The most important job in the EU is held by a German: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Germany has also been well positioned in other key positions at the EU level. But now many are saying goodbye to their top posts – such as Klaus Welle, Secretary-General of the European Parliament until the end of 2022, Helga Schmid, Secretary-General of the External Action Service for four years, and currently, Werner Hoyer, who plans to step down as EIB President by the end of the year. Germany will be less well represented on the EU stage in the future – and there is little the traffic light coalition can do about it, as Christof Roche and Markus Grabitz analyze.
For over a year now, the European Parliament has been dealing with legislation on artificial intelligence (AI Act). But MEPs have still not agreed on a definition. The popularity of the AI ChatGPT now increases the pressure, as Corinna Visser reports. Read her in-depth interview with Dragoş Tudorache (Renew), co-rapporteur for the AI Act in the LIBE Committee, here.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will be hosted by US President Joe Biden at the White House today. The two are expected to agree on commodity cooperation that will give European battery manufacturers access to some of the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act.
At the same time, the EU is looking for its own answers to the multi-billion US investment program. The Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework (TCTF), which has now been adopted, relaxes aid rules for the production of key technologies in the EU. “Specifically, we can provide targeted support for the production of batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps or electrolyzers, and much more comprehensively than before,” said Economy Minister Robert Habeck. Read more in the News.
For a long time, Germany was well represented on the European stage as the member state with the largest population and economy in Europe. Germany was particularly strong in the financial sector, in the foreign service and in parliamentary administration. With Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission President comes from Germany and thus fills by far the most important job in the EU.
The heads of the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Single Resolution Board (SRB) have or had a German passport. In addition, the secretaries general in the European External Action Service (EEAS) and in the European Parliament.
But in the meantime, German influence has shrunk. Klaus Welle, secretary general of the European Parliament from 2009 until the end of 2022, has made way for the Italian Alessandro Chiocchetti. Helga Schmid, Secretary General of the External Action Service for four years, has left for the OSCE in the same capacity. Elke König has left the resolution authority for distressed banks (SRB) and has been replaced by Frenchman Dominique Laboureix. Klaus Regling, longtime head of the euro rescue umbrella, has also departed. Today, the stability mechanism is headed by the Luxembourger Pierre Gramegna.
And recently, Werner Hoyer, who has headed the EU’s house bank, the EIB, since 2012, also announced that he would be stepping down from his post by the end of the year at the latest. It is highly unlikely that Germany will be able to retain its leadership of the banking powerhouse.
Formally speaking, Germany could put forward a new candidate of its own. But after two mandates, as is now the case with Hoyer, it is usually another country’s turn. The first strong names are already being traded: Spanish Economy Minister Nadia Calviño and Commission Vice President Margrethe Vestager.
Italy could also lay claim to the post at the head of the EIB. The EU founding country does not currently occupy any of the top posts at EU level. However, Germany will not completely lose its influence in the EU bank. Berlin has always been assured a place on the board. Interest in moving to Luxembourg for the job of vice president at the EIB is said to lie with Liberal Michael Theurer, parliamentary state secretary in the transport ministry.
It is becoming apparent that Ursula von der Leyen will be the only top representative with a German passport on the EU stage as of next year. Given the size of the country and its economic importance, Germany would thus be poorly represented.
There will be changes in 2024. After the European elections in May, the EU’s top personnel will be reconstituted. There will be changes not only in the Parliament but also in the Commission and other institutions. As soon as the Parliament is constituted in its new composition, the first step will be to elect the new Parliament President.
Ever since Martin Schulz (SPD) was able to confidently use the stage as President of the Parliament and thus achieved EU-wide fame, the job, which is in itself rather representative, has been considered highly attractive. It is currently held by the Maltese Roberta Metsola. She has managed to position herself as a possible top candidate of the Christian Democratic party family EPP.
However, the job has one drawback: The two major party families, Christian Democrats and Socialists, share the term of office. Whoever wins the office has only two and a half years to gain profile. During this term, EPP group leader Manfred Weber (CSU) would have liked to become parliamentary president. But now that he also leads the party family, he is unlikely to make another attempt.
The President of the European Council has more influence. He prepares the summit agenda, organizes the summits and determines the strategic direction of the EU in cooperation with the EU heads of state and government. However, the unwritten law applies that the permanent Council president must have previously been a head of state or government in their own country. Otherwise, it is said, they lack the authority to be heard in the circle of presidents.
It is very unlikely that Germany will provide the next permanent Council president: Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel are not interested, although Schröder would no longer be an option either. That leaves the incumbent chancellor, Olaf Scholz, but that is currently ruled out.
Other top posts, such as the chair at the European Central Bank (ECB) or the leadership of the Eastern European Bank, are not up for grabs at the moment. Incidentally, both are held by Frenchmen – Christine Lagarde and Odile Renaud-Basso.
It is thus foreseeable that it will be lonely for the Germans on the EU stage, leaving Ursula von der Leyen as the only top German politician on the Brussels stage. There are also hardly any opportunities for the traffic light government to elevate its own party friends to top positions in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. Only the Greens have the prospect of providing the German commissioner. This is laid down in the coalition agreement. However, it only applies if the incumbent German Commission President does not enter her second term.
According to reports in Brussels, Ursula von der Leyen has not yet decided for herself whether she wants to continue. The job at the head of the Commission, with its more than 30,000 officials, is at least as time-consuming as that of chancellor. At the end of a second term, von der Leyen would be 71. She may decide to have a family instead of doing the back-breaking job again.
So far, Olaf Scholz did not clarify whether von der Leyen would have the support of the German government. Perhaps Scholz would not be wrong if the CDU politician were still at the helm of the Commission after 2024. The SPD’s interest in sending a green commissioner to Brussels is likely to be limited.
What’s more, if Scholz were to refuse von der Leyen’s support, he would have to brace himself for broadsides from the CDU/CSU. The CDU/CSU would accuse the traffic light coalition of having gambled away Germany’s top positions in Europe out of party tactical considerations – at a time when other front-row posts on the EU stage are not available. with Markus Grabitz
While the public has only been discussing the ChatGPT language model for a few months, the European Parliament has already been dealing with artificial intelligence legislation (AI Act) for more than a year. But it is only now that many people have become aware of the wide range of possible applications and the potential dangers of AI with ChatGPT. Will the discussion in the committees have to be completely reopened after the appearance of ChatGPT?
The co-rapporteur for the AI Act from the LIBE Committee, Dragoş Tudorache (Renew), says no. “We are still working on the final package of compromises on some of the key parts of the text. For example, on the definitions, including how we define General Purpose AI (GPAI),” Tudorache told Table.Media. Changes to the text will still occur.
However, it is still unclear which ones these will be. Because although the parliamentarians had also dealt with the question of how GPAI should be incorporated into the legislative text from the very beginning, they still have not reached an agreement on the definition of AI and the scope of the law.
The commission had not envisioned AI developed for any particular purpose but for multiple purposes (general-purpose AI, or GPAI) to be included in the rulebook. “We have recognized it is something that we cannot ignore – this has been proven through the massive success of ChatGPT and how relevant it already is,” Tudorache says.
In January, the EPP had made an initial proposal on what adjustments it considers necessary in the law with regard to technologies such as ChatGPT. But so far, the rapporteurs have not submitted a text that takes these proposed changes into account. Meetings are currently taking place at the technical level. However, a meeting of the shadow rapporteurs this week was canceled. There is no new date yet.
Thus, there is still uncertainty about the status of the political negotiations. While German MEPs gave the impression in a background interview that nothing has been fully negotiated yet, the rapporteur sees it differently. “Specifically, we have worked and are still working, as we speak, on the scope and definition,” Tudorache says. “And we are still making some tweaks to Articles 5 and 6 on the prohibited and high-risk practices. The rest of the text is mostly finished.”
The discussion about the definition is central since it is a question here of which applications are covered by the law. Time and again, it was heard that the rapporteurs wanted to follow the OECD definition of AI. Tudorache disagrees: “The definition is ours. We have not looked to other organizations or to other definitions as a source of inspiration. We have looked at the elements that we considered to be crucial.” Only at the final stage, he says, did they realize that it would be easier for stakeholders to accept the definition if it was aligned with other organizations’ definitions.
“We must phrase the definition in a way that other global partners will understand because companies from other corners of the world will also have to work with this legislation if they plan on staying in Europe or continuing to invest in the European market,” Tudorache says. So, he says, the definition is still up for discussion at the moment. And it will certainly be the last to be finalized.
The EPP, in particular, would approve of being guided by the OECD definition. But there is no current OECD definition at all, as the organization is currently revising it. In contrast, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the USA presented a definition in January. The rapporteurs are also looking at this.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology defines an AI system as a technical (engineered) or machine-based system, which, for a given set of goals, can produce results such as predictions, recommendations, or decisions that affect real or virtual environments. AI systems are designed to operate with varying degrees of autonomy.
Each of these points could be debated. For example, the Greens are not happy with the phrase “affecting real or virtual environments.” What about emotion recognition? Does this fall under it, or does it then fall out of regulation altogether? There is still a lot to discuss.
However, there is no longer a timetable for this at the moment. A new date for the shadow rapporteurs has not yet been set. “I’m hoping that we can finish negotiations next month,” says Tudorache. Others think that is illusory. Even the rapporteur admits, “I don’t want to give estimates anymore – I did that before and I was wrong. The important thing is that we do it right.”
His group colleague, German MEP Svenja Hahn (FDP), who does not want to rush things, shares his opinion. “Because I think the law is very crucial and it is not yet clear in which direction it will go,” Hahn says. “If we manage to come up with a smart legislative proposal, then we can actually make the European Union an attractive location for technological innovation.” But there is still a long way to go before that happens.
You can read the detailed interview with Dragoş Tudorache here.
So here we go with the acronyms:
This is where we now want to dwell for a bit.
For MEP Peter Liese (CDU), who led the now famous “jumbo trilogue,” LULUCF is “actually the most important element of the whole fit-for-55 package, alongside the ETS“. That’s because an agreement next week in Strasbourg would allow the European Union to raise its climate target from 55 percent to 57 percent.
Why is that? For that, we need to look back to COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh. There, Frans Timmermans, the European Commission vice president in charge of the Green Deal, had announced that the EU was ready to present a new climate plan (also known as an NDC) that would raise the target for net emissions reductions between 1990 and 2030 to “at least 57 percent”.
This is two percentage points more than the target adopted by the European Council at the end of 2020 (55 percent) and 17 percentage points more than the EU’s original target submitted to the UNFCCC (40 percent).
LULUCF makes it possible. The tentative agreement reached between the Council and Parliament last November stipulates that 310 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent as net uptake must be achieved by the European Union in the LULUCF sector by 2030. This means that the climate impact of LULUCF is very strong, much stronger than for the transport sector, for example, as Peter Liese summarizes.
“I want to make it clear that these are very ambitious targets,” added Liese’s party colleague and LULUCF rapporteur Norbert Lins. “We are currently at around 215 million metric tons. So that means we need to add about 50 percent over the next seven years to reach those 310 million metric tons.”
For soils in Germany, this means that they will have to absorb around 31 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030. “That’s a few tons more than the old German government set in its target. They had envisaged 25 million tons by 2030, and now we’ve raised that by another 6 million tons,” Lins said.
Because things are now getting concrete, the political debate about these hitherto subordinate dossiers is picking up speed. Two fronts are getting ready: associations from the agricultural and forestry sectors, for whom the targets are too ambitious, on the one hand, and environmental organizations, which would like to see more ambitious targets.
Because Sweden holds the presidency of the Council until summer, Stockholm is leading the negotiations. The only problem is that Sweden is a country whose territory consists of 70 percent forest. It is one of the largest timber exporters in the world. In Brussels, the question is how Stockholm will behave. Will it be more protectionist and push for maximum wood production?
It is important to note here that, at the same time, Sweden has an ambitious goal of CO2 neutrality by 2045, thanks to the enormous carbon uptake that its forests enable. France, for example, would not be able to reduce its emissions by 85 percent by that date, as Sweden proposes.
The most important job in the EU is held by a German: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Germany has also been well positioned in other key positions at the EU level. But now many are saying goodbye to their top posts – such as Klaus Welle, Secretary-General of the European Parliament until the end of 2022, Helga Schmid, Secretary-General of the External Action Service for four years, and currently, Werner Hoyer, who plans to step down as EIB President by the end of the year. Germany will be less well represented on the EU stage in the future – and there is little the traffic light coalition can do about it, as Christof Roche and Markus Grabitz analyze.
For over a year now, the European Parliament has been dealing with legislation on artificial intelligence (AI Act). But MEPs have still not agreed on a definition. The popularity of the AI ChatGPT now increases the pressure, as Corinna Visser reports. Read her in-depth interview with Dragoş Tudorache (Renew), co-rapporteur for the AI Act in the LIBE Committee, here.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will be hosted by US President Joe Biden at the White House today. The two are expected to agree on commodity cooperation that will give European battery manufacturers access to some of the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act.
At the same time, the EU is looking for its own answers to the multi-billion US investment program. The Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework (TCTF), which has now been adopted, relaxes aid rules for the production of key technologies in the EU. “Specifically, we can provide targeted support for the production of batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps or electrolyzers, and much more comprehensively than before,” said Economy Minister Robert Habeck. Read more in the News.
For a long time, Germany was well represented on the European stage as the member state with the largest population and economy in Europe. Germany was particularly strong in the financial sector, in the foreign service and in parliamentary administration. With Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission President comes from Germany and thus fills by far the most important job in the EU.
The heads of the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Single Resolution Board (SRB) have or had a German passport. In addition, the secretaries general in the European External Action Service (EEAS) and in the European Parliament.
But in the meantime, German influence has shrunk. Klaus Welle, secretary general of the European Parliament from 2009 until the end of 2022, has made way for the Italian Alessandro Chiocchetti. Helga Schmid, Secretary General of the External Action Service for four years, has left for the OSCE in the same capacity. Elke König has left the resolution authority for distressed banks (SRB) and has been replaced by Frenchman Dominique Laboureix. Klaus Regling, longtime head of the euro rescue umbrella, has also departed. Today, the stability mechanism is headed by the Luxembourger Pierre Gramegna.
And recently, Werner Hoyer, who has headed the EU’s house bank, the EIB, since 2012, also announced that he would be stepping down from his post by the end of the year at the latest. It is highly unlikely that Germany will be able to retain its leadership of the banking powerhouse.
Formally speaking, Germany could put forward a new candidate of its own. But after two mandates, as is now the case with Hoyer, it is usually another country’s turn. The first strong names are already being traded: Spanish Economy Minister Nadia Calviño and Commission Vice President Margrethe Vestager.
Italy could also lay claim to the post at the head of the EIB. The EU founding country does not currently occupy any of the top posts at EU level. However, Germany will not completely lose its influence in the EU bank. Berlin has always been assured a place on the board. Interest in moving to Luxembourg for the job of vice president at the EIB is said to lie with Liberal Michael Theurer, parliamentary state secretary in the transport ministry.
It is becoming apparent that Ursula von der Leyen will be the only top representative with a German passport on the EU stage as of next year. Given the size of the country and its economic importance, Germany would thus be poorly represented.
There will be changes in 2024. After the European elections in May, the EU’s top personnel will be reconstituted. There will be changes not only in the Parliament but also in the Commission and other institutions. As soon as the Parliament is constituted in its new composition, the first step will be to elect the new Parliament President.
Ever since Martin Schulz (SPD) was able to confidently use the stage as President of the Parliament and thus achieved EU-wide fame, the job, which is in itself rather representative, has been considered highly attractive. It is currently held by the Maltese Roberta Metsola. She has managed to position herself as a possible top candidate of the Christian Democratic party family EPP.
However, the job has one drawback: The two major party families, Christian Democrats and Socialists, share the term of office. Whoever wins the office has only two and a half years to gain profile. During this term, EPP group leader Manfred Weber (CSU) would have liked to become parliamentary president. But now that he also leads the party family, he is unlikely to make another attempt.
The President of the European Council has more influence. He prepares the summit agenda, organizes the summits and determines the strategic direction of the EU in cooperation with the EU heads of state and government. However, the unwritten law applies that the permanent Council president must have previously been a head of state or government in their own country. Otherwise, it is said, they lack the authority to be heard in the circle of presidents.
It is very unlikely that Germany will provide the next permanent Council president: Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel are not interested, although Schröder would no longer be an option either. That leaves the incumbent chancellor, Olaf Scholz, but that is currently ruled out.
Other top posts, such as the chair at the European Central Bank (ECB) or the leadership of the Eastern European Bank, are not up for grabs at the moment. Incidentally, both are held by Frenchmen – Christine Lagarde and Odile Renaud-Basso.
It is thus foreseeable that it will be lonely for the Germans on the EU stage, leaving Ursula von der Leyen as the only top German politician on the Brussels stage. There are also hardly any opportunities for the traffic light government to elevate its own party friends to top positions in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. Only the Greens have the prospect of providing the German commissioner. This is laid down in the coalition agreement. However, it only applies if the incumbent German Commission President does not enter her second term.
According to reports in Brussels, Ursula von der Leyen has not yet decided for herself whether she wants to continue. The job at the head of the Commission, with its more than 30,000 officials, is at least as time-consuming as that of chancellor. At the end of a second term, von der Leyen would be 71. She may decide to have a family instead of doing the back-breaking job again.
So far, Olaf Scholz did not clarify whether von der Leyen would have the support of the German government. Perhaps Scholz would not be wrong if the CDU politician were still at the helm of the Commission after 2024. The SPD’s interest in sending a green commissioner to Brussels is likely to be limited.
What’s more, if Scholz were to refuse von der Leyen’s support, he would have to brace himself for broadsides from the CDU/CSU. The CDU/CSU would accuse the traffic light coalition of having gambled away Germany’s top positions in Europe out of party tactical considerations – at a time when other front-row posts on the EU stage are not available. with Markus Grabitz
While the public has only been discussing the ChatGPT language model for a few months, the European Parliament has already been dealing with artificial intelligence legislation (AI Act) for more than a year. But it is only now that many people have become aware of the wide range of possible applications and the potential dangers of AI with ChatGPT. Will the discussion in the committees have to be completely reopened after the appearance of ChatGPT?
The co-rapporteur for the AI Act from the LIBE Committee, Dragoş Tudorache (Renew), says no. “We are still working on the final package of compromises on some of the key parts of the text. For example, on the definitions, including how we define General Purpose AI (GPAI),” Tudorache told Table.Media. Changes to the text will still occur.
However, it is still unclear which ones these will be. Because although the parliamentarians had also dealt with the question of how GPAI should be incorporated into the legislative text from the very beginning, they still have not reached an agreement on the definition of AI and the scope of the law.
The commission had not envisioned AI developed for any particular purpose but for multiple purposes (general-purpose AI, or GPAI) to be included in the rulebook. “We have recognized it is something that we cannot ignore – this has been proven through the massive success of ChatGPT and how relevant it already is,” Tudorache says.
In January, the EPP had made an initial proposal on what adjustments it considers necessary in the law with regard to technologies such as ChatGPT. But so far, the rapporteurs have not submitted a text that takes these proposed changes into account. Meetings are currently taking place at the technical level. However, a meeting of the shadow rapporteurs this week was canceled. There is no new date yet.
Thus, there is still uncertainty about the status of the political negotiations. While German MEPs gave the impression in a background interview that nothing has been fully negotiated yet, the rapporteur sees it differently. “Specifically, we have worked and are still working, as we speak, on the scope and definition,” Tudorache says. “And we are still making some tweaks to Articles 5 and 6 on the prohibited and high-risk practices. The rest of the text is mostly finished.”
The discussion about the definition is central since it is a question here of which applications are covered by the law. Time and again, it was heard that the rapporteurs wanted to follow the OECD definition of AI. Tudorache disagrees: “The definition is ours. We have not looked to other organizations or to other definitions as a source of inspiration. We have looked at the elements that we considered to be crucial.” Only at the final stage, he says, did they realize that it would be easier for stakeholders to accept the definition if it was aligned with other organizations’ definitions.
“We must phrase the definition in a way that other global partners will understand because companies from other corners of the world will also have to work with this legislation if they plan on staying in Europe or continuing to invest in the European market,” Tudorache says. So, he says, the definition is still up for discussion at the moment. And it will certainly be the last to be finalized.
The EPP, in particular, would approve of being guided by the OECD definition. But there is no current OECD definition at all, as the organization is currently revising it. In contrast, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the USA presented a definition in January. The rapporteurs are also looking at this.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology defines an AI system as a technical (engineered) or machine-based system, which, for a given set of goals, can produce results such as predictions, recommendations, or decisions that affect real or virtual environments. AI systems are designed to operate with varying degrees of autonomy.
Each of these points could be debated. For example, the Greens are not happy with the phrase “affecting real or virtual environments.” What about emotion recognition? Does this fall under it, or does it then fall out of regulation altogether? There is still a lot to discuss.
However, there is no longer a timetable for this at the moment. A new date for the shadow rapporteurs has not yet been set. “I’m hoping that we can finish negotiations next month,” says Tudorache. Others think that is illusory. Even the rapporteur admits, “I don’t want to give estimates anymore – I did that before and I was wrong. The important thing is that we do it right.”
His group colleague, German MEP Svenja Hahn (FDP), who does not want to rush things, shares his opinion. “Because I think the law is very crucial and it is not yet clear in which direction it will go,” Hahn says. “If we manage to come up with a smart legislative proposal, then we can actually make the European Union an attractive location for technological innovation.” But there is still a long way to go before that happens.
You can read the detailed interview with Dragoş Tudorache here.
So here we go with the acronyms:
This is where we now want to dwell for a bit.
For MEP Peter Liese (CDU), who led the now famous “jumbo trilogue,” LULUCF is “actually the most important element of the whole fit-for-55 package, alongside the ETS“. That’s because an agreement next week in Strasbourg would allow the European Union to raise its climate target from 55 percent to 57 percent.
Why is that? For that, we need to look back to COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh. There, Frans Timmermans, the European Commission vice president in charge of the Green Deal, had announced that the EU was ready to present a new climate plan (also known as an NDC) that would raise the target for net emissions reductions between 1990 and 2030 to “at least 57 percent”.
This is two percentage points more than the target adopted by the European Council at the end of 2020 (55 percent) and 17 percentage points more than the EU’s original target submitted to the UNFCCC (40 percent).
LULUCF makes it possible. The tentative agreement reached between the Council and Parliament last November stipulates that 310 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent as net uptake must be achieved by the European Union in the LULUCF sector by 2030. This means that the climate impact of LULUCF is very strong, much stronger than for the transport sector, for example, as Peter Liese summarizes.
“I want to make it clear that these are very ambitious targets,” added Liese’s party colleague and LULUCF rapporteur Norbert Lins. “We are currently at around 215 million metric tons. So that means we need to add about 50 percent over the next seven years to reach those 310 million metric tons.”
For soils in Germany, this means that they will have to absorb around 31 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030. “That’s a few tons more than the old German government set in its target. They had envisaged 25 million tons by 2030, and now we’ve raised that by another 6 million tons,” Lins said.
Because things are now getting concrete, the political debate about these hitherto subordinate dossiers is picking up speed. Two fronts are getting ready: associations from the agricultural and forestry sectors, for whom the targets are too ambitious, on the one hand, and environmental organizations, which would like to see more ambitious targets.
Because Sweden holds the presidency of the Council until summer, Stockholm is leading the negotiations. The only problem is that Sweden is a country whose territory consists of 70 percent forest. It is one of the largest timber exporters in the world. In Brussels, the question is how Stockholm will behave. Will it be more protectionist and push for maximum wood production?
It is important to note here that, at the same time, Sweden has an ambitious goal of CO2 neutrality by 2045, thanks to the enormous carbon uptake that its forests enable. France, for example, would not be able to reduce its emissions by 85 percent by that date, as Sweden proposes.
