Connect with us

World

Best of 2025: Top five defining moments in the European Parliament

Published

on

Best of 2025: Top five defining moments in the European Parliament

As the year draws to a close, Euronews explores the key moments that shaped the policy and politics at the European Parliament in 2025.

This parliamentary year was shaped by multiple attempts, albeit unsuccessfully, to topple the European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen.

Then there was an emerging — if informal — alliance of conservatives with the hard right that could pave the way for a new right in the lead-up to the general elections in France, Italy, and Spain in 2027.

It was also the year when the parliament adopted a much harder line on migration, doubled down on simplifying red tape and regulation to assist the ailing European industry, and moved further away from the landmark Green Deal, now under scrutiny.

1. Fresh corruption scandal looming over the Parliament

A major corruption investigation rattled the European Parliament in March.

Advertisement

Belgian prosecutors investigated an alleged corruption involving MEPs and assistants of the European Parliament and the Chinese tech company Huawei.

According to the allegations, payments, excessive gifts such as food and travel expenses, and regular invitations to football matches were used to influence MEPs, which Belgian authorities regard as pointing to corruption.

All these incentives were allegedly intended to secure favourable political positions on issues of interest to the Chinese company.

Eight individuals were charged with offences including corruption, money laundering, and participation in a criminal organisation.

Prosecutors also asked to lift the immunity of four MEPs: Italians Salvatore De Meo and Fulvio Martusciello (EPP), Maltese MEP Daniel Attard (S&D), and Bulgarian lawmaker Nikola Minchev (Renew Europe).

Advertisement

They have denied the allegations.

The Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs is still discussing the four cases, with the decision on whether to lift or maintain immunity set for the first months of 2026.

In the meantime, the European Parliament has barred Huawei lobbyists from its premises in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg.

2. Von der Leyen’s Commission survived no-confidence votes

Members of the European Parliament tried three times to topple the European Commission, tabling almost back-to-back no-confidence votes in an unprecedented sequence for the chamber.

To be approved, any motion of censure requires at least two-thirds of the votes cast in the Parliament, representing a majority of all its members. The threshold is high, and none of the three votes held got close to forcing the Commission to resign.

Advertisement

But it was the gesture that mattered. This is a defiant parliament, even among her conservative ranks.

The first vote held in July was initiated by some members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), challenging Ursula von der Leyen.

The 360 MEPs who voted against the motion of censure — and therefore defended the European Commission — were fewer than the 370 who had approved the Commission back in November 2024.

Several MEPs from S&D and Renew Europe groups, both part of the centrist majority, chose not to take part in the vote: it was a way of expressing their discontent with von der Leyen’s policies without supporting a motion coming from the far-right.

The following two votes held in October and tabled respectively by the Left and the far-right Patriots for Europe (PfE) groups, saw a more substantial majority defending the Commission, and von der Leyen’s position was strengthened as a result.

Advertisement

As one source told Euronews, the Parliament showed its teeth, and von der Leyen managed to prove there is no alternative to her leadership at the top of the Commission.

3. Magyar and Salis win against Hungary’s judiciary

Peter Magyar, the leader of the Hungarian opposition party Tisza, Klára Dobrev, a Socialist Hungarian lawmaker, and Ilaria Salis, an Italian activist and left-wing MEP, were sought by Hungary’s judiciary over different claims, but remained protected by the EU’s parliamentary immunity even as Hungarian MEPs tried to export domestic politics from Budapest into the grand stage of Brussels.

Magyar faced three requests to have his parliamentary immunity removed: two for defamation and one for allegations claiming he threw a man’s phone into the Danube river after an argument at a Budapest nightclub with a man who was filming him.

He considered the accusations a “political issue”, given his role as leader of the opposition to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his former romantic relationship with Judit Varga, who served as justice minister under Orbán, which did not end on amicable terms.

MEP Dobrev was also accused of defamation, after she claimed that a local official was involved in a paedophilia scandal that led to the downfall of Hungary’s President Katalin Novák and Varga, the ex-partner of Magyar. She maintained her parliamentary immunity.

Advertisement

Separately, Italian MEP Ilaria Salis, who was arrested in February 2023 in Budapest after a brawl in which she was accused of assaulting and beating two men described as far-right militants during the so-called Day of Honour, a neo-Nazi gathering in Europe.

The issue became a point of tension between Budapest and Rome, torn between Salis’ clashing political views with the Meloni government, and the duty to protect an Italian citizen abroad. Her parliamentary immunity was also maintained.

The Parliament rejected all the requests in a tense voting session on 7 October.

Salis’ case went down to the wire: in a secret ballot, 306 MEPs voted in favour and 305 against, revealing deep divisions within the Parliament.

Salis later referred to it as a victory against fascism in Europe.

Advertisement

4. The EPP’s ‘dangerous liaison’ with the far right

This year was also marked by the emergence of an alternative to the traditional majority between the conservatives, socialists and liberals in the European Parliament, all of whom are often presented as pro-Europe and pro-rule of law.

On specific occasions, the EPP abandoned its traditional allies to advance legislation with the votes of the right-wing ECR and the far-right PfE and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN).

The unofficial alliance benefited the EPP in votes on migration and environmental issues.

One example was a legislative package titled Omnibus I, proposed by the Commission to support European businesses.

The package diluted the EU’s due diligence law, which required companies to assess their supply chains for potential environmental and labour violations.

Advertisement

New rules on sustainability reporting and due diligence obligations, which were more relaxed than the original law, were initially agreed by the political groups of the centrist majority. However, some MEPs from S&D and Renew voted to reject them.

Therefore, on 22 October in Strasbourg, the lawmakers subverted the decision adopted by the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee on 13 October and the simplification package was rejected with 318 votes against, 309 in favour and 34 abstentions.

Three weeks later, the EPP managed to pass the bill with the votes of the ECR, PfE, and ESN, rather than negotiate a compromise version with its traditional allies.

The package significantly changed the original provisions of the due diligence law, which would apply now only to companies with more than 5,000 employees and a net annual turnover of over €1.5 billion (instead of 1,000 employees and a yearly turnover of €450 million as initially redacted).

The Parliament’s adopted version also scrapped fines of up to 5% for non-compliance, introducing a vaguer formula around “appropriate levels” of sanctions, to be decided by the member states.

Advertisement

5. A harder line on illegal migration

December saw a rush in Parliament to approve key migration-related documents, a divisive issue.

In the final plenary session in Strasbourg, the Parliament approved a change to the concept of a “safe third country,” which will expand the set of circumstances under which asylum applications can be rejected, enabling EU countries to deport asylum seekers to third countries, even if they have a connection to it.

The other legislative bill adopted was a new EU list of “safe countries of origin” for the purposes of asylum, which now includes Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as all EU candidate countries except Ukraine. Nationality-based selection of asylum applicants from those countries seeking to apply for asylum in the EU would be assessed through fast-track procedures.

On migration, the Parliament’s and the Council’s positions are aligned, signalling a pivot into a harder line when it comes to illegal migration in Europe.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

World

AI notetakers promise easy meeting recaps, but some professionals question their use

Published

on

AI notetakers promise easy meeting recaps, but some professionals question their use

NEW YORK (AP) — Launching an artificial intelligence tool to take notes and summarize important information from a virtual meeting can be alluring. Seconds after one of the agents attends an hour-long video conference, it can deliver a recap of key points and outline a to-do list for all the participants.

But the way popular AI notetakers accomplish those tasks makes some people avoid using them. The technology turns everything said during meetings into data. Confidential personnel information, corporate strategies, trade secrets and remarks that could later be seen as incriminating — all of it could end up in the wrong hands.

“There are huge risks to the organization on AI notetakers,” Amy Dufrane, the chief executive of human resources training and certification provider HRCI, said. “I don’t think companies should use it at all.”

An AI notetaker is a software application or device that uses artificial intelligence, speech recognition and large language models to record, transcribe and summarize conversations. The tools are intended to save time and improve participation, but professionals in a number of fields say there are reasons to be wary.

This article is part of AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health. Read more Be Well.

Advertisement

Chief among them is uncertainty about where the collected data is stored and for how long. Privacy advocates worry the companies behind the AI notetakers are creating voiceprints without consent. Voiceprints — a type of biometric profile similar to a fingerprint but tuned to the unique intonations and characteristics of one’s voice — can be used to access restricted or confidential information, including the contents of bank accounts.

Some tech companies resell data from the notetaking tools they created or use confidential meeting transcripts and recordings to train their AI models. There’s also the risk that conversations between an attorney and client could become fair game in legal proceedings; a New York federal judge in February ordered a criminal defendant to provide prosecutors with documents he created for his lawyers because it already had been shared with a third party, which was Anthropic’s Claude.

“People who use AI notetakers, they don’t always know where the data goes,” said Justin Daniels, an Atlanta-based corporate attorney at law firm Baker Donelson. “And in my context, if the data goes anywhere else and they’re not aware of it, that attorney-client-privileged conversation may not be attorney-client-privileged anymore.”

Here are some tips on the etiquette of kicking an AI notetaker out of a meeting, the risks of using one and how to protect yourself.

The first step when you join a meeting is check for bots

When you join a meeting, make it a habit to check whether an AI notetaker is present. It might appear as a meeting attendee, often labeled as an AI notetaker, or a pop-up message on the screen informing participants the meeting is being recorded. The latter could signal the presence of an AI notetaker.

Advertisement

Virtual meeting platforms such as Zoom and Google Meet let users know when recording is underway, but some meeting software does not make it clear when a notetaker is present, according to Thorin Klosowski, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s senior security and privacy analyst.

Sign up for Morning Wire:
Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Advertisement

Participants also may use personal notetaking devices that are separate from the meeting platform, in which case the other attendees wouldn’t necessarily know a discussion was being recorded and transcribed.

“You hope the other person would tell you that they’re doing that,” Klosowski said. “Asking everyone for consent before doing a sensitive meeting would be the most polite approach to take.”

If you’re unsure whether someone has deployed an AI notetaker, you can ask. You can also state at the beginning that a meeting is not authorized for recording.

A polite way to establish such a boundary is to say, “Our company policy is that this meeting cannot be recorded,” Dufrane suggested. This relieves the employee, such as a salesperson who wants to make a good impression, of having to be the “bad guy,” putting the onus on the company instead, she said.

Advertisement

Another option is to allow the notetaker for part of the gathering but turn if off at the end to dedicate time for more delicate topics.

“I won’t start talking about anything substantive until it’s shut off, because I just don’t want to take the risk,” Daniels said.

Assert your privacy rights to protect voiceprints

Many AI notetakers determine unique acoustic signatures, or voiceprints, for each speaker in the room, said Chris Pluymers, associate attorney at The Dillon Law Group in East Lansing, Michigan. That’s how the companies distinguish one speaker from another, labeling them with monikers “Speaker 1” or “Speaker 2.”

One way voiceprints are used is to verify the identities of bank account holders over the phone. If bad actors got ahold of a person’s vocal signature, they could use it to access files, commit fraud or take over accounts, he said.

Laws in some states govern how voiceprints can be created and stored and provide rights that individuals can assert to object to the use of an AI notetaker during meetings they attend.

Advertisement

In Illinois, voiceprints are considered biometric identifiers, similar to fingerprints, and are covered under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, which requires written notice and informed consent before an AI notetaker or other agent collects voiceprints. The law also mandates a documented data retention schedule and destruction policy, Pluymers said. But most companies using the tools have none of those systems in place, Pluymers said.

“In the world of AI, the world of data and privacy, the world of biometric identification, I don’t think you can have such a lax approach to it,” Pluymers said. “I think getting out ahead of it is crucial.”

Under the Illinois law, employees can say they don’t want to attend a meeting with an AI notetaker until they have assurances of where and why the data is being stored, and when it will be deleted, Pluymers said. They can also ask if there is a policy and written consent form to sign.

If an AI notetaker shows up at a meeting unexpectedly, a participant could say, “I prefer we keep this meeting without AI recording or transcript tools and I’d be happy to take my own notes and share a recap if that’s helpful,” Pluymers suggested. “Just being warm and genuine about it and asking them to respect your wishes.”

Know where your data goes

When working with AI notetaking apps, find out whether the companies that built them retain recordings, transcripts or metadata indefinitely or use them to train AI models, said Danielle Kays, a partner at Fisher Phillips who represents businesses on privacy and employment law matters.

Advertisement

“If there is some sort of speaker ID or voice recognition, really understand what that is and how it works,” Kays said.

Even when content is deleted, metadata about meetings can remain stored with the vendor, meaning sensitive business information could influence how the model behaves and in some cases could be memorized or reproduced, she said.

AI notetakers generate text, and that’s easier for outsiders to search through than video or audio files, according to EFF.

“Storing a bunch of video isn’t easy, it’s costly and hard to look through, but text is much easier to search and cheaper to store,” said Klosowski of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

___

Advertisement

Share your stories and questions about workplace wellness at [email protected]. Follow AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health at https://apnews.com/hub/be-well

Continue Reading

World

Argentinian flight instructor jumps to death from plane, 22-year-old student forced to land alone

Published

on

Argentinian flight instructor jumps to death from plane, 22-year-old student forced to land alone

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A flight instructor jumped to his death out of a small aircraft over Argentina, forcing the student pilot he was teaching to land the plane herself.

Leandro Andrés Bertazzo, 42, was on board a two-seat Cessna 150G on Saturday when he made the decision to jump out over the province of Córdoba, according to CNN, which cited its Argentinian affiliate TN.

“He made this tragic decision on board an aircraft with another person by his side,” Eduardo Álvarez, director of the Flying Parrot Córdoba flying school where Bertazzo worked, told TN. “It’s impossible to think about it or understand it, but the human mind is so complex.”

An undated photo of Leandro Andrés Bertazzo, a 42-year-old pilot who jumped to his death from a plane on Saturday, July 4 in Argentina. (Instagram/Leandro Bertazzo)

Advertisement

PILOT DECLARES MAYDAY BEFORE SEAPLANE COMES DOWN IN NEW YORK CITY’S EAST RIVER

Rosario, the 22-year-old student, later told authorities that Bertazzo told her, “You know what you have to do, carry on,” before taking off his gear, opening the door and leaping out, according to Álvarez.

Opening the door of a plane midair is incredibly difficult. Álvarez said it would be akin to trying to open the door of a car traveling 124 miles per hour.

Cessna 150m FRA150M climbing out after take-off with flaps deployed and hills behind. (aviation-images.com/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

FRANTIC SEARCH UNDERWAY FOR CREW AFTER BOEING 737 WRECKAGE FOUND BY OFFICIALS

Advertisement

Álvarez said that Rosario managed to land the plane safely, despite being in “complete shock.” There was no damage to the plane, according to TN.

Álvarez noted that Bertazzo had gone on a flight with another student earlier in the day.

A view from the main road of the flight school Bertazzo worked at, Flying Parrot Córdoba. (Google Maps)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Álvarez also told TN that Bertazzo had visited a psychiatric institute, something that was only known by his family prior to his death.

Advertisement

Prosecutors in Córdoba will lead the investigation into Bertazzo’s death. The plane he jumped from is now in police custody.

Continue Reading

World

Former US Olympian pleads not guilty in DC reflecting pool vandalism case

Published

on

Former US Olympian pleads not guilty in DC reflecting pool vandalism case

Former Olympic canoeist David Hearn denies damaging US President Donald Trump’s Washington, DC reflecting pool renovation.

A former US Olympian has pleaded not guilty to vandalising the newly renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, in a case that has drawn national attention amid accusations that the administration of US President Donald Trump is trying to shift blame for a troubled renovation.

David “Davey” Hearn, a 67-year-old three-time Olympic canoe racer, entered his plea in federal court on Thursday after prosecutors accused him of “maliciously” damaging the “American flag blue” lining installed at the bottom of the reflecting pool at Trump’s request ahead of celebrations taking place at Washington’s National Mall for the 250th anniversary of the United States’ independence on July 4.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Federal prosecutors allege Hearn pulled at the liner on June 19, causing more than $1,000 in damage. He has been charged with destruction of government property, an offence that carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

Advertisement

Hearn denied the allegations. He admitted he stopped at the pool during a bike ride, reached inside and touched a section of lining that was already peeling away, but that he did not remove or damage it. He told The Associated Press he let go when a park employee told him to stop.

Hearn’s lawyers argue the prosecution is an attempt by the Trump administration to deflect attention from what they describe as a botched renovation project.

“This indictment reflects the administration’s effort to shift blame for their own failures,” they said in a statement. “The justice system exists to determine facts, not to provide political cover.”

The 620-metre (2,030-foot) reflecting pool reopened in June after Trump ordered the new liner to be installed across the bottom. He said he was compelled to go ahead with the $14.7m renovation after a friend visiting from Germany called the pool dark and disgusting.

But within days, algae began to spread across the surface, the water turned chartreuse green, and sections of the liner began peeling away.

Advertisement

Experts have explained that the dark new coat of paint at the bottom of the pool would elevate the temperature and allow algae to grow, and that algae blooms in water are common at this time of year, especially in shallow, stagnant water like that of the pool.

Trump blamed the issues on vandals, claiming without evidence that “corrosive and destructive chemicals” were poured into the pool and that vandals “took some form of knife or blade” and put a long “gash into the beautiful facade”, although no one has been charged over those alleged acts.

The US president warned that anyone who allegedly damaged the pool could face long prison terms. “Please remember that there is a 10 year prison sentence for the destruction, or even the attempted destruction, of such things — Which will be fully enforced!” he wrote on Truth Social.

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 02: U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia on July 02, 2026 in Washington, DC. Pirro announced that former Olympic canoeist David Hearn has been indicted by a grand jury on charges related to alleged vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/AFP (Photo by Anna Moneymaker / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / Getty Images via AFP)
US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announces on July 2, 2026, that former Olympic canoeist David Hearn has been indicted by a grand jury on charges related to alleged vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool [Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/AFP]

Last week, US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced the indictment against Hearn, accusing him of intentionally damaging the liner.

The US Department of the Interior has said that at least six people were arrested on suspicion of vandalising the pool in the weeks after it reopened. National Guard troops and US Park Police were deployed to protect the site, which was fenced off during July 4 celebrations.

Thursday’s hearing drew a packed courtroom, with dozens of supporters waiting outside after Hearn entered his plea.

Advertisement

The reflecting pool’s problems have continued, with Trump acknowledging it will need to be drained again so the damaged liner can be repaired.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending