Connect with us

World

2024: Top 10 defining moments in the European Parliament

Published

on

2024: Top 10 defining moments in the European Parliament

From crucial votes on nature and migration, to powerful speeches and hard debates: the year saw drama and upheaval in the Eurochamber

ADVERTISEMENT

2024 was a year of change for the European Parliament, shaken up by the elections in July.

Beyond the vote, which significantly modified its composition and balance of powers, here are some moments to remember from this year.

1. Farmers’ protests reach Parliament

The beginning of 2025 was marked by massive protests of farmers across Europe, from Germany and France to Poland and Spain. 

Among their targets were the EU’s commercial deal with Mercosur countries – at that time negotiations were still ongoing – and some European environmental policies affecting the agrifood sector.

On 1 February, a thousand farmers from several countries arrived in Brussels. After a night procession on their tractors, they occupied the square in front of the European Parliament for an entire day, burning hay, spreading manure and damaging the square. 

Advertisement

2. ‘Stop being boring to defeat Putin’

One of the most powerful and evocative interventions in the European Parliament was Yulia Navalnaya’s in February. She took the floor in the hemicycle in Strasbourg days after her husband, Alexei Navalny, died under suspicious circumstances while imprisoned in Russia.

Navalnaya paid tribute to the opposition leader’s courage and attacked Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, receiving a general standing ovation from MEPs.

“If you really want to defeat Putin, you have to become an innovator. You have to stop being boring,” Navalnaya told MEPs.

“You cannot defeat him by thinking he is a man of principle who has morals and rules. He is not like that. And Alexei realised that a long time ago. You are not dealing with a politician but with a bloody monster.”

3. The final battle on Nature Restoration Law

The Nature Restoration Law, a proposal to gradually rehabilitate the EU’s land and sea areas degraded by climate change and human activity was one of the most contentious issues in the European Parliament in the final part of the legislature.

Advertisement

European People’s Party (EPP) began a full-throttle campaign to bring down the law, arguing it would imperil food production, increase retail prices and devastate the traditional livelihoods of farmers. 

EPP talking points were backed by right-wing forces, but fully contested by progressive MEPs, environmental organisations, legal scholars and even multinationals, who said restoring nature was indispensable to maintain a prosperous economy and sustainable supply chains.

The EPP even pressed on with a controversial social media push, going as far as claiming the legislation would turn the city of Rovaniemi, where Santa Claus lives, into a forest. 

In February, the Parliament eventually approved a watered-down version of the law with 329 votes in favour and 275 against. It entails the restoration of at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030, and of all ecosystems in need by 2050.

4. The long-sought vote on the major migration policy reform

In April 2024, the European Parliament approved the wide-reaching reform of the European Union’s migration and asylum policy almost four years after the European Commission had proposed it.

Advertisement
ADVERTISEMENT

The “Pact on migration and asylum” was supported by the three major Parliament groups: European People’s Party (EPP), Socialists and Democrats (S&D), and Renew Europe, albeit with some dissidents. 

The right-wing parties, the Greens/EFA and the Left group voted against. The latter even protested outside Parliament before the vote, staging a “funeral for the right to asylum” that it claimed the new rules would usher in.

New rules foresee a solidarity mechanism to share the burdens of welcoming asylum seekers, through a redistribution among the member states which can be replaced with financial contributions. But they also entail stricter border controls and faster procedures for examining asylum requests and carrying out the repatriation of migrants. The Pact will be fully in force from mid-2026.

5. The Parliament backs abortion as an EU fundamental right

Even symbolic votes could cause hard clashes in the European Parliament. In April, the Chamber approved a resolution to include the right to abortion in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

ADVERTISEMENT

As the topic is very divisive, the Parliament split. The resolution was approved with 336 votes in favour, 163 against, and 39 abstentions. The right-wing groups Identity and Democracy and European Conservatives and Reformists voted against, as did the majority of the centre-right conservative European People’s Party, the largest group of the Parliament.

However, the vote did not have a binding effect. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU requires the unanimous agreement of all member states to be changed. The rules for terminating pregnancy also fall within health legislation, which is the exclusive competence of EU countries.

6. The final rush before the European elections

Members of the European Parliament often run to the last available moment to approve important pieces of legislation. In its last session before the elections, the EP held 89 votes on legislative files, plus seven non-legislative resolutions, marking a record for the entire legislature.

Advertisement

Among them, there were the right-to-repair directive, a regulation to prohibit products made with forced labour on the Union market, new rules for digital platform workers, a bill on packaging reduction, and the first-ever European law against gender-based violence.

ADVERTISEMENT

7. The ‘Venezuela majority’ in Europe

After the vote, the new European Parliament soon revealed its changed balance of powers, even if in a mostly symbolic vote. In September, the Strasbourg hemicycle voted to recognise Venezuela’s exiled presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia as the “legitimate and democratically elected president”.

The resolution, which carried no legal weight, was backed by the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), the right-wing nationalist European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the newly formed far-right Patriots for Europe, marking the first time in the new legislature that mainstream conservatives joined ranks with the more right-wing groups.

This alliance was renamed the “Venezuela majority”, following the subject of the vote, and resurfaced during the decision to award González and Venezuela’s opposition leader María Corina Machado the Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.

8. Von der Leyen vs Orbán: showdown in the Parliament

The first October plenary session saw a fiery debate pitching European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen against Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán, who took the stage in the European Parliament a few months after a controversial visit to Moscow made while Hungary occupied the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU.

ADVERTISEMENT

The war in Ukraine was one of the bones of contention, with the Hungarian leader claiming that the EU had adopted a mistaken policy on the war and the Commission president launching a personal attack on him without mentioning his name: “There are still some who blame this war not on the invader but on the invaded.”

9. The unpopular approval of the European Commission

At the end of November, the European Parliament definitively approved the College of Commissioners led by Ursula von der Leyen. But while the vote on the Commission’s President herself in July was a success for von der Leyen, she could barely celebrate the approval of the College. 

Advertisement

In November, only 370 MEPs voted in favour, representing 54% of all votes cast and 51% of the total number of members, 719. 

Several defections came from among the centre-right European People’s Party, the centre-left Socialists and Democrats and the liberal Renew Europe, lowering support for the Commission, which was “saved” by the votes of part of the European Conservatives and Reformists and the Greens/EFA group. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Indeed, for one reason or another, only one in two lawmakers has endorsed the new College of Commissioners.

10. Weirdness and oddities in the Eurochamber

2024 also witnessed some surreal moments during the debates in the Parliament: a dog barking in the hemicycle, an Irish MEP insulting an Italian football club, and a Slovak MEP releasing a dove as a gesture of peace.

Advertisement

World

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Published

on

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.

Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s

Advertisement

Carries 110 pounds of explosives

One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.

Advertisement

Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.

Note: Estimated price of munitions per unit. In practice, multiple interceptors are fired when targeting a drone. For instance, with the $80 bullet fired by the Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM), 75 rounds are fired in a second. Sources: Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Open Source Munitions Portal, SRC Inc, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

Advertisement

Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.

Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.

Advertisement

In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.

Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.

Air-based strikes

Advertisement

In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Two to three interceptors fired per drone

Advertisement

Source: U.S. Navy, Department of Defense

Advertisement

These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.

The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.

Advertisement

Anti-drone defense systems

One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.

When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.

Advertisement

Ship-based anti-missile defenses

Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.

Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.

Advertisement

“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.

Ground-based anti-missile defenses

The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Patriot missile defense system

Advertisement

Advertisement

Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.

But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.

Advertisement

Ground-based guns

Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar

Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds

Advertisement

Advertisement

Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.

Interceptor drones

Advertisement

There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Merops system: Surveyor drone

Advertisement

Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.

The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.

Advertisement

Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.

The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.

Advertisement

Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.

“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy

Published

on

Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A Russian gunman was killed by special forces Saturday in Ukraine after opening fire at a supermarket in Kyiv, killing six people and wounding 14 others — including a 12‑year‑old boy.

The 58-year-old shooter long resided in the Donetsk region and was born in Moscow, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.

He took at least four hostages, killed one of them, and fatally shot four others on the street, Zelenskyy said. Another woman died at a hospital from her injuries.

Graphic video captured by witnesses showed the gunman shooting at a victim within close range on the street. Other bodies were seen lying on the pavement and in courtyards.

Advertisement

The gunman was seen walking with a weapon on the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

MANHUNT UNDERWAY AFTER GUNMEN STORM CHICK-FIL-A LEAVING 1 DEAD

Ukranian special forces stormed the convenience store after 40 minutes of failed negotiations, according to Klymenko.

At least fourteen people were wounded in the attack, though officials cautioned the number may rise as people continue to seek medical assistance.

Among the injured is a 12‑year‑old boy and a supermarket security guard, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.

Advertisement

The gunman was pictured dead in the convenience store. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

NINE DEAD, 13 WOUNDED IN SECOND TURKISH MASS SHOOTING IN TWO DAYS

Zelenskyy said the shooter also set fire to an apartment prior to the attack, though it is unclear if any injuries resulted from the arson.

“My condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post. “…We wish all the wounded a swift recovery.”

The gunman had previously been prosecuted for criminal offenses, but held a valid weapons permit, according to authorities. Investigators from the National Police and the Security Service of Ukraine are investigating.

Advertisement

The gunman was seen holding and shooting a weapon in the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

GUNMAN OPENS FIRE AT HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY, WOUNDING AT LEAST 16

Ukraine’s security service labeled the attack an act of terrorism.

“All available information about him and the motives behind his actions is being thoroughly investigated,” Zelenskyy said. “Every detail must be verified.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

One of the shooter’s neighbors, Hanna Kulyk, 75, described him as an “educated, refined man,” who lived alone and did not socialize often.

“You’d never guess he was some kind of criminal,” Kulyk told The Associated Press.

Continue Reading

World

Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted

Published

on

Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted

Top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US naval blockade of Iran’s ports is ‘a clumsy and ignorant decision’.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC) says the Strait of Hormuz is closed and that any ship that attempts to pass through the waterway will be targeted, a dramatic reversal less than 24 hours after the critical shipping lane was reopened.

In a statement carried by Iran’s Student News Agency, the IRGC navy said on Saturday the strait will be closed until the United States lifts its naval blockade on Iranian vessels and ports. It said the blockade was a violation of the ongoing ceasefire agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“We warn that no vessel of any kind should move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted,” it said.

Advertisement

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and a senior negotiator in talks between Washington and Tehran on ending the war, said in a television interview that “the Strait of Hormuz is under the control of the Islamic Republic”.

“The Americans have been declaring a blockade for several days now. This is a clumsy and ignorant decision,” he added.

The reassertion of control came just hours after Iran had briefly reopened the strait, in line with a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Oil prices dropped on global markets after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the waterway was “completely open for all commercial vessels.”

More than a dozen commercial ships passed through the waterway before the IRGC reversed course.

Iranian gunboats reportedly fired on two commercial ships on Saturday, according to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). India’s Ministry of External Affairs also said that two Indian-flagged ships were involved in a “shooting incident” in the strait.

Advertisement

Some merchant vessels in the region received radio messages from the IRGC Navy, warning that no ships were being allowed through the strait.

US President Donald Trump said Tehran could not blackmail Washington by closing the waterway and warned that he would put an end to the ceasefire if a deal before its expiry on Wednesday is not reached. Trump added that the naval blockade would “remain in full force”.

Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, said the navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

‘Two competing blockades’

Al Jazeera correspondent Zein Basravi said that Iran and the US are back where they were the previous day.

“Less than 24 hours ago, world leaders were praising what they thought was a breakthrough in this conflict, hoping Iran was signalling a confidence-building measure by opening the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leading to a ceasefire deal and a permanent end to the war,” he said.

Advertisement

“As disappointed as people may be, this isn’t entirely surprising. What we’re seeing now is a return to square one,” he added, saying there are now “two competing blockades in place”.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Iran was using the strait to send a message.

“It’s clear that Iran is dealing with a situation in which they are not sure what’s on the table. So the Strait of Hormuz is once again the only space for engagement, even if it’s a negative engagement. And it’s the space where they are sending and conveying messages to the Americans, showing their leverage,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending