The European Parliament voted on Thursday, 22nd October, to support a €47.4 billion budget for the Erasmus+ programme between 2028 and 2034, demanding substantially more funding than proposed by the European Commission.

The parliamentary position was approved by 454 votes to 34, with 93 abstentions, following negotiations over the future of the EU’s principal education, training and student mobility programme.

MEPs are seeking approximately €6.56 billion more than the Commission’s proposed €40.83 billion allocation, arguing that existing financial support does not adequately reflect rising living costs and the expense of studying abroad.

The decision establishes Parliament’s negotiating position but does not represent final approval of the funding. The programme remains subject to negotiations with national governments and agreement on the EU’s next seven-year budget.

Rising living costs affect student mobility

Erasmus+ allows students, apprentices, teachers and other participants to study, train or gain professional experience in another participating country.

Although widely associated with university exchanges, the programme also supports vocational education, schools, adult learning, youth organisations and sporting activities.

Participation often involves substantial personal expenditure, particularly for accommodation, transport and everyday living expenses.

These costs vary considerably between European destinations, creating financial difficulties for students whose Erasmus grants cover only part of their expenses.

The European Parliament is consequently calling for support mechanisms that account for differences in housing and living costs between host countries, regions and cities.

The proposal is intended to make participation more accessible to people who cannot rely on additional financial assistance from their families.

The European Parliament’s research service has identified unequal access, financial limitations and administrative complexity among the challenges facing the programme.

The proposed legislation would also establish a target under which at least 20 per cent of participants in mobility activities would be people facing fewer educational or economic opportunities.

Parliament seeks larger education allocation

The parliamentary proposal provides for approximately €47.39 billion in current prices over seven years.

The Commission originally proposed approximately €40.83 billion, combining funding for Erasmus+ with activities currently administered through the European Solidarity Corps.

According to the report prepared by Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education, the revised programme would include more explicit financial allocations for different activities.

Education and training would account for approximately 74.6 per cent of the proposed financial envelope, while youth and volunteering would receive around 15 per cent. Sport would receive approximately 4.1 per cent.

The proposed allocation structure is intended to provide greater certainty for organisations planning longer-term educational projects and cross-border partnerships.

Polish MEP Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski, of the European People’s Party, is Parliament’s rapporteur on the legislation. His report calls for greater transparency over expenditure and more predictable funding arrangements.

The programme would continue supporting European university alliances, international educational cooperation and initiatives intended to improve professional skills.

Volunteering and vocational training

One proposed change concerns the integration of the European Solidarity Corps into the wider Erasmus+ framework.

The Solidarity Corps currently offers young people opportunities to participate in volunteering and community activities, including projects addressing social and humanitarian needs.

The Commission has proposed bringing these activities within the new programme in an attempt to simplify administration.

However, parliamentarians want safeguards to ensure that volunteering remains identifiable and accessible within the broader funding structure.

The parliamentary position also seeks to extend mobility opportunities across vocational training, adult education and sport.

These activities would allow a wider range of participants to benefit from international placements, including people outside conventional university education.

Additional attention is being given to the financial circumstances of participants and the administrative requirements faced by smaller educational organisations.

Dispute over the EU’s next budget

The Erasmus+ negotiations are taking place against the background of a wider dispute over the European Union’s 2028–2034 financial framework.

Member states are debating the overall size of the budget and the competing demands of agricultural policy, regional development, defence, research and education.

As EU Today recently examined, the negotiations have exposed disagreements over whether the EU should expand its financial commitments or constrain expenditure during a period of pressure on national finances.

Parliament’s Erasmus+ proposal will therefore depend not only on agreement over educational priorities but also on the final distribution of resources across the wider EU budget.

Some governments may support broader participation while resisting the full increase requested by MEPs.

What happens next?

Negotiations must establish the programme’s final budget, eligibility rules and the arrangements governing grants after 2027.

The Council has already developed a negotiating position on aspects of the programme, although financial questions remain connected to the broader budget settlement.

Erasmus+ will mark its 40th anniversary in 2027, shortly before the new framework is scheduled to begin.

More than 17 million people have participated in the programme and its related activities since its establishment.

The outcome of the current negotiations will determine whether the next generation of participants receives more financial support and whether the programme can expand without increasing the proportion of costs borne by students and their families.

The European Parliament voted on Thursday, 22nd October, to support a three-year postponement of certain methane emissions obligations for oil, gas and coal imports, substantially extending the timetable proposed by the European Commission.

The decision follows pressure from European governments, energy companies and the United States, which have warned that implementing the regulations under the existing timetable could complicate fossil fuel supplies to the European market.

MEPs approved the amendments by 341 votes to 225, with six abstentions. The revised deadlines must now be negotiated with EU governments before they can become legally binding.

The parliamentary position also extends some postponements to European oil and gas producers, going beyond the Commission’s original proposal.

EU moves away from original timetable

The EU Methane Regulation, adopted in 2024, established requirements intended to reduce methane emissions associated with fossil fuel production, transportation and imports.

Methane is a greenhouse gas with a considerably greater warming effect than carbon dioxide over shorter periods. Emissions occur throughout the oil and gas supply chain, particularly through leaks, venting and incomplete combustion.

Under the existing legislation, new monitoring, reporting and verification requirements for imported fossil fuels were scheduled to begin on 1 January 2027.

However, the Commission proposed amendments on 14 October 2026 to give companies additional time to comply.

The European Parliament has now supported a longer postponement than the Commission requested.

Under the parliamentary amendments, importers of crude oil, natural gas and coal would have until 31 May 2031 to demonstrate equivalent monitoring, reporting and verification arrangements for relevant supplies delivered in 2030.

The requirements would cover supply contracts concluded or renewed since 4 August 2024. Older contracts would remain subject to separate reporting requirements concerning efforts to obtain compliance.

Pressure from the United States and EU governments

Energy security concerns have been central to the debate. The United States has become Europe’s largest supplier of liquefied natural gas, particularly following the reduction of Russian pipeline gas deliveries after Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

American officials have argued that certain provisions of the methane legislation could create substantial compliance difficulties for exporters and potentially disrupt gas deliveries.

France, Italy and the Czech Republic have also supported adjustments to the timetable, reflecting concerns about energy costs, administrative burdens and the availability of alternative supplies.

European industrial consumers remain sensitive to fluctuations in natural gas prices, while the continuing conflict in the Middle East has increased uncertainty in international energy markets.

For importers, the principal concern is obtaining reliable information about emissions generated by suppliers operating outside EU jurisdiction.

European companies must demonstrate compliance using data collected throughout production and transportation networks that they do not necessarily control.

Additional changes for European producers

Parliament’s position includes extensions for certain reporting obligations affecting oil and gas operators within the European Union.

Verified reports combining measurements of methane emissions at individual sources and production sites would be subject to revised deadlines.

For assets operated directly by reporting companies, the proposed deadline would move to February 2030. Certain non-operated assets would be covered by a later deadline in August 2031.

The amendments would also permit continuous monitoring systems to replace separate measurement campaigns where the equipment meets the required technical standards.

Independent verification would remain necessary. Romanian MEP Virgil Popescu, a former energy minister, supported the longer timetable, arguing that companies require additional time to make investments in monitoring infrastructure.

Environmental organisations have opposed further postponements, arguing that delays could prolong avoidable emissions and weaken the regulatory framework established in 2024.

Sanctions and energy security provisions

Parliament also supported an exception preventing fossil fuel supplies covered by relevant EU import sanctions from benefiting from the extended deadlines.

Importers would be required to identify the affected volumes, including where restricted-origin fuels form part of mixed shipments.

The exemption would not authorise trade already prohibited by EU sanctions.

A further amendment would require the European Commission to review implementation readiness by July 2029, including the availability of accredited verifiers and potential risks to energy supplies.

The Commission would then be able to propose additional legislative changes if substantial implementation problems remained.

Negotiations with member states

Thursday’s vote does not repeal the methane legislation or automatically postpone its requirements.

The adopted amendments represent the European Parliament’s negotiating position. The Council of the European Union must agree to any changes before the revised legislation can enter into force.

The outcome forms part of a broader debate over European industrial competitiveness and the economic consequences of environmental regulation.

As EU Today recently reported, Brussels is already adjusting parts of its climate-policy framework in response to pressure from energy-intensive industries.

Negotiations over methane reporting will now determine how far those adjustments extend into Europe’s international energy supply chains and whether the EU can preserve the regulation’s emissions objectives under a longer implementation timetable.

The European Parliament has called for substantial additional funding for the European Union’s eastern border regions, proposing that up to 10 per cent of the budgets of relevant EU financing instruments be earmarked for areas affected by Russia’s war against Ukraine and growing security threats.

The resolution, adopted on Thursday, 22nd October, received 414 votes in favour, 79 against and 90 abstentions.

It seeks greater financial assistance for regions bordering Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, as well as territories along the Black Sea, under the EU’s 2028–2034 financial framework.

The proposals include higher EU contributions towards infrastructure projects, additional investment in local economies and targeted assistance for communities experiencing declining investment, population losses and increased security costs.

However, the resolution is not binding legislation and does not itself allocate new funding. Its provisions must be incorporated into future budget agreements and individual EU spending programmes.

Eastern regions face economic and security pressures

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has significantly changed economic conditions across the EU’s eastern frontier.

Border restrictions, disrupted trade routes, increased defence activity and uncertainty over regional security have affected investment and commercial activity.

The pressures are particularly apparent in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

According to a European Parliament research briefing published in September, these regions face overlapping challenges involving economic decline, depopulation, inadequate infrastructure and higher expenditure on security.

Some communities previously depended on cross-border trade with Russia or Belarus, much of which has declined sharply following sanctions and restrictions introduced since 2022.

Other regions have experienced increased transport demand linked to Ukrainian refugees, military logistics and the movement of goods towards Ukraine.

The European Commission has recognised that conventional regional development programmes may not adequately address the combination of economic and security pressures.

Parliament proposes dedicated financial allocations

The resolution calls for up to 10 per cent of funding within relevant EU instruments to be earmarked for eligible eastern border regions.

This does not mean that 10 per cent of the entire EU budget would automatically be transferred to those areas.

Instead, Parliament wants targeted allocations within programmes covering regional development, agricultural policy, transport, industrial competitiveness and infrastructure.

MEPs also propose significantly higher EU contributions towards eligible projects.

Under the parliamentary position, certain projects could receive up to 95 per cent EU co-financing, reducing the amount that national or local authorities would have to contribute.

Projects connected with security, resilience or critical infrastructure could potentially receive funding covering 100 per cent of eligible costs.

Additional pre-financing would help local administrations begin projects without having to provide substantial initial expenditure.

The proposals are particularly relevant to municipalities with limited budgets and regions where private investment has declined.

Wider definition includes Moldova and Black Sea regions

Parliament has also proposed broadening the geographical criteria used to identify eligible territories.

The resolution covers regions bordering Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, as well as regions with access to the Black Sea.

The proposed framework would use the EU’s NUTS 2 regional statistical classification.

For borders with Russia and Belarus, the parliamentary proposal includes geographical thresholds concerning the length of land or maritime frontiers.

For Romania, the revised approach could extend support to regions connected with Moldova, Ukraine and the Black Sea.

The proposals would also have implications for transport corridors linking Ukraine with the EU, including railways, ports, roads and border-crossing facilities.

Such infrastructure serves both civilian trade and military mobility requirements.

Existing programmes and new investment plans

The Commission has already introduced measures intended to support Europe’s eastern regions.

Its February 2026 strategy identified security, economic growth, connectivity, local industries and demographic resilience as principal areas requiring action.

A proposed investment initiative, EastInvest, is intended to facilitate financing through European and national financial institutions, with the potential to mobilise up to €28 billion by the end of 2027.

This would principally involve lending and investment support, rather than direct grants equivalent to the total facility value.

The Commission has also identified approximately €5.6 billion in cohesion funding redirected towards eastern border regions under the current financial framework.

Those reallocations form part of approximately €34.6 billion redirected towards new priorities across participating member states.

Parliament’s latest demands concern the period after 2027 and would operate separately from these existing arrangements.

Budget negotiations will determine the outcome

The proposal places additional pressure on governments negotiating the EU’s next long-term budget.

Agricultural policy, regional development and industrial investment are already competing for funding alongside increased European defence expenditure.

As EU Today reported in its coverage of the agricultural budget negotiations, member states remain divided over the allocation of resources under the next financial framework.

Eastern border governments are likely to argue that infrastructure and economic development in their territories contribute directly to the EU’s wider security.

Other member states may resist dedicated allocations if these require reductions in existing regional development programmes elsewhere.

Parliament has proposed that additional assistance should not come at the expense of support for other less-developed regions.

The negotiations will determine whether that position is financially achievable.

The next stage will involve discussions over the overall EU budget and the individual programmes through which eastern border assistance could be delivered.

For now, Thursday’s vote establishes Parliament’s demand for a larger and more clearly defined financial commitment to Europe’s eastern frontier, without creating an immediate entitlement to additional EU funding.

Main Image: Denis LOMME: © European Union 2023

MEPs called for more ambitious action to reduce emissions and avoid further increases in temperature.

On Thursday, the European Parliament called on the European Union (EU) to define a timetable to progressively abandon fossil fuels and assume a leading role in the COP31 negotiations, which will be held in November in Turkey.

RELATED: Europeans Rise Up in Resistance to Austerity Measures

The resolution was approved after the 27 member states adopted a common position for the climate summit, in which they recognize that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees faces increasing difficulties.

MEPs called for more ambitious action to reduce emissions and avoid further increases in temperature, insisting on the need to accelerate the energy transition.

The text urges the EU to promote an international treaty on the non-proliferation of fossil fuels and to establish concrete timetables to gradually eliminate subsidies and production of oil, gas and coal.

The European Parliament also requested that the EU itself adopt a clear strategy to abandon these energy sources in all sectors of the economy and serve as an international reference.

Ahead of COP31 climate talks in Türkiye, Parliament calls for speeding up the global exit from fossil fuels, increasing climate financing and making it fairer for vulnerable countries, and delivering on adaptation and loss-and-damage pledges.

Learn more➡️ https://t.co/vfWVJhvC8G pic.twitter.com/IaRuSAQ8Om

— European Parliament (@Europarl_EN) October 22, 2026

The parliamentarians stressed that dependence on fossil fuels represents a risk in a context of geopolitical tension and considered that decarbonization strengthens European strategic autonomy.

The resolution warns that Europe is the continent that is warming the fastest, which is why it considers it essential to maintain climate commitments and avoid a setback in environmental policies.

In addition, the European Parliament called for increasing international financing for climate adaptation, compensation for loss and damage, and support for the most vulnerable countries against the effects of climate change.

A delegation of fifteen MEPs will participate in COP31 to champion these priorities, which include strengthening climate finance and promoting greater protection of ecosystems and biodiversity.

From Greece to France: Education Protests Sweep Europe

Thousands of students, teachers, and public-sector workers marched through Athens and across Greece on Wednesday, demanding urgent funding for public education, filling teaching vacancies, and relief from a mounting housing… pic.twitter.com/ti3ovtByO3

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 21, 2026

teleSUR: JP

Source: EFE

The European Parliament’s call to designate Yemen’s Houthis as a terrorist group brings Europe’s Red Sea dilemma into sharper focus: how can the EU punish a movement threatening international commerce while protecting shipping and preserving humanitarian access?

In its latest statement, Parliament condemns Houthi missile and drone attacks against Saudi Arabia and the movement’s military offensive in Yemen. Its demand for a terrorist designation signals pressure for a tougher European response. But the distance between a parliamentary declaration and an effective security policy remains considerable. europarl.europa.eu

The underlying case extends beyond disrupted trade. Civilian seafarers have paid with their lives. EU Today’s reporting on the fatal attack against the True Confidence documented how the maritime campaign crossed a deadly threshold in March 2024. Merchant crews became targets in a conflict over which they had no control. That history gives Parliament’s initiative a compelling human dimension.

Yet a terrorist listing is a specific legal instrument. Parliament’s demand does not itself impose one. Under the EU’s counterterrorism sanctions framework, listing requires an earlier decision by a competent national authority. The Council determines additions to the list, with measures including asset freezes and restrictions on making funds or economic resources available. Political resolve must therefore become a defensible legal case.

If adopted, designation could strengthen pressure on financial intermediaries and commercial networks supporting the movement. Its practical value would depend on identifying assets, tracing transactions and coordinating enforcement across jurisdictions. A designation that changes compliance procedures without materially constraining procurement would deliver less than its advocates expect.

The operational problem is equally demanding. Financial restrictions cannot intercept an incoming missile or accompany a vulnerable tanker. Europe must sustain protection at sea while pursuing disruption ashore through sanctions enforcement, intelligence cooperation and diplomacy.

As Defence Matters examined in its analysis of Operation Aspides reinforcement, additional warships bring requirements for trained crews, weapons, aviation, maintenance and replacement deployments. The mission’s defensive mandate protects civilian shipping, but effective coverage depends on what deployed vessels can sustain. Fleet totals alone offer an incomplete measure of European capacity.

This exposes the strategic imbalance. Attackers can impose uncertainty across a shipping corridor without controlling every mile of it. Defenders must reassure commercial operators repeatedly. Even successful interceptions may leave insurers and shipowners questioning whether the next voyage is worth the risk.

The threat also reaches beyond the immediate approaches to Yemen. EU Global’s coverage of the tanker incident west of Yanbu explained the potential implications for Saudi Arabia’s alternative oil-export route. The Houthis claimed responsibility, while the maritime warning did not identify the attacker. That distinction matters: sound policy requires separating verified incidents from claims designed to amplify a movement’s apparent reach.

For Europe, the implication is broader than naval security. Pressure on shipping and energy infrastructure can transmit regional instability into freight costs, delivery schedules and business confidence. Protecting maritime access is an economic responsibility as well as a defence commitment.

There is also a humanitarian test. Measures intended to constrain Houthi leadership must preserve legitimate assistance to civilians living under its authority. The EU framework already contains humanitarian exceptions allowing specified organisations to undertake necessary transactions. Implementation must give banks and aid agencies sufficient clarity to use them.

Otherwise, excessive caution by intermediaries could obstruct permitted activity. European governments should anticipate that risk through clear guidance and working arrangements with humanitarian organisations, while maintaining scrutiny against diversion.

Parliament has raised the political stakes. Governments now face a more demanding task: combining legal pressure with resources and measurable objectives. Success should mean fewer attacks, safer crews, disrupted support networks and reliable humanitarian access.

A terrorist designation could contribute to those outcomes. Its credibility will ultimately depend on whether Europe can turn a forceful institutional statement into sustained action across finance, diplomacy and the sea.

The European Parliament has awarded the 2026 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its officials, recognising the Hague-based tribunal’s work in investigating and prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Announcing the decision in Strasbourg on Thursday, 22 October, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola said the award reflected the European Union’s commitment to multilateralism and international institutions.

Metsola praised the Court for its work in upholding international law and justice. The announcement was met with a standing ovation in the parliamentary chamber.

The decision comes amid an escalating confrontation between the European Union and the administration of US President Donald Trump over the ICC’s jurisdiction and independence.

Washington’s sanctions against the Court

On 9 October, the United States imposed sanctions on the ICC as an institution, extending measures previously directed against individual judges and prosecutors.

The restrictions place the Court under the US Treasury’s sanctions regime, limiting financial transactions involving American individuals, businesses and institutions. Washington has issued several temporary and limited exemptions intended to allow specified operations to continue.

The measures followed earlier sanctions against senior ICC officials, including Court President Tomoko Akane, and form part of Washington’s campaign to prevent the tribunal from exercising jurisdiction over American personnel.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has argued that the ICC threatens American sovereignty by asserting authority over nationals of countries that have not accepted its founding treaty.

The Court rejected the latest restrictions, describing them as an attempt to obstruct the administration of international justice.

Established under the Rome Statute, the ICC operates independently of national governments and investigates serious international crimes where its jurisdictional requirements are satisfied.

Neither the United States nor Israel is a party to the Rome Statute.

Arrest warrants involving Russia and Israel

The dispute with Washington has intensified since the ICC issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with military operations in Gaza.

Israel rejects the Court’s jurisdiction and disputes the allegations. Washington has similarly opposed the proceedings against Israeli officials.

The ICC has also pursued investigations into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In March 2023, its judges issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, over the alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.

Further warrants followed in 2024 against senior Russian military commanders and officials in connection with attacks on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.

The proceedings demonstrate the geographical scope of the Court’s investigations, although its ability to secure arrests depends heavily on cooperation from individual states.

The ICC has no independent police force and relies on national authorities to execute its warrants.

European Parliament backs international justice

The ICC’s nomination for the Sakharov Prize was submitted by the Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament.

Its selection comes as European lawmakers examine how the EU should respond to American sanctions affecting the Court and organisations supporting its activities.

The October restrictions have raised practical questions about access to banking, technology services and other infrastructure required by the tribunal.

European governments must also consider how to support an institution established through an international treaty while maintaining relations with Washington.

The Sakharov Prize carries no legal authority to reverse American sanctions or compel governments to cooperate with ICC investigations. Nevertheless, the award represents an explicit institutional endorsement of the tribunal at a time when its operations face increasing external pressure.

Other nominees and award ceremony

The ICC was selected from three finalists announced earlier this month.

The other nominees were Tanzanian opposition leader Tundu Lissu and Iranian sisters Taraneh and Romina Rahimi, whose cases have attracted international attention over political persecution and judicial proceedings.

The Sakharov Prize, established by the European Parliament in 1988, is named after Soviet physicist, dissident and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov.

It recognises individuals and organisations defending human rights, freedom of expression and fundamental liberties. The award includes €50,000.

Previous recipients include Nelson Mandela, Malala Yousafzai and imprisoned journalists.

In 2025, the prize was awarded jointly to Belarusian journalist Andrzej Poczobut and Georgian journalist Mzia Amaglobeli.

The formal presentation of the 2026 prize is scheduled for 16 December at the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The award places the ICC alongside previous Sakharov laureates while drawing further attention to the unresolved dispute between Washington and European governments over international criminal jurisdiction.

The European Union has taken a significant step towards revising its digital regulatory framework after member states agreed proposals to amend the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), simplify cookie consent requirements and overhaul cybersecurity reporting obligations.

The Council of the European Union adopted its negotiating position on Wednesday, 21st October, clearing the way for negotiations with the European Parliament once MEPs establish their position.

The measures form part of the European Commission’s Digital Omnibus package, introduced in November 2025, and represent one of Brussels’ most substantial attempts to simplify the regulatory obligations imposed on businesses operating across the single market.

Changes to GDPR and personal data rules

The proposed reforms would modify several provisions of the GDPR, which has governed the processing of personal data across the EU since May 2018.

Rather than replacing the legislation, the Council wants to clarify existing obligations, particularly those concerning pseudonymised information, requests for access to personal data and the use of information in scientific research.

The agreed position retains the existing definition of personal data while introducing provisions intended to clarify when pseudonymised information can be linked to an identifiable individual.

Companies would also benefit from simplified procedures for handling manifestly unfounded or excessive data requests and from reduced information requirements in certain low-risk circumstances.

Another proposed change would extend the deadline for notifying authorities of personal data breaches, while establishing more consistent reporting templates across the EU.

For multinational companies, which currently navigate different interpretations of data protection obligations by national authorities, these provisions could reduce compliance costs and administrative duplication.

However, the changes have raised concerns among European privacy regulators.

In a joint opinion published in February, the European Data Protection Board and European Data Protection Supervisor warned that parts of the Commission’s original proposal could create legal uncertainty and undermine existing protections.

They were particularly concerned about proposals affecting the definition of personal data and the Commission’s potential role in determining when pseudonymised information falls outside GDPR requirements.

The Council’s decision to retain the existing definition addresses part of that debate, although the final legislative text remains subject to negotiations.

Fewer cookie banners for internet users

One of the most visible changes would affect the consent notices encountered by Europeans when visiting websites.

Under the Council’s proposal, additional categories of cookies and similar tracking technologies could be used without obtaining explicit consent, provided the relevant legal conditions are satisfied.

The proposed exemptions include technologies necessary to deliver a service, maintain device security or conduct audience measurement.

For website operators, publishers and online businesses, the changes could reduce the number of consent requests displayed to visitors and simplify technical compliance.

The current system has generated extensive legal disputes over whether consent is genuinely voluntary and whether tracking technologies collect information beyond what users have authorised.

EU Today has previously examined the enforcement of these obligations, including a Belgian court ruling concerning the legality of the advertising industry’s consent framework.

The latest proposal would not abolish consent requirements for commercial tracking or behavioural advertising. Technologies falling outside the permitted exemptions would remain subject to the applicable privacy rules.

Cybersecurity reporting and artificial intelligence

The package also addresses the growing number of reporting obligations imposed on European businesses under overlapping cybersecurity legislation.

The Commission originally proposed a single European reporting mechanism for certain data and cybersecurity incidents.

Member states have instead agreed to establish national entry points, supported by an EU-level information system and provisions for coordinating cross-border notifications.

The Council’s position would also clarify the legal grounds for certain uses of personal data in artificial intelligence systems and introduce safeguards for processing sensitive information in specified circumstances.

These provisions follow increasingly complicated disputes over the application of European privacy legislation to AI development and automated decision-making.

As EU Today reported in its coverage of a major GDPR enforcement case involving Uber, automated processing already presents substantial compliance risks for companies operating within the bloc.

Competitiveness drives regulatory reform

The Commission estimates that its wider digital simplification initiative could save European businesses up to €5 billion in administrative costs by 2029.

The initiative reflects pressure from European governments and business organisations to reduce the regulatory fragmentation that makes operating across multiple EU jurisdictions more expensive.

The Digital Omnibus is part of a broader legislative programme influenced by the competitiveness reports produced by former Italian prime ministers Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi.

Under the Council’s negotiating mandate, several existing data-related rules would also be consolidated, while provisions governing the protection of trade secrets would be strengthened.

The European Parliament must now determine its negotiating position before formal discussions between the institutions can begin. Until the legislation is agreed and adopted, existing GDPR, cookie consent and cybersecurity requirements remain in force.

The European Commission has urged Malta to strengthen judicial independence, tackle corruption and improve protection for journalists, as a European Parliament debate exposes continuing disagreements over the country’s rule-of-law record.

The European Commission has called on Malta to accelerate judicial reforms and strengthen safeguards for journalists, nine years after the assassination of investigative reporter Daphne Caruana Galizia, as the European Parliament revisited concerns over corruption and institutional accountability on Wednesday, 21 October.

European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection Michael McGrath told MEPs in Strasbourg that Malta had made progress in certain areas but had yet to implement several outstanding recommendations concerning judicial independence, high-level corruption and media freedom.

The debate followed the controversial acquittal of businessman Yorgen Fenech, who had been accused of involvement in Caruana Galizia’s murder. Maltese prosecutors appealed the verdict in September, leaving the criminal proceedings subject to further judicial consideration.

Commission identifies continuing weaknesses

The European Commission’s 2026 Rule of Law Report, published in July, assessed Malta’s progress in reforming its justice system, anti-corruption institutions and protections for the media.

The report acknowledged certain improvements, including additional resources allocated to judicial and prosecutorial authorities.

However, it found that progress remained limited on several recommendations.

These include reducing delays in judicial proceedings, improving the investigation and prosecution of high-level corruption and ensuring greater judicial involvement in the appointment of the Chief Justice.

The Commission has also expressed concern about the effectiveness of existing anti-corruption arrangements.

Although investigations and prosecutions have increased in some areas, Brussels continues to seek a stronger record of final judgments in major corruption cases.

Court delays and pressure on judicial resources remain significant difficulties.

McGrath told Parliament that the Maltese authorities must continue implementing reforms to address these shortcomings.

Fenech acquittal intensifies accountability debate

Caruana Galizia was killed by a car bomb near her home in Bidnija on 16 October 2017.

The 53-year-old journalist had investigated corruption, money laundering and political connections involving prominent figures in Malta’s business and political establishment.

Her assassination prompted international condemnation, widespread demonstrations and investigations into the circumstances surrounding the killing.

Several men have subsequently been convicted for participating in the murder or supplying the explosives.

However, the criminal proceedings concerning the alleged commissioning of the assassination have remained contentious.

On 2 September 2026, a nine-member jury acquitted businessman Yorgen Fenech of complicity in the murder and criminal association. The verdict was reached by eight votes to one.

Fenech had denied ordering or financing the killing.

The acquittal prompted criticism from Caruana Galizia’s family and organisations campaigning for press freedom.

On 22 September, Malta’s Attorney General formally appealed the verdict, challenging legal decisions made during the trial.

The appeal does not overturn Fenech’s acquittal or establish criminal responsibility.

The Court of Criminal Appeal must determine whether the legal grounds presented justify further proceedings, potentially including a retrial.

The criminal case remains separate from the broader political debate over Malta’s institutional reforms.

Maltese MEPs clash in Strasbourg

Wednesday’s parliamentary debate exposed sharp disagreements between representatives of Malta’s opposition Nationalist Party and governing Labour Party.

Nationalist MEPs Peter Agius and David Casa criticised the authorities’ record on corruption and institutional accountability.

Agius argued that repeated European Commission assessments had failed to produce sufficient improvements and questioned whether Malta’s institutions were effectively addressing allegations of wrongdoing.

Casa referred to the findings of the independent public inquiry into Caruana Galizia’s assassination, which concluded in 2021 that the state had contributed to circumstances in which a climate of impunity enabled the killing.

He argued that significant recommendations arising from that inquiry remained outstanding.

Labour MEP Alex Agius Saliba rejected the criticism, maintaining that Malta had implemented reforms and that its judicial institutions should be allowed to perform their functions independently.

He pointed to the prosecution’s appeal against Fenech’s acquittal as evidence that the judicial process was continuing.

Labour MEP Thomas Bajada concentrated on the protection of journalists and the need to counter misinformation while preserving independent reporting.

The disagreements subsequently prompted a response from Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela, who accused opposition MEPs of damaging Malta’s reputation through their interventions.

Protection of journalists remains unfinished

Media freedom featured prominently in the Commission’s concerns.

Malta has introduced legislation addressing certain abusive legal proceedings against journalists, including transposing EU protections against strategic lawsuits intended to discourage public participation.

However, the existing measures principally concern civil proceedings with cross-border implications.

The Commission has urged Malta to extend comparable protections to domestic cases.

Other concerns include journalists’ access to official information, protection from intimidation and the need for more comprehensive legislative safeguards.

McGrath indicated that the Maltese government intended to present additional media legislation in the coming weeks.

The Commission has called for consultations with journalists, media organisations and civil society before the measures are adopted.

European institutions are also examining Malta’s implementation of wider EU requirements under the European Media Freedom Act.

Further pressure for reform

The European Parliament’s proceedings form part of the continued scrutiny of Malta’s institutional record following Caruana Galizia’s assassination.

The Commission’s annual rule-of-law assessments provide a mechanism for identifying outstanding problems and monitoring governments’ responses.

However, the implementation of many recommendations remains the responsibility of national authorities.

For Malta, the immediate issues concern the government’s promised media legislation, outstanding judicial reforms and the progression of the appeal in the Fenech case.

The Commission has made clear that further improvements are required, while the Maltese government maintains that substantial institutional changes have already been introduced.

The next assessment will depend on legislative measures actually adopted, their implementation and progress through the relevant judicial proceedings.

MEPs have approved emergency EU funding to help four southern European countries recover from destructive storms and flooding earlier this year, with Portugal receiving the largest allocation.

The European Parliament approved €489.15 million in financial assistance for Portugal, Spain, Italy and Malta on Wednesday, 21 October, following severe storms and flooding that damaged infrastructure and disrupted communities across southern Europe during the opening months of 2026.

The allocation from the European Union Solidarity Fund was approved by 651 votes to 17, with three abstentions. Portugal will receive the largest share, approximately €261.5 million, followed by Spain with €149.1 million, Italy with €74.9 million and Malta with €3.7 million.

The funding is intended to support recovery operations and help national authorities meet the costs of restoring essential public infrastructure and services damaged by the disasters.

Portugal receives largest allocation

Portugal’s €261.5 million allocation follows flooding and storms that affected the country during January and February.

The Portuguese authorities applied for assistance from the EU Solidarity Fund after assessing the extent of the damage and the associated costs of emergency operations and infrastructure recovery.

The funds will contribute to eligible public expenditure arising from the disasters, potentially including the restoration of transport links, damaged public facilities and other essential infrastructure.

Portugal has already received approximately €65.37 million in advance funding, according to the figures accompanying the parliamentary decision.

Spain will receive €149.1 million following destructive weather during the same period, including severe flooding in February.

The Spanish government had also requested European assistance to cover part of the expenditure associated with recovery operations.

Approximately €37.26 million of Spain’s allocation has already been paid in advance.

The two countries together account for the substantial majority of the assistance approved on Wednesday, reflecting the scale of their eligible recovery costs.

Storm Harry damages Italy and Malta

Italy and Malta will receive assistance following Storm Harry, which struck parts of the central Mediterranean in January 2026.

Italy’s allocation amounts to €74.9 million, while Malta will receive €3.7 million.

The storm caused significant disruption in affected Mediterranean areas, with heavy rainfall, strong winds and damaging sea conditions placing pressure on local infrastructure.

Italian authorities sought European support for recovery operations in the affected territories, while Malta submitted its own request following the damage sustained during the storm.

The Maltese allocation includes approximately €931,000 already made available through an advance payment.

The final assistance amounts were proposed by the European Commission after examining the applications submitted by the four governments.

The Commission’s September proposal to mobilise the EU Solidarity Fund set out the amount of assistance required for each country.

The total proposed mobilisation was €489,148,220.

How the EU Solidarity Fund works

The European Union established the Solidarity Fund in 2002 to assist member states and certain countries participating in the EU accession process following major natural disasters.

The mechanism provides financial support for public emergency and recovery expenditure rather than operating as a general insurance scheme for individuals or businesses.

Eligible expenditure can include emergency accommodation, restoring essential infrastructure, securing protective infrastructure, cleaning disaster-affected areas and protecting cultural heritage.

National authorities submit applications to the Commission, which evaluates them against the relevant eligibility requirements and financial thresholds.

Assistance depends on the assessed disaster damage and applicable regulatory criteria, rather than simply reimbursing every euro of economic loss.

The fund is financed through EU budgetary arrangements and is mobilised following the required institutional approvals.

Payments are made to the countries concerned, which remain responsible for ensuring that assistance is used in accordance with EU financial rules.

The Solidarity Fund can therefore help governments manage exceptional recovery costs, but it does not replace national budgets, private insurance or other financial arrangements.

Rising pressure on European disaster funding

The latest allocation comes against a background of increasingly frequent demands on European disaster-response mechanisms.

Southern European countries have experienced damaging floods, storms, heatwaves and wildfires in recent years, leading to repeated requests for assistance.

Recovery expenditure extends beyond immediate emergency operations. Damaged roads, bridges, coastal defences, water systems and public buildings can require prolonged reconstruction.

These costs can place considerable pressure on local authorities, particularly where a disaster affects tourism, transport or economic activity.

The EU faces the additional challenge of maintaining sufficient funds to respond to major disasters affecting several countries within a relatively short period.

Extreme weather events can also expose weaknesses in existing infrastructure, prompting governments to consider whether reconstruction should incorporate additional protection against future disasters.

However, such investments must be assessed against the eligible spending categories of the Solidarity Fund and the availability of other EU financing programmes.

Parliamentary approval and implementation

Wednesday’s vote represents parliamentary approval of the mobilisation proposed by the European Commission.

The decision concerns disasters that occurred earlier in 2026 and does not constitute a new emergency response operation.

The funds will support eligible recovery measures carried out by the national authorities in the four countries.

The payments already made to Portugal, Spain and Malta will be taken into account when the remaining assistance is disbursed.

EU authorities will retain responsibility for monitoring compliance with the relevant financial and reporting requirements.

The substantial parliamentary majority indicates broad support for assistance to the affected countries, although future disaster-funding arrangements will continue to depend on the resources available in the European budget.

For the four governments, the immediate task is to use the approved assistance to meet eligible recovery costs and restore damaged public infrastructure following the storms earlier this year.

European prosecutors have searched offices in Brussels and Strasbourg as an investigation into alleged misuse of parliamentary funds by the former Identity and Democracy group raises questions over financial liabilities inherited by Patriots for Europe.

European prosecutors carried out searches at the European Parliament’s offices in Brussels and Strasbourg on Wednesday, 21 October, as part of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities involving the former Identity and Democracy (ID) parliamentary group.

The investigation concerns approximately €4.33 million in European Union funds that were allegedly improperly spent during the 2019–2024 parliamentary term. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) confirmed that searches had taken place in connection with an ongoing inquiry into the use of EU funds by a former parliamentary group.

The premises searched are now occupied by Patriots for Europe, the European Parliament’s third-largest political group, which includes France’s National Rally, Hungary’s Fidesz, Italy’s Lega and Spain’s Vox. Patriots for Europe insists that it has no legal continuity with Identity and Democracy and denies being involved in the investigation.

Investigation into parliamentary expenditure

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office opened its investigation in July 2025 following concerns identified by the European Parliament’s financial administration about expenditure incurred by Identity and Democracy.

The former group, which dissolved following the 2024 European elections, included representatives of France’s National Rally, Italy’s Lega and Germany’s Alternative for Germany.

According to details of the parliamentary financial examination subsequently reported in France, investigators are examining approximately €3.6 million in contracts awarded to external service providers, including businesses with political connections to parties represented within the former group.

The financial examination also identified more than €700,000 in donations to organisations whose activities were allegedly unrelated to the parliamentary group’s official functions.

The authorities are examining whether parliamentary resources were used in accordance with EU financial rules, including restrictions on using public money for national party-political activities.

These are allegations under investigation, not criminal findings. The EPPO has not announced convictions arising from the current inquiry, and the individuals and organisations concerned retain the presumption of innocence.

Earlier investigative measures were conducted in France, Belgium, Spain and Italy in June 2026. Wednesday’s searches mark a further stage in the proceedings.

Can Patriots for Europe inherit the liabilities?

The investigation has opened a separate dispute over whether Patriots for Europe could be required to repay money allegedly misspent by its predecessor.

Identity and Democracy ceased to exist after the 2024 elections. Several parties previously represented in the group subsequently joined Patriots for Europe, a new parliamentary formation that also brought together Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz and Spain’s Vox.

Patriots for Europe maintains that the two groups are legally separate. Its representatives argue that the dissolution of Identity and Democracy ended that group’s institutional existence and that the present parliamentary organisation is not responsible for its predecessor’s financial affairs.

However, the European Parliament’s budgetary authorities have examined whether responsibility for outstanding liabilities can pass to a successor group.

An opinion approved by the Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee in September considered the circumstances in which continuity between parliamentary groups might establish financial responsibility.

Such an assessment may consider whether members, administrative personnel, operational resources and other assets were transferred from one organisation to another.

The outcome could determine whether the current group is exposed to potential repayment demands, irrespective of whether its present members were personally involved in the expenditure under investigation.

No final determination of such liability has been established through Wednesday’s searches.

Political consequences in Strasbourg

The searches come at a time when Patriots for Europe has become a major political force within the European Parliament.

Its member parties have challenged EU policy on immigration, economic regulation and the distribution of powers between Brussels and national governments. National Rally and Fidesz are also influential actors in the domestic politics of France and Hungary respectively.

An investigation involving their parliamentary organisation is therefore likely to attract scrutiny beyond the immediate financial questions.

Nevertheless, the political influence of the group and the criminal investigation must be considered separately. The presence of prosecutors at parliamentary premises does not establish wrongdoing by the current group’s MEPs.

The case also raises broader questions about financial accountability within the Parliament, particularly when a political group dissolves following an election and its members establish a new organisation.

Unlike national political parties, European parliamentary groups receive funding specifically to support their legislative, administrative and political work inside the institution.

Those resources are subject to financial controls intended to prevent their diversion into activities that should be funded by national parties or other organisations.

Further proceedings

The EPPO is responsible for investigating and prosecuting offences affecting the European Union’s financial interests. It operates independently of national governments and EU political institutions.

The European Parliament has confirmed its cooperation with the authorities but has declined to comment on the substance of the continuing investigation.

Prosecutors must now assess the evidence obtained during the searches alongside financial records and material collected during previous investigative measures.

Any decision to bring criminal proceedings would depend on the evidence available and the relevant national and European legal requirements.

Separately, the Parliament will have to establish whether any recoverable funds are owed by the former group and, if so, which organisation is legally responsible for repayment.

For Patriots for Europe, the immediate issue is not only the progress of the criminal inquiry but whether the financial arrangements of a dissolved parliamentary group can create obligations for its successor.

 

Europe wants cheaper energy, stronger industries, secure borders and the capacity to sustain Ukraine. Its budget negotiations are exposing the difficulty of paying for those ambitions while protecting established spending programmes and containing national contributions.

Wednesday’s European Parliament debate on the October EU summit brought that contradiction into focus. The dispute over the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework is becoming a test of whether Europe can translate geopolitical urgency into durable financial commitments.

According to Parliament’s account of the debate, European Council President António Costa wants agreement before the year’s end. He advocated an ambitious budget while keeping national contributions reasonable, alongside progress on new EU revenue sources.

Those objectives are politically attractive. Reconciling them will require difficult choices over spending, taxation and the distribution of authority.

MEPs challenged the assumption that the Union can keep expanding its responsibilities without providing additional resources. Speakers identified support for Ukraine, industrial competitiveness, agriculture, regional development and household living costs among competing priorities.

Their argument has force. A budget negotiated around yesterday’s compromises risks leaving Europe poorly equipped for tomorrow’s threats. Yet calls for ambition become less persuasive when they avoid specifying which programmes deliver measurable European benefits.

The emerging distribution of cuts illustrates the problem. As EU Today previously reported, the Irish presidency’s compromise proposed reducing the Commission’s plans by approximately €141 billion, with competitiveness and security facing proportionately deeper reductions than agriculture and cohesion spending.

That creates an uncomfortable possibility: the policies most closely associated with Europe’s strategic renewal could become bargaining chips in negotiations dominated by established beneficiaries.

Protecting farmers and poorer regions has clear economic and political justification. Nevertheless, preserving familiar allocations while squeezing newer priorities would undermine leaders’ repeated promises to strengthen European independence.

Energy offers perhaps the clearest example of why spending decisions and structural reform must advance together.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told MEPs that dependence on imported fossil fuels and the absence of a genuine European energy union were weakening Europe. Costa emphasised affordable production and modernised electricity grids.

The implication is significant. Industrial subsidies cannot indefinitely compensate for an energy system that leaves European manufacturers facing persistently high costs. Cross-border connections, infrastructure investment and better market integration therefore belong at the centre of competitiveness policy.

Von der Leyen also pressed governments to complete the single market and avoid making European rules more complicated through national implementation. Her argument highlights a limitation of the budget debate: additional money cannot, by itself, remove regulatory fragmentation.

The same distinction applies to China. The Commission president described heavily subsidised Chinese competitors and promised action on dependencies, supply chains and market access. Such measures require coherent enforcement and political resolve alongside investment.

Ukraine adds a security imperative that cannot readily be postponed. Costa linked Ukrainian and European security, while MEPs warned about the consequences of weakening support. Long-term commitments require predictable financing rather than recurring emergency bargains.

But the budget dispute also concerns who controls the money.

As EU Today’s reporting on regional concerns explained, local leaders fear that restructuring could concentrate investment decisions in national capitals, weakening regional influence and potentially widening disparities.

That warning deserves attention. A larger European budget would not automatically produce more balanced development. Allocation rules, accountability and local participation will help determine whether spending strengthens cohesion or reinforces existing advantages.

New revenue sources could ease pressure on national contributions, but they cannot make financing politically painless. Costs ultimately fall somewhere, and governments must explain the distribution honestly.

The central challenge is therefore broader than securing agreement on a headline figure. Europe needs a settlement that protects essential commitments, finances credible common priorities and demonstrates results.

MEPs are right to demand resources consistent with Europe’s responsibilities. Governments are entitled to demand discipline. The failure would be a compromise that satisfies neither requirement: expensive enough to provoke domestic opposition, yet too fragmented to provide the strategic capacity Europe’s leaders insist is indispensable.

Main Image: Denis LOMME: © European Union 2025 – Source : EP

European Parliament Vice President Pina Picierno has announced a hunger strike to draw international attention to the humanitarian disaster in Russian-occupied Oleshky in Ukraine’s Kherson Oblast, she wrote on X on 20 October. The Italian lawmaker called on associations, citizens, and institutions to join her and demand a humanitarian truce, food and medicine for residents, and safe evacuation for those who want to leave.

Russia has occupied the left bank of the Dnipro in Kherson Oblast since 2022. Its forces have cut Oleshky off, leaving its remaining residents short of food and medicine, Ukrainian officials and UN monitors say. Oleshky had about 24,000 residents before the full-scale invasion. About 1,700 remain, including 47 children, Danielle Bell, head of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, said. Picierno’s protest adds to growing international pressure after Pope Leo XIV asked Russian leader Vladimir Putin for a truce to help the town.

“This battle cannot be mine alone”

In Oleshky, thousands of people are trapped in territory occupied by the Russian army, without regular access to food and medicine, Picierno wrote. Mined areas make escape extremely dangerous, she added.

“Those who stay risk dying of hunger, those who try to leave risk their lives,” she wrote. “To draw international attention to this emergency, I have announced a hunger strike. But this battle cannot be mine alone.”

She said the campaign is meant to support the efforts of Pope Leo XIV and others trying to avert a humanitarian tragedy. By the morning of 21 October, 277 people had joined the initiative, Liga reported.

Picierno, who left Italy’s Democratic Party in June and joined the Renew Europe group, has backed military aid to Ukraine, tougher sanctions on Russia, and Ukraine’s bid to join the EU, according to Liga.

A town Kyiv calls a “death trap”

On 16 October, Pope Leo XIV expressed deep concern to Putin about the situation in Oleshky. He asked for a truce so that food and medical aid could be delivered and civilians could leave voluntarily and safely.

A day later, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha urged the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross to help evacuate residents.

“Russians are trying to turn the Ukrainian town of Oleshky into a death trap,” Sybiha wrote. “Dozens of bodies lie in the streets or in homes, as Russians forbid residents from burying them.”

Ukraine has flown tons of food into the town by drone. Russian troops seize some of the parcels and accuse the people who receive them of cooperating with Ukraine, local officials say. A resident said eggs there cost nearly 20 times the US price.

Evacuation talks “moved forward”

Talks with Russia on a ceasefire and evacuation are at the stage of “agreeing the final details,” Ukraine’s human rights ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets said on 18 October. He estimated that about 6,000 civilians, including up to 200 children, remain in Oleshky and six nearby settlements. He gave no timeline.

On 20 October, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Ukraine was doing everything it could to help people in Oleshky, calling the situation there “simply terrible.”

European People’s Party, Social Democrats, Liberals, Greens, and the Left agreed on the need for a firm response.

On Tuesday, all political groups in the European Parliament, except the far right, expressed support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the face of recent sanctions and pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump.

RELATED:

Trump Revives Election Fraud Rhetoric Ahead of Key Midterm Elections

During a debate in the European Parliament, Kaja Kallas, the European Union (EU) High Representative for Foreign Affairs, warned that the measures adopted by the United States jeopardize the overall functioning of the international court.

Kallas noted that the six-month period during which certain operations will continue provides an opportunity to attempt a diplomatic solution and assess the legal implications of the sanctions.

The EU’s top diplomat also stated that EU member states must work together to ensure that the ICC can continue to function both at its headquarters and in the various locations where it conducts investigations.

Mark Carney just got a standing ovation from European Parliament after he takes a stand against Trump.

The world doesn’t respect us anymore. The world is partnering against us.

America first means America alone. pic.twitter.com/6NgB8H5UtK

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) September 17, 2026

The EU official acknowledged that the European Union can do more to protect the court and recalled that the leaders of the 27 member states recently called for new initiatives aimed at mitigating the impact of the U.S. measures.

One of the main demands of the MEPs was the activation of the so-called blocking statute, a mechanism that would prevent European companies and operators from having to comply with sanctions imposed by third countries when these sanctions contravene international law.

Representatives from the European People’s Party, Social Democrats, Liberals, Greens, and the Left agreed on the need for a firm response from Brussels to protect the ICC and preserve its independence from external pressures.

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodriguez visited the International Italian-Latin American Organization (IILA) headquarters in Rome to reaffirm Venezuela’s commitment to multilateral diplomacy and to cooperation between Europe and Latin America. She met with IILA Secretary… pic.twitter.com/PqQIc69RFZ

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 13, 2026

teleSUR: JP

Source: EFE

A diverse array of MEPs on Tuesday (20 October) expressed their enthusiasm for the UK ‘correcting the mistake’ of Brexit by rejoining the European Union 10 years after its people narrowly voted to leave.

“Trump, Xi and Putin might form a troika of iliberalism standing in defiance of the achievements of liberal democracy”, warned Barry Andrews, an Irish MEP for Renew, saying that the EU should not treat the United Kingdom “like any other third country”.

His party ally Sandro Gozi, an Italian MEP, added: “Every option must be on the table, from a special partnership to full EU membership.” 

The debate on EU-UK relations in the Strasbourg parliament came a month ahead of a highly-anticipated EU-UK summit in Brussels on 20 November. 

Although the UK rejoining the bloc is still a distant prospect, it is back on the agenda because of new prime minister Andy Burnham.

Brexit had “done more harm than good”, Burnham told delegates at the Labour party conference in late September, adding that “we will not give Britain the clear path we need into the rest of the century until we decide on a long-term relationship with what is still our largest market.” 

Britain could “go all the way” back into the EU, added Burnham.

European parliament president Robert Metsola has given an open invitation for Burnham to address MEPs, her office told EUobserver, in another sign of goodwill.

The UK Treasury, meanwhile, is expected to publish a study in the coming days detailing the scale of the hit to the UK economy from leaving the bloc.

Burnham’s predecessor Keir Starmer, who resigned in July primarily because of dismal opinion poll ratings, had promised a ‘reset’ of EU-UK relations when his government took power in July 2024. But apart from rhetoric, little has changed, though the UK now has access to the Erasmus+ student exchange programme.

Brexit is a “mistake that can be corrected by all of us” and admitting it is “a sign of strength”, said German Green MEP Terry Reintke.

New deals agreed should be “the floor and not the ceiling” of bilateral relations, said David McAllister, a German MEP for the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP).

On the right, Polish MEP for the European Conservatives and Reformists Jadwiga Wiśniewska also welcomed new talks with the UK, calling for them to be based on “concrete elements” like agriculture deals, defence and Erasmus+.

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

European lawmakers say Sakharov Prize shortlist shows they are committed to safeguarding the work of the ICC, which in 2024 issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu over Gaza war

The European Parliament has demanded €225 billion for the European Union’s foreign policy and development programmes between 2028 and 2034, challenging proposals by member states to reduce spending under the bloc’s next long-term budget.

The Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Development committees approved their negotiating position on the Global Europe Instrument on Monday, 19 October, by 63 votes to 27, with five abstentions. The proposed allocation represents an increase of €25 billion over the European Commission’s original €200 billion proposal.

The decision comes as negotiations over the wider 2028–2034 EU budget have become increasingly contentious, with Germany and several other net contributors opposing higher expenditure while Brussels faces mounting demands for defence, industrial investment, enlargement and support for Ukraine.

Parliament rejects proposed reductions

Under the position adopted by the parliamentary committees, at least €25 billion would be reserved for humanitarian assistance. MEPs also want dedicated funding for reconstruction in Gaza and financial support for countries seeking EU membership.

The committees are proposing that 20 per cent of official development assistance should be directed towards human development, alongside stronger provisions covering democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Global Europe is intended to consolidate several existing financing instruments into a single framework governing much of the Union’s external expenditure. The programme would finance activities ranging from development cooperation and humanitarian assistance to economic partnerships and support for countries preparing to join the EU.

The Commission introduced the original €200 billion proposal in July 2025. However, subsequent negotiations among member states have raised the prospect of substantial reductions.

Germany, the Netherlands and several Nordic countries have argued that the next budget must reflect the financial constraints facing national governments. Their objections have complicated efforts to accommodate additional spending on European security and economic competitiveness.

The European Parliament has taken a different position, maintaining that reducing external expenditure would restrict the Union’s ability to operate internationally when European security and economic interests increasingly depend on developments beyond its borders.

Ukraine and enlargement funding

The parliamentary proposal would preserve support for Ukraine while seeking to prevent assistance connected with Russia’s invasion from reducing resources available to other partner countries.

Ukraine’s reconstruction, institutional reforms and integration with European markets will require substantial financing over the coming years. However, the precise allocation will depend on negotiations over the wider budget and the financing arrangements eventually approved.

For candidate countries, MEPs want clearer incentives linking EU assistance to progress on political and economic reforms. The proposed framework would also provide Brussels with greater powers to suspend funding where democratic standards, human rights or judicial independence deteriorate.

A separate provision would permit the Commission to suspend payments where partner countries seriously fail to meet obligations concerning the readmission of their nationals.

That measure reflects the growing connection between the EU’s development policy and its migration objectives. Brussels has increasingly sought cooperation on returns and border management as part of agreements with countries receiving European assistance.

The committees have also called for stronger parliamentary supervision of Global Europe, including more detailed reporting by the Commission and regular discussions with the commissioners responsible for implementation.

Difficult negotiations ahead

The financial disagreement extends well beyond external policy. The overall seven-year budget remains contested, particularly over agricultural subsidies, regional development funds, defence investment and repayment of borrowing undertaken during the coronavirus pandemic.

As EU Today previously reported, a group of 17 member states has opposed reductions in agricultural and cohesion spending, adding further pressure to negotiations.

The Parliament’s proposed €225 billion allocation has not been agreed by governments and does not constitute an approved spending commitment.

The committees also approved a mandate for negotiations with the Council, although their position still requires endorsement by the full Parliament, provisionally expected in November.

Meanwhile, member states must settle their own negotiating position, including the financial ceilings governing the programme.

The eventual settlement will determine how much Brussels can spend on development cooperation, humanitarian operations and international partnerships after 2027, and how those commitments can be reconciled with the EU’s expanding domestic financial obligations.

Spain’s government has declared that the first phase of its emergency response to the Ceuta migration crisis has been completed, following the arrival of an estimated 80,000 migrants from Morocco at the end of July.

Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska said on Friday, 16 October, that approximately 12,000 people had returned voluntarily to Morocco since August, while the authorities had expanded facilities to process asylum applications and return decisions.

Nevertheless, substantial administrative and humanitarian challenges remain in the Spanish enclave, particularly concerning people awaiting decisions on their legal status and unaccompanied minors. The situation has become an important test of the European Union’s revised migration and asylum legislation.

Unprecedented crossings at the African border

The crisis began on 30 July, when tens of thousands of people entered Ceuta from Morocco by land and sea following the circulation of misleading information on social media about access to Spanish territory.

According to an October briefing by the European Parliament’s Research Service, approximately 80,000 people crossed into the enclave during the incident, overwhelming local reception facilities and creating an emergency at one of the EU’s few land borders with Africa.

A subsequent European Parliament resolution referred to at least 141 deaths associated with the crossings, although the initial figure reported by Spanish authorities was lower. The exact number of people who crossed and the final death toll have remained subjects of uncertainty.

Most entrants returned to Morocco within days. However, thousands remained, leaving Spain responsible for assessing individual claims, arranging lawful returns and providing appropriate accommodation.

Ceuta’s geographical position complicates these procedures. Although the enclave is Spanish and forms part of the EU, travellers departing for mainland Spain remain subject to specific controls at its ports and airports.

Spain expands its processing capacity

During a visit to Ceuta on 16 October, Grande-Marlaska defended the government’s management of the emergency and announced that additional police resources would substantially increase administrative capacity.

The expanded temporary reception and processing facilities at El Tarajal are intended to handle at least 100 files daily, including applications for international protection and return procedures.

According to figures presented by the Interior Minister, approximately 1,200 applications for international protection had been formally submitted, with around 700 decisions already issued.

He also rejected allegations that the authorities had conducted concealed or involuntary returns, insisting that departures to Morocco had followed voluntary decisions or the appropriate legal procedures.

The minister said more than 500 expulsions had been executed through judicial or administrative decisions in recent months. These are distinct from the approximately 12,000 voluntary returns recorded since August.

The treatment of unaccompanied minors remains contentious. The European Parliament’s research briefing estimated that around 1,100 such minors were in Ceuta, including some who arrived before the July emergency.

Responsibility for their care has generated disagreement between the Spanish central government and Ceuta’s autonomous administration, particularly over guardianship, identification and the distribution of minors to other regions.

New EU asylum system faces a practical test

The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which began applying in June 2026, was designed to strengthen external border procedures while establishing clearer responsibilities for Member States.

Its provisions include identity and security screening, accelerated procedures for certain asylum applications and a solidarity mechanism allowing countries to support those facing disproportionate migration pressures.

Under the screening rules, the authorities generally have up to seven days to complete the initial checks required for people apprehended after irregular entry.

However, the Ceuta emergency demonstrates the difficulty of applying individual administrative procedures when arrivals occur in exceptionally large numbers within a short period.

The geographical concentration of arrivals means that adequate staffing, interpretation, legal assistance and reception facilities become essential to ensuring the system operates within its prescribed deadlines.

Spain requested assistance from Frontex, Europol and the European Union Agency for Asylum in August. The Commission subsequently announced €114.7 million in emergency assistance in September.

Political dispute over migration policy

The crisis has widened divisions between European governments over border enforcement and the regularisation of migrants already living within the EU.

Italy and several other Member States have questioned whether Spain’s separate regularisation programme could encourage further irregular migration. Madrid rejects the suggestion that the programme caused the Ceuta crossings.

The Spanish scheme covers only people who met the residence requirements by the end of 2025. Those who arrived during the July 2026 crisis are not eligible.

European Parliament members also adopted a resolution in September calling for stronger protection of the EU’s external borders and greater cooperation with Morocco. The resolution characterised the crisis as involving the possible instrumentalisation of migration, although Spain has said it has no evidence establishing Moroccan government involvement.

The continuing administrative backlog, the position of minors and the effectiveness of EU assistance will determine how quickly Ceuta can return to ordinary border operations.

Beyond Spain, the episode raises a practical question for Brussels: whether Europe’s new asylum framework can maintain border controls and individual legal safeguards simultaneously during an exceptionally large and sudden influx.

The European Parliament is preparing to vote on amendments to the as Brussels seeks to reduce its dependence on foreign suppliers of minerals essential for defence equipment, electric vehicles, advanced electronics and industrial production.

The proposals, scheduled for debate in Strasbourg on Monday, 19 October, and a vote on Tuesday, would strengthen coordination over strategic supplies and revise the responsibilities of European companies that depend on vulnerable international supply chains.

At the centre of the discussions is a proposal to establish a European Critical Raw Materials Centre, which would coordinate purchasing arrangements, assess supply risks and support the development of strategic reserves.

The initiative comes amid increasing concern over China’s dominant position in the processing and supply of several materials regarded as indispensable to European industry.

Parliament considers stronger European coordination

According to the European Parliament’s October plenary briefing, the proposed Critical Raw Materials Centre would operate as an EU body responsible for several functions currently distributed between European institutions and national authorities.

These would include identifying vulnerabilities in supply chains, conducting risk assessments, coordinating contingency stocks and supporting joint purchasing arrangements.

The objective is to give European governments and manufacturers greater capacity to respond to interruptions in supplies of minerals and processed materials that cannot easily be replaced.

The legislative report has been prepared by the Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, with Dutch Social Democrat MEP Mohammed Chahim serving as rapporteur.

The committee examined amendments to the existing legislation during 2026, with its revised report submitted for plenary consideration on 9th October.

Tuesday’s vote is intended to establish Parliament’s position for negotiations with the Council. It would not, by itself, constitute final adoption of the amended regulation.

China’s position creates supply risks

The European Union depends heavily on imported critical raw materials, particularly those required for batteries, permanent magnets, semiconductors and specialist industrial equipment.

China occupies a particularly important position in the refining and processing of rare earth elements, graphite and several other materials used in high-technology manufacturing.

The concentration of production creates vulnerabilities because disruption at a single stage of processing can affect manufacturers operating across multiple European countries.

According to the Council of the European Union’s assessment of strategic mineral supplies, China is the principal supplier to the EU for numerous materials, including gallium, germanium, magnesium and rare earth elements.

These substances are used in applications extending well beyond electric vehicles.

Permanent magnets are required for certain electric motors, wind turbines and defence systems, while other critical materials are used in radar, satellites, aircraft components and advanced electronic equipment.

Restrictions affecting their availability can therefore have consequences for European industrial output, defence procurement and the development of new technology.

The question for EU policymakers is not simply whether minerals can be obtained, but whether Europe has sufficient alternative sources and processing capacity to withstand restrictions imposed by a dominant supplier.

Existing targets remain difficult to achieve

The Critical Raw Materials Act entered into force in May 2024 and established benchmarks intended to strengthen European production and diversify imports by 2030.

Under the existing framework, the EU aims to develop extraction capacity equivalent to at least 10 per cent of its annual consumption of strategic raw materials, where geological reserves allow.

The corresponding benchmarks are 40 per cent for processing and 25 per cent for recycling.

The legislation also seeks to prevent any single non-EU country from supplying more than 65 per cent of the Union’s annual consumption of a particular strategic raw material at any relevant processing stage.

These are policy benchmarks rather than binding production quotas imposed on individual companies.

Their achievement depends on the development of mines, processing facilities and recycling operations, as well as the ability to attract investment.

New extraction projects frequently require lengthy environmental assessments, infrastructure development and extensive capital investment. Processing operations face additional challenges involving energy costs, technical expertise and commercial competitiveness.

Consequently, reducing import dependence involves more than identifying mineral deposits within European territory.

Greater obligations for manufacturers

The proposed amendments also address the responsibilities of major European companies using strategic raw materials.

Under provisions examined by the parliamentary committee, the European Commission would take a greater role in identifying large manufacturers whose operations depend on strategically important supplies.

These companies could face requirements to assess vulnerabilities in their supply chains, including the geographical location of extraction and processing operations and the ownership of relevant facilities.

The arrangements would be particularly significant for businesses producing batteries, aircraft, drones, satellites, advanced chips and other products considered strategically important.

Where significant risks are identified, companies could be expected to consider measures including diversification, improved material efficiency or maintaining stocks.

The proposals also seek to strengthen recycling and the recovery of valuable materials from existing products, reducing the quantity of newly extracted resources required by European industry.

Recycling alone cannot remove the need for imports, particularly where demand for new technologies is increasing, but it can provide an additional source of supply.

Supply security becomes an industrial priority

The legislation forms part of a wider effort to link European industrial policy with economic security.

Brussels has been seeking additional raw materials partnerships with third countries, while manufacturers remain concerned about the commercial cost of building alternative supply chains.

Recent EU discussions concerning cooperation with Vietnam illustrate the emphasis being placed on securing alternative access to minerals such as tungsten and rare earth elements.

However, diversifying supplies does not necessarily mean transferring extraction and processing to Europe. Partnerships with reliable external producers may remain essential, particularly for materials unavailable in sufficient quantities within the Union.

The proposed European centre would therefore have to balance internal production, international purchasing, strategic stocks and commercial demand.

The immediate legislative issue is whether the revised framework gives European institutions sufficient powers to coordinate these activities without placing disproportionate administrative obligations on businesses.

Tuesday’s parliamentary vote will determine the negotiating position MEPs take into discussions with EU governments over how those responsibilities should be distributed.

EU finance ministers have approved a compromise that would expand the European Securities and Markets Authority’s powers while exempting some major trading venues from centralised oversight. The agreement reflects continuing resistance to transferring financial supervision from national authorities to Brussels.

European Union finance ministers have reached an agreement to expand centralised supervision of financial markets, but Germany has secured provisions allowing important parts of Deutsche Börse to remain under national oversight, substantially narrowing the European Commission’s original reform proposals.

The compromise, agreed at a meeting in Luxembourg on 9 October, would transfer responsibility for supervising selected trading venues, clearing houses and securities settlement institutions to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).

However, the agreement introduces exemptions and thresholds that reduce the number of institutions automatically subject to direct European supervision.

The result is a significant political compromise between governments seeking deeper financial integration and those reluctant to surrender oversight of nationally important market operators.

Berlin secures its exemption

The most contentious element of the negotiations concerned Deutsche Börse, the German financial-market group that operates the Frankfurt stock exchange and provides trading, clearing and other financial infrastructure services.

Germany opposed arrangements that would place all major market operators under direct ESMA supervision, arguing that institutions with predominantly domestic activities should continue to be regulated nationally.

The agreed compromise refines the criteria for determining which trading venues qualify for centralised oversight.

These conditions allow certain Deutsche Börse operations to remain outside the new supervisory regime.

The exemption had already become a point of contention during negotiations among European governments.

As EU Today reported in June, Berlin had sought to protect Deutsche Börse from mandatory European supervision despite Germany’s broader support for integrating EU capital markets.

The October agreement formalises a narrower approach within the Council’s negotiating position, although the legislation remains subject to approval by the European Parliament.

Europe’s fragmented financial markets

The European Commission has repeatedly argued that fragmented national supervision weakens the EU’s ability to compete with financial markets in the United States.

Although the Union operates a single market, many financial institutions continue to face differing regulatory interpretations, procedures and supervisory relationships across member states.

These differences can increase operating costs and discourage financial businesses from expanding across borders.

The Market Integration and Supervision Package is intended to simplify those arrangements and strengthen common oversight of financial infrastructure with significant cross-border activity.

Under the Council’s position, ESMA would assume direct supervision of selected trading platforms and institutions involved in clearing and securities settlement.

Such institutions perform essential functions in financial markets, including managing transactions, transferring securities and controlling risks between counterparties.

Differences in supervisory arrangements can complicate the operation of financial services that increasingly function across national borders.

The Commission argues that greater consistency would allow European capital to move more efficiently between member states and provide businesses with improved access to investment.

Compromise reduces original ambitions

The Commission’s original approach envisaged broader centralisation of supervisory responsibilities.

The Council agreement of 9 October introduces more restrictive criteria governing the institutions that would fall under ESMA’s direct authority.

In addition to the treatment of trading venues, ministers agreed that direct supervision of crypto-asset service providers should initially concentrate on businesses with the most significant cross-border operations.

The Council also supported changes to ESMA’s governance arrangements, including the creation of a full-time executive board.

The proposed board would strengthen the authority’s ability to make supervisory decisions independently of individual national regulators, while preserving mechanisms for cooperation with those authorities.

The compromise also introduces arrangements allowing national supervisors collectively to challenge certain decisions.

These provisions reflect concerns about concentrating regulatory powers within an institution that must oversee financial businesses operating under different national legal systems.

Why capital markets matter for European investment

The supervision reforms form part of the EU’s broader Savings and Investments Union initiative.

European policymakers want to increase the availability of private capital for companies investing in technology, defence, infrastructure and industrial development.

The Union has substantial household savings, but much of that money remains in bank deposits or is invested outside the European economy.

Companies seeking capital for expansion may consequently face higher financing costs or more limited investment opportunities than comparable businesses operating in larger and more integrated markets.

The Commission’s Savings and Investments Union programme seeks to improve access to finance and make cross-border investment more attractive.

Financial-market supervision represents only one element of that programme.

Differences in taxation, insolvency law, national investment products and corporate governance requirements also influence where investors allocate their money.

Nevertheless, regulators regard consistent supervision as an important condition for reducing fragmentation.

Parliament faces a political decision

The agreement reached by finance ministers does not conclude the legislative process.

The European Parliament must adopt its position before negotiations can determine the final provisions.

Parliamentary discussions could revisit the exemptions secured by Germany and the criteria determining which institutions fall under direct ESMA supervision.

The debate will expose differences over whether European financial integration should proceed through incremental reforms or a more substantial transfer of regulatory authority.

Governments supporting national exemptions argue that supervision should reflect the actual geographic scope of a company’s activities.

Supporters of broader European oversight contend that major trading businesses can influence financial markets beyond their home jurisdictions even when individual operations appear predominantly domestic.

The Deutsche Börse exemption has become a prominent example of the conflict between those positions.

Europe’s largest economies broadly support the objective of deeper capital markets, but remain divided over the institutional powers needed to achieve it.

The final legislation will determine whether the expanded responsibilities granted to ESMA are sufficient to reduce fragmentation or leave important parts of Europe’s financial infrastructure operating under substantially different national supervisory systems.

As the European Parliament prepares to welcome representatives from six Gulf monarchies, uncomfortable questions are emerging about the moral foundations of Europe’s foreign policy. Can Brussels credibly champion democracy and human rights while deepening relations with governments accused of suppressing dissent, restricting fundamental freedoms and exploiting migrant workers?

The European Union has long presented itself as a global defender of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Yet its growing enthusiasm for closer relations with the Gulf monarchies raises an increasingly uncomfortable question: how much are those principles worth when substantial economic and strategic interests are at stake?

On October 16th, the European Parliament will host senior parliamentary representatives from the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman.

The conference, chaired by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, will address parliamentary cooperation, maritime security and the geopolitical consequences of Russia’s war against Ukraine.

On paper, the initiative represents an entirely reasonable diplomatic exercise. Europe needs reliable energy supplies, secure international shipping routes and constructive relations with influential Middle Eastern governments.

But there is another side to this developing partnership, one that Brussels cannot simply dismiss as an inconvenient complication.

Several Gulf governments maintain political systems in which meaningful democratic opposition is severely restricted, freedom of expression is curtailed and individuals can face imprisonment for challenging those in power.

The question is not whether Europe should maintain diplomatic relations with such countries. It plainly must.

The question is whether those relations should be celebrated as strategic partnerships without demanding meaningful improvements in the treatment of their own citizens.

The uncomfortable reality behind Gulf prosperity

Saudi Arabia’s international image has undergone a remarkable transformation in recent years.

Under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom has promoted ambitious economic reforms, tourism projects and international sporting events designed to present a modernising society. Yet this carefully cultivated image sits uneasily alongside its human rights record.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly documented concerns over executions, restrictions on political dissent, arbitrary detention and the treatment of women’s rights activists.

The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in 2018 remains an enduring symbol of the dangers faced by critics of the Saudi leadership. A 2021 US intelligence assessment concluded that the Crown Prince had approved an operation to capture or kill Khashoggi, an assessment rejected by Saudi Arabia.

Qatar, meanwhile, has attracted sustained criticism over the treatment of migrant workers, particularly during preparations for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Although labour reforms were introduced, human rights organisations continue to question their implementation and the effectiveness of protections against exploitation.

The UAE, despite its reputation for modernity and commercial sophistication, has similarly faced criticism over restrictions on political expression, detention of dissidents and the absence of meaningful electoral democracy at national level.

Bahrain has been criticised for imprisoning opposition figures and restricting political freedoms, while concerns about migrant labour protections and freedom of expression extend across other Gulf states, albeit with important differences in their individual records.

These are not minor administrative shortcomings. They concern fundamental rights that the European Union claims to regard as universal and non-negotiable.

When strategic interests outweigh principles

There is an unmistakable contradiction in Europe’s approach. The European Parliament routinely condemns authoritarian practices in Russia, Belarus and other countries where political freedoms are suppressed. It demands accountability, democratic reform and respect for international law.

Yet when dealing with wealthy Gulf monarchies, the language often becomes considerably more accommodating. Economic opportunity, investment, energy security and regional stability suddenly dominate the conversation.

Such selective emphasis risks creating the impression that Europe’s commitment to human rights is determined less by universal principle than by the commercial and geopolitical importance of the country concerned.

That is a dangerous perception for an institution whose international credibility depends heavily upon its moral authority.

If the imprisonment of political opponents is unacceptable in Moscow or Minsk, why should comparable abuses become less objectionable when committed by governments possessing substantial sovereign wealth funds or strategically important energy reserves?

Europe cannot reasonably demand consistency from others while appearing unwilling to apply it to itself.

The strategic argument remains compelling

None of this diminishes the genuine importance of cooperation with the Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea are essential maritime corridors connecting Europe with global energy suppliers and Asian markets. Threats to commercial shipping, regional instability and the activities of Iran-aligned armed groups present legitimate security concerns.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has also demonstrated the dangers of excessive dependence upon unreliable external partners. Diversifying energy relationships is therefore a sensible strategic objective.

Moreover, Gulf governments possess considerable diplomatic influence, including relationships with states and political actors that European governments may struggle to engage directly.

But strategic necessity does not automatically confer moral legitimacy.

Indeed, Europe’s previous dependence upon Russian energy offers a particularly sobering lesson. For years, European governments convinced themselves that extensive commercial engagement with Moscow would encourage moderation and political stability.

Instead, economic interdependence failed to prevent Russian aggression, leaving Europe exposed when that relationship collapsed. It would be reckless to assume that expanding commercial relations with authoritarian governments necessarily produces political liberalisation.

What does parliamentary cooperation actually mean?

The proposed conference also raises questions about the meaning of parliamentary dialogue.

The European Parliament is a directly elected institution, accountable to hundreds of millions of citizens through competitive democratic elections.

The political institutions of the Gulf states operate under markedly different arrangements, with varying degrees of appointed representation, limited electoral participation and executive authority concentrated within ruling families.

Describing these relationships simply as parliamentary cooperation risks obscuring fundamental differences in democratic legitimacy.

Dialogue can undoubtedly serve a useful purpose. But it should not be allowed to imply an equivalence between representative democratic institutions and political structures in which citizens have far fewer opportunities to challenge those governing them.

Nor should participation in prestigious European institutional events become an exercise in international reputation management for governments facing serious human rights allegations.

A test of Europe’s credibility

The European Parliament has an opportunity to demonstrate that closer cooperation need not mean abandoning its principles.

It could insist that human rights form a substantive part of future engagement, including scrutiny of political imprisonment, freedom of expression, judicial independence and migrant worker protections.

It could also establish mechanisms for monitoring progress rather than relying upon diplomatic assurances.

Such measures would not necessarily undermine economic cooperation. They would establish that the relationship carries responsibilities as well as benefits.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether Europe should talk to the Gulf monarchies, but whether it possesses the political courage to challenge them.

A European Union that condemns authoritarianism in one part of the world while accommodating it elsewhere risks reducing its professed values to little more than diplomatic convenience.

Europe may need the Gulf’s energy, investment and strategic influence, but it should not have to surrender its conscience to obtain them.

And if Brussels cannot reconcile its commercial ambitions with its democratic principles, it must confront a deeply uncomfortable possibility: that Europe’s foreign policy is increasingly being guided not by the values it proclaims, but by the wealth and influence of those sitting across the negotiating table.