My home government, the UK, last week somewhat belatedly joined the growing list of EU and European nations advising its citizens to stockpile essential supplies for a minimum of three days, in case of unforeseen (or initially unsolvable) crises.
In doing so, London helped bring into the mainstream what until around a decade ago had been the preserve of nutty survivalist US “preppers” (colloquial abbreviation for the conspiracy loons in woodshacks in backwoods America, preparing for the return of Jesus Christ or a ‘commie invasion’).
Instead, the topic has now become a nervously jokey staple of middle-class dinner parties.
As the conversation wanders from what horrible disaster might befall society, from freak flooding, to nuclear war, to an internet blackout or poisoned water supplies, the talk rapidly becomes one of ‘so what’s in your box’?
The UK list was a ‘success’ in that – unlike the early days of Covid – it didn’t result in mass panic buying, and empty shelves. But the mass panic is a point we’ll come back to.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Any talk of EU sanctions on Israel is in limbo until a new government emerges, as experts warn that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu could attack Iran in a “matter of days” to improve his chances of retaining power.
Netanyahu is to stay on in a caretaker role for several weeks or months of coalition talks after inconclusive elections on Tuesday (27 October), which saw his rightwing bloc win the most seats (53 seats out of 120), but fall short of a majority.
The elections took place amid ongoing Israeli aggression in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.
And this was expected to continue or get worse in the post-election power struggle, as Netanyahu courted the eight defector-MPs he needed to stay in power, by playing on security fears.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
The European Parliament’s employment committee has highlighted the need for regulating automated control of workers after visiting Amazon warehouses in Germany and Poland this week.
Seven of the committee MEPs visited Amazon warehouses employing some 5,000 workers on Monday and Tuesday (26-27 October) ahead of the Commission’s Quality Jobs Act proposal expected in December.
The trip follows the committee’s hearing on working conditions in Amazon in January, where workers raised concerns about efficiency goals, safety, and surveillance using AI tools, which may be regulated more rigorously as a part of the upcoming act.
According to a 2023 survey by UNI Europa, a labour union federation, about a half of Amazon’s employees said their work had a negative impact on their mental and physical health.
Workers’ progress throughout the day is usually watched through security cameras, but also the work badges scanned in check points in various locations in the warehouse, and scanning devices used to identify products.
In the city of Sosnowiec, home to one of Amazon’s Polish warehouses, employees are overworked by “constant pressure of being judged, which is very hard to cope with mentally,” Agata Wypiór, recently-named vice secretary of Amazon’s European Works Council and Solidarność union leader told EUobserver.
Leaving worker management and performance monitoring to algorithms means “these processes become almost invisible,” Li Andersson, head of the delegation, told EUobserver.
“The way the workers describe it, it sounds like a digital panopticon: when you work faster you have to work even faster.“
Workers themselves often do not know what data is collected on them and how it is being used to set productivity targets, Anderssen highlighted.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
“Everybody’s focusing on the legal basis of Ursula von der Leyen’s associate membership [with Canada] announcement, but frankly I don’t care,” says MEP Javier Moreno Sánchez.
The Spanish Socialists & Democrats lawmaker chairs the European Parliament’s Canada delegation. He hopes leaders can make the EU and Canada “as close as possible” at the Montréal summit beginning on Thursday (29 October). Hosting the talks is Canadian prime minister Mark Carney, who has repeatedly spoken of ‘middle powers’ such as Canada and the EU deepening cooperation.
In September, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s announcement of an ‘associate membership’ possibility for Canada caught many by surprise. And there has been no consensus among member states on whether such wording should be used in written agreements with the North American ally.
EUobserver sat down with the MEP Moreno Sánchez in his Brussels office ahead of the major EU-Canada talks.
EU member states struggled to agree on inclusion of the term ‘associate member’ before the Montréal summit. Was it a mistake for EU commission president Ursula von der Leyen to announce this special category if she could not deliver it?
MEP Javier Moreno Sánchez: No, to have made this announcement is positive. I prefer for Canada to be an associate member, but I don’t care about the legal basis; it can be de facto associate membership. It’s true that the concept is not in the treaties, but the euro was not and neither was Schengen. When we have the political will, we don’t need the treaties.
I would like Canada’s relationship to be as strong and as close as possible with the European Union. It means that they will be like Switzerland or Iceland. We won’t have Canadian members in the European Parliament, or commissioners from Canada, but they will be in all the programmes. Now they will participate in Erasmus+, they are participating in SAFE [Security Action for Europe]. And There is big cooperation on artificial intelligence. But we want a horizontal and holistic approach to collaboration, not sector by sector.
Now, everybody’s focusing on the legal basis of Ursula von der Leyen’s associate membership announcement, but frankly I don’t care. As I said in the plenary last week, Canada and the EU share traditions, culture, language, values and principles. So in my view, they are already associated.
What is ‘associate membership’?
This post by my prime minister Pedro Sánchez is what associate membership means.
It was very funny because it was 2pm after the State of the Union speech, and I had an interview with people in Ottawa where it was 8am in the morning. I said associate membership is a very positive thing we have to do. And the journalist interviewing me said they’re just seeing this post from PM Sánchez.
What do you think Mark Carney and Ursula von der Leyen should prioritise in the Montréal summit ?
The digital trade agreement. I hope they will agree on that to protect all the consumers and our enterprise. And on critical raw materials, we need an agreement because Canada has everything. In order to not to depend on China, we have to strengthen that relationship. And personally, I’d like to see the EU extend conventions and programs like Erasmus+ to Canada in small steps, little by little.
Should there be free movement between Canada and the EU?
We have to go in this direction. I don’t know exactly at which speed. So little by little, there will be free movement. But if you ask the Council, maybe certain countries will say, “No free movement.”
And how important is it that Canada pays into the European community, particularly when it comes to Ukraine?
I went to Canada only a few months into Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine to meet with people, NGOs, the enterprise and development communities. In every meeting, I was told that Canada wanted to rebuild Ukraine together with Europe once the war was finished. I was a little bit astonished.
One of the reasons is that there are 1.5 million Ukrainian people in Canada. And, Canada is putting money into Erasmus+ by participating in it. And it is willing to put money in all the programs and to work with us.
To what extent is US president Donald Trump responsible for pushing together Canada and the EU?
Thanks to Trump, we have Mark Carney as Canadian prime minister. It was a very good gift from him because Pierre Poilievre was the favourite two months before the elections. And when Trump announced all these shitty things, very proud Canadians decided to vote for Carney. And it was symbolic in Canada. Everybody said, “elbows up.” They are very proud people.
Many Europeans now see the US as a less reliable ally. Do you agree?
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Vladimir Putin has been silent on a request by Kenyan president William Ruto for Moscow to assist in the repatriation of Kenyan men recruited to fight for the Russian army in its war against Ukraine.
Ruto’s request was made ahead of a two day Russia-Africa summit which began in Moscow on Wednesday (28 October).
Nigerian and South African officials have also voiced concern about their own people being recruited.
In an open letter on Wednesday, Amnesty International urged African leaders to urge the Kremlin to “immediately end the coercive and deceptive recruitment of African nationals into Russia’s military forces to fight against Ukraine.”
“For African leaders to remain silent on this issue would be a profound disservice to the people of their countries,” states the letter.
“At a moment when many African governments are speaking up about the enduring legacy of colonialism, and the importance of sovereignty and African agency in international affairs, they must reject any practice that treats nationals of African countries as a commodity for other countries’ political and military objectives.”
The Kremlin has been publicly silent on the issue of African fighters being used in its army.
It briefed that 22 African heads of state would attend the two-day summit in Moscow, with 26 other African states sending foreign ministers and other diplomatic officials.
“The era when the fate of entire continents was determined by a narrow bloc of states is irrevocably gone,” said Putin in his opening speech at the summit.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Fighting near Kostiantynivka through the eyes of a missing Ukrainian soldier: hunger, thirst, exhaustion and, ultimately, disappearance.
Rubikon released a video of an attack on a Ukrainian position in southern Kostiantynivka — an area Moscow has claimed to have captured for months.
Russians used ballistic missiles against Kyiv’s Pivdennyi Bridge, leaving a large hole in it and forcing its closure.
Near Komar, Ukrainian soldiers reached the village of Vesele, cutting the distance to Velyka Novosilka by a third.
Maps of the day: Kostiantynivka, Komar
Videos of the day— the aftermath of the Russian attack on a Kyiv bridge; a drone attack on a Russian convoy, seen from both Ukrainian and Russian cameras.
Fighting near Kostiantynivka through the eyes of a missing Ukrainian soldier: hunger, thirst, exhaustion and, ultimately, disappearance. Despite Russian claims that it has captured the city, fighting continues for the first city in the belt of Donbas “fortresses”. Further details can be found in the second part of the Ukraine Battlefield update.
Little, however, is known about the people holding Ukraine’s defences despite Russia’s superiority and their immense hardship. Ukrainian newspaper Hromadske published a lengthy report on the fate of one of them.
His name is Hennadii Osadchyi. He is 42, has a wife, Nadya, and an 18-year-old daughter. They live in Kropyvnytskyi, in central Ukraine.
He was mobilised in autumn 2025 and, on 16 December that year, was sent to the front in Kostiantynivka as a member of the 100th Brigade. By the time he went silent, he had spent 230 days defending the city without rotation.
His wife decided to speak about what he experienced during those seven months. Her information comes from the messages they exchanged. When Hennadii enlisted, he weighed 96kg.
By the time he went silent, he weighed half as much. His messages to his wife explain this dramatic change.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
A revamped EU border force Frontex is set to have around 17,000 people involved in deportations at its disposal, while human-rights monitoring is narrowed and the agency’s ability to terminate operations in a member state over rights violations is weakened.
The overhaul, presented on Tuesday (27 October), follows months of speculation by a European Commission determined to give the Warsaw-based agency a more central role in the bloc’s deportations, as reported last week by EUobserver.
“The fundamental rights framework in Frontex is among the strongest in any EU agency, and that will stay also with this review,” Henna Virkkunen, a commission vice-president, told reporters.
“I’m not aware of any other border management authority with stronger protection anywhere in the world. I would actually say, and we’re not changing that. So this is pretty clear,” also said Magnus Brunner, the EU commissioner for migration.
But the claims, made at a press conference in Brussels, do not entirely match its 275-page proposal that it published only later on Tuesday evening.
Unable to scrutinise the text ahead of the press conference, reporters could only guess at what the proposal actually contained without being able to directly challenge the commissioners.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
EU member states remain deadlocked over whether to delay the bloc’s methane rules for oil and gas importers by one year or three, with neither side able to secure a majority.
Ambassadors were due to agree the EU Council’s negotiating position this week, after a first attempt failed last week.
But the Irish presidency has had to push the vote back to 6 November again as the two camps continue to disagree on the timeline.
On the one hand, France, Spain, Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal back the European commission’s proposal for a one-year delay.
The other group, including Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Greece and Slovenia, wants three years.
And then there is a third group of countries that haven’t decided yet, or could live with either scenario.
The undecideds and waverers
Belgium, for example, signed a call in June for a three-year delay, but could live with the commission’s timeline, though it would refuse a pause of more than three years, which parliament’s proposed 2029 review could open the door to.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
The midnight sky was clear, the waves gentle, and the full moon lit the way for our inflatable rescue boat to reach the dinghy in distress.
The southward winds of the central Mediterranean had abated for a brief détente in the early hours of Tuesday (27 October), after days of wondering how any small vessel could ever safely make their way out of African waters.
The lethal conditions of one of the region’s stormiest months of the year, were confirmed by the sight of an empty blow-up raft wandering adrift the previous evening.
“Bridge, bridge, bravo, we have a visual on a small rubber boat,” the search-and-rescue lead from the German NGO SOS Humanity said over the radio, while leading the search from the bow of an inflatable boat.
The makeshift dinghy floated less than 200 meters from the charity’s Humanity 1, 43 nautical miles (90 km) from Libyan shores.
The passengers had been on the water for 24 hours.
Their proximity to a country notorious for its mistreatment and trafficking of migrants kept the rescue team tentative in their advance, as some aboard the distressed floater could believe they are being approached by the EU-funded militias masking as the Libyan coast guard – or by European border forces ready to push them back south of Italian waters.
Yet at first contact, everyone aboard the distressed vessel lit up in celebration.
The small raft burst with excitement, as the dozens aboard revived their hopes of escaping the perils of the open air cemetery that is for so many the Mediterranean sea.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
EUobserver is proud to have an editorial partnership with Europod to co-publish the podcast series “Briefed” hosted by Léa Marchal. The podcast is available on all major platforms.
Find the full transcript below:
The European Commission has unveiled its plan to help Europe adapt to climate change. But as extreme heat and climate disasters become the norm, the plan offers very few binding commitments.
So what does it actually change? Let’s start with what’s on the table. The commission is proposing a law that would require all 27 member states to work from the same reference scenario for rising temperatures. And, based on that, to adopt national adaptation plans.
The idea is to stop countries from redoing their own analyses and justifying what their actions are based on. From now on, the shared assumption would be: 1.5 degrees of warming by 2030, 2 degrees by 2050, and 3 degrees by 2100.
There is already something notable here: this scenario is more pessimistic than the Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global warming well below 2 degrees.
The European commissioner for climate, Wopke Hoekstra, gave an explanation ot that:
“It would be unwise not to prepare for the scenarios science puts on the agenda: so scientists are saying 1,5 might do more or less for now, but by 2050 you’re looking at 2 degrees. And by 2100, you’re looking at 3. so I would argue we need to do 2 things: one is staying close to 1,5 and make sure if there is an overshoot, we bring things down, and at the same time, let’s not contemplate and wait but let’s prepare also for a hollow future, that is also the logic of the proposal.”
Now, this assumption is also at the source of another criticism: the EU isn’t doing enough to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the first place.
At yesterday’s press conference, a journalist asked the commissioner how he could defend the Paris Agreement while the EU was lowering climate ambitions at the same time. Because in recent years, the EU has watered down several key measures of the Green Deal.
Think of the rollback on the end of combustion-engine cars, the suspension of the regulation on methane emissions, or the one on imported deforestation. In parallel, the commission is no longer proposing new legislation to cut emissions.
Now, moving to the proposition in itself, will they really help countries to prepare for climate events to come, starting by with the next summer?
Not immediately. The package will make it easier to share useful data with national authorities, notably thanks to Copernicus, the EU’s Earth observation programme.
The commission will also publish a catalogue of adaptation solutions, available to everyone.
So overall, the package is mostly about exchanging information and ideas, and about commitments to implement national adaptation plans. It also streamlines some existing work, which is always useful.
But what the commission does not do is force member states to take concrete action, or let’s say, to show tangible results.
The Climate Law already requires countries to have adaptation plans. But those plans don’t come with quantified targets. Whether it’s about adapting soils, making buildings more resilient to heat, or protecting vulnerable people.
This is something the Greens in the European Parliament regret. German MEP Kai Tegethoff warns that the risk is to end up with plenty of information about the risks, and then do nothing about them. He is calling for binding targets.
And then, there’s one last thing: money. The commission hasn’t announced any new funding for adaptation.
So: technical tools and encouragement, but no obligations and no cash. Commissioner Hoekstra even highlighted the amounts already allocated in the current budget, and in the proposal for the next one.
But as we know, negotiations on the next long-term EU budget are heading towards cuts. So it is unlikely that there would be an increase in the budget for climate measures.
This transcript was updated on 29 October to correct MEP Kai Tegethoff’s nationality to German.
We are back with a new issue of the Secrecy Tracker – your regular update on what the EU institutions prefer to keep under wraps.
I am Alexander Fanta, a journalist with Follow the Money, who has struggled for years to gain access to EU documents. I wrote this newsletter with the help of EUobserver’s Nikolaj Nielsen and Pascal Hansens from Investigate Europe.
The letter, which was co-signed by the publishers of this newsletter – Follow the Money, EUobserver and Investigate Europe – urges the commission to end the silent crisis that has hampered journalists finding the documents they need to scrutinise matters of public importance – such as how the member states (mis-)spent billions of euros in post-Covid recovery funds, or how the commission hides its arms research cooperation with Israel.
Moreover, the commission should reverse a controversial change to its internal rules of procedure in 2024 which made access requests more difficult by limiting the definition of what is considered “a document”, and putting entire areas of the commission’s work – such as enforcement of its Big Tech laws – out of bounds from access requests.
The leading figure behind the letter, the Committee to Protect Journalists’ Tom Gibson, has asked von der Leyen’s cabinet for a meeting to discuss these issues, and seek improvements.
“The European Commission purports to uphold press freedom in Europe as well as through its external policy”, Gibson said. “Yet, in Brussels, we see that the European Commission is seeking to actually put obstacles in the way of creating an enabling environment for journalists who report on the institutions – in order, seemingly, to maintain an ability to control the official narrative.”
“This has to change otherwise the European Commission can be accused of double standards”, according to Gibson.
EUobserver’s Gaza complaint
Last week, the European Ombudswoman, an administrative watchdog, launched a probe into EUobserver’s complaint against the European Commission. The Brussels-executive had refused to release 17 documents it has on how the EU spent money on bricks-and-mortar projects in Gaza.
We had first asked in February as part of an investigation that sought to get an idea to what extent the Israelis destroyed EU-funded infrastructure in the Strip. We were stonewalled, amid arguments there is no overriding public interest even though tens of thousands of people have been killed, triggering massive Europe-wide protests and flotillas. Our appeal went unanswered.
Now EU ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho is demanding, as a first step, a commission response to our appeal by November 4 latest. If the commission still fails to deliver, she will review the documents herself.
Aarhus Convention vs data-centre secrecy
The secrecy surrounding data centres’ environmental footprint is coming under increasing scrutiny. In April, Investigate Europe broke the news, and reported in this newsletter, that a provision in a delegated act to the energy efficiency directive, which keeps key information of data centres environmental impact secret, likely violates transparency obligations under the Aarhus convention.
Now, Lighthouse Reports has published a story that they are formally challenging the law. Frustrated by facing repeated refusals from more than a dozen EU member states and the European Commission to access data on energy consumption by data centres across Europe, collected under the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED).
Lighthouse Reports decided last September to turn to the Aarhus Convention – a binding treaty aims to protect access to environmental information and is often used as a last resort solution – and its compliance committee to seek disclosure. Lighthouse Reports may face a long wait for a ruling though, as the process can take years.
When EU’s top court challenges transparency watchdog’s authority
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJUE) has challenged the European Ombudsman’s authority to investigate its refusal to disclose past financial declarations of interests of its judges and advocates general, according to a decision published today by the EU’s transparency watchdog.
The dispute began after Investigate Europe reporters, while investigating judges’ currently declared financial interests, discovered that older declarations were no longer publicly available. The Court initially refused, arguing that those documents were judicial and not administrative ones, and therefore fell outside the rules on public access to documents.
Following our complaint to the ombudswoman and its subsequent decision to open an inquiry, the court eventually agreed to release the requested former declarations, but only upon request. So Teresa Anjinho closed the case, as she considered that the court remedied the problematic situation.
The ombudswoman firmly rejected the court’s interpretation: handling public access requests is an administrative activity, regardless of the nature of the documents concerned. She also called for greater clarity on how the court distinguished between judicial and administrative documents.
So a small victory for transparency, but a broader question remains: should the EU’s top court have such discretion over which of its own internal documents face public scrutiny?
How to get access across Europe
A new guide promises to give journalists (and anyone else) an easy introduction into making freedom of information requests in 39 European countries and with the EU.
The first-of-its-kind compendium, curated and co-written by yours truly with the help of 45 journalists, academics and FOI advocates from around the continent and published by Arena for Journalism, answers practical questions such as “how can I appeal” and provides contacts who can help in each country.
Find the guide – free to use and share – under this link.
New research by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and LobbyControl shows that Big Tech lobbying is pushing the EU towards sweeping deregulation of data protection rules.
The new publication finds signs of an intensive lobbying campaign between Big Tech and Germany and Ireland which are helping to gut fundamental European data protection safeguards.
The report documents extensive contacts between Big Tech companies and European policymakers over the EU Commission’s proposed Digital Omnibus.
The aim is to change and influence how personal data are used to develop and operate AI systems, warns CEO.
“It is a really drastic change,” Bram Vraken researcher and campaigner at CEO told EUobserver.
Introduced by the commission last November, the Digital Omnibus forms part of the EU executive’s wider drive to simplify regulation and strengthen European competitiveness.
The commission has presented the proposal as a way to make Europe “simpler and faster” and to “adapt” its regulatory framework to a “more volatile world”.
The Digital Omnibus “provides a simple, innovation-friendly environment for our European AI ecosystem to grow,” said commission’s president Ursula von der Leyen.
But the proposed changes potentially create broad exemptions from existing data protection rules for AI companies.
“What we see is a creation [of] this huge backdoor, which in many cases will make the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) meaningless,” Vraken said.
If adopted by the European Parliament, the changes would allow companies to collect people’s personal data to train and operate AI systems without consent.
Google and Meta
Under the parliament’s rules, all MEPs and their assistants must publicly declare scheduled meetings with lobbyists and third-country representatives and access to these information is public.
From November 2025, CEO and LobbyControl identified 655 meetings with lobbyists in the parliament, the report says. This comes as Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Login
