New polls shows Europeans want tougher EU enforcement on Big Tech
Almost two-thirds in France (63%), 59% in Germany, and 49% in Spain said EU enforcement of laws addressing Big Tech's influence and power is too relaxed, when asked to choose between too relaxed, too strict, or about right.
Only 7% of respondents in France, 8% in Germany, and 9% in Spain felt the enforcement was too strict.
The survey, commissioned by two NGOs—People vs Big Tech and WeMove Europe—follows the EU's 2022 adoption of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), aimed at regulating tech giants' impact on users and the marketplace.
Both regulations are caught up in the trade dispute between the EU and the US, in which the US has described the DSA and DMA as unjustified non-tariff barriers.
EU Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera told Euronews last week that the EU would not give in to US pressure on the issue.
'We are going to defend our sovereignty,' Ribera said, adding: 'We will defend the way we implement our rules, we will defend a well functioning market and we will not allow anyone to tell us what to do.'
Surprisingly, the survey results also show that the survey participants believed Big Tech holds more power than the EU itself.
Half of French respondents (50%), 48% in Germany, and a majority in Spain (55%) believe that Big Tech companies are 'more powerful' or 'slightly more powerful' than the EU. In contrast, only 9% in France, 12% in Germany, and 15% in Spain think tech giants are 'slightly less powerful' or 'much less powerful.'
The survey was conducted on a sample of 2,070 respondents in France, 2,323 in Germany, and 2,077 in Spain.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Calls are mounting to ban Germany's far-right AfD party – despite it being more popular than ever
The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is now Germany's largest opposition group and even topped several opinion polls – briefly putting it ahead of now-Chancellor Friedrich Merz's center-right party – in the weeks after February's federal election. At the same time, the AfD is facing growing calls for an outright ban, most recently from another major political party. In May, the country's domestic intelligence agency formally classified the AfD as an extremist entity that threatens democracy. In a 1,100-page report, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV, also laid out its findings that the party was racist, anti-Muslim, and devaluing of 'entire segments' of Germany's population. That move, which enables the BfV to better monitor the group , has reignited attempts to impose a ban, despite the party claiming a significant 20.8% of the vote in February's national election – the best performance by a far-right party in the country since World War II. The AfD has also enjoyed very vocal support from the Trump administration, with Tesla billionaire Elon Musk – who has since left his position in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – urging Germans to vote for the party in the run-up to the election. More recently, both US Vice President, JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have criticized Germany's decision to classify the AfD as extremist. On Monday, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is currently serving as the junior coalition partner in Berlin's conservative-led government, voted unanimously to begin efforts to outlaw it. Yet the legal path to banning the AfD is lengthy – and largely unprecedented. Set up to avoid a repeat of Nazi rule, Germany's political system operates on the basis of streitbare Demokratie, or 'militant democracy,' meaning it is a democracy 'determined and able to defend itself.' In other words, the German state can actively defend itself against internal threats to its democratic principles and constitutional order, including through the banning of political parties. However, two criteria must be met by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court to form a legal basis for a ban. Firstly, the party in question must be found to work against the country's free democratic order, demonstrating an 'actively belligerent, aggressive stance.' Secondly, the party must be popular enough to pose a tangible threat to democracy, a provision created in 2017 and called 'potentiality.' Parties found to meet the first criterion, but not the second, can be prohibited from accessing public campaign financing, but are allowed to continue with other activities. 'It is a widespread misconception in Germany that the AfD cannot be banned because… it is too large,' Till Holterhus, professor of Constitutional Law at the Leuphana University of Lüneberg, told CNN. 'The opposite is true: its size demonstrates that it fulfills the criterion of 'potentiality.'' To begin the process of banning a party, a formal request must be made to the federal court. This request can only be made by either the government itself, the Bundestag, Germany's lower house of parliament, or the Bundesrat, the legislative body that represents the country's 16 regional states. The court then decides whether to begin proceedings or throw out the application as unsubstantiated. It must hold a full trial, examining thousands of pages of evidence and hearing witnesses, and considers whether the party violates the constitution in practice, Holterhus explained. The court can then declare a party unconstitutional. The party would then be dissolved and banned from all political activity. It would also be prohibited from creating any substitute organizations. At least two-thirds of the court's justices must be in agreement in order to make the declaration. In practical terms, if the AfD were to be banned, its sitting lawmakers would receive an automatic loss of mandate at the regional and federal level as well as in the European parliament. Of the 152 seats the AfD currently has in the Bundestag , 42 are direct seats, where the respective candidates individually won the districts by majority. These 42 districts would need to vote again to fill the seats with new candidates from other parties. The other 110 AfD seats, which are allocated using a party list system, would remain vacant until the next election cycle. Similarly, the AfD's seats in the European Parliament would remain vacant. In either case, this would result in a shifting of the majority ratio, meaning that the seats of all other parties would gain a higher significance. The German Federal Constitutional Court has only banned two parties in the country's history – and both were in the early postwar years. The Socialist Reich Party (SRP), a successor to the Nazi Party, was outlawed in 1952. Four years later, in 1956, the far-left Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was also banned. Repeated attempts – in 2003, 2016 and 2021 – to ban the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) have failed. Although the court in 2017 openly acknowledged the party was unconstitutional, it found that it didn't pose a significant threat to the constitutional order. In January 2024, the court approved the freezing of the NPD's state funding for six years. Overall, Holterhus believes that it is difficult to impose a ban on a political party in Germany. 'A party ban is considered a measure of last resort against the enemies of a democracy,' he said. The rise of the AfD has triggered widespread unease, with protesters calling for it to be outlawed – most notably in early 2024, when tens of thousands of demonstrators descended on cities across Germany after it emerged that senior AfD party members had discussed a plan to deport migrants en masse. Yet German lawmakers remain divided over the issue, with some fearing the move could backfire and fuel far-right sympathies. Pointing to its classification as a right-wing extremist organisation, SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil told party members at a conference Monday that efforts to ban the AfD should begin. 'The moment the domestic intelligence agency says this is a confirmed right-wing extremist party, there can be no more tactics,' he said. Yet Merz's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) – which leads Germany's coalition government – is hesitant. German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, a member of the Christian Social Union (CSU) – the CDU's Bavarian sister party – poured cold water on the SPD's motion. Speaking to German news podcast 'Table. Today,' he said that 'decisions made at the SPD party conference are not yet a mandate for the interior minister.' Merz has himself expressed caution over the move, telling newspaper Die Zeit in May that he is 'skeptical' of procedures to ban political parties. The AfD's unparalleled public approval, not to mention support from the Trump administration, a powerful transatlantic ally, means its prohibition could have significant reverberations. Some opinion polls found that, in the weeks after the Germany's election , support for the AfD had crept up even higher than its 20.8% official result, briefly making it the most popular party in the country. National polling agency Forsa in April found that the AfD was polling at a record 26% – putting it two percentage points higher than the CDU, on 24%. Currently, Forsa shows the AfD at 24% – four points behind the CDU. With the AfD's support reaching such heights, Holterhus sees a risk of creating a 'martyr effect' in the case of a ban, with the AfD 'staging itself as a victim of political opponents.' This, he said, could result in further radicalization of some of its supporters and even politically motivated violence. Lengthy legal proceedings, he said, could further heighten the AfD's platform while the move also risks the 'wrath' of the Trump administration and could play into the populist narrative of an 'undemocratic Europe.'
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Calls are mounting to ban Germany's far-right AfD party – despite it being more popular than ever
The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is now Germany's largest opposition group and even topped several opinion polls – briefly putting it ahead of now-Chancellor Friedrich Merz's center-right party – in the weeks after February's federal election. At the same time, the AfD is facing growing calls for an outright ban, most recently from another major political party. In May, the country's domestic intelligence agency formally classified the AfD as an extremist entity that threatens democracy. In a 1,100-page report, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV, also laid out its findings that the party was racist, anti-Muslim, and devaluing of 'entire segments' of Germany's population. That move, which enables the BfV to better monitor the group , has reignited attempts to impose a ban, despite the party claiming a significant 20.8% of the vote in February's national election – the best performance by a far-right party in the country since World War II. The AfD has also enjoyed very vocal support from the Trump administration, with Tesla billionaire Elon Musk – who has since left his position in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – urging Germans to vote for the party in the run-up to the election. More recently, both US Vice President, JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have criticized Germany's decision to classify the AfD as extremist. On Monday, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is currently serving as the junior coalition partner in Berlin's conservative-led government, voted unanimously to begin efforts to outlaw it. Yet the legal path to banning the AfD is lengthy – and largely unprecedented. Set up to avoid a repeat of Nazi rule, Germany's political system operates on the basis of streitbare Demokratie, or 'militant democracy,' meaning it is a democracy 'determined and able to defend itself.' In other words, the German state can actively defend itself against internal threats to its democratic principles and constitutional order, including through the banning of political parties. However, two criteria must be met by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court to form a legal basis for a ban. Firstly, the party in question must be found to work against the country's free democratic order, demonstrating an 'actively belligerent, aggressive stance.' Secondly, the party must be popular enough to pose a tangible threat to democracy, a provision created in 2017 and called 'potentiality.' Parties found to meet the first criterion, but not the second, can be prohibited from accessing public campaign financing, but are allowed to continue with other activities. 'It is a widespread misconception in Germany that the AfD cannot be banned because… it is too large,' Till Holterhus, professor of Constitutional Law at the Leuphana University of Lüneberg, told CNN. 'The opposite is true: its size demonstrates that it fulfills the criterion of 'potentiality.'' To begin the process of banning a party, a formal request must be made to the federal court. This request can only be made by either the government itself, the Bundestag, Germany's lower house of parliament, or the Bundesrat, the legislative body that represents the country's 16 regional states. The court then decides whether to begin proceedings or throw out the application as unsubstantiated. It must hold a full trial, examining thousands of pages of evidence and hearing witnesses, and considers whether the party violates the constitution in practice, Holterhus explained. The court can then declare a party unconstitutional. The party would then be dissolved and banned from all political activity. It would also be prohibited from creating any substitute organizations. At least two-thirds of the court's justices must be in agreement in order to make the declaration. In practical terms, if the AfD were to be banned, its sitting lawmakers would receive an automatic loss of mandate at the regional and federal level as well as in the European parliament. Of the 152 seats the AfD currently has in the Bundestag , 42 are direct seats, where the respective candidates individually won the districts by majority. These 42 districts would need to vote again to fill the seats with new candidates from other parties. The other 110 AfD seats, which are allocated using a party list system, would remain vacant until the next election cycle. Similarly, the AfD's seats in the European Parliament would remain vacant. In either case, this would result in a shifting of the majority ratio, meaning that the seats of all other parties would gain a higher significance. The German Federal Constitutional Court has only banned two parties in the country's history – and both were in the early postwar years. The Socialist Reich Party (SRP), a successor to the Nazi Party, was outlawed in 1952. Four years later, in 1956, the far-left Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was also banned. Repeated attempts – in 2003, 2016 and 2021 – to ban the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) have failed. Although the court in 2017 openly acknowledged the party was unconstitutional, it found that it didn't pose a significant threat to the constitutional order. In January 2024, the court approved the freezing of the NPD's state funding for six years. Overall, Holterhus believes that it is difficult to impose a ban on a political party in Germany. 'A party ban is considered a measure of last resort against the enemies of a democracy,' he said. The rise of the AfD has triggered widespread unease, with protesters calling for it to be outlawed – most notably in early 2024, when tens of thousands of demonstrators descended on cities across Germany after it emerged that senior AfD party members had discussed a plan to deport migrants en masse. Yet German lawmakers remain divided over the issue, with some fearing the move could backfire and fuel far-right sympathies. Pointing to its classification as a right-wing extremist organisation, SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil told party members at a conference Monday that efforts to ban the AfD should begin. 'The moment the domestic intelligence agency says this is a confirmed right-wing extremist party, there can be no more tactics,' he said. Yet Merz's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) – which leads Germany's coalition government – is hesitant. German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, a member of the Christian Social Union (CSU) – the CDU's Bavarian sister party – poured cold water on the SPD's motion. Speaking to German news podcast 'Table. Today,' he said that 'decisions made at the SPD party conference are not yet a mandate for the interior minister.' Merz has himself expressed caution over the move, telling newspaper Die Zeit in May that he is 'skeptical' of procedures to ban political parties. The AfD's unparalleled public approval, not to mention support from the Trump administration, a powerful transatlantic ally, means its prohibition could have significant reverberations. Some opinion polls found that, in the weeks after the Germany's election , support for the AfD had crept up even higher than its 20.8% official result, briefly making it the most popular party in the country. National polling agency Forsa in April found that the AfD was polling at a record 26% – putting it two percentage points higher than the CDU, on 24%. Currently, Forsa shows the AfD at 24% – four points behind the CDU. With the AfD's support reaching such heights, Holterhus sees a risk of creating a 'martyr effect' in the case of a ban, with the AfD 'staging itself as a victim of political opponents.' This, he said, could result in further radicalization of some of its supporters and even politically motivated violence. Lengthy legal proceedings, he said, could further heighten the AfD's platform while the move also risks the 'wrath' of the Trump administration and could play into the populist narrative of an 'undemocratic Europe.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Migrants cast shadow on Starmer-Macron summit
Britain and France are friends again following the rancour of Brexit, but the record number of irregular migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats remains a major point of friction. The issue will feature during a state visit to Britain by French President Emmanuel Macron starting Tuesday and new measures to curb the dangerous journeys are expected to be announced on Thursday following talks with Prime Minister Keir Starmer. More than 21,000 migrants have crossed from northern France to southeast England in rudimentary vessels this year, providing a massive headache for Starmer as the far-right soars in popularity. Images of overloaded vessels leaving French beaches with law enforcement officers appearing to just watch on exasperate UK politicians and the unforgiving tabloid press. "We pay for French cops' buggy, 4x4s and drones, but migrants still sailing," complained The Sun newspaper on Wednesday, in a reference to the so-called Sandhurst Treaty. The 2018 agreement, that runs until 2027, sees Britain finance actions taken in France to stop the migrants. Starmer, who led his Labour party to a sweeping victory in an election last year following 14 years of Conservative rule, has vowed to "take back control" of Britain's borders. - One in, one out - But in the first six months of 2025, there was a 48 percent increase in the number of people arriving on small boats compared to last year, with the government blaming extended dry weather. The annual record of 45,774 reached in 2022 could be broken this year, which would deal a massive blow to Starmer as Eurosceptic Nigel Farage's Reform UK party leads national polls. A new border control law going through Britain's parliament would give law enforcement counter-terror style powers to combat people-smuggling gangs. The UK has also signed agreements with countries on migrant transit routes, including Iraq, Serbia, and Germany. But Starmer needs strengthened cooperation with France, and key announcements were expected following their talks. Under pressure from London, Paris is considering tweaking its laws to allow police to intercept migrant boats up to 300 metres from France's shoreline. Currently, French law enforcement only intervene at sea to rescue passengers at risk of drowning. The two governments are also working on a migrant exchange programme. A pilot project would see Britain capable of returning to France someone who has crossed the Channel by boat, according to several media sources. France in exchange could deport an equivalent number of people to Britian, provided they have the right to live there, such as through family reunification. Paris wants to expand the agreement to the European Union so that readmissions can be shared among several countries. According to Britain's interior ministry, migrants who crossed the Channel between March 2024 and March 2025 were mainly Afghans, Syrians, Eritreans, Iranians, and Sudanese. French officials have claimed that Britain attracts migrants because the lack of a national identity card makes it easier to work illegally. Starmer's government has cracked down on illegal work -- arrests increased by 51 percent from July 2024 to the end of May, compared to the previous year, it says. - Seeking 'safety' - But Peter Walsh, a researcher at Oxford University's Migration Observatory, doubts that it is easier to work illegally in Britain than in France. "You have to demonstrate that you have the right to work. If an employer doesn't carry out those checks, then they can face serious sanctions, fines and imprisonment. That's the same in France and the UK," he told AFP. Walsh believes the English language and presence of family members in Britain are key attractions, as well as Britain's departure from the European Union. "If you've claimed asylum in the EU and been refused, you can actually come to the UK and have another shot because we will not know that you've actually been refused in the EU," he said. Rishan Tsegay, 26, originally from Eritrea, arrived in England in 2015 hidden in the back of a lorry. She fled from Sudan through Libya, Italy and France. Last year, she became a British citizen and now works as a nurse. Tsegay says there is a "hostile environment" towards irregular migrants in Britain, saying they were often presented as "criminals" rather than people "contributing to society". She wants Starmer and Macron to focus on improving safe routes for migrants fleeing war-torn countries as a way to stop them risking the Channel crossings. "These people come here to seek safety," Tsegay insisted. ctx-pdh/har/tw/tc
