From: IE European Union Club MIX Date: June 4 Subject: June Edition of the IE EU Club Newsletter
Welcome to the June Edition of the IE EU Club Newsletter!
We hope exam season went smoothly and that you are now enjoying a well-deserved summer break. Stay tuned throughout the summer for updates, and we hope you enjoy this month's edition!
The AI Act - Can the EU Catch Up to the US and China?
Stefan Borrero
As students, we all use ChatGPT, Google Gemini, or even Snapchat’s My AI. The EU just had a major hiccup in the development of its AI Act, and this does not come without some pushback, specifically from the biggest players in the industry. US tech giants like Apple, Microsoft, OpenAI, and others took swift action.
The AI Act was supposed to be Europe’s power play to control how artificial intelligence is used like facial recognition, deepfakes, shady bots, amongst other things. The law was made official last year, and a key compliance deadline was supposed to be on May 2, 2025. But it wasn’t.
Meta, Google, OpenAI, and Microsoft were not fans of the regulation. It was too confusing, too expensive to follow, and could crush innovation. In response, the EU has considered pausing the enforcement of some part of the law so they don’t sabotage their own tech industry (2).
On top of that, many EU countries literally cannot afford to enforce the legislation (3). They don’t have the financial resources or the staff to monitor all the companies building AI tools in such a fast-moving sector, especially the big ones from Silicon Valley.
To bolster its AI capabilities and reduce reliance on external technologies, the EU has launched the InvestAI initiative, setting aside €200 billion to support AI development (4). This includes plans to build AI gigafactories equipped with supercomputers, putting Europe in a better position to compete against the US and China.
The EU is making moves, however, are they the right ones? Should they regulate or should they allow more freedom to promote innovation? Will they be able to catch the US and China? These are all questions that need to be answered, and quickly. As the AI Act’s implementation unfolds, stakeholders worldwide are closely monitoring its impact on one of the world's biggest markets.
Green Promises, Grey Realities: Is the EU Going Green Fast Enough?
Athénaïs Erodiades
The European Union has never been shy about positioning itself as a climate leader. With the European Green Deal (2) promising carbon neutrality by 2050 and major emissions cuts by 2030, the rhetoric is ambitious. But as the world barrels toward irreversible climate tipping points, a question looms larger than ever: Is the EU actually moving fast enough?
To its credit, the EU has led where others hesitated. It was the first major economy to enshrine climate neutrality into law (3), and nearly a third of its €2 trillion COVID recovery package was earmarked for green initiatives (4). Through Fit for 55, the bloc aims to slash emissions by 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The EU Emissions Trading System has also been revamped to be more aggressive, now covering buildings and road transport (5).
And yet, critics argue that for all the ambition, implementation lags behind. While coal use is declining, fossil fuels still account for over 70% of the EU’s energy consumption (5). Agricultural emissions, largely untouched, continue to rise, and transport remains one of the biggest climate offenders, with cars and aviation emissions rebounding post-pandemic (6).
Meanwhile, political will is waning. Farmers’ protests across Europe have already forced Brussels to scale back key parts of its green agenda, from pesticide reductions to nature restoration goals. With the 2024 European Parliament elections looming, there’s growing concern that green policy could become the first casualty of populist pressure.
So, is the EU going green fast enough? Faster than some, but not fast enough for the planet. The science is clear: to avoid catastrophe, action must outpace politics. The Green Deal has laid the tracks, but without sustained momentum, even the boldest vision risks derailing.
What Trump's New Legislation Means for International Students
Dea Peço
In a post made May 29th, 2025, American Secretary of State Marco Rubio reaffirmed that the United States would soon begin revocation of student visas held by Chinese citizens, emphasizing the focus on those studying in ‘critical fields’. A statement seemingly backed by the quotation of “Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the Secretary of State to render inadmissible any alien whose entry into the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States (1)’.
The diction of this clause allows for a vague interpretation of what affects American foreign policy, which has proven detrimental in the case of foreign international students pursuing a higher education in the country. On the basis of co-authoring an op-ed and unconfirmed participation in pro-Palestinian protests, PhD student Rümeysa Öztürk was detained under ICE custody in an act of “complete violation of due process and the rule of law,” as stated by Attorney Marty Rosenbluth (2).
When questioned on the event and recent adjacent cases, Secretary Rubio proceeded to label Ms.Ozturk as a ‘lunatic’ and stood by the claim that any others exercising free speech in her methods can expect similar treatment (3).
At a time when hundreds of thousands of students worldwide are receiving their high school diplomas and applying for their visas, many with accepted offers and years planned ahead, recent events could mean a completely different life, entirely independent of the one promised by a country and system which will soon barely resemble its preceding itself. With over 300 revoked visas and counting, academia as it is known, and American collaboration-borne innovation can expect a detrimental shift (4). As of where it stands right now, foreign youth have already begun redirecting and mourning a future sacrificed in the name of ‘foreign policy’
Liberal Mayor Nicusor Dan Secures Surprise Victory in Romanian Elections
Vanessa Chioaru
Just last November, Romania faced its most pivotal presidential election to date. Reeling from a decade long Iohannis presidency characterised by inaction and lackluster change (2), Romanians were eager for a fresh face to take centre stage and rebuild the country. However, when alleged Russian interference was communicated (3), the Romanian Constituional Court took the controversial step of calling for a repetition of the electoral process from zero in order to prevent far right candidate, Calin Georgescu from securing a near certain presidential win (4).
Now, six months later, the May 2025 rerun has delivered an equally unexpected outcome: Nicusor Dan, the liberal mayor of Bucharest, once seen as a long-shot outsider, secured the presidency in a defining moment for Romania’s future (5). The situation was not promising for Dan following the first round of the 2025 elections, narrowly securing just under 21% of the votes, marking the lowest voter turnout ever seen to bring a candidate into the second round (6). The scale once again seemed to be tipping in favour of the new poster child of the far-right, George Simion, who secured an astounding 60% of voters in the first round (7).
Following the result of this first round of scrutiny, both candidates fiercely campaigned, albeit in different ways; Dan by participating in presidential debates and Simion by embarking on a tour to support other far-right candidates across Europe, supplemented by embarrassing appearances on French television. As the final voting loomed, Simion’s bold strategy backfired while Dan steadily gained popularity both at home and abroad with his real promises to tackle Romania’s long standing issues. Given this subtle yet drastic change which slowly ensued in the weeks leading up to the final vote, Dan’s victory was a juxtaposition of surprising but expected, securing 53.6% of the votes (8). Though the gap between the two candidates was narrow, Dan’s win reflected a widespread sentiment: Romania was not ready to follow its neighbours into far-right populism.
Even though Dan’s victory has kept Romania on a pro-European path, the road ahead is not easy as the new President faces a fragmented parliament, entrenched bureaucratic resistance and most importantly a populace more divided than ever before. Whether Dan can deliver on the hope invested in him remains to be seen. Yet, for now, Romania seems to have “dodged a bullet”.
The Historic Feud Between Greece and Turkey: Latest Updates on the Conflict and the EU’s Role in the Situation
Panagiotis Vakirtzis
Last week I had the chance to visit Istanbul in Turkey. At first, I was hesitant to approach the locals fearing that the Greece-Turkey feud would impact the way they react to my identity. Nonetheless, Turkish people warmly welcomed me and we had amazing conversations with them. Some of them referred to me as “komşu”, which means “neighbor” in Turkish. When interacting with them, we touched upon the similarities our cuisines and cultures have, making it a genuinely enriching cultural exchange.
This trip was also reflective since it made me realize that the actual population of the two countries does not hate each other as much as our governments portray. This raised the question: why have the Greek and Turkish governments failed to settle the Aegean and Cyprus disputes. This article will delve into the current state of the conflict and the role of the EU.
The relations between Turkey and Greece have been hostile for the past couple of years due to multiple factors ranging from Turkey’s illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus to the Turkish aggression in the Aegean. These issues brought the two countries on the brink of war in 2022 (2). Despite the gradual normalization of relations, a lot of work needs to be done to amend the ties of the two NATO allies (3).
Recently, the European Union announced its plan to expand European defense and some member states have pointed out Turkey’s growing defense industry as an alternative to the US. However, Greece is hesitant to let Turkey participate in European defense. Turkey does not recognize the UNCLOS and claims that Greece does not have the right to expand its territorial waters in the Aegean to 12 nautical miles (4). Turkey fears that if Greece expands its territorial waters, the Aegean would become a Greek Sea, giving Athens the monopoly over the rich gas deposits. This is why Ankara has threatened to declare war on Greece if it attempts to expand its territorial waters, with a casus belli (5). This war threat has intensified tensions, undermined Greek sovereignty and has stripped Athens of its right to the resources of the Aegean.
Greece is now leveraging its EU membership to stop Turkey from participating in European defense until it lifts the war threat (6). Greece is also using its lobbying power to influence France’s arms shipments to Turkey (7). At the same time, Greece is developing closer ties with Turkey’s adversaries like Israel (8) and India (9), in an attempt to checkmate Erdoğan’s rising influence. These developments worry the EU that must take a balanced stance on the matter to not intensify the tensions of the two countries.
On the one hand, the EU acknowledges the growing Turkish defense industry and wishes to closely collaborate with relevant stakeholders to procure European weapons. On the other hand, it understands that it is controversial to cooperate with a country that undermines the sovereignty of two member states (Greece and Cyprus) (10). Therefore, it is only expected that Nicosia and Athens will use their veto power to halt any agreement that goes against their interests.
This raises the question whether there is a potential agreement that can accommodate all sides. The EU is the solution to the problem. Dr. George Tzogopoulos claims that the restoration of the EU-Turkey relationship is necessary and needs to be done in terms that take into account the interests of Cyprus and Greece (11). The EU’s lack of action in the East Mediterranean conflict has led to a surge of Euroscepticism among Greeks who fear that the EU will not protect Greece in the case of war. Therefore, the EU must step in as the mediator and try to solve the dispute of the two countries so that the SAFE initiative can move forward. This is the EU’s chance to prove that it remains a relevant regional and international body that promotes world peace and cooperation.
