Right-wing climate sceptics blast EU's anti-disinformation drive
'As citizens of a free society we are each entitled to our own opinions but not entitled to our own facts,' Emil Andersen, a mid-ranking Commission official, said at the start of the debate.
But his words weren't welcome by several conservative and right-wing lawmakers, with some linking the European Commission's anti-disinformation activism to the authoritarian dystopia famously imagined in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Neo-denialism Alternative for Germany's (AfD) Anja Arndt questioned the scientific community's consensus that climate change is caused by human activities, and argued that the fight against disinformation is a 'front-on attack on freedom of expression, freedom of science, and the truth'.
Fellow AfD party member Marc Jongen took a similar line: 'If the Commission decides now what is a fact and what isn't, and what is opinion and what isn't, then we're on the road to a totalitarian system.'
But the criticism of the Commission's initiative was not limited to the fringes of the right wing.
Sander Smit, a Dutch member of the centre-right European People's Party, said that fact-checkers tended to make 'a certain type of discussion impossible', and that the Commission would be going 'a step to far' if it were to fund fact-checkers during election campaigns. Enlightenment values Liberal and social democrat lawmakers, on the contrary, highlighted the importance of a debate informed by science.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, the Renew group's lead negotatiator on the 2040 climate bill, said that the acknowledgement climate change and willingness to fight it was not an ideology – while denying it was precisely that.
Gerbrandy urged his colleagues to keep the political debate 'clean' and called for a coalition against climate change deniers. He also asked the European Commission to debunk in writing the climate 'nonsense' spouted by the AFD – but failed to extract such a promise.
Belgian social democrat Bruno Tobback recalled the stories of Galileo and Copernicus – 'who had science and facts on their side' but were persecuted by the practitioners of a "backwards ideology'.
'For God's sake, let us not go back to the dark days of European history, where dogma and opinions held us back – or tried to hold us back, luckily without success,' Tobback said. Commission wisdom Andersen, the Commission official, ended the debate by pronouncing on the distinction between opinion and facts.
'Both opinions and facts are indispensable to a thriving democratic conversation," Andersen said. "This is not what is being questioned.'
'But while facts should continue to shape our opinions, our opinions must never be allowed to colour the facts.'
The Commission, he continued, 'doesn't decide what is fact'. That was the task of peer-reviewed scientists – 'this is what underpins the policymaking of the Commission', Andersen said.
(rh, aw)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
2 hours ago
- Euractiv
Under the surface, EU migration tensions simmer
Welcome to the Capitals by Nicoletta Ionta with Eddy Wax. Feedback is welcome. Were you forwarded this newsletter by a friend? Sign up here. In today's edition: - Migration pact, tougher future - Mixed messages on US-EU deal - EU split on Horizon ban for Israel - UK, Malta to recognise Palestine - Nine countries line up for SAFE - Presidente? Not Quite In the capital For the first time in years, Europe's migration debate appears unusually sedate. Not because the fight is over, but because member states have quietly converged around an increasingly hardline stance. Beneath the surface, however, tensions are simmering. After the summer, the Commission will assess which nations are under the most migration pressure and decide who owes what in the EU's new solidarity mechanism, which will shift the bloc toward centralised governance with mandatory burden-sharing. Every country will have to chip in: either by relocating asylum seekers, coughing up cash for a common pot, or providing other forms of support. This politically sensitive calculus will drag into December, when the solidarity that Europe has been boasting will really be tested. For now, member states are playing nice. They're cheerfully signing joint letters, gathering over pre-EUCO "migration breakfasts," and swapping ideas under Ursula von der Leyen's watchful eye as she carefully takes notes for future proposals. Not long ago, the mere mention of migration risked political chaos at the Berlaymont. Now, as one EU diplomat put it, it's 'just a standard point on the agenda.' The formal approval of the EU's Pact on Migration and Asylum last year ushered in a rare moment of calm. Even the bloc's more divisive measures – such as "return hubs," where migrants are held ahead of deportation – have lost much of their controversy. The facilities, once a symbol of the EU's deep rifts, are being slowly reviewed in Council without major objections. But the storm may return this autumn. The mechanism lets the Commission factor in "Dublin returns" – sending asylum seekers back to their first country of entry – in its calculations. This could hit southern frontline countries like Italy and Greece hardest, reigniting old north-south fault lines. Member states that fail to meet its obligations risk losing EU solidarity support, and contributors will push hard to enforce compliance. Once hard numbers land on the table – quotas, payments, responsibilities – the façade of unity may begin to crack. Some signs of strain are already visible. In February, Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk made clear that his country won't implement any measure that introduces 'additional quotas of immigrants in Poland.' Alongside Budapest, another usual suspect, Warsaw is just one of two EU capitals still refusing to submit a national implementation plan. The original deadline passed last December. Still, former EU Commissioner Margaritis Schinas, one of the key architects of the pact, says he's not alarmed. 'With their stances, they're reminding us how they view migration policy,' Schinas told The Capitals in an interview. But "it would be suicidal for Europe to get to this point and then start dismantling it." A new role, the EU Solidarity Coordinator, has been created to oversee implementation. And the job is set to go to Michael Shotter, director DG Migration and Home Affairs, several sources told Euractiv. His appointment is expected to be confirmed after the summer. Mixed messages on US-EU trade The EU staunchly defended what it called a 'huge' new trade deal with the US yesterday – even as conflicting statements from Washington cast doubt on the scope of the agreement. The Commission said Washington had committed to establishing a 'quota system' for steel and aluminium, in which a limited quantity of the metals face tariffs below Donald Trump's 50% rate. But a White House 'Fact Sheet' contradicted that claim: 'The sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminium, and copper will remain unchanged ... The EU will continue to pay 50% and the parties will discuss securing supply chains for these products.' Pressed on the discrepancy, EU trade spokesperson Olof Gill referred reporters to the Commission's press release, which states the exact opposite: 'Together, the EU and the US will establish tariff rate quotas for EU exports at historic levels, cutting the current 50% tariffs.' Further confusion surrounds pharmaceuticals. Gill said that the EU believes its pharma exports would only face a 15% levy after the US completes its Section 232 investigation in the coming weeks. But the US statement did not mention any delays tied to the probe. All will be clarified in a US-EU joint statement, Gill said, which the bloc 'hopes to have very soon'. Still, Brussels seems to be preparing for the worst. The Commission said it won't withdraw its €93 billion retaliatory package targeting US goods until the joint statement is agreed. The measures – which cover aircraft, cars and food – are set to kick in 7 August, giving negotiators a tight deadline to avoid a clash. EU split on suspending Israel from Horizon Member states debated the Commission's proposal to partially suspend Israel from Horizon Europe over the Gaza crisis – but according to several diplomats, no qualified majority emerged. On Monday, the Commission proposed to partially bar Israeli companies from the research funding programme, specifically the part that funds defence and dual-use technologies, including military startups. About 10 member countries – including France, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium – support the move, with some even pushing for tougher actions like suspending trade benefits or targeting goods from occupied territories. Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic are firmly opposed. Germany and Italy are still on the fence, blaming the late timing of the proposal and a need for more analysis – though they could tip the scale toward a qualified majority. What's next? Coreper could be reconvened, or the process might move forward through written procedure. One diplomat said action could pick up later this summer. UK, Malta join Palestine recognition team The UK and Malta announced Tuesday that they will join France in recognising a Palestinian state. UK PM Keir Starmer said recognition will come unless Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's government agrees to a ceasefire in Gaza and commits to a two-state solution by September. The US, Israel's strongest and most influential ally, has condemned an ongoing UN conference in New York, led by France and Saudi Arabia, that seeks to bolster support for the two-state solution, calling it an 'insult' and reward for Hamas. Nine countries line up for defence cash Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Hungary, and Lithuania have formally expressed interest in borrowing from the EU's €150 billion SAFE military procurement programme, the Commission said yesterday. EU defence chief Andrius Kubilius said he expects the final number to double, with Poland and Greece already announcing plans to apply. Though Tuesday marked the soft deadline, late applications could still be accepted. A fuller list of participating countries is expected to be released today, according to a Commission spokesperson. Presidente? Not quite The late Silvio Berlusconi was briefly resurrected at a German press briefing this week when officials mistakenly named the former Italian PM as an upcoming guest, only to be reminded he passed away two years ago. Turned out the real visitor was his son, Pier Silvio Berlusconi, who was in the country to promote the family's bid for ProSiebenSat.1, a leading German media company. The Berlusconi family's MFE Media Group, which already holds a 30% stake, announced Monday it would raise its offer to stakeholders to take full control of the company. Euractiv's Nick Alipour has more on the Italian media dynasty's latest grab at power, and why Germany isn't thrilled about it. The Capitals BERLIN | Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán met Alice Weidel, co-leader of Germany's far-right AfD party, in Budapest for the third time, signalling growing ties between the two. Once wary of the AfD's more radical profile, Orbán said Tuesday they will 'work together in the upcoming years' on issues such as migration and 'war in our immediate neighbourhood.' PARIS | The battle to represent this city's poshest district has erupted into a political family feud, pitting EU heavyweight Michel Barnier against scandal-hit minister Rachida Dati – and creating a political headache for Emmanuel Macron. Read more. THE HAGUE | The Netherlands has barred Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich from entry, accusing them of inciting violence and endorsing ethnic cleansing in Gaza. The move follows a national security report warning of Israeli political interference, and marks a sharp shift in the Dutch government's stance toward Netanyahu's government. Read more. DUBLIN | The Irish High Court has rejected X's bid to block Ireland's Online Safety Code, ruling it aligns with EU law. The platform had claimed the code conflicted with the Digital Services Act but now says it will introduce age checks to comply. Read more. ROME | A 15% tariff on EU goods under the new US trade deal could shrink Italy's GDP by €6.3 billion and slash exports by more than €8.6 billion, think tank SVIMEZ has warned. Nearly 104,000 jobs are at risk, though exempting the pharmaceutical sector would significantly soften the blow. MADRID | Spanish defence firm Indra has thrown its support behind Belgium's potential entry into the EU's Future Combat Air System programme, a joint effort to develop a next-gen fighter jet. Indra called the move a 'positive step' amid rising geopolitical tensions. The FCAS, led by France, Germany and Spain, has been plagued by internal rifts and now faces fresh turbulence with Dassault Aviation slamming Belgium over its purchase of US-made F-35s. Read more. BRATISLAVA | PM Robert Fico accused the UK of interfering in Slovakia's 2023 election by funding influencers and journalists to sway public opinion. The British embassy and the article's author have firmly denied the allegation, saying that the campaign only aimed to boost voter turnout. Read more. Also on Euractiv INTERVIEW: Europe's armies at '50% of what we need', says defence commissioner The commissioner sat down with Euractiv to discuss EU defence policy priorities In an interview with Euractiv, Andrius Kubilius, the EU's top defence official, warned that European militaries are operating at just half the strength NATO requires and urged governments to slash their reliance on American weapons. Final journey: The divide within Europe over euthanasia and assisted dying Fragmented laws are forcing terminally ill patients to travel for the right to die Every year, dozens of terminally ill patients from across Europe travel to Belgium and Switzerland, not in search of hope, but of a dignified death. With euthanasia and assisted dying still illegal in most EU countries, many have no choice but to cross borders to end their suffering. Such a discrepancy in how the issue is handled across Europe makes it difficult for those experiencing chronic illness to plan a dignified end to the lives close to home. Contributors: Aurélie Pugnet, Thomas Moller-Nielsen, Charles Cohen, Jacob Wulff Wold, Elisa Braun, Nick Alipour, Chris Powers, Alessia Peretti, Daniel Eck, Charles Szumski Editors: Christina Zhao, Sofia Mandilara
Euractiv
3 hours ago
- Euractiv
INTERVIEW: Return hubs are ‘not easy to do', says former Commissioner Schinas
Margaritis Schinas served as a European Commission Vice-President from 2019 to 2024 and was a key architect of the fiercely debated New Pact on Migration and Asylum. Now out of the EU limelight, he speaks to Euractiv about the political minefield of implementation – and the bloc's major shift on migration. The adoption of the controversial pact in 2024 marked a major overhaul of the European Union's migration and asylum system. The new rules are set to come into force in summer 2026 and the implementation phase is in full swing, amid calls for an even more rigorous stance on migration. But, rolling out the 10 legislative files making up the pact might not be straightforward. Member states had to submit national implementation plans by December 2024, but some are dragging their feet. Hungary, for example, has yet to submit its plan. 'The Pact means the end of Hungary,' Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said on Monday. Poland, too, remains fiercely opposed. What follows is an edited transcript. Euractiv: Looking at the bigger picture, how do you view the apparent shift in EU migration policy, with more and more member states pushing for a tougher migration policy? Schinas: The way that migration policy evolves at national and European level is not the result of an experiment that is taking place in a laboratory. Policy follows what the people and the voters want. People across Europe – and I would say across political families – want more order on migration and on migration management. They want procedures, controls, border management. They want solidarity [between EU countries], and they want returns. Many are highlighting a newfound sense of unity on migration. That is quite striking, considering that just a few years ago, putting migration on the EUCO agenda would have triggered major divisions. I fully agree with you that we have now a new... how should I call this? In French, we would call it a 'prise de conscience' [awakening] around migration. I'm very happy to see that this is not only happening, but it's intensifying, and permeates policy beyond migration. It goes into foreign policy, development policy, the way we spend our money in third countries... and all of this is good. Do you think the concept of return hubs would have been possible just five years ago? I understand that there is a political market that wants to explore these return hubs and extraterritorial solutions. I do not oppose it in principle, but I don't think that it's something that's easy to do. From a legal standpoint? From all points of view, judging from what I saw and what I tried to do over the last five years. My advice would be: It would be okay to explore, but it would be a mistake to chase an objective not doable in the short term, or raise expectations. I'm not sure that this is the way to proceed. I belong to a school of thought that policy should be based on what is feasible. You coordinated the Commission's work on the new pact from 2019 to 2024. How do you assess progress so far, considering that several member states still haven't submitted their national strategies? I think that you cannot answer this without looking at how European migration policy was in the past [before 2019]. The short answer is: there wasn't any. We had repeated attempts and efforts that have all failed. The only thing that we had was this obligatory relocation scheme, taking people from Italy and Greece following the collapse of Syria [in 2015, Europe experienced a significant migration crisis, largely driven by a surge in refugees fleeing conflict and instability in Syria and other countries]. I'm very proud that, at the end of my mandate, we managed to have the first ever regulatory framework for migration and asylum. I have no doubt that everything that is happening – now or next year when the pact come into force – will be a huge improvement compared to the situation back in December 2019. Still, Poland and Hungary are staunchly against the new pact. If they don't implement it, do they risk jeopardising the whole approach? There have been some objections, but I think it's fair to say that these objections did not materialise – unlike in 2015 – into a block on the pact. Each member state's position is legitimate. However, I would say that these have been stances of member states [Hungary, Poland] wanting to make a point on where they stand on migration – rather than blocking Europe from having a comprehensive migration policy. It is very telling that we may have lost Warsaw and Budapest, but we have won Giorgia Meloni's Rome. I am optimistic that this will not hinder or prevent the pact's implementation. Do you see potential for the consensus to crumble once hard numbers – such as for the Solidarity Pool in October – are on the table? I do not agree. We have put so much time, effort, and resources into this European regulatory approach. It would be suicidal for Europe to arrive at the point that we are now and then begin undoing it. I fail to see who will be well served by doing this. The only people that would be happy if we fail to live up to our regulatory commitments would be those who want to destroy Europe – the Le Pen's and the Mélenchon's of this world... the Podemos and the Vox. The ones who have been consistently attacking the pact and calling for its demolition are the extremes – both on the right and the left. I want to be clear that I don't put Warsaw and Budapest in this spot; it's another league. With their stances, they want to remind us, how they view migration policy. But I say again that I don't expect them to block Europe from having and implementing a common regulatory policy on migration. EU leaders to debate 'accelerated implementation' of migration law reforms A German proposal for Council conclusions seen by Euractiv calls for implementing the rules earlier than planned, but member states are divided. (vib, aw)
Euractiv
3 hours ago
- Euractiv
UK denies Fico's election meddling claim
BRATISLAVA – The UK has firmly rejected Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico's claim that it interfered in Slovakia's 2023 election, after Fico threatened to raise the issue with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU leaders. Late Tuesday, the British Embassy in Slovakia issued a firm denial. "Any claim that the United Kingdom sought to influence the outcome of the election or encourage people to vote for or against a particular political party is completely untrue,' Embassy's spokeswoman Monika Holečková told Slovak outlet 'This activity was aimed at encouraging young people to participate in the democratic process in their countries by participating in elections, regardless of their political affiliation or support," Holečková added. Earlier that day, Fico told a press conference that London had paid 'journalists, activists, and influencers' to sway public opinion against his party, Smer-SD, and in favour of the opposition party Progressive Slovakia in an election his party ultimately won. He cited an article published by the British investigative outlet Declassified UK on 16 July. Without presenting further evidence, Fico spoke of a 'deliberate, intentional act by a foreign power with some journalists and political influencers' to influence the vote. Slovakia's foreign ministry has summoned the British ambassador for a meeting on Wednesday. Fico warned that if the ambassador failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, he would write an open letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and personally contact other EU leaders. 'Our interest is not to escalate tensions, but to clarify the situation,' he said. Author rejects Fico's version The article in question alleges that UK-funded media agency Zinc Network Ltd paid influencers across Central and Eastern Europe to encourage young people to vote – a region it describes as a 'key battleground in the information war with Russia'. Influencers were asked to post content approved by the British Foreign Office. But speaking to Denník N, Williams rejected claims that the UK influenced Slovak elections in favour of any specific political party. 'My investigation showed that influencers on social media were paid to post videos aimed at mobilising young voters ahead of the 2023 elections. It was not an explicit partisan campaign nor support for any particular party,' Williams said. He also dismissed Fico's claim that journalists were involved: 'As far as I know, no journalists were involved in this operation. Therefore, it would be wrong to accuse journalists in this case.' Williams added that the campaign appeared to be a call for electoral participation and support for democracy. (de)
