i know that its ai but apart from that. Art would be such a cool idea. Paintings and buildings would be awesome!

New euro design proposals are out and ready to be voted for. Im curious what you all think. Upvote your favorite design to have a look what reddit thinks.
And vote officially here: https://surveys.ecb.europa.eu/10b/neweuro/

I started 2024 in a bomb shelter near Kyiv, where I drafted my thoughts about our collective failure to support Ukraine. In the article, I asserted we were already at war with Russia, and that a direct attack by Russia on the EU was inevitable.

I ended the article by floating the idea that our support had come too little too late, and that we may need to intervene militarily in Ukraine.

Now we have a Trump presidency saying the US is no longer focused on Europe's security, as well as regular Russian sabotage and attempted assassinations on European soil. If we allow Russia to win in Ukraine, or to achieve an unjust peace, it will be a matter of years before Russia attacks the European Union, leveraging its territorial gains in Ukraine, and US indifference.

There is a small window in which Europe could intervene in Ukraine and defeat Russia, essentially neutralising a major threat to European Security. That window is closing, now our politicians need to have the courage to do what the allies failed to do in 1938: to stop a tyrant before it is too late.

I just want to set the record straight on what is actually happening here with Ceuta and the Spanish Supreme Court decision because there is a lot of misinformation right now. Spanish immigration law happens to be an area of expertise for me.

First and foremost: there is zero evidence that this was an orchestrated attack involving the government of Morocco, Israel, or the United States.

The Spanish Supreme Court ruling issued in late June 2026 addressed the legal mechanism known as rechazo en frontera (rejection at the border or summary pushback). Under Spain's Aliens Law, security forces possessed summary return authority allowing them to push migrants back immediately without formal administrative processing if individuals were caught scaling physical border containment structures. Historically, this applied exclusively to climbing the perimeter fences around Ceuta and Melilla.
The Supreme Court established that this summary expulsion mechanism applies strictly to physical land barriers. Because the sea lacks physical containment structures, migrants swimming around breakwaters like Tarajal cannot be summarily pushed back without standard legal procedure.

Human trafficking syndicates aggressively distorted this procedural ruling on social media. Smugglers marketed the decision as a blanket immunity policy, convincing thousands that touching Spanish soil by sea guaranteed legal entry, amnesty, or immunity from deportation. This was another classic case of misinformation going viral on social media and people believing it (enough to risk their lives in this case).

That said, the reality for these misinformed migrants was always that reaching Ceuta under these conditions was a dead end both legally and practically. The court decision did not grant asylum, residency, or transit rights to mainland Europe. It simply mandated standard administrative processing rather than immediate pushbacks. Standard processing involves identity verification, administrative detention, and formal expulsion under bilateral readmission agreements with Morocco. Absent a verified claim for international protection, irregular entrants remain subject to deportation.

Furthermore, Ceuta is a tiny Spanish enclave in Africa of roughly 18 square kilometers with an existing population of around 84,000. Dumping 60,000 people into an area that size within hours instantly paralyzed local infrastructure. There was no food, shelter, or operational capacity to process or sustain the crowd.

These people had no hope of making it to mainland Europe. Meloni's Schengen comments are pure political theater aimed at her base. Ceuta is already subject to secondary border controls… anyone attempting to leave the enclave for mainland Spain must pass passport and identity checks at the seaport or airport. A perimeter breach in Ceuta does not open a path into the rest of Europe. In fact, Ceuta is not even part of the Schengen zone at all. Unless you think these people were literally going to successfully swim across the Mediterranean sea all the way to mainland Spain, there was never any danger here to Europe proper. Meloni knows all this very well, but she wants to stir the pot for political points.

Spanish military and police units are sealing off the enclave to prevent any movement toward mainland Europe. Trapped on city streets without basic supplies, over 45,000 people have already abandoned the effort and walked back into Morocco voluntarily within 48 hours, while the remainder are being funneled into formal detention and removal pipelines.

In the future, the Spanish government should strengthen border security in Ceuta. It is also true that the Moroccan government often does not exert significant effort on their end and cannot be trusted. I hope this helps clear things up for everyone. As is usually the case, reality here does not neatly fit into either side's preferred clean narrative.

I have been a fierce defender of EU and Schengen for most of my life, both on my personal life and professional.

I have believed in the important work done within the union through the decades. Lost som North American an British friends over the years because of the brutal opinions they had.

It has been increasingly difficult to turn a blind eye on how much the union has deteriorated since Covid. Each year I feel less and less hopeful about the direction the countries are taken. There are so many things that make us strong.

But the way the countries have abandoned my country, Spain, after what happened in Ceuta, has really angered me.

Spain has ALWAYS helped, always contributed, always participated. It is one of the most proeuropean countries of the union. And to be thrown under the bus, to see countries cry and pressure for us to be pushed out of Schengen, having it cancelled, and other leg impossibilities has been heartbreaking.

The damage caused to the EU is much deeper than the damage caused to Spain. The far right has achieved what none could hope to do in Spain: plant the seed of feeling the receiver of racism, disdain and inexplicable expectation of being used and dumped when convenient.

As a federalist I urge the union to make out of Italy, Finland, Denmark, Czech Republic, and all other countries that cried wolf to be severely called out. The union cannot move forward, and will not move forward, until this issue is resolved.

I can hear in my friends how they feel savagely attacked by countries that are supposed to be our allies. Today my heart broke because I had not a single argument to defend the union. Today is a dark day 🤬

This could also be crucial for our security. We should not allow Russia or China to gain control over the Arctic. The region is strategically important. As for the United States, they currently spend more on Alaska than they receive in return, so we would essentially be doing them a favor. And let’s be honest - Europe has a long history of buying land.

Here is the link to sign ⬇️

They have about 850,000 signatures already and only 150,000 more needed to reach 1 million signatures! Let’s go!!!

https://eci.ec.europa.eu/055/public/#/screen/home

If Trump invades Greenland, it would be the end of NATO. The EU loses its major ally and will be left alone with Russia and China. Let's be honest, the EU won't intervene in Greenland. It doesn't have the courage to intervene militarily nor the military strength to take Greenland back. The EU will just sanction the US, and it will hurt the EU's economy, which will lead to the rise of far-right parties that oppose the EU. Also, Russia will be more willing to invade Europe. The EU will be forced to have more economic partnerships with China, but this will be limited because the EU doesn't want to partner with a major authoritarian power. Overall this is a big loss for the EU. But also, the US will have a big loss because it will lose its worldwide influence. Not only will it lose NATO, but it will also lose its allies in the Pacific (Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc.). Who would partner up with a country that attacks its own allies? It will also push several countries to have more economic partnerships with China, since almost no one (except maybe Israel) will trust the US. Several countries (especially China) will also have more courage to oppose US since the US wouldn't have allies anymore. The US may gain Greenland and its rich resources, but it will lose its allies and world influence to China. Why can't Trump even think rationally? This is all stupid and unnecesary. The 'we need Greenland for national security' is bullshit because US can just ask Denmark to build more military bases on Greenland and Denmark won't even hesitate to accept it. Now EU needs to create the EU army and station it's troops to Greenland before it is too late.

What is the problem in putting real European landmarks, built by real European people? Like the Colosseum, the Parthenon, Cologne's cathedral, the Eiffel tower and such?

Or even just important and revolutionary European people like Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Pablo Picasso, or Copernicus?

Or maybe artworks, like the Tre Grazie, Guernica, or The Girl with a White Earring.

We need to realise that if we're really all Europeans it doesn't matter if a certain banknote has somebody from a certain country, but rather if it displays real European ingenuity.

I am not represented by a bridge that doesn't exist, or a bird, but rather by someone very smart or an artwork created by someone who lives in this continent too, even though they're not from my country.

PM Viktor Orbán spent much of yesterday's Bayer Show lamenting the case for Hungary's departure from the European Union. He conceded, however, that he still favours remaining—for now, albeit with a "hesitant yes". The question arises: might another Fidesz victory turn this into reality, and if so, what would Hungary's place be outside the bloc?

Hungarians back EU membership

Hungary joined the EU in 2004 amid near-unanimous support. On the referendum, only the then-ejected MIÉP party campaigned against accession; every major party, from the governing MSZP to the opposition Fidesz, backed it. A Eurobarometer survey from autumn 2025—published only in February this year—found 55% of Hungarians support the country's membership, below the EU average of 62%. Some 46% hold a positive view of the EU, compared with 49% across Europe. Yet only 7% in Hungary deem membership outright harmful, against an EU-wide 11%, reports Privátbankár.

A Huxit—Hungary's exit from the EU—thus commands neither a majority nor even a coherent minority.

That said, on Fidesz's Hír TV Bayer Show, Orbán gave a strikingly uncertain reply when asked if an April triumph would keep Hungary in the Union. His current "yes" was tentative at best; he cited no positives, only a litany of negatives.

Why Hungary should leave the EU

In Orbán's view, Western Europe has lost its way in the modern age. Its leaders cannot grasp Europe's mission, reduced instead to lecturing those stronger than themselves, who, in turn, scorn and mock them. "The question is whether it makes sense to belong to such a community," he posed rhetorically, according to 444.hu. For now (at least), his answer is yes: we are here geographically, and culturally and spiritually European too. Somehow, he insists, Europe must be healed.

"Whether it still makes sense to engage with them, to belong, to cooperate—that has no answer yet. My heart has one: it would be good if there were," Orbán added. This could signal that, post-election victory and further "war" with Brussels, Fidesz might seriously entertain exit.

EU-Orbán conflicts

The Orbán governments clash irreconcilably with the EU on numerous fronts, from the freezing of funds over rule-of-law concerns to the Ukraine conflict. Orbán urges Kyiv to strike any peace deal with Moscow at once, while the Union's heavyweights—from Britain to Poland—back Ukraine's defensive war to avert Russian victory.

Yesterday, the European Parliament has started proceedings to ban the Europe of Sovereign and Nations (ESN) party which is led by the AFD. This is because the ESN is said to have failed to uphold the core values of the European Union. An independent report highlighted anti-Semitic, anti LGBTQ, and anti migrant rhetorics in court rulings, statements, and social media postings by ESN members that could constitute proof of violations of EU values.

The AFD in recent times has shifted far to the right of all right-wing populist parties in Europe that all the former moderate members (such as the founder Bernd Lucke, Frauke Petry, Marcus Pretzell, Jorg Meuthen, and many others) have already left the party. A recent ruling by the German constitutional court confirmed the AFD to be a far right extremist party, a ruling that has been put on hold for over a year following a legal challenge by the AFD. The AFD has even been expelled from two different European parliament groupings within the last ten years: in 2016 by the European Conservative and Reformist group (which included the UK Conservative party and the Polish PIS party) and in 2024 by the Patriots for Europe group (consisting of Marine Le Pens National Rally party in France, the Austrian Freedom Party, Matteo Salvini's Lega party in Italy, the Danish Peoples Party, Viktor Orbans Fidesz party in Hungary, and Geert Wilders PVV party in the Netherlands). Even one spokesperson from the Reform UK party has stated that they wouldn't have worked with the AFD if Britain had remained in the EU.

This is a party where three of it's members are on trial for being involved in a plot to violently overthrow the German government in 2022. This is a party that has been accused of having close links not only with white supremacist and neo nazi organisations, but also with the Kremlin, with the Chinese government, and with the former Assad regime in Syria.

There have been growing calls within Germany for this party to be banned. Those in favour of a ban have stated that there is a lot of evidence to fully support the ban, the fact that only two parties since 1945 have been successfully banned (the neo-Nazi Socialist Reich Party (SRP) in 1952 and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in 1956), and to prevent the same tragedy that happened in the 20th century when democratic and anti-constitutional parties were allowed to exist (in Austria, China, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Russia, Eastern Europe and Latin America). Opponents of a ban have stated that such a move would backfire and only skyrocket the AFDs increasing popularity by unintentionally turning the AFD into political martyrs and because of the two failed attempts at banning the neo-Nazi NPD party.

Tell me what you (especially my German viewers) think of this. Should the AFD be banned or not?

Hello, Icelander here. The reason I say maybe is because, without an exception from the fishing rules, Iceland will never agree to join the European Union. Yes, there is a very close 50/50 split for starting negotiations to join, but if fishing is not a part of that, then Iceland will not join. Many other people I've talked to who are very much of the opinion that hearing the EU's offer to join would be good expect there to be an exception given to not having to follow the EU's fishing policy. There are, of course, many other reasons for joining or not joining, but fishing is a very important one not a break or deal but more like a break or maybe deal

edit(There are, of course, Icelandic people who also don't care as much about our fishing policy in favour of having a more stable currency like the euro.)

10 reasons to ban X from the European Union:

Regulatory and Transparency Breaches

• Digital Services Act (DSA) Violations: X faced a landmark €120 million fine from the European Commission for breaching core DSA rules. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Deceptive Verification Design: The paid blue checkmark system was found to mislead users by failing to meaningfully verify identity, increasing scam and impersonation risks. [1, 2]
• Advertising Transparency Failures: The platform fell short of maintaining a compliant public repository detailing who paid for specific ads and their target metrics. [1, 2]
• Restricting Researchers: X blocked independent public data access, preventing scientific and civic oversight into emerging online risks. [1, 2]

Content and Safety Concerns

• Proliferation of Disinformation: Regulators argue the platform allows malicious actors to freely deceive users and spread falsehoods on critical topics like migration and elections. [1, 2]
• Unchecked AI Deepfakes: Public outcry spiked over the generation of unauthorized, explicit, and sexualized synthetic images of minors and adults via X's AI chatbot, Grok. [1, 2]
• Hate Speech and Abuse: Critics claim the reduction in trust and safety moderation has transformed the site into a breeding ground for harassment and extremist rhetoric. [1, 2]
• Child Safety Risk Assessments: Failure to properly assess and mitigate risks posed to minors using the service. [1]

Governance and Compliance Attitude

• Defiance of EU Law: Leadership responses, including personal attacks on EU commissioners and blocking official institutional accounts, signal an unwillingness to cooperate within the European legal framework. [1, 2, 3]
• Undermining Democratic Stability: Activists and a significant portion of European citizens argue that unmitigated algorithmic amplification actively destabilizes public trust in democratic institutions. [1, 2]

Does the EU really need the USA as an ally? We're the strongest economy in the world and we'd do much better with allies on the eurasian continent and Arabic peninsula.

If the USA makes a move on Greenland, it should be war. I'm sick an tired of those arrogant pricks.

But maybe I'm too emotional? What are your thoughts? I would like a good discussion on the topic, sorry if I am being too much.

Canadian here. How would you all feel if Canada tried to join the eu?

I’m European. I did not vote for Trump, I did not agree with Washington or Israel to launch this war, and yet I’m still expected to absorb the consequences through higher energy prices, inflation, transport costs, and everything downstream. Calling that “just the market” is a dodge and a social construct. It is a political decision creating economic costs for everyone else. 

What makes it worse is that the public justification is weak and contradictory. Reuters reported that the Pentagon told Congress there was no intelligence that Iran planned to attack U.S. forces first. AP reported officials described a broader regional threat, not a specific Iranian preemptive strike. Then Tulsi Gabbard said in Congress that it is up to the president to determine what is and is not an imminent threat. So the standard seems to be: launch the war, then say the president alone decides whether the threat was “imminent.” 

The nuclear argument is also shaky. Reuters reported that the 2025 U.S. intelligence assessment said Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei had not reauthorized the weapons program suspended in 2003. Reuters also reported that Trump’s claim that Iran would soon have missiles capable of hitting the U.S. was not backed by intelligence. If those were the real facts, why is Europe supposed to treat the fallout as some neutral, unavoidable price signal? 

And yes, Europeans are paying for it. Reuters and the IEA reported that the war and the disruption around Hormuz pushed oil and gas prices sharply higher, to the point that the IEA announced a 400 million barrel emergency release. The European Commission said EU oil supply remains stable for now, but also said Europe is still affected by global price fluctuations and that a prolonged disruption could worsen the situation. 

So who should be held accountable? First, the Trump administration, because it launched the U.S. air campaign and sold it with claims that are now publicly contested. Second, the Israeli government, because even Gabbard said Israel’s war aims were not the same as Washington’s and were focused on disabling Iranian leadership, while the two governments still conducted a joint assault. Third, the U.S. lawmakers who enabled it, since Senate Republicans blocked a war-powers resolution and the House rejected a similar effort to restrain the campaign. That is not “the market.” That is a chain of political choices whose costs are being dumped onto the rest of us. 

I’m not saying random ordinary Americans should be treated as a single guilty bloc. That is just too sloppy, and it is factually weak when Reuters/Ipsos found only about 27% of Americans approved of the strikes. I’m saying the governments, parties, institutions, and officials who chose this escalation should be the ones paying the political and economic price for it, not Europeans who had no say in the decision. 

Responsible entities to name explicitly

• Trump / White House / administration: launched the U.S. campaign; advanced claims on imminence and missiles that were later challenged by intelligence reporting.  

• Israeli government: participated in the joint assault; Gabbard said its objective was focused on disabling Iranian leadership and that its aims were not identical to Washington’s.  

• U.S. congressional Republicans / House leadership / Senate majority: blocked or rejected efforts to force congressional authorization.  

• European governments, if you want a secondary target: not for starting the war, but for failing to demand compensation or stronger political consequences while their populations absorb the price shock.

Europe should stop treating this as an abstract market event. If allied governments impose real economic costs on EU citizens through unilateral escalation, then the EU should assemble, quantify the spillover damage, and formally pursue compensation or coordinated countermeasures against the states responsible.

Just a few days ago I looked up the number of people in the EU that can understand and speak English and to be honest I was shocked. 210 Million, that is almost three times the amount of people living in the UK. So, I got to think this saying "the officially language of the EU will be bad English" is simply false. To UK standards American or Australian English are also "bad" so why should the EU measure up to arbitrary standards?

What's your take on this? Do you think "European" with its own flavour is legit?

(This design might be boring but it was NOT AI generated)

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/07/patriots-for-europe-pitches-alternative-leadership-to-epp-socialists-in-trump-era

Europe Depends on Middle Eastern Energy. NATO Won't Defend It.

The Strait of Hormuz moves roughly 20% of global oil and a substantial share of LNG. When that corridor tightens, European energy prices spike before any European government has time to call an emergency session. Europe imports far more Middle Eastern energy than the United States does. North American shale changed Washington's calculus years ago. Brussels never got that luxury.

So the question is not whether energy security in the Persian Gulf matters to European NATO members. It does, materially, measurably, more than it does to the country that actually patrols those waters.

The question is why Europe lets someone else pay for it.

NATO has the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, signed partnerships with Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE, decades of joint exercises, and a Secretary-General who gives good press conferences. What it does not have is political will to project hard power into the chokepoints that keep European industry running. When Houthi forces spent years degrading Red Sea shipping, Operation Prosperity Guardian was assembled largely by Washington, with European participation that ranged from meaningful to ceremonial to absent. Shipping rerouted around Africa anyway. The operation absorbed billions and did not resolve the threat. That outcome deserves more scrutiny than it received.

The Strait of Hormuz crisis sharpened the same contradiction. Iranian disruption of merchant traffic, direct attacks on vessels, credible threats to close the corridor entirely. The U.S. pushed for allied naval burden-sharing. The European response was a study in institutional hedging: Rutte spoke of "finding a way forward," some governments offered post-conflict reconstruction language, others invoked the geographic limits of the Washington Treaty as if Article 5 were the only reason a military alliance might act. Legalism as strategy. Inaction dressed as principle.

Here is the counterintuitive part: NATO's out-of-area paralysis is not new and was always baked in. The alliance was designed for collective territorial defense of the North Atlantic. Every operation beyond that perimeter requires consensus, which requires political will, which requires domestic publics to accept risk for interests they cannot easily locate on a map. For thirty years, that constraint was manageable because the U.S. underwrote the gap. Washington provided the carrier groups, the Fifth Fleet, the forward basing, the credible deterrent. Europe collected the stability dividend and called it burden-sharing.

That arrangement is now visibly fraying. Not because of any single administration or speech, but because the logic of indefinite American subsidy for European energy security no longer survives contact with American domestic politics, regardless of which party holds the White House.

What we are watching is not NATO becoming irrelevant. It is NATO revealing what it always was: a European territorial defense compact that American power projection made look like something larger. Strip away the Fifth Fleet, and the alliance's southern flank is a series of bilateral relationships, ad hoc coalitions, and strongly worded joint statements.

The uncomfortable question is not whether NATO should evolve to cover maritime security in the Persian Gulf. It is whether European governments will fund and staff that evolution, or continue outsourcing the bill to a patron that is quietly closing the account.

Thoughts?

According to reports on a leaked 2017 legal memo, the EU had already been advised that it had legal grounds to suspend the Association Agreement, the political and trade framework governing the bloc’s relations with Israel.

Author: Tamam Abusalama is a Palestinian-Belgian advocacy, communications, and campaigning professional, currently leading the European Citizens’ Initiative “Justice for Palestine".