On Sunday, the SPD will decide on personnel and the program for the European elections. The ranking positions have largely been negotiated between the federal party and regional associations in advance, and General Secretary Kevin Kühnert expects at most a few contested candidacies. The draft of the election program also holds few surprises: The SPD advocates, for example, for an active industrial policy, aiming to streamline subsidy law for it (Kühnert) and enforce the minimum tax rate for multinational companies across all EU states, a policy long pursued by Olaf Scholz.
The programmatic keynote speech on Sunday to the 150 delegates will be delivered by lead candidate Katarina Barley. Following her, the Federal Chancellor will speak. Scholz is expected to become the second face of the campaign, designed again by the Hamburg agency Raphael Brinkert despite the current poor polling numbers. “I would consider anything else peculiar,” says Kühnert.
In any case, the Social Democrats are unlikely to lead a very vocal campaign. Neither Scholz nor Barley are inclined to use bold statements. Kühnert sees Barley’s calm and approachable demeanor as a strength: As the only political force, the Social Democrats are connectable to all center parties from the EPP to the Left; in the face of polarization, the ability and willingness to compromise will be even more crucial after the election.
But will that be enough to mobilize the traditionally somewhat passive SPD supporters in the European elections? The former Federal Minister of Justice and current Vice President of the European Parliament can credibly stand for the rule of law and democracy, which can be a strong argument given the rise of right-wing nationalist parties and recent large-scale demonstrations in German cities. However, the ongoing debate about the defensibility or “war capability” (Boris Pistorius) of Europe might be painful for the Social Democrats.
AfD parliamentary leader Alice Weidel is also fueling the election campaign with her statements on “Dexit”. If national egotism is given higher priority than the country’s economic well-being, it shows the “nationalistic delusion” of the AfD, according to Kühnert.
A few months before the end of the legislative period, President von der Leyen wants to engage in discussions about agriculture. As part of the “Strategic Dialogue on the Future of Agriculture“, which convened for the first time on Thursday, representatives from agriculture, food industry, environmental and animal welfare organizations, and consumer advocates will develop a shared vision for the future. Von der Leyen announced the dialogue in September during her State of the Union address. The forum is intended to overcome the “growing division and polarization” in the sector, emphasized the Commission President during the opening session. A final report is expected in late summer – after the European elections and the start of the next Commission’s mandate.
The concept may be familiar to many in Germany: Minister President of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, initiated an agricultural strategy dialogue in 2022, which is still ongoing. Previously, at the federal level, the Future Commission on Agriculture, initiated in 2019 by von der Leyen’s party colleague, Chancellor Angela Merkel, convened under a different name but in a similar format in response to farmer protests. Although progress has been limited to date, reaching consensus among participants – from the Farmers’ Association to environmental NGOs – on common recommendations was considered a sensation in the polarized agricultural world. Von der Leyen is building on this by appointing Peter Strohschneider, the chairman of the German Future Commission, to lead the new strategic dialogue.
At the EU level, however, the format is new and highly relevant in the face of farmer protests in an increasing number of countries, which are also directed against European agricultural policy. How the dialogue will proceed, the scope of the thematic discussions, and what concrete results might emerge remained vague on the opening day. Even the involved organizations reportedly had little information until Thursday’s launch. Neither the frequency of meetings nor the completion date is set. High-ranking participants in the organization of the dialogue argue that the process is intentionally open to allow room for compromise.
In terms of content, according to participants, the results could influence the preparation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2027. The Commission originally intended to present an initial concept paper before the elections. However, recent reports from Commission sources suggest that work on the future of the CAP will only gain momentum under the new Commission after the elections.
At the inaugural event, the Commission President assured participants that the vision and recommendations of the forum “will influence the work of the coming years“. Von der Leyen’s term ends in November. Her reelection as an EPP politician is considered likely. Critics view the agricultural strategy dialogue against this backdrop as an election maneuver to court rural voters.
Criticism comes primarily from environmental and animal welfare advocates, also regarding the timing of the initiative. Ideas are not lacking shortly before the end of the term; rather, implementation is the issue. Many dossiers originally planned within the Farm-to-Fork Strategy are still open or have not been presented at all. However, Commission sources argue that the times have changed since the strategy’s draft: Crises like the Ukraine war or the COVID-19 pandemic have further challenged agriculture in addition to the necessary transformation of the sector. A new approach is now needed, which the Strategy Dialogue aims to provide.
There are politicians who do the same thing throughout their lives. And then there are those who continually evolve. One could also say: reinvent themselves. Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann belongs to this category. Starting as an FDP local politician, she stormed into Berlin during challenging times to help rebuild the party. Later, she experienced how, in the calculations of party leader Christian Lindner, other liberals suddenly became more important. Instead of accepting this, she moved into parliament and immersed herself in foreign policy. The result is that she is now one of the most prominent liberals alongside Lindner. This is likely a significant reason why she will be officially elected as her party’s lead candidate for the European elections on Sunday.
Almost four years ago, Strack-Zimmermann was displaced by Nicola Beer. She stepped down from the position of deputy federal chair and, consequently, the party presidency. Beer, then the general secretary, was supposed to take over as the lead candidate for the European elections and also become Lindner’s deputy. This was the position Strack-Zimmermann had held since 2013.
She could have claimed the position for herself and entered into a contested election. However, Strack-Zimmermann declined. “Those who know me are aware that I don’t shy away from any fight or contest if I am convinced that it also benefits the Free Democrats,” Strack-Zimmermann wrote in a letter to Lindner and the then North Rhine-Westphalia state chairman Joachim Stamp. She stated that she was “refraining from it out of consideration for the party” but added, “My decision is definitely not the beginning of a withdrawal”. For Lindner, this initially seemed convenient yet also sounded like a threat.
Especially since he had brought her from Düsseldorf’s local politics to federal politics six years earlier. She was part of the team tasked with rebuilding the party after its exit from the Bundestag. Lindner promised the delegates at the time that she would “not only be a new face in the party’s leadership but also strengthen the party’s municipal roots”.
The newly elected party leader probably did not anticipate that Strack-Zimmermann’s interests would not forever be limited to municipalities. In 2017, she ran behind Lindner in second place on the North Rhine-Westphalia state list for the federal elections and secured the FDP’s nationwide best second vote result with 19.7 percent. In the newly formed Bundestag faction, she became the spokesperson for municipal policy – and for defense.
The latter was the position through which she gained profile beyond party boundaries. As an opposition politician, she had an easy time taking on then-Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen. Strack-Zimmermann was always present with pointed comments, which increasingly attracted the attention of talk show editors.
However, for the party leadership, Strack-Zimmermann became uncomfortable because she did not want to be controlled by others. She has her own mind, her own common sense and not only the government but also the party leadership could feel it, if necessary. Not by openly criticizing them, but by being less receptive to suggestions on how she should see or evaluate certain matters. She kept her own head. A fundamental understanding that has not changed to this day.
When it seemed opportune for Beer and Lindner to reserve Strack-Zimmermann’s position for Beer, Strack-Zimmermann wisely recognized the new situation. It did not harm her public presence. As a defense politician, she remained in demand, especially as the army and German security policy came into focus with the withdrawal of the Bundeswehr from Afghanistan.
When her party joined the traffic light coalition in 2021, many envisioned Strack-Zimmermann as Defense Minister. However, the FDP had different ambitions and did not make an effort to secure the ministry during coalition negotiations. Nevertheless, she was allowed to chair the Defense Committee in the Bundestag. For Strack-Zimmermann, it was an ideal position: On the one hand, the position gave her weight, and on the other hand, she could always claim the parliament’s right to participate in important government matters – and thus always be a bit oppositional. She did this abundantly when the government hesitated on the issue of arms deliveries to Ukraine.
The call for Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann resurfaced when Christine Lambrecht resigned after an extremely unsuccessful year in office. However, neither Lindner nor Chancellor Olaf Scholz considered a cabinet reshuffle, and the ministry remained in the hands of the SPD. Nevertheless, the FDP politician later stated in an interview with Der Spiegel: “If they had asked me, I would have said yes.”
According to reports, she was not asked when it came to the lead candidacy for the European elections. The 65-year-old herself says she approached Lindner with the wish. At least for now, it seems like a win-win situation for both: The government loses a disruptive factor that increasingly annoyed even the Chancellery. At the same time, Strack-Zimmermann is likely relieved that her office will be 650 kilometers away from Berlin.
It is THE topic of the day in the Brussels climate-environment bubble: Diederik Samsom, the real eminence grise for climate issues in the European Commission, is leaving his post as Head of Cabinet of Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra. The departure of this expert on international climate negotiations gives rise to one of the Brussels bubble’s favorite exercises: ignoring official statements that speak of a “good understanding” between Hoekstra and Samsom, for example, and speculating about the change in political personnel that this departure brings.
First, let’s focus on the personnel carousel: The Dutch media outlet NOS reports that Esther de Lange, currently a member of the European Parliament for the EPP, will be Wopke Hoekstra’s new chief of staff. She is a member of the Environment Committee (ENVI) and has emerged as a fierce opponent of the Nature Restoration Law. De Lange has not yet commented on this herself.
Behind the scenes, it is also heard that Hoekstra intends to continue as EU Commissioner after the EU elections to the European Parliament in June. There is no official confirmation from the Commission here either. What is certain is that the Dutch cabinet will have to nominate a new candidate for the position of EU Commissioner after these elections. Hoekstra and de Lange would then have had a six-month training to prepare for the new mandate.
What is also heard from Brussels is that Samsom will stay until June to prepare for the continuation of the Green Deal after the European elections, a work program that the Brussels bubble has immediately labeled as Green Deal 2.0. Given the contrasting political backgrounds of Samsom and de Lange, clashes are expected in the Berlaymont.
“Because Samsom is not a bureaucrat but a politician,” is emphasized in the Berlaymont. And indeed, it was Frans Timmermans, the preferred target of European conservatives, who brought the former Greenpeace employee to Brussels, who, like him, is a Social Democrat.
Samsom started as a campaign manager at Greenpeace, then became the director of a “green” energy company, and entered politics in 2003. From 2012 to 2016, he was the chairman of the Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA). After losing the position to Lodewijk Asscher, Samsom left Dutch politics. Whether he wants to return there is currently being speculated in Brussels.
In the European Parliament, the news of Diederik Samsom’s departure leaves no one indifferent – which is an understatement. “He was the one who drove the Green Deal forward, albeit behind the scenes. He is not a personality seeking attention and media; he is more of a shadow man pulling the strings,” reports a source from Parliament. “It happened that he called EU parliamentarians to influence their voting behavior, even if it went in the opposite direction of what the parliamentarians were working on,” says the source.
Perhaps the operational methods will change with the person who succeeds him. One thing can be certain: The Green Deal is a project of such great political significance that it requires strong political personalities to determine its direction and steer it.
On Sunday, the SPD will decide on personnel and the program for the European elections. The ranking positions have largely been negotiated between the federal party and regional associations in advance, and General Secretary Kevin Kühnert expects at most a few contested candidacies. The draft of the election program also holds few surprises: The SPD advocates, for example, for an active industrial policy, aiming to streamline subsidy law for it (Kühnert) and enforce the minimum tax rate for multinational companies across all EU states, a policy long pursued by Olaf Scholz.
The programmatic keynote speech on Sunday to the 150 delegates will be delivered by lead candidate Katarina Barley. Following her, the Federal Chancellor will speak. Scholz is expected to become the second face of the campaign, designed again by the Hamburg agency Raphael Brinkert despite the current poor polling numbers. “I would consider anything else peculiar,” says Kühnert.
In any case, the Social Democrats are unlikely to lead a very vocal campaign. Neither Scholz nor Barley are inclined to use bold statements. Kühnert sees Barley’s calm and approachable demeanor as a strength: As the only political force, the Social Democrats are connectable to all center parties from the EPP to the Left; in the face of polarization, the ability and willingness to compromise will be even more crucial after the election.
But will that be enough to mobilize the traditionally somewhat passive SPD supporters in the European elections? The former Federal Minister of Justice and current Vice President of the European Parliament can credibly stand for the rule of law and democracy, which can be a strong argument given the rise of right-wing nationalist parties and recent large-scale demonstrations in German cities. However, the ongoing debate about the defensibility or “war capability” (Boris Pistorius) of Europe might be painful for the Social Democrats.
AfD parliamentary leader Alice Weidel is also fueling the election campaign with her statements on “Dexit”. If national egotism is given higher priority than the country’s economic well-being, it shows the “nationalistic delusion” of the AfD, according to Kühnert.
A few months before the end of the legislative period, President von der Leyen wants to engage in discussions about agriculture. As part of the “Strategic Dialogue on the Future of Agriculture“, which convened for the first time on Thursday, representatives from agriculture, food industry, environmental and animal welfare organizations, and consumer advocates will develop a shared vision for the future. Von der Leyen announced the dialogue in September during her State of the Union address. The forum is intended to overcome the “growing division and polarization” in the sector, emphasized the Commission President during the opening session. A final report is expected in late summer – after the European elections and the start of the next Commission’s mandate.
The concept may be familiar to many in Germany: Minister President of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, initiated an agricultural strategy dialogue in 2022, which is still ongoing. Previously, at the federal level, the Future Commission on Agriculture, initiated in 2019 by von der Leyen’s party colleague, Chancellor Angela Merkel, convened under a different name but in a similar format in response to farmer protests. Although progress has been limited to date, reaching consensus among participants – from the Farmers’ Association to environmental NGOs – on common recommendations was considered a sensation in the polarized agricultural world. Von der Leyen is building on this by appointing Peter Strohschneider, the chairman of the German Future Commission, to lead the new strategic dialogue.
At the EU level, however, the format is new and highly relevant in the face of farmer protests in an increasing number of countries, which are also directed against European agricultural policy. How the dialogue will proceed, the scope of the thematic discussions, and what concrete results might emerge remained vague on the opening day. Even the involved organizations reportedly had little information until Thursday’s launch. Neither the frequency of meetings nor the completion date is set. High-ranking participants in the organization of the dialogue argue that the process is intentionally open to allow room for compromise.
In terms of content, according to participants, the results could influence the preparation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2027. The Commission originally intended to present an initial concept paper before the elections. However, recent reports from Commission sources suggest that work on the future of the CAP will only gain momentum under the new Commission after the elections.
At the inaugural event, the Commission President assured participants that the vision and recommendations of the forum “will influence the work of the coming years“. Von der Leyen’s term ends in November. Her reelection as an EPP politician is considered likely. Critics view the agricultural strategy dialogue against this backdrop as an election maneuver to court rural voters.
Criticism comes primarily from environmental and animal welfare advocates, also regarding the timing of the initiative. Ideas are not lacking shortly before the end of the term; rather, implementation is the issue. Many dossiers originally planned within the Farm-to-Fork Strategy are still open or have not been presented at all. However, Commission sources argue that the times have changed since the strategy’s draft: Crises like the Ukraine war or the COVID-19 pandemic have further challenged agriculture in addition to the necessary transformation of the sector. A new approach is now needed, which the Strategy Dialogue aims to provide.
There are politicians who do the same thing throughout their lives. And then there are those who continually evolve. One could also say: reinvent themselves. Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann belongs to this category. Starting as an FDP local politician, she stormed into Berlin during challenging times to help rebuild the party. Later, she experienced how, in the calculations of party leader Christian Lindner, other liberals suddenly became more important. Instead of accepting this, she moved into parliament and immersed herself in foreign policy. The result is that she is now one of the most prominent liberals alongside Lindner. This is likely a significant reason why she will be officially elected as her party’s lead candidate for the European elections on Sunday.
Almost four years ago, Strack-Zimmermann was displaced by Nicola Beer. She stepped down from the position of deputy federal chair and, consequently, the party presidency. Beer, then the general secretary, was supposed to take over as the lead candidate for the European elections and also become Lindner’s deputy. This was the position Strack-Zimmermann had held since 2013.
She could have claimed the position for herself and entered into a contested election. However, Strack-Zimmermann declined. “Those who know me are aware that I don’t shy away from any fight or contest if I am convinced that it also benefits the Free Democrats,” Strack-Zimmermann wrote in a letter to Lindner and the then North Rhine-Westphalia state chairman Joachim Stamp. She stated that she was “refraining from it out of consideration for the party” but added, “My decision is definitely not the beginning of a withdrawal”. For Lindner, this initially seemed convenient yet also sounded like a threat.
Especially since he had brought her from Düsseldorf’s local politics to federal politics six years earlier. She was part of the team tasked with rebuilding the party after its exit from the Bundestag. Lindner promised the delegates at the time that she would “not only be a new face in the party’s leadership but also strengthen the party’s municipal roots”.
The newly elected party leader probably did not anticipate that Strack-Zimmermann’s interests would not forever be limited to municipalities. In 2017, she ran behind Lindner in second place on the North Rhine-Westphalia state list for the federal elections and secured the FDP’s nationwide best second vote result with 19.7 percent. In the newly formed Bundestag faction, she became the spokesperson for municipal policy – and for defense.
The latter was the position through which she gained profile beyond party boundaries. As an opposition politician, she had an easy time taking on then-Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen. Strack-Zimmermann was always present with pointed comments, which increasingly attracted the attention of talk show editors.
However, for the party leadership, Strack-Zimmermann became uncomfortable because she did not want to be controlled by others. She has her own mind, her own common sense and not only the government but also the party leadership could feel it, if necessary. Not by openly criticizing them, but by being less receptive to suggestions on how she should see or evaluate certain matters. She kept her own head. A fundamental understanding that has not changed to this day.
When it seemed opportune for Beer and Lindner to reserve Strack-Zimmermann’s position for Beer, Strack-Zimmermann wisely recognized the new situation. It did not harm her public presence. As a defense politician, she remained in demand, especially as the army and German security policy came into focus with the withdrawal of the Bundeswehr from Afghanistan.
When her party joined the traffic light coalition in 2021, many envisioned Strack-Zimmermann as Defense Minister. However, the FDP had different ambitions and did not make an effort to secure the ministry during coalition negotiations. Nevertheless, she was allowed to chair the Defense Committee in the Bundestag. For Strack-Zimmermann, it was an ideal position: On the one hand, the position gave her weight, and on the other hand, she could always claim the parliament’s right to participate in important government matters – and thus always be a bit oppositional. She did this abundantly when the government hesitated on the issue of arms deliveries to Ukraine.
The call for Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann resurfaced when Christine Lambrecht resigned after an extremely unsuccessful year in office. However, neither Lindner nor Chancellor Olaf Scholz considered a cabinet reshuffle, and the ministry remained in the hands of the SPD. Nevertheless, the FDP politician later stated in an interview with Der Spiegel: “If they had asked me, I would have said yes.”
According to reports, she was not asked when it came to the lead candidacy for the European elections. The 65-year-old herself says she approached Lindner with the wish. At least for now, it seems like a win-win situation for both: The government loses a disruptive factor that increasingly annoyed even the Chancellery. At the same time, Strack-Zimmermann is likely relieved that her office will be 650 kilometers away from Berlin.
It is THE topic of the day in the Brussels climate-environment bubble: Diederik Samsom, the real eminence grise for climate issues in the European Commission, is leaving his post as Head of Cabinet of Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra. The departure of this expert on international climate negotiations gives rise to one of the Brussels bubble’s favorite exercises: ignoring official statements that speak of a “good understanding” between Hoekstra and Samsom, for example, and speculating about the change in political personnel that this departure brings.
First, let’s focus on the personnel carousel: The Dutch media outlet NOS reports that Esther de Lange, currently a member of the European Parliament for the EPP, will be Wopke Hoekstra’s new chief of staff. She is a member of the Environment Committee (ENVI) and has emerged as a fierce opponent of the Nature Restoration Law. De Lange has not yet commented on this herself.
Behind the scenes, it is also heard that Hoekstra intends to continue as EU Commissioner after the EU elections to the European Parliament in June. There is no official confirmation from the Commission here either. What is certain is that the Dutch cabinet will have to nominate a new candidate for the position of EU Commissioner after these elections. Hoekstra and de Lange would then have had a six-month training to prepare for the new mandate.
What is also heard from Brussels is that Samsom will stay until June to prepare for the continuation of the Green Deal after the European elections, a work program that the Brussels bubble has immediately labeled as Green Deal 2.0. Given the contrasting political backgrounds of Samsom and de Lange, clashes are expected in the Berlaymont.
“Because Samsom is not a bureaucrat but a politician,” is emphasized in the Berlaymont. And indeed, it was Frans Timmermans, the preferred target of European conservatives, who brought the former Greenpeace employee to Brussels, who, like him, is a Social Democrat.
Samsom started as a campaign manager at Greenpeace, then became the director of a “green” energy company, and entered politics in 2003. From 2012 to 2016, he was the chairman of the Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA). After losing the position to Lodewijk Asscher, Samsom left Dutch politics. Whether he wants to return there is currently being speculated in Brussels.
In the European Parliament, the news of Diederik Samsom’s departure leaves no one indifferent – which is an understatement. “He was the one who drove the Green Deal forward, albeit behind the scenes. He is not a personality seeking attention and media; he is more of a shadow man pulling the strings,” reports a source from Parliament. “It happened that he called EU parliamentarians to influence their voting behavior, even if it went in the opposite direction of what the parliamentarians were working on,” says the source.
Perhaps the operational methods will change with the person who succeeds him. One thing can be certain: The Green Deal is a project of such great political significance that it requires strong political personalities to determine its direction and steer it.
