Ten years of networking, collaboration, and courage of liberal women

On Tuesday, 23 October 2025, MEP Irena Joveva participated via video address at the 10th anniversary summit of the ‘Alliance of Her’ programme, the leading programme of European liberals for women’s empowerment, which brought together more than 150 participants and supporters in Brussels.

In her introduction, Joveva stressed the importance of initiatives that promote the cooperation and empowerment of women from different backgrounds and experiences, while at the same time uniting them across national borders by common liberal values. According to Joveva, these values ​​are the foundation of efforts for an open, free and equal Europe, built on women’s cooperation and ideas.

She also recalled the period when Slovenia, under the previous government, began to slide towards illiberal practices, following the example of neighboring Hungary, and emphasized how important the support of European liberals, especially liberal women, was at that time in the fight for democratic values:

”During this time, I never felt small or defeated, also because of the awareness that I have the support of you, who share and believe in the same values ​​as me. We can learn from the experiences we share, stand by each other and encourage each other to show what kind of leaders we really are.”

For Joveva, the ‘Alliance of Her’ program not only brings new knowledge and skills, but is also valuable because it connects like-minded women and encourages critical thinking. She also touched on the challenges of modern times, from the growing pressure of digitalization, the negative impacts of social networks to the resurgence of authoritarian movements.

”We live in a time when history is dangerously repeating itself. But programs like this create influential, strong and courageous women who are not afraid of these challenges.”

Finally, Joveva thanked all the organizers, members and supporters of the program and expressed her belief on the occasion of the anniversary that this program will continue to leave a deep mark on the European political space in the next ten years and inspire many new generations of liberal leaders.

/0 Comments/by

“The time of impunity is running out”

On Tuesday, 21 October 2025, MEP Irena Joveva took part in a plenary debate on polarisation and growing repression in Serbia one year after the tragedy in Novi Sad, where she stressed that it is time and crucial for the EU to finally stand up for those who stand for true values.

”Bolje ćaci, nego naci,” Joveva began by quoting an infamous slogan that has caught on among supporters of the regime and is said to represent a cynical response to the student uprising that swept across all major Serbian cities last year. The last word carries a dismissive association with Nazism, with which the Vučić regime has been labeling its own citizens, who have been persisting on the streets of various cities across the country for a year.

She went on to explain that the name of the city “Novi Sad” literally means “new now”, which can also serve as a symbol of the protesters’ desire for immediate change and a decent future here and now, not some promised tomorrow. In doing so, Joveva highlighted the grotesque irony of the situation in Serbia:

“Those who order beatings label the beaten as ‘Nazis’. They invent fake students – ćaci, while real students are bleeding for democracy. In reality, these students are the ones who are teaching us a real lesson – a lesson in courage.”

“Now it is our turn to learn the lesson,” she said, emphasizing that the European Union must clearly stand in defense of those who defend democracy, not on the side of those who trample it.

In conclusion, Joveva sent a clear message to the regime in Belgrade that their time of impunity is running out.

“Expect targeted sanctions for everyone who bears responsibility. And don’t rush to write those textbooks. Your forced lesson is over. History will judge you.”

/0 Comments/by

“Let there be no thieves where our lives are decided”

On Tuesday, 21 October 2025, MEP Irena Joveva took part in a plenary debate on the slow judiciary and the decline of the rule of law in Malta eight years after the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. She strongly condemned the Maltese government and the competent institutions for not having served justice despite the high profile of her murder.

”There are fraudsters everywhere you look,” Joveva began by recalling the words of the late Daphne Caruana Galizia, emphasizing that these words unfortunately still describe the situation in Malta today.

According to Joveva, the late Daphne embodied the fundamental values ​​of democracy with her journalistic work, and it was for them that she ultimately paid the highest price:

”She spoke the truth, exposed corruption, demanded accountability. Everything that should be taken for granted in a democracy.”

But despite the resonance of her work and her equally resonant murder, justice has still not been served.

”Those who pulled the trigger are in prison. Those who gave the order are at large. And those who obstructed the investigation are still in their positions.”

In doing so, the MEP criticized the Maltese government for preferring to remove flowers from the memorial site of the murdered journalist instead of ensuring justice and protecting media freedom.

Joveva continued by drawing attention to the findings of the competent institutions, which indicate a complete lack of progress in reforms. As she pointed out, no corruption case in Malta has so far ended with a final conviction, while journalists continue to work in a hostile and dangerous environment. At the same time, she explained that this is not just a Maltese, but a pan-European problem, as the entire Union suffers without accountability.

In conclusion, MEP Joveva expressed her belief that it is high time for real measures and changes to the situation, which Daphne had also warned about all her life:

”Let there be no thieves where our lives are decided.”

EP/Alain ROLLAND

/0 Comments/by

“Better late than never, but never again this late”

On Tuesday, 21 October 2025, MEP Irena Joveva took part in a plenary debate on the recent so-called Middle East peace agreement and the role of the European Union, where she made a clear call for immediate and decisive action: “Simply act. Better late than never, but never again this late.”

In her opening remarks, Joveva recalled that the European Union had been a silent observer of the events in Gaza for too long. As she stressed, the European institutions had been discussing, expressing concern and condemning the violence for years, but had done nothing concrete:

“You watched Gaza burn, you discussed, condemned, expressed concern… and yet you did not act. You observed genocide, but you did not dare to call it that. You spoke of principles, but you did not implement any of them. We betrayed the Palestinians. We betrayed the world and we betrayed humanity.”

With the recent conclusion of the so-called peace agreement, Joveva warned that we must ask ourselves: peace for whom?

“Is it really a ceasefire or – to quote Francesca Albanese – ‘you cease, I fire’,” she asked, adding that while the hatred between the far right in Israel and Hamas is fueled by each other, innocent civilians continue to pay the highest price.

She particularly drew attention to the role of the European Commission and its recently presented Pact for the Mediterranean, which, in Joveva’s assessment, unfortunately reaffirms the European Union’s double standards:

“You preach about stability and security and at the same time favor the aggressor, while you only mention Palestine symbolically. Is this really the role we want to play? Do we really want to watch human rights being violated, people being killed and the world continuing to burn?”

In conclusion, she called for immediate and decisive action, which must have clear consequences in the event of a breach of the agreement – ​​sanctions, isolation and accountability for violators:

“Just act. Better late than never, but never again this late.”

EP/Alexis HAULOT

/0 Comments/by
, ,

How can you perform surveillance if you don’t have access to the data?

On Wednesday, October 15, 2025, I organized an event in the Brussels Parliament with the aforementioned people to review the current state of play in the field of transparency of the EU’s operations, the legislative process, access to documents…

We jointly assessed that it is not exactly the best. Unfortunately. We all know the case of the correspondence between the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and the company Pfizer, which hid the personal messages in which she negotiated for vaccines from journalists. The New York Times journalists even initiated legal proceedings, and in the summer they won a lawsuit, but then received a response from the European Commission, saying that “we did not save these messages”.

Similarly, von der Leyen’s spokeswoman recently claimed that she deleted two messages from French President Emmanuel Macron because “she had no space on her phone”. What cynicism…

… but all this is basically just the tip of the iceberg. The EU’s institutional arrangements are such that the principles of transparency are still somewhat respected in the European Parliament, as the majority of our debates are public and recorded, while in the European Commission or the Council of the EU only PR is public.

Documents can be requested through the Ombudsman, but judging by what was said at the event, the Commission and the Council avoid it in every possible way, spend months “searching” for documents in the archives or sending so many documents that you can’t get through.

And that’s just the general part. The second is that the situation has only worsened recently. They propose legislation without impact assessments (these are key studies), they exclude the European Parliament from the process for the 150 billion euro borrowing mechanism (which is why we sued the European Commission, by the way), they combine different areas in one legislative package (these are the so-called Omnibuses), they exclude stakeholders from legally required consultations… in short, they do everything possible just to make the process even more opaque and resistant to criticism, to force proposals without real democratic control.

When Ursula von der Leyen agreed with US President Donald Trump that the EU would be hit with 15% tariffs, the Commission President also agreed with him to remove those small tariffs on industrial goods from the US in the EU. She agreed similarly for certain food products. There are no legally defined “impact assessments” of these proposals at all. Neither how much less revenue will there be, nor how much more goods will there be from the US. All to prevent Trump from doing even more damage – but the latter is still threatening new measures against the EU.

At the event, we agreed that we all – the European Parliament, the Ombudsman, NGOs and journalists – face similar challenges, where we often do not get the answers we need from the executive branch to do our job. But we also agreed that this will not stop us from doing our job.

  • Irena

In addition to MEP Irena Joveva, who also organised the event, the discussion also included Lambros Papadias – Head of Cabinet of the European Ombudsman, Nick Aiossa – Director of Transparency International EU, Anne Friel – lawyer and Head of Environmental Rights and Rule of Law at ClientEarth, Staffan Dahllöf – freelance journalist from Denmark, and MEPs Cristina Guarda, Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA) and Evin Incir (S&D).

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

“A Europe That Cares for Mental Health Cares for Its People”

On Thursday, 9 October 2025, Member of the European Parliament Irena Joveva took part in the plenary debate marking World Mental Health Day, stressing that mental health must be placed at the heart of European policymaking. “Mental health is not a luxury. It is a fundamental human right. It is dignity,” Joveva declared.

At the outset, Joveva recalled that the European Commission in the previous term presented the European Strategy for Mental Health, describing it as a step in the right direction — but still insufficiently ambitious.

“Mental health doesn’t begin in hospitals, it begins in societies that provide people with security, stability, and opportunity.”

She therefore called for concrete action, including stronger social safety nets, access to affordable housing, the reduction of poverty and inequality, better protection against burnout, and the integration of mental health into the European Pillar of Social Rights.

Joveva also drew attention to the growing impact of artificial intelligence on mental health, a factor often underestimated by society.

“Our societies are increasingly dependent on algorithms. Artificial intelligence shapes our lives — and our emotions. AI had been among the reasons that led one teenager to take his own life.”

In conclusion, Joveva advocated for clear EU-level rules and safeguards to ensure that the European Union genuinely demonstrates care for mental health — and, by doing so, care for its people.

Photo / EP: Fred Marvaux

/0 Comments/by

Always according to my conscience

According to my conscience. As always.

This time, the motions of no confidence in the European Commission came from both the far-left and the far-right ends of the political spectrum. Each side put forward its own.

If the real intention had been to remove Ursula von der Leyen, the approach would have needed to be very different. But let’s leave that aside. As the saying goes: their circus, their… well, let’s leave that too.

So, to the heart of the matter: why did I support both motions of no confidence?

For months we’ve been told that those of us in the political center must act “responsibly,” and that removing Ursula von der Leyen would plunge the institutions into chaos. That may be true — yet something is clearly wrong if we have become prisoners of our own processes. Prisoners of a center-right governance model in the European Union that sometimes holds the middle ground, but often doesn’t.

What ultimately guided my decision?

With the motion from the left, there was little room for doubt — the main accusations against the Commission President concerned the genocide in Gaza.

The motion from the far right was different. Although this one — unlike their first attempt — was more substantively grounded, I do not agree with them politically or ideologically. But you know what? I do not trust Ursula von der Leyen any more than I trust them. And that is what tipped the scale.

At the beginning of this mandate, I had a one-on-one meeting with von der Leyen. I told her very clearly what I expected from her Commission. Those expectations were not met — and clearly never will be.

Her “right-wing majority” won through rhetoric, manipulation, and, in many cases, outright lies — yet action and accountability remain absent.

They rose to power on anti-migrant sentiment, only to hand over billions in taxpayers’ money to Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, and Morocco — paying these countries to do Europe’s dirty work: to detain people using armed paramilitary groups, to beat them, drive them into the desert, rape them, and even sell them.

And let’s not even start on Gaza. It took von der Leyen two years to slightly harden her rhetoric — after the state of Israel had already killed at least 70,000 people, was firing on civilians, aid workers, and journalists, and starving the rest in what can only be called genocide.

In Serbia, in the name of “stability,” she supports a regime that unleashes its paid thugs on citizens who simply want a better future. With Trump, she bends on tariffs that damage the European economy.

My views on von der Leyen have never changed. Not once during this mandate did I support her. Nor did I oppose the first motion of no confidence before the summer. So I don’t understand why anyone is surprised now — calling my vote “bizarre.” Why? Because I gave her more than enough chances?

I know she’s not personally to blame for everything. I also know it’s unfair to those commissioners who genuinely want to do their jobs. But in the end, it’s precisely her style of leadership that prevents them from doing so.

Sadly, I cannot name a single concrete achievement from this Commission’s first year onward that deserves praise. And for that, regardless of all else, Ursula von der Leyen bears the primary responsibility. Despite the pressure to “act responsibly” and the argument that “there is no alternative,” my conscience would not allow me to vote otherwise.

I can make compromises — but there comes a point when enough is enough.

EP / Alexis Haulot

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Now or Never

On Tuesday, 7 October 2025, Member of the European Parliament Irena Joveva took part in the plenary debate on the European Union’s role in supporting the latest peace efforts for Gaza and the two-state solution. “Now or never. Not tomorrow. Not next week,” Joveva said, underscoring the urgency of establishing peace.

At the outset, Joveva stressed that the moment has come for the international community to move beyond mere expressions of condemnation and to take concrete action.

“Now or never. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Now or never,” she repeated, adding that this is also the moment for all those who continue to justify the atrocities committed by the Israeli state against the Palestinian people “to show that at least a spark of humanity still remains within them.”

Joveva went on to acknowledge the latest peace plan proposed by Trump, but cautioned that its relative moderation compared to the previous so-called “Middle East Riviera” plan did not make it acceptable. She explained that the new plan contains neither mechanisms to protect the Palestinian population nor provisions to prevent further displacement.

“Instead of safeguards against the annexation of Palestinian territory and the unification of Gaza and the West Bank, the plan effectively introduces their separation through the creation of parallel systems,” she said.

In Joveva’s view, plans alone do not bring justice; words do not stop bombs, and speeches do not feed hungry children. She argued that the international community failed at the moment when decisive action was most needed — and therefore must not fail now, when it comes to holding Israel accountable for violations of international law.

In conclusion, Joveva reminded that Palestinians are still dying under rubble and bombs, and children are dying of hunger. “I will repeat it: Now or never — let us prove that we are not just commentators and witnesses to tragedy. Now or never — let us stand on the side of humanity,” she concluded.

Foto/EP: Philippe STIRNWEISS

 

/0 Comments/by
,

Joveva for N1: “Politics is the art of the possible.”

In an interview with Serbian N1 on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, MEP Irena Joveva spoke about the situation in Serbia and how, although still too slowly, the EU’s attitude towards Serbia is changing. “Anything is possible if there is political will. There are mechanisms in the European Parliament and there are other things we can and will do,” Joveva was candid about the approaches available to the Union.

“I was not surprised that Ursula von der Leyen did not mention Serbia in her speech, because it was not expected. However, we need to look at the bigger picture and the circumstances. Von der Leyen has spent years building an image of a leader who can lead the EU through various crises, but now she has experienced a serious drop in credibility. For example, after 700 days she mentioned Gaza for the first time in her speech. So the reason for the drop in her credibility is also that she does not have a position on Serbia,” MEP Irena Joveva told N1.

However, according to Joveva, this does not change the fact that MEPs in the European Parliament, including Commissioner Marta Kos, will do everything they can for Serbia.

“The position of Commissioner for Enlargement Kos is her position. Marta Kos has, for legitimate reasons, intensified her rhetoric towards official Belgrade. If we look at the situation and everything that is happening in Serbia, and the statements of Marta Kos, it is clear that Von der Leyen knows very well what she is talking about. And besides the fact that Ursula Von der Leyen always knows what Marta Kos is going to say, this actually means that something is happening and that this is the beginning of a different official position of the European Commission towards Serbia.”

She said, that she is convinced, that von der Leyen would have to choose between economic and human, democratic interests, and that the fact, that she did not mention Serbia in her last speech, did not mean that her position was not changing.

“I think her attitude is changing, because Marta Kos would never make such statements about Serbia without Von der Leyen knowing about them,” the MEP was of the opinion.

When asked what was crucial and what influenced the change of direction of the MEPs and the European Commission towards official Belgrade, Joveva was clear:

“Things have gone too far in Serbia and it is simply impossible to ignore this anymore, even if it concerns high-ranking officials of the European institutions. All this has been going on in Serbia for a long time. Ursula said something about Gaza for the first time in 700 days, but when I say that, I don’t think she will need that much for Serbia. The fact is that something is changing, so our pressure and the pressure of the people in Serbia must not stop. When it comes to the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, the problem is not only that he cannot control his attitude towards the MEPs. A much bigger problem is the way he treats his people, and I think everyone in Europe is increasingly aware of this.”

Regarding the mechanisms that the European Parliament has to put pressure on the regime in Belgrade and help the students and citizens who are protesting, Joveva explained that she sees politics as the art of the possible:

“Anything is possible if there is political will. There are mechanisms in the European Parliament and there are other things that we can and will do. There will certainly be. Maybe a new resolution, some official mission of the European Parliament to Serbia, pressure or monitoring of the promises of the Serbian authorities, maybe it will be demands regarding financial resources, some form of sanctions, everything is possible. Some of these things are easier to achieve, some are more difficult because we have to get the permission of all 27 member states. But we have to do it.”

She went on to point out that the criticisms we hear from the European Parliament now, carry more weight, because the circumstances in Serbia have changed for the worse.

“We must now take clear steps, put our hands up and not allow the authorities in Serbia to use the EU as a cover. Economic values ​​are still more important than democracy for some individuals, and this is in the European Commission, but this is also changing. It is increasingly clear that Vučić is no longer a factor of stability, not even for Ursula von der Leyen. This is no longer the case, because he has become the source of all instability. Therefore, some economic values ​​are no longer so important. And even if von der Leyen may not personally want to change her attitude towards him, she will have to change that.”

She concluded by saying that she is confident that Serbian students will be included in the first three nominations for the Sakharov Prize. Although it is a proposal by the Renew Europe group of the European Parliament, she is confident that this group is not the only one to have nominated them for the prize, because what they are doing is not only important for Serbia, but for all of us.

The interview is available in full at the following link.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Chat control. Chat control. Chat control.

Chat control. Chat control. Chat control.

Have I got your attention? Good.

That feeling when manipulations and lies come back like a boomerang to those who manipulate and lie, because they don’t know how to do anything else anyway. That feeling when “your five minutes” come.

It would be a great feeling, if the topic weren’t really too sensitive for cheap political points to be scored on. I’m writing this because I won’t allow incitement, especially not the kind that is necessary, because it makes someone accountable for certain political programs. I’m writing this because I have never and will not ever deviate from my views, principles and tenets.

I’m writing this because one day I’m a disgrace who supports sexual predators and at the same time proclaims herself a great advocate for children, even publicly exposing my daughter for the needs of her candidacy, and the next day I’m… nothing. I’m nothing, while all of a sudden they’re all great advocates of the right to privacy. Even those who voted FOR the exception to the extension of the rules that allowed access to private – I repeat, private – communications. But wasn’t that “chat control”? It absolutely was. And I was absolutely the only one against it at the time.

You have the evidence in the photos. On one side, my statement, on the other, the bizarre claims of certain people, including politicians, who think they can say and write anything – and it doesn’t matter at all whether it’s true or not. Those who adapt their positions to momentary applause or – worse – their own interests.

So … yes, these are my five minutes. Five minutes that are actually eternal – because I am consistently against general surveillance of private communications. Consistently AGAINST the “chat control” regulation. Consistently FOR my positions, always and everywhere.

/0 Comments/by