There will be a triple premiere in Brussels today: For the first time, the EU is holding a summit exclusively on defense. For the first time since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the heads of state and government are coming together. And for the first time since Brexit, a British prime minister will be sitting at the table, at least temporarily.
The new format of the retreat also underlines the geopolitical context. EU Council President António Costa is planning a brainstorming session without written conclusions at the Egmont Palace in Brussels. But what can we expect from the retreat? Costa wants to put up for discussion: What do the EU states want to do with regard to Europe’s defense? And which capabilities have the greatest deficits. Furthermore, how should we finance what we want to tackle together as an EU?
The President of the EU Council considers the order in which this is done to be important. First the needs analysis, then the tiresome question of money with the programmed dispute about possible joint debts. However, some member states also see questions over the needs analysis. The EU must concentrate on its core business, namely supporting the consolidation of the arms industry and improving its access to credit.
After all, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is also there for lunch to warn against duplicate structures. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer then joins them in the evening. Donald Trump is forcing the British and mainland Europeans to move closer together, diplomats say. Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen is expected to raise the issue of Greenland. Diplomats say they have done well with Trump so far by keeping calm, demonstrating unity and not reacting to every provocation. No conclusions do not necessarily mean that the summit will not produce any results. The retreat is intended to set the direction for the White Paper on defense, which EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas is due to present on 19 March.
Have a good start to the week,
Will a right-wing extremist be elected head of government in Austria for the first time with the votes of the Christian Democrats? That is not out of the question. FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl, who won the elections, is negotiating with the second-placed ÖVP about forming a coalition. According to reports, the talks are proceeding with difficulty and a decision is expected by February 15. The attempt could also fail.
However, if the FPÖ and ÖVP get together and form a government under the leadership of the right-wing extremists, this capitulation by the ÖVP will provoke an unpleasant question to the head of the European political family, the EPP, Manfred Weber (CSU): Does the ÖVP still belong in the EPP? There is no doubt that the EU hater and Putin friend Kickl and his policies violate the three criteria that Weber has made a condition for cooperation at the EU level:
Officially, Manfred Weber is not saying anything about the issue these days. He is in close contact with Reinhold Lopatka, who leads the five ÖVP MEPs in the EPP group. MEP Dennis Radtke (CDU) had warned of a “horror scenario” on X at the beginning of January if the “Christian Democrats were to become the stirrup holder for a ‘People’s Chancellor’ Kickl.” In a parliamentary group meeting, Peter Liese (CDU) asked critical questions of Lopatka. Lopatka, who is considered a possible Foreign Minister in an FPÖ-ÖVP coalition, wants to stipulate Weber’s three criteria for cooperation in the coalition agreement. The logic behind this: should Kickl become abusive towards the EU and Ukraine, the ÖVP would break the coalition.
According to reports, no Christian Democrat from the European party family is calling for the ÖVP to be thrown out of the EPP. Rather, they are pointing out that the Austrian constitution contains guidelines. For example, there is a committee in the Austrian parliament in which the MPs can set the line that the Austrian Federal Chancellor may not cross in the European Council.
The FPÖ has made gains in the opinion polls since the elections. If the government formation fails and new elections are held, the FPÖ would be the beneficiary and would enter Parliament with additional MPs. Kickl is therefore speculating on new elections, it is said. If the FPÖ parliamentary group were to have even more MPs, there could no longer be a blocking minority against it in the committee that determines the lines for the European Council.
An FPÖ-ÖVP government would be crossing the line. In contrast to the Italian head of government Giorgia Meloni from the post-fascist Fratelli d’Italia party, Kickl is not pro-European. The FPÖ has become more radical in its European policy, although Kickl has recently been less critical of Brussels.
ÖVP politician Othmar Karas, who used to be Vice-President of the European Parliament, is calling for additional safeguards. “A preamble (in the coalition agreement, editor’s note) is not enough,” Karas told ORF. “Writing down self-evident facts is not yet European policy.” It must be clear what Austria stands for, for example with regard to sanctions against Russia, support for Ukraine, climate targets or competitiveness.
Sharp warnings come from the Greens. “If the ÖVP makes Kickl chancellor, it must be thrown out of the EPP,” demands Green MEP Daniel Freund. The FPÖ is corrupt, pro-Kremlin, anti-European and right-wing extremist. “You don’t form coalitions with such parties, period.” Freund also appeals to the EU Commission: “If the FPÖ, with ÖVP support, follows in Viktor Orbán’s footsteps and dismantles democracy, there must be no more EU funding for Austria.”
Green parliamentary group leader Terry Reintke had previously expressed a similar view. She said that Kickl conflicted with the fundamental values of the EU: “An Austrian Chancellor Kickl would put the EU to a serious test.” The German Green politician is particularly concerned about foreign policy. “Together with Viktor Orbán and other pro-Russian forces, the Ukraine aid and the sanctions against Moscow could be further torpedoed.”
Interim Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg has attempted to allay concerns: “Austria is and will remain a reliable and constructive partner in the European Union,” he explained during a visit to Brussels in mid-January. Principles such as the rule of law, protection of minorities and free media are also non-negotiable under the new government. Since then, criticism of Austria in Brussels has somewhat subsided.
The year 2024 will go down as an annus horribilis in the political annals of France: Four heads of government in one year, the last time this happened was in 1934. Then the discovery of an abysmal deficit and still no national budget. The situation is so desolate that Prime Minister François Bayrou announced that the national budget could possibly be passed through parliament today without a vote by an exception in the French constitution.
In addition, governments, that are at the mercy of motions of no confidence. Furthermore, important laws are in limbo, such as the law on the orientation of agriculture or the law on the reorientation of euthanasia. In short, a country without direction and reduced to stagnation. President Emmanuel Macron created this situation when he surprisingly announced the dissolution of the National Assembly on the evening of the European elections in June 2024. He is now paying the political price for this.
The decision to call early elections is still incomprehensible to the French – including former supporters of the head of state. It has led to a marginalization of the president, observes Vincent Martigny, Professor of Political Science at the University of the Côte d’Azur in Nice and associate researcher at Sciences Po. “The dissolution of the National Assembly has led to a real ordeal within his own camp,” says Martigny.
Following the announcement of the dissolution of parliament, former economy and finance minister Bruno Lemaire described a president who had acted under the influence of a small circle of political advisors: “The parquet floors of the ministries and the palaces of the Republic are full of woodlice.” His former prime minister, the popular Edouard Philippe, currently mayor of the city of Le Havre in Normandy, had declared that his aim was “not to rebuild the old presidential majority.” It was rather to create a “new presidential majority.” This formulation should be understood as a clear distancing from Emmanuel Macron.
The meteoric rise of Gabriel Attal, who suddenly became Prime Minister, was brought to an abrupt halt by the dissolution of the National Assembly. Since then, relations between Macron and Attal, head of both the Macronist Renaissance party and the parliamentary group in the National Assembly, have been “at odds,” according to reports from Paris. Attal is currently trying to get the Renaissance party in shape. It must become campaign-ready for the presidential elections, which are planned for 2027. Many members have turned their backs on the party. Attal is noticeably distancing himself from Macron. Probably also to polish his own political reputation.
The swift end of Michel Barnier’s government after just three months and the subsequent appointment of François Bayrou, apparently against Macron’s interests, have weakened the President. He is now largely considered isolated at the national level. “The president has to content himself with his exclusive area, namely international affairs. He is no longer able to assert himself in domestic policy against a parliament and a government slipping away from him,” explains political expert Vincent Martigny.
By rolling back the controversial pension reform, Bayrou is making it clear that he has made himself independent of Macron. He is taking care of the policy area that was supposed to be the major social construction site of the head of state’s second term in office – obviously with other political goals. Above all, Bayrou is radically changing the method: Macron had excluded the social partners, i.e. trade unions and employers’ associations, from the talks on pension reform. Bayrou, on the other hand, is opening the door to them. “As there is no majority in the National Assembly, the social partners are regaining strength. Including them makes it possible to legitimize projects,” analyses Thierry Pech, Director General of the think tank Terra Nova.
This is the first time that trade unions and employers have had a say in this reform. The first meeting between the Bayrou government and trade unions and employers’ associations took place in mid-January. This opens a new chapter in the struggle for this reform. Bayrou has set “the end of May” as the target for an agreement between the social partners.
For more than a decade, the European Union has been slumbering at the digital control desk, ignoring the flashing red warning lights. American and Chinese social media platforms, along with Russian troll armies, are undermining our democracies and wreaking havoc on our political systems.
Much like Vladimir Putin’s control of Europe’s energy supply exposed our weaknesses, American and Chinese dominance of Europe’s digital public sphere reveals a dangerous dependence on foreign critical infrastructure.
X platform owner Elon Musk’s influence extends even further: through his platform, he promotes extremism and openly calls for regime change in Europe. Yet instead of shutting down X, we continue to use and fund it. This is a dangerous act of self-harm – or worse.
The current strategy of relying primarily on regulation is not enough. It is time for an active digital industrial and investment policy. Europe must develop its own platforms and build a resilient digital ecosystem that reflects our values. The solution lies in a European platform program along the lines of the Airbus consortium, which secured Europe’s independence in aviation. Such a strategic approach could foster European innovation while protecting Europe from external manipulation.
Such a program should:
Who should pay for it? Such a fund could be partly financed by levies on non-European tech giants such as X, Meta, Google and TikTok. These companies have profited massively from European users without investing significantly in the European digital ecosystem. The reinvestment of these funds in a European digital infrastructure should be seen as compensation for the damage caused. For example, the fund could finance or secure the takeover of the European business of X and TikTok.
The EU only reduced its dependence on Russian energy after Putin’s war against Ukraine. These mistakes must not be repeated when it comes to digital sovereignty. Europe must regain control of its digital infrastructure and at the same time create something even better – a digital public sphere that connects Europe, overcomes national borders and strengthens a common identity.
The time to act is now. A European platform program can turn the digital battle for Europe into an opportunity for innovation, democratic resilience and digital sovereignty. Further European procrastination is not an option.
André Wilkens is Director of the European Cultural Foundation in Amsterdam. He is chairman of the board of Tactical Tech and founding chairman of the Open Society Initiative. For many years, Wilkens has been working on the challenges and opportunities of a European public sphere.
There will be a triple premiere in Brussels today: For the first time, the EU is holding a summit exclusively on defense. For the first time since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the heads of state and government are coming together. And for the first time since Brexit, a British prime minister will be sitting at the table, at least temporarily.
The new format of the retreat also underlines the geopolitical context. EU Council President António Costa is planning a brainstorming session without written conclusions at the Egmont Palace in Brussels. But what can we expect from the retreat? Costa wants to put up for discussion: What do the EU states want to do with regard to Europe’s defense? And which capabilities have the greatest deficits. Furthermore, how should we finance what we want to tackle together as an EU?
The President of the EU Council considers the order in which this is done to be important. First the needs analysis, then the tiresome question of money with the programmed dispute about possible joint debts. However, some member states also see questions over the needs analysis. The EU must concentrate on its core business, namely supporting the consolidation of the arms industry and improving its access to credit.
After all, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is also there for lunch to warn against duplicate structures. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer then joins them in the evening. Donald Trump is forcing the British and mainland Europeans to move closer together, diplomats say. Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen is expected to raise the issue of Greenland. Diplomats say they have done well with Trump so far by keeping calm, demonstrating unity and not reacting to every provocation. No conclusions do not necessarily mean that the summit will not produce any results. The retreat is intended to set the direction for the White Paper on defense, which EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas is due to present on 19 March.
Have a good start to the week,
Will a right-wing extremist be elected head of government in Austria for the first time with the votes of the Christian Democrats? That is not out of the question. FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl, who won the elections, is negotiating with the second-placed ÖVP about forming a coalition. According to reports, the talks are proceeding with difficulty and a decision is expected by February 15. The attempt could also fail.
However, if the FPÖ and ÖVP get together and form a government under the leadership of the right-wing extremists, this capitulation by the ÖVP will provoke an unpleasant question to the head of the European political family, the EPP, Manfred Weber (CSU): Does the ÖVP still belong in the EPP? There is no doubt that the EU hater and Putin friend Kickl and his policies violate the three criteria that Weber has made a condition for cooperation at the EU level:
Officially, Manfred Weber is not saying anything about the issue these days. He is in close contact with Reinhold Lopatka, who leads the five ÖVP MEPs in the EPP group. MEP Dennis Radtke (CDU) had warned of a “horror scenario” on X at the beginning of January if the “Christian Democrats were to become the stirrup holder for a ‘People’s Chancellor’ Kickl.” In a parliamentary group meeting, Peter Liese (CDU) asked critical questions of Lopatka. Lopatka, who is considered a possible Foreign Minister in an FPÖ-ÖVP coalition, wants to stipulate Weber’s three criteria for cooperation in the coalition agreement. The logic behind this: should Kickl become abusive towards the EU and Ukraine, the ÖVP would break the coalition.
According to reports, no Christian Democrat from the European party family is calling for the ÖVP to be thrown out of the EPP. Rather, they are pointing out that the Austrian constitution contains guidelines. For example, there is a committee in the Austrian parliament in which the MPs can set the line that the Austrian Federal Chancellor may not cross in the European Council.
The FPÖ has made gains in the opinion polls since the elections. If the government formation fails and new elections are held, the FPÖ would be the beneficiary and would enter Parliament with additional MPs. Kickl is therefore speculating on new elections, it is said. If the FPÖ parliamentary group were to have even more MPs, there could no longer be a blocking minority against it in the committee that determines the lines for the European Council.
An FPÖ-ÖVP government would be crossing the line. In contrast to the Italian head of government Giorgia Meloni from the post-fascist Fratelli d’Italia party, Kickl is not pro-European. The FPÖ has become more radical in its European policy, although Kickl has recently been less critical of Brussels.
ÖVP politician Othmar Karas, who used to be Vice-President of the European Parliament, is calling for additional safeguards. “A preamble (in the coalition agreement, editor’s note) is not enough,” Karas told ORF. “Writing down self-evident facts is not yet European policy.” It must be clear what Austria stands for, for example with regard to sanctions against Russia, support for Ukraine, climate targets or competitiveness.
Sharp warnings come from the Greens. “If the ÖVP makes Kickl chancellor, it must be thrown out of the EPP,” demands Green MEP Daniel Freund. The FPÖ is corrupt, pro-Kremlin, anti-European and right-wing extremist. “You don’t form coalitions with such parties, period.” Freund also appeals to the EU Commission: “If the FPÖ, with ÖVP support, follows in Viktor Orbán’s footsteps and dismantles democracy, there must be no more EU funding for Austria.”
Green parliamentary group leader Terry Reintke had previously expressed a similar view. She said that Kickl conflicted with the fundamental values of the EU: “An Austrian Chancellor Kickl would put the EU to a serious test.” The German Green politician is particularly concerned about foreign policy. “Together with Viktor Orbán and other pro-Russian forces, the Ukraine aid and the sanctions against Moscow could be further torpedoed.”
Interim Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg has attempted to allay concerns: “Austria is and will remain a reliable and constructive partner in the European Union,” he explained during a visit to Brussels in mid-January. Principles such as the rule of law, protection of minorities and free media are also non-negotiable under the new government. Since then, criticism of Austria in Brussels has somewhat subsided.
The year 2024 will go down as an annus horribilis in the political annals of France: Four heads of government in one year, the last time this happened was in 1934. Then the discovery of an abysmal deficit and still no national budget. The situation is so desolate that Prime Minister François Bayrou announced that the national budget could possibly be passed through parliament today without a vote by an exception in the French constitution.
In addition, governments, that are at the mercy of motions of no confidence. Furthermore, important laws are in limbo, such as the law on the orientation of agriculture or the law on the reorientation of euthanasia. In short, a country without direction and reduced to stagnation. President Emmanuel Macron created this situation when he surprisingly announced the dissolution of the National Assembly on the evening of the European elections in June 2024. He is now paying the political price for this.
The decision to call early elections is still incomprehensible to the French – including former supporters of the head of state. It has led to a marginalization of the president, observes Vincent Martigny, Professor of Political Science at the University of the Côte d’Azur in Nice and associate researcher at Sciences Po. “The dissolution of the National Assembly has led to a real ordeal within his own camp,” says Martigny.
Following the announcement of the dissolution of parliament, former economy and finance minister Bruno Lemaire described a president who had acted under the influence of a small circle of political advisors: “The parquet floors of the ministries and the palaces of the Republic are full of woodlice.” His former prime minister, the popular Edouard Philippe, currently mayor of the city of Le Havre in Normandy, had declared that his aim was “not to rebuild the old presidential majority.” It was rather to create a “new presidential majority.” This formulation should be understood as a clear distancing from Emmanuel Macron.
The meteoric rise of Gabriel Attal, who suddenly became Prime Minister, was brought to an abrupt halt by the dissolution of the National Assembly. Since then, relations between Macron and Attal, head of both the Macronist Renaissance party and the parliamentary group in the National Assembly, have been “at odds,” according to reports from Paris. Attal is currently trying to get the Renaissance party in shape. It must become campaign-ready for the presidential elections, which are planned for 2027. Many members have turned their backs on the party. Attal is noticeably distancing himself from Macron. Probably also to polish his own political reputation.
The swift end of Michel Barnier’s government after just three months and the subsequent appointment of François Bayrou, apparently against Macron’s interests, have weakened the President. He is now largely considered isolated at the national level. “The president has to content himself with his exclusive area, namely international affairs. He is no longer able to assert himself in domestic policy against a parliament and a government slipping away from him,” explains political expert Vincent Martigny.
By rolling back the controversial pension reform, Bayrou is making it clear that he has made himself independent of Macron. He is taking care of the policy area that was supposed to be the major social construction site of the head of state’s second term in office – obviously with other political goals. Above all, Bayrou is radically changing the method: Macron had excluded the social partners, i.e. trade unions and employers’ associations, from the talks on pension reform. Bayrou, on the other hand, is opening the door to them. “As there is no majority in the National Assembly, the social partners are regaining strength. Including them makes it possible to legitimize projects,” analyses Thierry Pech, Director General of the think tank Terra Nova.
This is the first time that trade unions and employers have had a say in this reform. The first meeting between the Bayrou government and trade unions and employers’ associations took place in mid-January. This opens a new chapter in the struggle for this reform. Bayrou has set “the end of May” as the target for an agreement between the social partners.
For more than a decade, the European Union has been slumbering at the digital control desk, ignoring the flashing red warning lights. American and Chinese social media platforms, along with Russian troll armies, are undermining our democracies and wreaking havoc on our political systems.
Much like Vladimir Putin’s control of Europe’s energy supply exposed our weaknesses, American and Chinese dominance of Europe’s digital public sphere reveals a dangerous dependence on foreign critical infrastructure.
X platform owner Elon Musk’s influence extends even further: through his platform, he promotes extremism and openly calls for regime change in Europe. Yet instead of shutting down X, we continue to use and fund it. This is a dangerous act of self-harm – or worse.
The current strategy of relying primarily on regulation is not enough. It is time for an active digital industrial and investment policy. Europe must develop its own platforms and build a resilient digital ecosystem that reflects our values. The solution lies in a European platform program along the lines of the Airbus consortium, which secured Europe’s independence in aviation. Such a strategic approach could foster European innovation while protecting Europe from external manipulation.
Such a program should:
Who should pay for it? Such a fund could be partly financed by levies on non-European tech giants such as X, Meta, Google and TikTok. These companies have profited massively from European users without investing significantly in the European digital ecosystem. The reinvestment of these funds in a European digital infrastructure should be seen as compensation for the damage caused. For example, the fund could finance or secure the takeover of the European business of X and TikTok.
The EU only reduced its dependence on Russian energy after Putin’s war against Ukraine. These mistakes must not be repeated when it comes to digital sovereignty. Europe must regain control of its digital infrastructure and at the same time create something even better – a digital public sphere that connects Europe, overcomes national borders and strengthens a common identity.
The time to act is now. A European platform program can turn the digital battle for Europe into an opportunity for innovation, democratic resilience and digital sovereignty. Further European procrastination is not an option.
André Wilkens is Director of the European Cultural Foundation in Amsterdam. He is chairman of the board of Tactical Tech and founding chairman of the Open Society Initiative. For many years, Wilkens has been working on the challenges and opportunities of a European public sphere.
