There is rare unity across the political camps: Greens, conservatives, even liberals criticize Emmanuel Macron’s statements on the Taiwan issue. But the dispute also has advantages, analyze Amelie Richter and Felix Lee. For in the EU, Macron has thus fueled the urgently needed debate on the future course of China and Taiwan policy.
In recent years, the EU has set standards far beyond its own borders with its rules. This is also known as the “Brussels Effect”. Critical voices have come up with an alternative term: “regulatory imperialism”. And those critical voices are getting louder. That’s why we’re devoting a separate series to the debate starting today. We begin with Caspar Dohmen and Till Hoppe, who analyze the status quo.
The EU also wants to set new standards on the subject of reporting requirements. But the timetable for the CSRD standards could be delayed – because exactly which standards are to be introduced is a question that is to be discussed in detail. In an interview with Claire Stam and Leonie Düngefeld, S&D MEP Pascal Durand explains how it could come to this and why a delay would be fatal.
Much excitement – for nothing? In an interview with the French newspaper Les Echos during his trip to China, French President Emmanuel Macron called for Europe to act more independently in the Taiwan conflict. At the same time, Macron hinted that Europe might not stand by Taiwan in the event of an attack by the People’s Republic. “The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans are fellow travelers and have to adapt to the American rhythm and a Chinese overreaction”, Macron said. Now there is outrage in Berlin and Brussels – partly, at least.
“Macron is isolating himself in Europe, he is weakening the European Union, and he is indeed counteracting what the president of the European Commission said in Beijing“, CDU foreign affairs expert Norbert Röttgen criticized on Deutschlandfunk radio. His party colleague Manfred Weber, chairman of the European People’s Party (EPP) in the EU Parliament, was also appalled. The EU states made themselves untrustworthy “if on the one hand you demand sovereignty for Europe and then conclude every economic deal you can with China“, he tweeted. Longtime EU parliamentarian Reinhard Bütikofer of the Green Party used the hashtag “#braindead” on Twitter.
While Macron, with 50 entrepreneurs in tow, flattered host Xi Jinping during a joint visit with Ursula von der Leyen in Beijing last week, the EU Commission president chose more cautionary words: Should China support Russia “directly or indirectly” with military equipment, this would “severely strain” relations with the EU. She described a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan as an unacceptable course of action.
The government in Paris, however, vehemently rejected the criticism of its president on Tuesday. Macron has repeatedly said that France is not equidistant from the US and China, a spokeswoman for the Élysée Palace said, fending off accusations of equidistance: “The US is our ally, we share common values”. China, on the other hand, is a partner, competitor and systemic rival with whom they want to create a common agenda to reduce tensions and address global issues, she said. On Taiwan, France supports the status quo, she stressed. Macron, she explained, had clearly told China’s leader Xi that the Taiwan issue must be resolved through dialogue.
In Brussels, meanwhile, efforts were made on Tuesday to limit the damage. The joint message of Macron and von der Leyen in the trilateral meeting with Xi was quite “consistent and coherent”, stressed EU Commission spokesman Eric Mamer. As far as the rest of the French leader’s trip or his interview statements on Taiwan are concerned, the EU Commission will not comment – as is generally the case.
Von der Leyen had spoken during her trip in the capacity of EU Commission President and had presented a unified line here compared to the keynote speech a week earlier, Mamer said. There had been coordination with the Élysée before this speech as well as before the joint trip. Since the publication of the Macron interview, however, there has so far been no contact between the offices of the EU Commission President and the French head of state, Mamer explained.
But some in France also view Macron’s interview critically. Von der Leyen and Macron certainly discussed the Taiwan issue during their meeting before their joint trip, said French China watcher Antoine Bondaz. The problem, he said, is that Macron has failed to present an agenda that defines the EU’s interests and strategy. “Saying we don’t have the same interests as the US is obvious”, Bondaz criticized. “And distancing ourselves from the US is not a strategy in itself”. The timing of Macron’s pronouncements was disastrous, he said.
“It is a statement that has not benefited French policy”, Stéphane Corcuff, a sinologist at Sciences Po Lyon University, told the France24news platform. “The only thing that can stop China from attacking Taiwan is the knowledge that we will be there to respond”, Corcuff said.
Nevertheless, Washington reacted calmly. There is an “excellent” bilateral relationship with France, said John Kirby, spokesman for the US Security Council. President Joe Biden has a good personal relationship with Macron, he said, and the two work closely together on various issues – including Asia.
EU Green politician Bütikofer has his own reading: Macron had actually not intended to talk about the subject of Taiwan on his Beijing trip, on the grounds that he was a stoic and would only talk about the things he could talk about. Élysée circles also said before the trip that the topic of Taiwan would not be actively addressed.
The fact that he then did get carried away was a success for the Chinese side, who showered him with attention, which he then self-indulgently fell victim to, Bütikofer says. “Macron’s unspeakable remarks were a mixture of one-third tending toward anti-American French tradition, 15 percent fatigue and, above all, a lot of arrogance“.
To what extent has Macron harmed Taiwan with this? “Not so much, effectively”, Bütikofer answers. Macron had given the debate on Taiwan a boost and at the same time marked a position that not many in Europe would find easy to follow. “Macron’s remarks have once again highlighted the need to come to a common European position in support of Taiwan”.
So now Europe is faced with the need to conduct the debate that should ultimately result in a common position. Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki stressed Tuesday before leaving for the United States that the alliance with the United States would become “the top priority of the upcoming Polish presidency of the EU Council”, as “this is the foundation of our security”. Poland takes over the presidency of the EU Council in early 2025. Other opinions came – unsurprisingly – from Hungary. The EU must “finally wake up” to its own interests and not simply follow the US, Balázs Orbán, close political adviser to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, wrote on Twitter. He quoted his boss with statements seemingly similar to those of Macron.
Macron, von der Leyen and German Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock are not the only visitors from Europe this week: EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell is also traveling to Beijing. Borrell is expected there from Thursday to Saturday. Borrell’s visit had been planned for quite some time, a spokeswoman of the European External Action Service (EEAS) assured. After last week, however, his trip is likely to receive special attention. The EU foreign affairs envoy has not necessarily been known for critical language toward China. Observers in Brussels and Beijing will therefore listen closely to whether he follows his boss von der Leyen. By Amelie Richter and Felix Lee
Mr. Durand, it was only last summer that you reached agreement with the Commission and the Council on the new sustainability reporting requirements. The Commission has now instructed that the development of the standards be partially postponed. Was the timetable too ambitious?
We are in a moment of truth. The European Union is always pretty strong in defining principles, values, and defending the goals it sets for itself, whether it’s climate, environment, or social. After that comes implementation – and that’s where it gets complicated.
The Commission has mandated the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) to develop and implement reporting standards. The group has already presented some of the drafts. It seemed to work after all, didn’t it?
There is a battle for influence going on within the European Commission. Some people are asking the Commission to slow down on standards, arguing that you shouldn’t make too many standards. Others, however, are asking the Commission to stick to the mandate it has been given. The European Parliament’s position is that the four pillars of climate, environment, social and governance must be advanced simultaneously.
How sould one imagine these struggles for influence?
A French Member of Parliament, who is very concerned about the climate issue, wrote a letter to the Commission and said, “Ah, but wait a minute, maybe it would be good to look only at the climate pillar first and delay the other areas”. I don’t know what prompted him to do that, but I regret it. We parliamentarians have given a mandate to the Commission to come forward with a delegated act that addresses all four pillars. If I now, as a parliamentarian, give the Commission the possibility to adopt several delegated acts, I am giving the executive priority over the legislative.
What’s at stake?
This delegated act is the first important point: we as Parliament will have to approve it or object to it. And that’s what some opponents and conservatives are alluding to. Imagine if the delegated act only contained climate. We would be faced with a terrible dilemma: Do I reject the delegated act because the social, environmental and governance standards are not there – even though I know that the US and China are working on their own climate standards and therefore we must have our own quickly? Or do I say, on the contrary: too bad, but climate is important, so I’ll have to vote for it willy-nilly.
In March, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced plans to reduce reporting requirements for companies by 25 percent. The Directorates-General will be working on proposals for this by fall. Will the CSRD plans suffer as a result?
If Ms. von der Leyen believes she has to reduce bureaucracy with the “one in, one out” principle – which would, of course, be understandable – then she has to cut in all four pillars at the same time. One cannot apply this principle for the sake of climate at the expense of environmental, social and governance issues. I do not yet know how and in what form Ms. von der Leyen will take up this principle. There are several ways to deduct 25 percent: Either I assume that, for example, the environmental part, biodiversity, governance and human rights make up 25 percent of the whole – and then I subtract that block. Or I take away a quarter of the whole.
Wouldn’t you agree, then, to keep the reporting as simple as possible?
I am not a bureaucrat in spirit. So if I’m told that the standards need to be simplified, then let’s simplify the standards. But again, only as long as the principles of the standard and the entire text are not touched. NGOs and trade unions have written to Ms. von der Leyen to tell her how concerned they are that European ambitions not be diminished. I am on that line. And we will see what Ms. von der Leyen’s response will be.
How do you see EFRAG’s role?
EFRAG is a specialist in financial standards and the Commission is asking it to do work in the non-financial area – without providing it with additional financial resources. Once again, the EU is relying on volunteer labor here. On the other hand, Germany has allocated £4 million in 2022 to fund the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), an organization that competes with the Europeans. That’s like Germany funding General Motors with millions and giving Volkswagen nothing. Of course, the comparison is exaggerated, but there would never be such a case in the industrial sector, never.
Do you have an explanation for this?
Why start with the standards to fund a foundation under foreign law, which is outside the European Union? I do not know, which is why I ask this question.
The ISSB is developing international standards for sustainability reporting on behalf of the US IFRS Foundation. How do the European standards differ from other standards?
The EU wants to set standards based on European values that balance social, environmental and economic issues. In particular, the principle of double materiality is brought to the fore. For example, if I am founding a lemonade factory in a region where there is a water risk due to climate change, in addition to the risk to my own business (that would be single materiality), I must also consider the risks I am taking as a business to the region. For example, the consequences for the water supply for a particular city or for agriculture. This also relates to human and social rights: If I import products from Bangladesh, am I putting children to work?
This aspect does not interest the Anglo-Saxon, at least the American normativity at all. There, they advocate simple climate standards, while Europe wants general standards on all ESG pillars and double materiality.
Where do the European standards go from here?
The delegated act is scheduled to come in June. We are on an extremely clear line: We want all four pillars at the same time, as we have demanded as a parliament. We would accept that certain standards be delayed in their application. I can completely understand that, for example, with human rights standards, you first have to get the value chain right and look at exactly how it’s done in Brazil or Bangladesh, that you have to have the means to control it and so on. If this can’t be done until 2026 or 2027, I have no problem with that. But I would like the rules and standards to be set now and not wait until 2026 or 2027 to do that. And then we pragmatically take the time to implement them, depending on what the companies tell us.
Why do you think the timing is so important?
Because our term ends in March 2024, after which elections will be held. The term of the Commission and the Council will also end at that time. I don’t know what will happen after that. We have a tight schedule. That’s why there is no time for postponements now.
When classical music can be heard in the corridors of the European Parliament late at night, MEP Dennis Radtke is still in his office. There, the CDU politician has installed speakers that play Wagner, among other things, while he goes through files. Reconciling different things is part of everyday life for Radtke, who belongs to the CDU’s workers’ wing and the Christian-conservative EPP Group.
The 43-year-old sees himself in the tradition of politicians like Karl-Josef Laumann and Norbert Blüm, who made their careers in the party via the CDU social committees. Radtke, a father of two, is the contact person for the Union’s social policy in Brussels: he was co-rapporteur on the European Minimum Wage Directive, and he is the Group’s coordinator on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL). He is also head of the CDA in NRW and head of the CDA at EU level.
Born in Bochum, he comes from an SPD family. Both of his grandfathers were comrades for over 50 years and were active in IG Metall. Until 2002, Radtke himself held the red party member card. He later joined the CDU and the Christian Democratic Employees’ Association (CDA). After training as an industrial clerk, he became trade union secretary at the Mining, Chemical and Electronics Industrial Union (IGBCE) in Moers.
The balancing act between the Union and the CDU is not always easy for Radtke: “In the Union you’re always the black guy, and in the party you’re always the red guy”. To this day, school classes regularly ask him why he switched to the CDU. His answer: “Some of them broke windows in their youth, and my mistake was that I used to be in the SPD”.
What drives Radtke to this day are the issues of his grandfathers’ SPD, which pragmatically stood up for people with low to medium incomes. Unfortunately, that era is over. Today, he says, the SPD is too much about marginalized groups like transgender people and gender-sensitive language. “There’s nothing there for industrial jobs anymore”, Radtke says. He moved up to the EU Parliament in 2017, when Herbert Reul became interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia. In 2019, he made it back via the state list.
On the EMPL committee, Radtke advocates for contemporary labor law issues. One major issue for him is the regulation of platform work: More than five million people are misclassified and currently registered as pseudo self-employed, he says. They would be denied access to minimum wage and social security. In addition, he says, big players like Uber have a competitive advantage over local cab companies. “It’s quite adventurous that we are only now starting to regulate these things“, says Radtke.
In the discussion on the Green New Deal, Radtke took on the Dutch Social Democrat and EU Climate Commissioner Frans Timmermanns in February. Radtke has nothing against setting ambitious climate protection targets, but worries about industrial jobs and the affordability of mobility: “The Green Deal has to happen with industry as a partner, as a driver, not as an opponent”. Leonard Schulz
There is rare unity across the political camps: Greens, conservatives, even liberals criticize Emmanuel Macron’s statements on the Taiwan issue. But the dispute also has advantages, analyze Amelie Richter and Felix Lee. For in the EU, Macron has thus fueled the urgently needed debate on the future course of China and Taiwan policy.
In recent years, the EU has set standards far beyond its own borders with its rules. This is also known as the “Brussels Effect”. Critical voices have come up with an alternative term: “regulatory imperialism”. And those critical voices are getting louder. That’s why we’re devoting a separate series to the debate starting today. We begin with Caspar Dohmen and Till Hoppe, who analyze the status quo.
The EU also wants to set new standards on the subject of reporting requirements. But the timetable for the CSRD standards could be delayed – because exactly which standards are to be introduced is a question that is to be discussed in detail. In an interview with Claire Stam and Leonie Düngefeld, S&D MEP Pascal Durand explains how it could come to this and why a delay would be fatal.
Much excitement – for nothing? In an interview with the French newspaper Les Echos during his trip to China, French President Emmanuel Macron called for Europe to act more independently in the Taiwan conflict. At the same time, Macron hinted that Europe might not stand by Taiwan in the event of an attack by the People’s Republic. “The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans are fellow travelers and have to adapt to the American rhythm and a Chinese overreaction”, Macron said. Now there is outrage in Berlin and Brussels – partly, at least.
“Macron is isolating himself in Europe, he is weakening the European Union, and he is indeed counteracting what the president of the European Commission said in Beijing“, CDU foreign affairs expert Norbert Röttgen criticized on Deutschlandfunk radio. His party colleague Manfred Weber, chairman of the European People’s Party (EPP) in the EU Parliament, was also appalled. The EU states made themselves untrustworthy “if on the one hand you demand sovereignty for Europe and then conclude every economic deal you can with China“, he tweeted. Longtime EU parliamentarian Reinhard Bütikofer of the Green Party used the hashtag “#braindead” on Twitter.
While Macron, with 50 entrepreneurs in tow, flattered host Xi Jinping during a joint visit with Ursula von der Leyen in Beijing last week, the EU Commission president chose more cautionary words: Should China support Russia “directly or indirectly” with military equipment, this would “severely strain” relations with the EU. She described a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan as an unacceptable course of action.
The government in Paris, however, vehemently rejected the criticism of its president on Tuesday. Macron has repeatedly said that France is not equidistant from the US and China, a spokeswoman for the Élysée Palace said, fending off accusations of equidistance: “The US is our ally, we share common values”. China, on the other hand, is a partner, competitor and systemic rival with whom they want to create a common agenda to reduce tensions and address global issues, she said. On Taiwan, France supports the status quo, she stressed. Macron, she explained, had clearly told China’s leader Xi that the Taiwan issue must be resolved through dialogue.
In Brussels, meanwhile, efforts were made on Tuesday to limit the damage. The joint message of Macron and von der Leyen in the trilateral meeting with Xi was quite “consistent and coherent”, stressed EU Commission spokesman Eric Mamer. As far as the rest of the French leader’s trip or his interview statements on Taiwan are concerned, the EU Commission will not comment – as is generally the case.
Von der Leyen had spoken during her trip in the capacity of EU Commission President and had presented a unified line here compared to the keynote speech a week earlier, Mamer said. There had been coordination with the Élysée before this speech as well as before the joint trip. Since the publication of the Macron interview, however, there has so far been no contact between the offices of the EU Commission President and the French head of state, Mamer explained.
But some in France also view Macron’s interview critically. Von der Leyen and Macron certainly discussed the Taiwan issue during their meeting before their joint trip, said French China watcher Antoine Bondaz. The problem, he said, is that Macron has failed to present an agenda that defines the EU’s interests and strategy. “Saying we don’t have the same interests as the US is obvious”, Bondaz criticized. “And distancing ourselves from the US is not a strategy in itself”. The timing of Macron’s pronouncements was disastrous, he said.
“It is a statement that has not benefited French policy”, Stéphane Corcuff, a sinologist at Sciences Po Lyon University, told the France24news platform. “The only thing that can stop China from attacking Taiwan is the knowledge that we will be there to respond”, Corcuff said.
Nevertheless, Washington reacted calmly. There is an “excellent” bilateral relationship with France, said John Kirby, spokesman for the US Security Council. President Joe Biden has a good personal relationship with Macron, he said, and the two work closely together on various issues – including Asia.
EU Green politician Bütikofer has his own reading: Macron had actually not intended to talk about the subject of Taiwan on his Beijing trip, on the grounds that he was a stoic and would only talk about the things he could talk about. Élysée circles also said before the trip that the topic of Taiwan would not be actively addressed.
The fact that he then did get carried away was a success for the Chinese side, who showered him with attention, which he then self-indulgently fell victim to, Bütikofer says. “Macron’s unspeakable remarks were a mixture of one-third tending toward anti-American French tradition, 15 percent fatigue and, above all, a lot of arrogance“.
To what extent has Macron harmed Taiwan with this? “Not so much, effectively”, Bütikofer answers. Macron had given the debate on Taiwan a boost and at the same time marked a position that not many in Europe would find easy to follow. “Macron’s remarks have once again highlighted the need to come to a common European position in support of Taiwan”.
So now Europe is faced with the need to conduct the debate that should ultimately result in a common position. Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki stressed Tuesday before leaving for the United States that the alliance with the United States would become “the top priority of the upcoming Polish presidency of the EU Council”, as “this is the foundation of our security”. Poland takes over the presidency of the EU Council in early 2025. Other opinions came – unsurprisingly – from Hungary. The EU must “finally wake up” to its own interests and not simply follow the US, Balázs Orbán, close political adviser to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, wrote on Twitter. He quoted his boss with statements seemingly similar to those of Macron.
Macron, von der Leyen and German Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock are not the only visitors from Europe this week: EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell is also traveling to Beijing. Borrell is expected there from Thursday to Saturday. Borrell’s visit had been planned for quite some time, a spokeswoman of the European External Action Service (EEAS) assured. After last week, however, his trip is likely to receive special attention. The EU foreign affairs envoy has not necessarily been known for critical language toward China. Observers in Brussels and Beijing will therefore listen closely to whether he follows his boss von der Leyen. By Amelie Richter and Felix Lee
Mr. Durand, it was only last summer that you reached agreement with the Commission and the Council on the new sustainability reporting requirements. The Commission has now instructed that the development of the standards be partially postponed. Was the timetable too ambitious?
We are in a moment of truth. The European Union is always pretty strong in defining principles, values, and defending the goals it sets for itself, whether it’s climate, environment, or social. After that comes implementation – and that’s where it gets complicated.
The Commission has mandated the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) to develop and implement reporting standards. The group has already presented some of the drafts. It seemed to work after all, didn’t it?
There is a battle for influence going on within the European Commission. Some people are asking the Commission to slow down on standards, arguing that you shouldn’t make too many standards. Others, however, are asking the Commission to stick to the mandate it has been given. The European Parliament’s position is that the four pillars of climate, environment, social and governance must be advanced simultaneously.
How sould one imagine these struggles for influence?
A French Member of Parliament, who is very concerned about the climate issue, wrote a letter to the Commission and said, “Ah, but wait a minute, maybe it would be good to look only at the climate pillar first and delay the other areas”. I don’t know what prompted him to do that, but I regret it. We parliamentarians have given a mandate to the Commission to come forward with a delegated act that addresses all four pillars. If I now, as a parliamentarian, give the Commission the possibility to adopt several delegated acts, I am giving the executive priority over the legislative.
What’s at stake?
This delegated act is the first important point: we as Parliament will have to approve it or object to it. And that’s what some opponents and conservatives are alluding to. Imagine if the delegated act only contained climate. We would be faced with a terrible dilemma: Do I reject the delegated act because the social, environmental and governance standards are not there – even though I know that the US and China are working on their own climate standards and therefore we must have our own quickly? Or do I say, on the contrary: too bad, but climate is important, so I’ll have to vote for it willy-nilly.
In March, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced plans to reduce reporting requirements for companies by 25 percent. The Directorates-General will be working on proposals for this by fall. Will the CSRD plans suffer as a result?
If Ms. von der Leyen believes she has to reduce bureaucracy with the “one in, one out” principle – which would, of course, be understandable – then she has to cut in all four pillars at the same time. One cannot apply this principle for the sake of climate at the expense of environmental, social and governance issues. I do not yet know how and in what form Ms. von der Leyen will take up this principle. There are several ways to deduct 25 percent: Either I assume that, for example, the environmental part, biodiversity, governance and human rights make up 25 percent of the whole – and then I subtract that block. Or I take away a quarter of the whole.
Wouldn’t you agree, then, to keep the reporting as simple as possible?
I am not a bureaucrat in spirit. So if I’m told that the standards need to be simplified, then let’s simplify the standards. But again, only as long as the principles of the standard and the entire text are not touched. NGOs and trade unions have written to Ms. von der Leyen to tell her how concerned they are that European ambitions not be diminished. I am on that line. And we will see what Ms. von der Leyen’s response will be.
How do you see EFRAG’s role?
EFRAG is a specialist in financial standards and the Commission is asking it to do work in the non-financial area – without providing it with additional financial resources. Once again, the EU is relying on volunteer labor here. On the other hand, Germany has allocated £4 million in 2022 to fund the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), an organization that competes with the Europeans. That’s like Germany funding General Motors with millions and giving Volkswagen nothing. Of course, the comparison is exaggerated, but there would never be such a case in the industrial sector, never.
Do you have an explanation for this?
Why start with the standards to fund a foundation under foreign law, which is outside the European Union? I do not know, which is why I ask this question.
The ISSB is developing international standards for sustainability reporting on behalf of the US IFRS Foundation. How do the European standards differ from other standards?
The EU wants to set standards based on European values that balance social, environmental and economic issues. In particular, the principle of double materiality is brought to the fore. For example, if I am founding a lemonade factory in a region where there is a water risk due to climate change, in addition to the risk to my own business (that would be single materiality), I must also consider the risks I am taking as a business to the region. For example, the consequences for the water supply for a particular city or for agriculture. This also relates to human and social rights: If I import products from Bangladesh, am I putting children to work?
This aspect does not interest the Anglo-Saxon, at least the American normativity at all. There, they advocate simple climate standards, while Europe wants general standards on all ESG pillars and double materiality.
Where do the European standards go from here?
The delegated act is scheduled to come in June. We are on an extremely clear line: We want all four pillars at the same time, as we have demanded as a parliament. We would accept that certain standards be delayed in their application. I can completely understand that, for example, with human rights standards, you first have to get the value chain right and look at exactly how it’s done in Brazil or Bangladesh, that you have to have the means to control it and so on. If this can’t be done until 2026 or 2027, I have no problem with that. But I would like the rules and standards to be set now and not wait until 2026 or 2027 to do that. And then we pragmatically take the time to implement them, depending on what the companies tell us.
Why do you think the timing is so important?
Because our term ends in March 2024, after which elections will be held. The term of the Commission and the Council will also end at that time. I don’t know what will happen after that. We have a tight schedule. That’s why there is no time for postponements now.
When classical music can be heard in the corridors of the European Parliament late at night, MEP Dennis Radtke is still in his office. There, the CDU politician has installed speakers that play Wagner, among other things, while he goes through files. Reconciling different things is part of everyday life for Radtke, who belongs to the CDU’s workers’ wing and the Christian-conservative EPP Group.
The 43-year-old sees himself in the tradition of politicians like Karl-Josef Laumann and Norbert Blüm, who made their careers in the party via the CDU social committees. Radtke, a father of two, is the contact person for the Union’s social policy in Brussels: he was co-rapporteur on the European Minimum Wage Directive, and he is the Group’s coordinator on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL). He is also head of the CDA in NRW and head of the CDA at EU level.
Born in Bochum, he comes from an SPD family. Both of his grandfathers were comrades for over 50 years and were active in IG Metall. Until 2002, Radtke himself held the red party member card. He later joined the CDU and the Christian Democratic Employees’ Association (CDA). After training as an industrial clerk, he became trade union secretary at the Mining, Chemical and Electronics Industrial Union (IGBCE) in Moers.
The balancing act between the Union and the CDU is not always easy for Radtke: “In the Union you’re always the black guy, and in the party you’re always the red guy”. To this day, school classes regularly ask him why he switched to the CDU. His answer: “Some of them broke windows in their youth, and my mistake was that I used to be in the SPD”.
What drives Radtke to this day are the issues of his grandfathers’ SPD, which pragmatically stood up for people with low to medium incomes. Unfortunately, that era is over. Today, he says, the SPD is too much about marginalized groups like transgender people and gender-sensitive language. “There’s nothing there for industrial jobs anymore”, Radtke says. He moved up to the EU Parliament in 2017, when Herbert Reul became interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia. In 2019, he made it back via the state list.
On the EMPL committee, Radtke advocates for contemporary labor law issues. One major issue for him is the regulation of platform work: More than five million people are misclassified and currently registered as pseudo self-employed, he says. They would be denied access to minimum wage and social security. In addition, he says, big players like Uber have a competitive advantage over local cab companies. “It’s quite adventurous that we are only now starting to regulate these things“, says Radtke.
In the discussion on the Green New Deal, Radtke took on the Dutch Social Democrat and EU Climate Commissioner Frans Timmermanns in February. Radtke has nothing against setting ambitious climate protection targets, but worries about industrial jobs and the affordability of mobility: “The Green Deal has to happen with industry as a partner, as a driver, not as an opponent”. Leonard Schulz
