Geopolitical tensions have breathed new life into Europe’s trade policy. However, this does not make the negotiations a sure success, as the provisional failure of the agreement with Australia recently demonstrated. The trade ministers of the 27 member states are therefore eagerly awaiting what Commission Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis will tell them today about the ongoing talks with the USA and the Mercosur states.
The Commission has been doggedly negotiating with Washington for months over an agreement that removes the threat of renewed US import tariffs on steel and aluminum and European countermeasures. The Biden administration has offered to waive the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump on its ally for another year or two. However, the Europeans are demanding that Washington significantly increase the quantities that European exporters can import duty-free. With the current import quotas (for experts: TRQs), companies would have to pay a three-digit million amount in customs duties per year, according to a European diplomat.
However, another diplomat doubts Biden will agree to this before the presidential election in November 2024. The protective tariffs for the domestic steel industry are popular; the USW trade union, for example, is firmly opposed to their abolition. The EU, on the other hand, is resisting Washington’s pressure to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum from China without a lengthy investigation. If the two sides are unable to reach an agreement, as seems likely, the current truce will probably be extended beyond the end of the year.
At least as difficult are negotiations with the four Mercosur states. Both sides are trying to reach a deal in the next fortnight. The Commission’s chief negotiator is currently in South America for this purpose. However, the election of populist Javier Milei as Argentina’s new president is raising new questions there.
And in Europe, an agreement is also anything but a sure success: At the weekend, delegates at the Green Party conference insisted on being able to suspend trade concessions if the South Americans violate the agreed environmental and climate standards. However, it is precisely this form of sanctioning that is a red line for Brazil and Co.
Have a good start to the week!
In this mandate, the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) repeatedly encounters resistance in plenary with reports on Green Deal legislative proposals. Positions adopted by a majority in the ENVI were conspicuously often seriously amended in plenary. Other legislative committees such as the Industry Committee (ITRE), the Agriculture Committee (AGRI) or the Internal Market Committee (IMCO) are more often able to carry out the necessary preparatory work and thus ensure a swift vote in plenary.
The ENVI was shipwrecked in these Green Deal legislative projects:
The SUR report was substantially amended in plenary, the referral back to the Committee failed – and with it the entire project, at least in this mandate. On the four other dossiers, the majority in plenary substantially changed the ENVI position. There were also problems with the Nature Restoration Law: The report did not receive a majority in any of the three committees involved.
The vote on the pesticide directive was the most spectacular. The drama was already looming on Wednesday morning. Several dozen amendments were to be voted on in plenary. According to information from Table.Media, Parliament President Roberta Metsola considered taking the report off the agenda and referring it back to the Committee. For reports with more than 50 amendments, this is at the discretion of the President. An experienced MEP says: “A good rapporteur ensures that there are no more than ten amendments.”
Metsola decided against it. This was probably because the Christian Democrat did not want to provoke accusations of partisanship from the Greens and S&D. Agreements between the EPP, ECR and parts of the Renew and S&D led to amendments in the two central areas being successful: The percentage for pesticide reduction should be lowered compared to the Commission proposal, the reduction should come later and FFH areas be excluded from the protected areas in which chemical pesticides would no longer be permitted.
The Greens and Social Democrats were still hoping for a referral back to the ENVI so that rapporteur Sarah Wiener could still get something out of renegotiations in the Committee or later in the trilogue. However, ENVI Chairman Pascal Canfin obviously did not succeed in organizing the necessary Liberal votes for the reverse transfer.
Tiemo Wölken, S&D Coordinator in the ENVI, acknowledges the need for action: “We have to tackle the problem that the other committees often take a different approach than the ENVI.” The Environment Committee must strive for positions that have a chance of gaining majorities: “Otherwise, it is foreseeable that the plenary trains will race towards each other.” Nobody could have an interest in “risking random decisions on key legislative projects.”
Wölken also warns of the consequences of narrow decisions for the negotiations with the Council: “If the rapporteur can only rely on a weak mandate from Parliament, he will have a difficult time in the trilogue.”
Peter Liese, EPP Group coordinator, sees it similarly: “Some leading members of the ENVI have not internalized the fact that they will not find majorities in plenary for very ambitious, very green and banned demands.” It is striking that ENVI members want to push through the “pure doctrine”: “Right now, at the end of the mandate, they are driven by the thought that the House could shift to the right in the European elections.” They wanted to create facts but failed to realize that they were “only making the feared shift to the right more likely.”
However, Liese does not see the main cause of the problems in Parliament: “The Vice-President responsible for the Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, has presented a series of bad legislative proposals and is therefore responsible for the problems.”
The ENVI frequently encounters resistance in plenary when it comes to legislative proposals that are of great importance to agriculture. These are dossiers on which the AGRI Committee on Agriculture often takes opposing positions, as is the case with SUR. The farmers’ associations succeeded in convincing many MEPs, reportedly even some German Social Democrats. The votes have shown that the AGRI tends to adopt positions for which there are majorities in plenary.
The pesticide directive has been dealt with in the ENVI for decades. But in the case of other proposals, agricultural politicians suspect that Timmermans has already ensured that the dossier ends up in the ENVI with his introductory remarks. After all, the committee is known for its green positions, whereas the AGRI is known for its pro-farmer positions. AGRI representatives criticized this, for example, in the case of the breakfast directives, which are basically about food marketing, but where the AGRI is only allowed to issue an opinion, and in the case of the Forest Monitoring Law, where the AGRI has the expertise for forests.
The EPP is campaigning for a reorganization of the committees. It is expected that EPP group leader Manfred Weber will make a move in February with the support of the ECR, ID and parts of Renew. In particular, the competencies of ENVI could be reduced. Environmental politician Liese supports the idea: “The ENVI has too many responsibilities.” He is in favor of the committee limiting itself to environmental and climate proposals. There should also be a full committee for food safety and public health. According to Liese, the existing Agriculture Committee should also be retained.
Norbert Lins (CDU), Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, on the other hand, would like to form an AGRI-FOOD Committee in the next mandate. This would give the Agriculture Committee responsibility for food safety and plant protection and give it powers comparable to those of the Agriculture Council. Wölken puts the brakes on: “I think it is problematic to create facts. We should leave the decision to the next European Parliament.” Contribution Lukas Scheid
After a controversial debate, the Green Youth’s motion not to agree to any further tightening of asylum laws was rejected. The motion was intended to oblige the Green ministers not to make any further concessions to coalition partners and the opposition in the migration debate. “If you run after the right, you will stumble,” warned Katharina Stolle, Chairwoman of the Green Youth.
Robert Habeck vehemently disagreed and declared the motion to be a “vote of no confidence in disguise.” The real message was: “Leave the government!” Party chairwoman Ricarda Lang warned of the consequence “that we will no longer be at the table.” And Annalena Baerbock pointed out: “We are governing because we want to change something.”
It was the controversy between the governing Greens and the values-based Greens, in which the governing party ultimately prevailed. However, it was also a clash of generations and party wings, as was seen several times at this party conference – albeit not as violent as on the issue of migration.
The delegates’ vote on the Mercosur free trade agreement may not have been as high-profile, but it certainly had far-reaching consequences. The Federal Executive Committee had spoken out in favor of the agreement, which they wanted to ratify if verifiable and enforceable commitments on environmental, social and climate protection were agreed upon. For their part, the Europeans have already introduced this into the negotiations with the four Mercosur states. This would have given the Green Minister for Economic Affairs, Habeck, more room to maneuver.
The wording apparently did not go far enough for the party base. 53% of delegates voted in favor of an amendment calling for further renegotiations, in which sanctions and the suspension of the trade agreement are stipulated if the South Americans violate the standards demanded by the EU. The supporters see this as the only chance to prevent soy, for which rainforest has been cut down, from entering European markets.
Opponents of the amendment, on the other hand, see this as paternalism that dictates to the Amazon countries how they should protect their forests. The Brazilian government, for example, has expressly refused to tolerate this.
Criticism came immediately from the opposition. Julia Klöckner, the economic policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, explained that instead of seeking to close ranks with partners in the world in terms of economic policy, the Greens were “slamming the door in the Mercosur states’ faces.” This plays into the hands of authoritarian states such as China in particular, said Klöckner.
The election for the list with which the Greens want to run in the 2024 European elections produced only a few new faces, but the familiar wing battles. Terry Reintke’s successful candidacy for the top position without an opposing candidate went smoothly – on Sunday she also became the European lead candidate. But even behind that, agreements between wings and national associations produced results.
The left-wing climate politician Michael Bloss from Baden-Württemberg was defeated by the Realo foreign policy politician Sergey Lagodinsky from Berlin in the race for second place, while Anna Cavazzini from the left won third place against a convincing Hannah Neumann despite a mediocre speech. In an extremely close vote, agricultural politician Martin Häusling prevailed against Rasmus Andresen in 6th place. Andresen was pushed through to 12th place, where Niklas Nienaß made way to spare his wing colleague and group leader greater humiliation.
This had consequences for transport politician Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg, who was defeated by environmental expert Jutta Paulus in 9th place. Deparnay-Grunenberg was relegated to the back of the field, as only candidates from the left wing won places 11 to 14. As two Baden-Württemberg candidates had already been placed ahead of her, it was even more difficult for the Stuttgart-based candidate, as the large state association of Bavaria was not represented at all until 15th place. As a result, 16th place went to Andie Wörle, while Deparnay-Grunenberg managed to secure 17th place with her last ounce of strength.
Based on current polls, 15 seats in the next EU Parliament are realistic for the German Greens. Anna Peters is the only new face on one of these promising places on the list. The 27-year-old from Baden-Württemberg and former spokesperson for the Green Youth won against sinologist Janka Oertel from think tank ECFR and has a very good chance of entering the EU Parliament in 13th place.
Of the current MEPs, Henrike Hahn, Malte Gallée, Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana and Romeo Franz will no longer be represented in the Strasbourg Parliament.
The list:
The dispute between the European Parliament and the Member States over the treatment of foundation models and general purpose AI (GPAI) has the potential to derail the negotiations on the AI Act. In any case, it could likely blow up the timetable. Some of those involved are now thinking aloud that a conclusion under the Belgian Council Presidency is also possible. This would mean that the planned trilogue on December 6 would not be the final one after all.
At an AI conference in Mainz on Friday, Federal Digital Minister Volker Wissing said that now that there is a Code of Conduct at G7 level, “it would be less dramatic if the AI Act were to fail. But I don’t want it to fail.” Instead, he is working to “ensure that we don’t make a mistake at the start of AI regulation.”
The Minister thinks it would be a mistake to comprehensively regulate a technology at this point in time, where no one can anticipate the possible innovative leaps in the future. There would then be a risk that the technology would be developed elsewhere and Europe would once again run into a sovereignty problem and therefore also a security problem.
Just how far apart the Council and Parliament are became clear not least with the joint non-paper presented by Germany, France and Italy. Germany now wants to submit a further paper to flesh out the joint proposal with France and Italy on the treatment of foundation models.
“We want to propose a concrete formulation of how regulated self-regulation should be carried out by standardization bodies,” said Benjamin Brake, Head of Department for Digital and Data Policy at the BMDV, in an interview with Table.Media.
In the joint non-paper, the three member states proposed leaving the regulation of “systems” (i.e. applications) in the AI Act. However, they want the “models” (the development of the basic technology) to be subject to “mandatory self-regulation through codes of conduct.” That sounds like loose reins.
Wissing disagrees. Although the impression could arise that “safety concerns are put aside if we regulate less now. But I am convinced that the opposite is the case,” he said. “It serves our security and our sovereignty that we continue to develop this technology in Europe and also keep it in our own hands.”
Brake explained that regulated self-regulation is a legal term. “And it’s not about companies writing their own rules.” Rather, this should be done by standardization bodies. “We want to bring regulation to a technical level in which both large and small companies have the opportunity to participate.” The German government is talking to the German Institute for Standardization (DIN), among others, about this.
In any case, the German government rejects the Parliament’s two-tier approach, according to which powerful models should be subject to greater control than others. “This is a distinction that we do not want to make – and one that is not future-proof,” said Brake. The point is that the development of technology is unpredictable, which is why a hard regulatory framework seems unsuitable. Control via standards, on the other hand, would allow flexible adaptation to developments.
In the meantime, the Commission has made a new proposal in which it modifies the two-tier approach and – yet another new term – now speaks of a code of practice. However, the majority in Parliament still wants regulation of models that pose a systemic risk. During the negotiations at the technical level on Friday, the discussions on foundation models and GPAI were postponed until Monday.
Wissing has already found other supporters for his approach of “innovation-friendly regulation” of artificial intelligence. With the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, he has founded an innovation club aiming to “strengthen Europe as a digital location.” In the club, Germany is to contribute its industrial expertise and the Baltic states their lead in the digitalization of their administration.
Aušrinė Armonaitė, Lithuanian Minister of Economy and Innovation, said it was crucial to remain agile in the regulation of AI. Her Estonian colleague Tiit Riisalo added that a certain kind of openness must be maintained. Although the ministers expressly did not want to comment on the negotiations, there is no majority in the Council in favor of comprehensive regulation of foundation models. Also noteworthy: the three Baltic states emphasized how important it was for Germany to take a leading role here.
The still-young Innovation Club started with the presentation of a nine-point paper in which the four countries formulate their demands to the future EU Commission. “Together, we are working to ensure that the EU sets the right priorities in digital policy: faster decisions, more openness to innovation and fewer burdens for companies,” said Wissing. The points include an efficient infrastructure and cyber security. With the plan, the countries want to support the adoption of a new digital agenda from 2024.
Like Wissing, Estonia’s minister emphasized the importance of international coordination on the regulation of AI. He once again brought up the idea of an international body for AI along the lines of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). This had already been discussed at the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park.
In addition to the Innovation Club, Wissing also presented a lever project of the digital strategy in Mainz: the National Initiative for Artificial Intelligence, now called Mission AI. The project, funded by the BMDV, aims to create better framework conditions for digital innovations in addition to internationally compatible standards. To this end, Mission KI aims to support the development of high-quality AI products.
Mission AI also wants to simplify access to AI and promote the transfer of research to application. To this end, two AI innovation centers are to be established in Kaiserslautern and Berlin, where companies and citizens can test AI applications. Such regulatory sandboxes are also currently being set up in other EU countries, as provided for in the AI Act.
In the past years and decades, we in Europe were used to prosperity and peace. Now both seem to be in danger. The Russian attack on Ukraine and the dramatic developments in the Middle East have presented us with new geopolitical and geo-economic challenges. The global economy has barely recovered from the consequences of the Covid pandemic before it is threatened by new risks – be it supply difficulties, skills shortages or energy bottlenecks. In short, after 2022, the year of the “turning point,” 2023 is also proving to be a year of crises, not just in Europe but worldwide.
With these developments in mind, the World Climate Change Conference will take place in Dubai in a few days’ time. It almost seems like the worst possible timing. And yet COP28 is of crucial importance, because the climate crisis now affects each and every one of us on an almost daily basis, and finding solutions is becoming more urgent than ever. What’s more, the conference is taking place exactly halfway between the conclusion of the Paris Climate Agreement in September 2016 and its implementation by 2030. There is hardly a better time for a sober stocktaking and an ambitious roadmap for the next seven years.
The global business community has been working for years to accelerate progress on climate change adaptation and mitigation. However, private sector actions alone will not achieve the 1.5-degree target. Instead, we need coordinated action at the international level by all governments to remove existing barriers to innovative climate solutions and improve the return on investment in a net zero future.
To achieve this, the conference can and must deliver tangible and practical results in three key areas in particular:
We can no longer afford a standstill. This year’s COP must send a clear message that governments and the private sector are united in their commitment to climate action and will drive it forward in a way that works for and with business. This is the only way to make the Paris Agreement a reality by 2030. At the same time, a successful COP28 would send an extremely important signal for multilateralism – especially in these times, this would be of enormous importance.
Geopolitical tensions have breathed new life into Europe’s trade policy. However, this does not make the negotiations a sure success, as the provisional failure of the agreement with Australia recently demonstrated. The trade ministers of the 27 member states are therefore eagerly awaiting what Commission Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis will tell them today about the ongoing talks with the USA and the Mercosur states.
The Commission has been doggedly negotiating with Washington for months over an agreement that removes the threat of renewed US import tariffs on steel and aluminum and European countermeasures. The Biden administration has offered to waive the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump on its ally for another year or two. However, the Europeans are demanding that Washington significantly increase the quantities that European exporters can import duty-free. With the current import quotas (for experts: TRQs), companies would have to pay a three-digit million amount in customs duties per year, according to a European diplomat.
However, another diplomat doubts Biden will agree to this before the presidential election in November 2024. The protective tariffs for the domestic steel industry are popular; the USW trade union, for example, is firmly opposed to their abolition. The EU, on the other hand, is resisting Washington’s pressure to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum from China without a lengthy investigation. If the two sides are unable to reach an agreement, as seems likely, the current truce will probably be extended beyond the end of the year.
At least as difficult are negotiations with the four Mercosur states. Both sides are trying to reach a deal in the next fortnight. The Commission’s chief negotiator is currently in South America for this purpose. However, the election of populist Javier Milei as Argentina’s new president is raising new questions there.
And in Europe, an agreement is also anything but a sure success: At the weekend, delegates at the Green Party conference insisted on being able to suspend trade concessions if the South Americans violate the agreed environmental and climate standards. However, it is precisely this form of sanctioning that is a red line for Brazil and Co.
Have a good start to the week!
In this mandate, the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) repeatedly encounters resistance in plenary with reports on Green Deal legislative proposals. Positions adopted by a majority in the ENVI were conspicuously often seriously amended in plenary. Other legislative committees such as the Industry Committee (ITRE), the Agriculture Committee (AGRI) or the Internal Market Committee (IMCO) are more often able to carry out the necessary preparatory work and thus ensure a swift vote in plenary.
The ENVI was shipwrecked in these Green Deal legislative projects:
The SUR report was substantially amended in plenary, the referral back to the Committee failed – and with it the entire project, at least in this mandate. On the four other dossiers, the majority in plenary substantially changed the ENVI position. There were also problems with the Nature Restoration Law: The report did not receive a majority in any of the three committees involved.
The vote on the pesticide directive was the most spectacular. The drama was already looming on Wednesday morning. Several dozen amendments were to be voted on in plenary. According to information from Table.Media, Parliament President Roberta Metsola considered taking the report off the agenda and referring it back to the Committee. For reports with more than 50 amendments, this is at the discretion of the President. An experienced MEP says: “A good rapporteur ensures that there are no more than ten amendments.”
Metsola decided against it. This was probably because the Christian Democrat did not want to provoke accusations of partisanship from the Greens and S&D. Agreements between the EPP, ECR and parts of the Renew and S&D led to amendments in the two central areas being successful: The percentage for pesticide reduction should be lowered compared to the Commission proposal, the reduction should come later and FFH areas be excluded from the protected areas in which chemical pesticides would no longer be permitted.
The Greens and Social Democrats were still hoping for a referral back to the ENVI so that rapporteur Sarah Wiener could still get something out of renegotiations in the Committee or later in the trilogue. However, ENVI Chairman Pascal Canfin obviously did not succeed in organizing the necessary Liberal votes for the reverse transfer.
Tiemo Wölken, S&D Coordinator in the ENVI, acknowledges the need for action: “We have to tackle the problem that the other committees often take a different approach than the ENVI.” The Environment Committee must strive for positions that have a chance of gaining majorities: “Otherwise, it is foreseeable that the plenary trains will race towards each other.” Nobody could have an interest in “risking random decisions on key legislative projects.”
Wölken also warns of the consequences of narrow decisions for the negotiations with the Council: “If the rapporteur can only rely on a weak mandate from Parliament, he will have a difficult time in the trilogue.”
Peter Liese, EPP Group coordinator, sees it similarly: “Some leading members of the ENVI have not internalized the fact that they will not find majorities in plenary for very ambitious, very green and banned demands.” It is striking that ENVI members want to push through the “pure doctrine”: “Right now, at the end of the mandate, they are driven by the thought that the House could shift to the right in the European elections.” They wanted to create facts but failed to realize that they were “only making the feared shift to the right more likely.”
However, Liese does not see the main cause of the problems in Parliament: “The Vice-President responsible for the Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, has presented a series of bad legislative proposals and is therefore responsible for the problems.”
The ENVI frequently encounters resistance in plenary when it comes to legislative proposals that are of great importance to agriculture. These are dossiers on which the AGRI Committee on Agriculture often takes opposing positions, as is the case with SUR. The farmers’ associations succeeded in convincing many MEPs, reportedly even some German Social Democrats. The votes have shown that the AGRI tends to adopt positions for which there are majorities in plenary.
The pesticide directive has been dealt with in the ENVI for decades. But in the case of other proposals, agricultural politicians suspect that Timmermans has already ensured that the dossier ends up in the ENVI with his introductory remarks. After all, the committee is known for its green positions, whereas the AGRI is known for its pro-farmer positions. AGRI representatives criticized this, for example, in the case of the breakfast directives, which are basically about food marketing, but where the AGRI is only allowed to issue an opinion, and in the case of the Forest Monitoring Law, where the AGRI has the expertise for forests.
The EPP is campaigning for a reorganization of the committees. It is expected that EPP group leader Manfred Weber will make a move in February with the support of the ECR, ID and parts of Renew. In particular, the competencies of ENVI could be reduced. Environmental politician Liese supports the idea: “The ENVI has too many responsibilities.” He is in favor of the committee limiting itself to environmental and climate proposals. There should also be a full committee for food safety and public health. According to Liese, the existing Agriculture Committee should also be retained.
Norbert Lins (CDU), Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, on the other hand, would like to form an AGRI-FOOD Committee in the next mandate. This would give the Agriculture Committee responsibility for food safety and plant protection and give it powers comparable to those of the Agriculture Council. Wölken puts the brakes on: “I think it is problematic to create facts. We should leave the decision to the next European Parliament.” Contribution Lukas Scheid
After a controversial debate, the Green Youth’s motion not to agree to any further tightening of asylum laws was rejected. The motion was intended to oblige the Green ministers not to make any further concessions to coalition partners and the opposition in the migration debate. “If you run after the right, you will stumble,” warned Katharina Stolle, Chairwoman of the Green Youth.
Robert Habeck vehemently disagreed and declared the motion to be a “vote of no confidence in disguise.” The real message was: “Leave the government!” Party chairwoman Ricarda Lang warned of the consequence “that we will no longer be at the table.” And Annalena Baerbock pointed out: “We are governing because we want to change something.”
It was the controversy between the governing Greens and the values-based Greens, in which the governing party ultimately prevailed. However, it was also a clash of generations and party wings, as was seen several times at this party conference – albeit not as violent as on the issue of migration.
The delegates’ vote on the Mercosur free trade agreement may not have been as high-profile, but it certainly had far-reaching consequences. The Federal Executive Committee had spoken out in favor of the agreement, which they wanted to ratify if verifiable and enforceable commitments on environmental, social and climate protection were agreed upon. For their part, the Europeans have already introduced this into the negotiations with the four Mercosur states. This would have given the Green Minister for Economic Affairs, Habeck, more room to maneuver.
The wording apparently did not go far enough for the party base. 53% of delegates voted in favor of an amendment calling for further renegotiations, in which sanctions and the suspension of the trade agreement are stipulated if the South Americans violate the standards demanded by the EU. The supporters see this as the only chance to prevent soy, for which rainforest has been cut down, from entering European markets.
Opponents of the amendment, on the other hand, see this as paternalism that dictates to the Amazon countries how they should protect their forests. The Brazilian government, for example, has expressly refused to tolerate this.
Criticism came immediately from the opposition. Julia Klöckner, the economic policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, explained that instead of seeking to close ranks with partners in the world in terms of economic policy, the Greens were “slamming the door in the Mercosur states’ faces.” This plays into the hands of authoritarian states such as China in particular, said Klöckner.
The election for the list with which the Greens want to run in the 2024 European elections produced only a few new faces, but the familiar wing battles. Terry Reintke’s successful candidacy for the top position without an opposing candidate went smoothly – on Sunday she also became the European lead candidate. But even behind that, agreements between wings and national associations produced results.
The left-wing climate politician Michael Bloss from Baden-Württemberg was defeated by the Realo foreign policy politician Sergey Lagodinsky from Berlin in the race for second place, while Anna Cavazzini from the left won third place against a convincing Hannah Neumann despite a mediocre speech. In an extremely close vote, agricultural politician Martin Häusling prevailed against Rasmus Andresen in 6th place. Andresen was pushed through to 12th place, where Niklas Nienaß made way to spare his wing colleague and group leader greater humiliation.
This had consequences for transport politician Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg, who was defeated by environmental expert Jutta Paulus in 9th place. Deparnay-Grunenberg was relegated to the back of the field, as only candidates from the left wing won places 11 to 14. As two Baden-Württemberg candidates had already been placed ahead of her, it was even more difficult for the Stuttgart-based candidate, as the large state association of Bavaria was not represented at all until 15th place. As a result, 16th place went to Andie Wörle, while Deparnay-Grunenberg managed to secure 17th place with her last ounce of strength.
Based on current polls, 15 seats in the next EU Parliament are realistic for the German Greens. Anna Peters is the only new face on one of these promising places on the list. The 27-year-old from Baden-Württemberg and former spokesperson for the Green Youth won against sinologist Janka Oertel from think tank ECFR and has a very good chance of entering the EU Parliament in 13th place.
Of the current MEPs, Henrike Hahn, Malte Gallée, Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana and Romeo Franz will no longer be represented in the Strasbourg Parliament.
The list:
The dispute between the European Parliament and the Member States over the treatment of foundation models and general purpose AI (GPAI) has the potential to derail the negotiations on the AI Act. In any case, it could likely blow up the timetable. Some of those involved are now thinking aloud that a conclusion under the Belgian Council Presidency is also possible. This would mean that the planned trilogue on December 6 would not be the final one after all.
At an AI conference in Mainz on Friday, Federal Digital Minister Volker Wissing said that now that there is a Code of Conduct at G7 level, “it would be less dramatic if the AI Act were to fail. But I don’t want it to fail.” Instead, he is working to “ensure that we don’t make a mistake at the start of AI regulation.”
The Minister thinks it would be a mistake to comprehensively regulate a technology at this point in time, where no one can anticipate the possible innovative leaps in the future. There would then be a risk that the technology would be developed elsewhere and Europe would once again run into a sovereignty problem and therefore also a security problem.
Just how far apart the Council and Parliament are became clear not least with the joint non-paper presented by Germany, France and Italy. Germany now wants to submit a further paper to flesh out the joint proposal with France and Italy on the treatment of foundation models.
“We want to propose a concrete formulation of how regulated self-regulation should be carried out by standardization bodies,” said Benjamin Brake, Head of Department for Digital and Data Policy at the BMDV, in an interview with Table.Media.
In the joint non-paper, the three member states proposed leaving the regulation of “systems” (i.e. applications) in the AI Act. However, they want the “models” (the development of the basic technology) to be subject to “mandatory self-regulation through codes of conduct.” That sounds like loose reins.
Wissing disagrees. Although the impression could arise that “safety concerns are put aside if we regulate less now. But I am convinced that the opposite is the case,” he said. “It serves our security and our sovereignty that we continue to develop this technology in Europe and also keep it in our own hands.”
Brake explained that regulated self-regulation is a legal term. “And it’s not about companies writing their own rules.” Rather, this should be done by standardization bodies. “We want to bring regulation to a technical level in which both large and small companies have the opportunity to participate.” The German government is talking to the German Institute for Standardization (DIN), among others, about this.
In any case, the German government rejects the Parliament’s two-tier approach, according to which powerful models should be subject to greater control than others. “This is a distinction that we do not want to make – and one that is not future-proof,” said Brake. The point is that the development of technology is unpredictable, which is why a hard regulatory framework seems unsuitable. Control via standards, on the other hand, would allow flexible adaptation to developments.
In the meantime, the Commission has made a new proposal in which it modifies the two-tier approach and – yet another new term – now speaks of a code of practice. However, the majority in Parliament still wants regulation of models that pose a systemic risk. During the negotiations at the technical level on Friday, the discussions on foundation models and GPAI were postponed until Monday.
Wissing has already found other supporters for his approach of “innovation-friendly regulation” of artificial intelligence. With the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, he has founded an innovation club aiming to “strengthen Europe as a digital location.” In the club, Germany is to contribute its industrial expertise and the Baltic states their lead in the digitalization of their administration.
Aušrinė Armonaitė, Lithuanian Minister of Economy and Innovation, said it was crucial to remain agile in the regulation of AI. Her Estonian colleague Tiit Riisalo added that a certain kind of openness must be maintained. Although the ministers expressly did not want to comment on the negotiations, there is no majority in the Council in favor of comprehensive regulation of foundation models. Also noteworthy: the three Baltic states emphasized how important it was for Germany to take a leading role here.
The still-young Innovation Club started with the presentation of a nine-point paper in which the four countries formulate their demands to the future EU Commission. “Together, we are working to ensure that the EU sets the right priorities in digital policy: faster decisions, more openness to innovation and fewer burdens for companies,” said Wissing. The points include an efficient infrastructure and cyber security. With the plan, the countries want to support the adoption of a new digital agenda from 2024.
Like Wissing, Estonia’s minister emphasized the importance of international coordination on the regulation of AI. He once again brought up the idea of an international body for AI along the lines of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). This had already been discussed at the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park.
In addition to the Innovation Club, Wissing also presented a lever project of the digital strategy in Mainz: the National Initiative for Artificial Intelligence, now called Mission AI. The project, funded by the BMDV, aims to create better framework conditions for digital innovations in addition to internationally compatible standards. To this end, Mission KI aims to support the development of high-quality AI products.
Mission AI also wants to simplify access to AI and promote the transfer of research to application. To this end, two AI innovation centers are to be established in Kaiserslautern and Berlin, where companies and citizens can test AI applications. Such regulatory sandboxes are also currently being set up in other EU countries, as provided for in the AI Act.
In the past years and decades, we in Europe were used to prosperity and peace. Now both seem to be in danger. The Russian attack on Ukraine and the dramatic developments in the Middle East have presented us with new geopolitical and geo-economic challenges. The global economy has barely recovered from the consequences of the Covid pandemic before it is threatened by new risks – be it supply difficulties, skills shortages or energy bottlenecks. In short, after 2022, the year of the “turning point,” 2023 is also proving to be a year of crises, not just in Europe but worldwide.
With these developments in mind, the World Climate Change Conference will take place in Dubai in a few days’ time. It almost seems like the worst possible timing. And yet COP28 is of crucial importance, because the climate crisis now affects each and every one of us on an almost daily basis, and finding solutions is becoming more urgent than ever. What’s more, the conference is taking place exactly halfway between the conclusion of the Paris Climate Agreement in September 2016 and its implementation by 2030. There is hardly a better time for a sober stocktaking and an ambitious roadmap for the next seven years.
The global business community has been working for years to accelerate progress on climate change adaptation and mitigation. However, private sector actions alone will not achieve the 1.5-degree target. Instead, we need coordinated action at the international level by all governments to remove existing barriers to innovative climate solutions and improve the return on investment in a net zero future.
To achieve this, the conference can and must deliver tangible and practical results in three key areas in particular:
We can no longer afford a standstill. This year’s COP must send a clear message that governments and the private sector are united in their commitment to climate action and will drive it forward in a way that works for and with business. This is the only way to make the Paris Agreement a reality by 2030. At the same time, a successful COP28 would send an extremely important signal for multilateralism – especially in these times, this would be of enormous importance.
