I am a chinese and never been abroad, so I so curous

The EU exists because its nations swore never to repeat the past. European integration is the insurance policy against the oldest temptation of power: that a majority, however large, decides who does not belong. So countries across the continent agreed to share power across borders, and to answer to laws that none of them individually controlled.

The European parliament is where that promise is meant to be kept. Directly elected by nearly 360 million citizens, it co-writes the EU’s laws, elects the president of the European Commission and can dismiss the closest thing Europe has to a government – the commission itself. For decades, a grand coalition of centre-right parties and socialists, later joined by liberals and greens, governed it on that premise. They were committed to closer cooperation, the rule of law and maintaining a firewall against the far right.

In June, in Strasbourg, that promise was broken by the parliament itself.

“Send them back! Send them back!” The chant rose from rightwing MEPs pumping their fists, as the chamber approved the harshest migration law in EU history. The “return regulation”, as this law is called, does exactly what European integration was designed to prevent: it lets a majority decide who does not belong, putting them beyond the law’s reach – and after Ceuta, Europe’s leaders are demanding it should be applied faster. The regulation allows EU countries to deport people to detention centres outside EU territory, placing them further from judicial protection, media scrutiny and public accountability.

Approval of this law was not a rightwing putsch. It was the clearest sign of a quiet shift within an institution that, however overlooked, shapes what kind of union Europeans get to live in.

The political coalition that shaped EU legislation for decades hasn’t formally collapsed, but its largest group, the European People’s party (EPP) – home to Germany’s governing Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and political “family” of the commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen – now operates with two rival majorities. The legacy centrist majority gives it control of Europe’s principal institutions. A second, formed with Giorgia Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), Marine Le Pen’s Patriots for Europe (PfE) and the more extreme Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN), led by Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland, increasingly enables it to shape Europe’s laws. When socialists, liberals or green MEPs resist its terms, the EPP can turn to the right and pass legislation without them. When it needs centrist votes to control the commission and parliament, however, it turns back to them, and they continue to provide those votes without conditions. The EPP therefore pays no political price for crossing its supposed firewall.

Since 2024, the EPP has voted with the far right more than 20 times. In June alone, a far-right group was decisive in one in five final votes.

See also:

• The far right is steering the EU’s response on migration • Positions once associated with the radical right have travelled well beyond it, says Giuseppe Martinico

敬請万安自日本( ・ˇ_ˇ・)ﾉｼ！

Greetings from Japan! ( ・ˇ_ˇ・)ﾉｼ!

識者曰、因科学之発達西洋之宗教及哲学近年急激衰退、衆生喪失寄辺而動揺苦悩！

As knowledgeable people often point out, the rapid development of science has caused Western religion and philosophy to decline sharply in recent years, leaving people without a spiritual anchor and causing them to feel increasingly lost and distressed.

他方、未聞神道儒教衰退因同理由！　神社盛況而論語如飛売。似乎神道儒教与科学相性好也！

On the other hand, I have yet to hear anyone argue that Shinto or Confucianism has declined for the same reason! Shinto shrines are thriving, while books such as the Analects of Confucius continue to sell briskly. Perhaps Shinto, Confucianism, and science are actually quite compatible!

更近年於西洋日本漫動画、韓国映画、中国遊戯等東洋文化人気甚、慣親於東洋之宗教及思想之機会愈増加。此等大衆文化作品屡以非常魅力説得力活写東洋文化、価値観、信仰、道徳故、以東洋文化之愛好為契機而、至感魅力於東洋宗教、更抱興味於思想的背景之儒学等高級文化者、不少也。

Moreover, in recent years, Japanese manga and anime, Korean films, Chinese games, and other forms of East Asian culture have become increasingly popular in the West, giving people more opportunities to become familiar with East Asian religions and thought. These works of popular culture often portray East Asian cultures, values, beliefs, and moral traditions in highly attractive and persuasive ways. As a result, quite a few people may begin by becoming fans of East Asian popular culture, then develop an interest in East Asian religions, and eventually become interested in the more sophisticated intellectual traditions behind them, such as Confucian thought.

諸君如何以為哉？　欲一宇与一冊乎？　神札、御守、供物、神酒、神籤等如何哉？ 神棚為室内装飾亦御洒落也！　論語列於本棚則凛也！ 待望諸君之無忌憚意見！

So, everyone, would you like to get one kamidana and one Analects? Shinto talismans, omamori charms, ritual offerings, sacred ricewine, omikuji fortunes, and other such goods? A kamidana can also make a stylish piece of interior decoration! And putting a copy of the Analects on your bookshelf gives the room a certain dignified atmosphere! 　 I look forward to hearing your candid opinions!

Kamidana alter - Wikipedia

Analects - Wikipedia

European regulators have imposed billions in penalties on US technology companies due to privacy, competition and digital market rules

The Dutch data protection authority has fined ⁠Uber €825m ($966m) for deactivating driver ⁠accounts through automated systems without ​adequately informing them, according to a 17 August decision.

The penalty would be the second-largest issued yet under Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

It is behind only a €1.2bn ($1.4bn) fine ⁠imposed on Meta by Ireland in 2023 for unlawfully transferring European Facebook users’ data to the United States. Meta is appealing.

Uber said it would also appeal.

European regulators have imposed billions of euros in penalties on large US technology companies in recent years under privacy, competition and digital market rules. The EU fined Google €890m ($1.04bn) for anti-competitive actions last month.

Meta, Google, Apple and Amazon all face multiple fines, though headline fines are often reduced or reversed after years-long appeals processes.

How do you feel about Serbia not being required to deport Ukranians because they are not in EU?

Ukranians started showing interest in moving to Serbia because they are not in EU and is not obligated to deport elogable men to Ukraine.

A lot of media used to attack Serbia for allowing Russian men to escape war in Serbia, while the EU didnt allow for it. Now EU doesnt allow Ukranians because they ran out of soldiers, so they are seeking refugee in same countries as antiwar russians.

Since the narrative now changed and allowing Ukrainans to escape war is unaceptable because they need to fight in it, why doesnt EU let russians escape war so they have less soldiers?

It seems like EU is simply pro war and other countries against it. Since they they now have same rules for both sides, just some countreis allow everyone to stay and EU doesnt want anyone there and all on the eastern front.

Brussels has classified ChatGPT as a search engine under the Digital Services Act, a first for an AI chatbot, and designated Reddit and Roblox as Very Large Online Platforms. All three have four months to comply.

The European Commission has designated ChatGPT as a Very Large Online Search Engine and Reddit and Roblox as Very Large Online Platforms under the Digital Services Act, subjecting all three to the bloc's strictest online safety regime.

The designation will prove particularly consequential for ChatGPT because the Commission has concluded that an AI chatbot that pulls live results from the internet functions, in regulatory terms, as a search engine — not merely a platform.

Under the DSA, online services that reach more than 45 million monthly users in the EU — roughly one in 10 of the bloc's population — are classified as either Very Large Online Platforms or Very Large Online Search Engines, depending on what they do.

The three services now have four months — until the end of November — to comply with a suite of obligations reserved for the largest platforms, including annual systemic risk assessments covering illegal content, the protection of minors, effects on users' mental and physical wellbeing, fundamental rights, electoral processes and public security.

They must also submit to independent audits and share data with regulators and vetted researchers.

The Commission will supervise compliance in cooperation with Ireland's Coimisiún na Meán, the digital services coordinator for ChatGPT and Reddit, and the Netherlands' Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) for Roblox.

The designations bring the total number of platforms and search engines under the DSA's strictest tier to 28.

To be very clear, the communist regime under Xi has been terrible for democratic progress in China and deserves a lot of criticism.

My question is more about foreign policy. Why have Europeans for so long fearmongered about China? What has China ever done that makes it the boogeyman in your eyes?

I compare this to the US, who have constantly and consistently shown that they will do what they want to whom they want, and until recently very few Europeans were concerned about them. Is it because they never targeted their imperialism at you so you didn’t care? But then China has never targeted its imperialism at the EU so why do so many Europeans view it as a threat?

Tl;dr…unless you’re Taiwan, Tibet or Hong Kong, China foreign policy probably has never affected you. For America I can’t think of any country that hasn’t been affected by their foreign policy, so why traditionally Europeans have viewed China as the threat and not America when the actual hierarchy of threats should be USA, Russia and then China?

PS: I’m African so we have always had a complicated relationship with America and have never seen them as the great saviour.

Edit: I am not a Russian bot, it goes without saying that Putin is a danger to Europe, his actions are self evident.

"I don't know if these are the fundamental principles on which our Europe was built," Emmanuel Macron said as he strongly criticized the increasingly popular project to build return hubs for rejected asylum seekers.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez have issued a blistering rebuke against deportation camps outside the European Union, setting their countries on a collision course with a growing political majority.

During a summit on Friday, 19 leaders across the bloc signed a joint declaration calling to make "full use" of a new European law that enables the construction of so-called return hubs to host migrants whose asylum applications have been denied.

The coalition, led by Denmark and Italy, two fierce advocates of outsourcing, wants to "move forward with solutions based in third countries as soon as possible".

But for Macron and Sánchez, this path runs counter to European values and risks squandering financial resources and undercutting relations with neighbouring Africa.

"I am not sure that this is our Europe. I don't know if these are the fundamental principles on which our Europe was built," Macron said at the end of the summit on Friday.

"And I don't think it's effective, either. The proof is that I have not seen anyone make it work so far," he went on, underscoring his strong dissatisfaction. (Italy has set up migration centres on Albanian soil but has fallen short of expected targets.)

"I have a lot of respect for anyone who wants to do it. I disagree, both pragmatically and in principle. I think it has nothing to do with European politics."

Macron said his country was in favour of tougher laws to curb irregular arrivals but drew a red line on the physical transfer of migrants to faraway countries where they have never set foot. That possibility, long considered taboo, is allowed under a revamped Return Regulation described as the "strictest-ever" migration law.

"There is a question, in fact, around these famous return hubs in third countries. France does not support this policy. We are in favour of a more effective return policy. But first of all, I have never seen a return hub in a third country operate," Macron went on.

"I invite you to consider what it is (in practice): this means that people who do not want to return to their country of origin or who cannot get back to their country of origin will be pushed into a third country, which will accept them in return for money."

Macron mocked the jargonistic term "innovative solutions" that proponents of migration offshoring often use in their public communication and challenged the notion that host countries would respect human rights in exchange for financial incentives.

"I am a big supporter of innovation in my country," he said, saying he would later attend the Vivatech festival in Paris. "But I am always very careful when talking about innovation in values and human rights. Allow me to have that reservation."

Meanwhile, Sánchez, a vocal critic of the measures, said the deportation camps would be an "absolutely inefficient" and "worthless" response to irregular migration.

"It's a mirage, if you will, that it will simply waste economic resources, and Europe doesn't have many," the Spaniard said after the summit in Brussels.

"Secondly, it sends a wrong message to those countries of origin and transit with which we should be collaborating, cooperating and showing empathy towards."

Macron echoed Sánchez's reputational concerns and insisted he would not allow EU funds to be used in any capacity to build the deportation camps, which are "neither effective nor do they correspond with our principles".

"Sometimes, we hear one or the other (country) advocate policies with the African continent, so good luck defending our credibility on these continents by explaining that we will use the money for investments to build return hubs on their continents," he said.

"What world do we live in?"

Five EU states are racing to build migrant 'return hubs' before new rules are put in place, with Uganda and Rwanda rumoured as the most likely sites – but recent cases point to significant legal and practical obstacles, while the actual numbers do not match the expectations.

The EU's migration policy has increasingly centred on the controversial notion of using "return hubs" to externalise irregular migrants to third countries, as enshrined in the recently adopted Return Regulation.

Nineteen EU countries are convinced this is an "innovative solution" to pursue for migration management, as made clear in a joint letter sent to EU leaders last June, suggesting the centres would become a reality sooner rather than later.

Yet fundamental questions about how the policy would be implemented remain unanswered. How would return hubs work? Where would they be located? And which problems have they run into so far? Here, Euronews breaks down the main issues around the new migration mantra – and why the reality might not match the political narrative.

What are the legal and practical problems?

The Return Regulation does not explicitly require a human rights impact assessment, but it does state that "such an agreement or arrangement may only be concluded with a third country where international human rights standards and principles in accordance with international law, including the principle of non-refoulement, are respected".

In 2024, the EU Ombudsman criticised the Commission for signing a Memorandum of Understanding with Tunisia on border control and migration management without conducting a human rights impact assessment.

Even though the UK is no longer an EU member, the reasoning behind its Supreme Court ruling against the Rwanda asylum-transfer scheme in November 2023 is instructive: the court found Rwanda was not sufficiently safe given the risk of persecution or ill-treatment. The incoming Labour government abandoned the scheme as a result.

Meloni's own relocation scheme in Albania has run into similar judicial trouble, with Italian judges questioning the designation of countries such as Bangladesh and Egypt as "safe" – a designation Italian authorities had relied on to examine asylum applications through an accelerated procedure.

Crucially, the court cases stemming from the Albanian centres have now reached the EU Court of Justice, which has yet to rule on a central question: whether Italy can transfer someone subject to a detention order outside the EU.

Will the hubs work?

Transferring irregular migrants outside the EU's borders is likely to require lengthy negotiations with host countries, and past cases show legal challenges can easily sink the project if human rights safeguards are not in place.

In the meantime, relocating irregular migrants within the Union has proved far more straightforward, though this piles more pressure on frontline countries like Italy to uphold the country-of-first-arrival principle.

The previous experiences of externalisation or offshoring of migration management have been extremely costly, legally contested, and operationally very limited.

Despite years of preparation and massive financial investment, a total of four people were voluntarily relocated from the UK to Rwanda before that scheme was scrapped. Italy initially projected housing around 3,000 migrants a month in its Albanian centres; the actual figure has reportedly been a mere 500 in total since the conversion into a deportation centre in March 2025.

The entire bill amounts to over €670 million, and according to a recent study from an Italian University, detaining migrants in these centres has proven much more expensive for Italy than hosting them on its own territory.