collaborationist Vichy regime, regarding de Gaulle as an authoritarian pretender, and moreover militarily insignificant. Later, with the Nazis in retreat, the US planned to divide up post-war France and administer most of it as a colony: the place was too important to be run by the French. 

The film simplifies the more complicated real-life story (de Gaulle made mistakes too), but it depicts the outlines vividly and accurately: a much-needed revision. It also touches on the shameful treatment, at US insistence, of French African soldiers. Their presence offended entrenched principles of racial segregation. These warriors were banned from the Paris liberation parade, also at American behest, for fear of tainting the newsreel pictures. This episode is not shown in the film.

Other untold stories lie further east, with equally poignant echoes today. I watched the film with a Czech friend: its thrilling, joyous denouement, with the uprising in Paris, and the arrival of the longed-for liberators, contrasts painfully with the events in her capital city in May 1945. There was an uprising in Prague too, but the Americans (only 80km away) let the Soviets march in. Warsaw, destroyed in the 1944 uprising, fared even worse.

Further off-stage are the tragic, heroic events in Tallinn in that year, when Otto Tief’s government briefly tried to restore Estonia’s independence as the Germans fled. Like the Latvian Central Council under Pauls Kalniņš, it was savagely ended by Soviet occupation. 

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

❌