European Court of Justice rules Malta broke EU law by selling citizenship
In its judgement of 29 April 2025, the European Court of Justice declared that
by establishing and operating an institutionalised citizenship investment scheme, such as the Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment scheme, [...], which establishes a transactional naturalisation procedure in exchange for predetermined payments or investments and thus amounts to the commercialisation of the grant of the nationality of a Member State and, by extension, that of Union citizenship, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU.
The European Commission has brought Malta to court over what is called the ‘golden passport’ scheme. This scheme usually effectively means anyone can get EU citizenship provided they can afford to pay the price, but requires little physical residency in the country prior to gaining citizenship.
According to the Maltese rules, foreigners are required to purchase prop
Closer ties between the EU (and other economically developed blocs and countries) and 'poorer countries' are almost certain imho given the macroeconomic developments. The emerging market and developing economies' share of the world's GDP -based on Purchasing Power Parity according to the International Monetary Fund- rose from 35% in 1980 to 40% in 2000, and it now stands at +60% in 2025 while projected to increase further.
A second major point is the population growth. In Africa, for example, the working-age population (people aged 20-64 years) will almost double from 880 million now to 1.6 billion in 2050, according to the UN. This means that in 2050, 1 in 4 working people across the globe will be African.
It seems that emerging economies are about to face a similar 'double-growth' like the Europeans had in the decades after World War II: growth of the economy and growth of the population.
This could be an opportunity for these countries not only to strive economically but also to develop more democratic structures. As we have seen in research, as societies modernize, their ideological divides shift away from economic struggles towards debates over personal freedoms and identity-related issues. So it could be that a collaboration between the EU & allies with these LDCs (Least Developed Countries) is not just for a mutual economic benefit, but eventually also for the preservation of a rules-based world order where universal human rights are an integral part of the economy, which in turn would benefit all sides.
If the EU is ready to protect and further develop its democracies, the bloc could indeed be a more reliable alternative to the current governments of the U.S. and China. If the EU acts accordingly (and there are signs that it does imho), Mr. Trump's politics could then even be the go-ahead for a more equal world order - supposedly the exact opposite of what he is aiming at.
But I say "if" and "could" and, of course, don't know how it'll develop. Maybe I am on the wrong track.
Scam Factories: The inside story of Southeast Asia's fraud compounds
They said […] they would rape my wife if I do not sit and answer phone calls. They tried all kinds of coercive manoeuvres. You know, using a fire extinguisher to [pretend] to hit me to scare me, using a plastic bag over my head to suffocate me.
...
Experts estimate there are hundreds of thousands of scammers in the industry across Southeast Asia. Some of them are unrepentant criminals, ruthlessly exploiting victims across the world. Others are victims themselves, trafficked and held against their will. Others still are desperate people willing to participate in the industry to survive, but once inside, find they can no longer leave.
...
Investigators have spoken to nearly 100 survivors from compounds mostly located in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. They have also interviewed local and international civil society organisations, policymakers and law enforcement throughout Southeast Asia.
Because the industry is hidden behind high walls mounted with barbed wire and surveillance cameras
Politicians who exhibit ‘dark’ personality traits such as narcissism, psychopathy or Machiavellianism contribute to increasing affective polarisation among citizens. This is the conclusion of a new study conducted by the University of Amsterdam (UvA), the University of Lausanne and Vrije Universitei...
Link to the article (archived): Ripping the public apart? Politicians’ dark personality and affective polarization -- [February 2025]
New research shows that dark traits of a political leader have an effect when voters feel ideologically close to the politician in question, while the personality traits of political opponents have little to no effect on the degree of polarisation.
In a new study published in the 'European Journal of Political Research,' scientists from University of Amsterdam (UvA), the University of Lausanne and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, linked the personality profiles of over 90 prominent politicians worldwide with voter attitudes in 40 national elections. The results reveal striking patterns. Politicians who score high on the so-called Dark Triad – narcissism (excessive self-focus), psychopathy (emotional coldness and lack of empathy), and Machiave
Transport apps and self-driving cars are on the rise, but mobility needs to fit the way people actually live.
... people today are less concerned about the type of vehicle they travel in, and more about how useful it is. To many of us, what matters most is simply getting where we’re going rather than how we look while doing it.
More than technology, mobility has always been governed by social trends and cultural norms that evolve over time. The currently transport revolution therefore no longer depends solely on a group of engineers, but on understanding users’ true needs.
...
The way we move around in Europe is not just changing because of technology, but also because of how we think. For future transport systems to work, we need to understand how different people view, use, and adapt to these new ways of moving.
This means that governments, companies, and innovators need to work together. It’s not enough for transport to be fast or eco-friendly, it must also be accessible and affordable for everyone, taking into account the unique needs of each section of society. This means technol
Not long ago, Chinese hackers attacked the U.S. wiretapping system, enabling the Chinese state to read and listen to citizens' messages and calls. Intel agencies then urged the population to use encrypted messages.
And this is just one example what could go wrong. The damage to democracy will be severe as it will be will be exploited by bad actors because, as we know, there is no such thing as a "backdoor only for the good ones." Or am I wrong here?