Your contact for new licenses
Doubts about Jessika Roswall‘s competence were already expressed before her hearing. Among the designated commissioners who were to transform the Green Deal into a Clean Industrial Deal, the lawyer was considered to be less experienced and familiar with the details before the hearing.
Perhaps to dispel this impression, her party colleagues from the EPP emphasized several times during her hearing that the Commissioner-designate for the Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy was doing a “great job” and was “pragmatic” and “positive”.
“We experienced a weak performance by Ms. Roswall”, said Jutta Paulus from the Greens. “She made an effort, acknowledged the goals of the Green Deal, but left many questions unanswered and showed some alarming gaps in her knowledge.” In fact, Roswall sometimes found it difficult to formulate her plans clearly instead of ending lists with “and so on.”
Roswall often repeated that, “as a lawyer,” she wanted to implement regulations instead of introducing new laws. She also wanted to simplify regulations in order to achieve greater efficiency without diluting the environmental goals of the Green Deal.
Tiemo Wölken, ENVI coordinator of the Social Democrats, admonished Roswall in one of the last questions to “be specific”, especially regarding the financing of the environment department’s projects from public funds: “Don’t refer to Nature Credits again, it’s about public money.” Roswall denied that she had only spoken about Nature Credits – in the next EU budget, she would campaign for funding in the environmental sector.
Several MEPs asked Roswall sharply worded questions about the environmental record of the Swedish government, of which she was a member until recently. This government had taken steps backwards in environmental action. Renew coordinator Pascal Canfin, for example, asked how she would deal with this as Commissioner if a member state acted in this way in the future and failed to achieve common goals: “Will you represent the law, only the law, and nothing but the law?” Roswall assured that as Commissioner she would represent the European Union and not – as in her previous role – act as a representative of Sweden.
The future Commissioner for Energy and Housing, Dan Jørgensen, won over MEPs in Brussels on Tuesday with his charm and willingness to talk. The Danish Development Minister noticeably succeeded in winning over the room. When the Social Democrat made a joke (“Nuclear energy: An area where we are united in diversity.”), the MEPs laughed heartily. When he lowered his voice at the end of his hearing, spoke about the victims in Ukraine, and put his hand to his heart, the room fell silent.
In the end, not even his reserved stance on nuclear energy could do Jørgensen any harm. Only the “Patriots” and the industrial politicians of the left voted against him in the end; the right-wing ESN was not present at the subsequent meeting of the coordinators and the chairs of the Industry and Employment Committees. The pro-nuclear members of the ECR are said to have been outraged, but nevertheless supported Jørgensen so as not to jeopardize their candidate Raffaele Fitto.
On the nuclear issue, which is so important for many EU countries, the former Danish energy minister did not show “any great support”, as French Renew MEP Christophe Grudler politely put it between hearings. “It is not the EU’s job to build nuclear power plants“, said Jørgensen, rejecting calls for EU funding for nuclear power plants.
In the first 100 days, Jørgensen first wants to present the roadmap for the phase-out of Russian energy sources and convene a stakeholder dialog on housing. He aims to phase out Russian energy before 2027. Only then will the investment strategy for clean energy and the action plan for electrification follow.
The investment strategy will probably also be the first important contribution to Jørgensen’s main task: lower energy prices. There will not be a new reform of the electricity market for the time being; the reforms that have already been agreed must first take effect.
The parliamentary groups did not receive satisfactory answers to individual core demands. The EPP asked in vain for clear targets for reducing bureaucracy and leaner rules for hydrogen. The designated Energy Commissioner was unwilling to commit to a binding energy efficiency target for 2040, as demanded by the Greens.
Housing is one of the most important social issues for the left-of-center parties in particular. When asked about his goals in the area of housing, Jørgensen stated the following at the hearing:
Left-wing MEP Laila Chaibi was “delighted” that the “taboo subject of state aid rules” was to be tackled. Renew MEP Brigitte van den Berg praised the housing policy goals, but also said that she had the impression “that urgency and ambition are still lacking.”
Some may also be disappointed that few commitments went beyond the mission letter. Green budget politician Rasmus Andresen, for example, is in favor of limiting financial speculation in housing. He told Table.Briefings: “The housing crisis must be met with a strong European response.”
The Commissioner-designate for Start-ups, Research and Innovation, Ekaterina Zaharieva, also had to answer questions from MEPs on Tuesday. The former Bulgarian Foreign Minister is to be responsible for areas that play an important role in Europe’s future capacity for innovation. Accordingly, she wants to place research and development at the “heart of the competitiveness agenda”, said the lawyer. The hearing was organized by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). The Committee on Education and Culture (CULT) was also invited.
Despite the tension that was noticeable in the Commissioner-designate, most observers thought she made a good impression. EPP party colleague Christian Ehler called the hearing “convincing”. “Zaharieva was well prepared and clearly ready to put forward her own ideas”, he told Table.Briefings. Jan Palmowski from the university association The Guild expressed a similarly positive opinion on X. Green MEP Alexandra Geese also saw Zaharieva as “generally well prepared”. She was particularly pleased with the strong commitment to gender equality. Zaharieva was confirmed by the committee coordinators that evening, as the EPP announced on X.
An astonishing number of the questions and answers related to the topic of start-ups. Zaharieva wants to develop a comprehensive start-up and scale-up strategy, she explained. To this end, she wants to keep in touch with the key players in a dedicated start-up forum.
The promotion of military research and the handling of dual-use also played a role. Zaharieva called for the new security policy framework to be recognized. More military research is needed and the EIC could act in a similar way to the US DARPA. After all, R&D in the military sector often offers “added value” for society.
There was criticism from the left regarding what they saw as the continued support of military-related research projects with Israeli participation. However, Zaharieva referred to the applicable rules and the EU’s strict monitoring. Military research should not be funded in Horizon Europe, she said. She emphasized that Horizon Europe would remain open to Israel. After the hearing, Ehler expressed his positive surprise at the “resolute support for the funding of Israeli researchers and against discrimination against them”.
When answering the crucial question: “What do you think about the protection of same-sex marriage and the right to abortion?”, father of seven Michael McGrath from Ireland was evasive. Otherwise, the Commissioner-designate for Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law answered the MEPs’ wide-ranging questions with willingness and attention. And with success, because following the three-hour hearing, Parliament accepted his candidacy.
A little nervous at first, McGrath impressed with his extensive knowledge of the wide-ranging subject area over the course of the meeting. Three committees – Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and Legal Affairs (JURI) – thoroughly questioned the candidate. There were also questions from five other invited committees. The former Irish Finance Minister was obviously able to dispel any doubts about his suitability for the portfolio assigned to him.
“His demeanor was appropriate for the office, he came across as competent and diplomatic“, said Axel Voss (EPP), coordinator in the Legal Affairs Committee. Voss was only unsatisfied with his response to the GDPR: “I would have liked the Commission to have had more courage to modernize.” McGrath also received support from S&D, Renew, and the Greens/EFA, as confirmed by IMCO Chair Anna Cavazzini. The committee will call on Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to include consumer protection in the title of the portfolio.
Svenja Hahn, Coordinator of Renew at IMCO, emphasized that McGrath provided concrete and detailed answers on the most important areas of work such as the Digital Fairness Act and the increasing challenges posed by unsafe products and unfair competition from third countries. “In particular, McGrath was able to make it clear that the existing instruments such as the DSA and the Product Safety Regulation must be used to their full potential.”
In his opening statement, Michael McGrath said he would build the European Democracy Shield against information manipulation and foreign interference. He emphasized that compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should be a prerequisite for the benefits of EU membership.
Birgit Sippel, coordinator of the S&D Group in the LIBE, asked about instruments to ensure that member states are held accountable when they take steps backwards in terms of democracy and the rule of law. McGrath announced that she would re-evaluate the existing instruments. “I am committed to actively supporting member states when it comes to the practical implementation of reforms.”
The implementation of the recommendations made annually in the rule of law report should be better monitored and followed up. The conditionality regulation falls within the remit of the budget commissioner. However, efforts would be made to strengthen the link between the recommendations on the rule of law and access to EU funds.
McGrath received applause several times for his reactions to questions from the far right. He responded to the objection as to whether the Digital Services Act was not an instrument of censorship with a clear rejection. The DSA is not concerned with content, but merely with the question of whether a company has taken the right measures to prevent hate speech and other illegal content.
Law professor René Repasi, legal coordinator for the S&D Group, also gained a positive impression of McGrath. He had answered the questions competently, which was quite remarkable given the fact that he is not a lawyer. “I found his straightforwardness on the rule of law particularly strong. He did not allow himself to be rattled by the provocations of the right-wing populists and answered confidently regarding the fundamental values of the EU.”
In Austria, he was Finance Minister – in Brussels, he is supposed to take care of internal security and migration: Austrian ÖVP politician Magnus Brunner. He lacks the experience for this, argued a number of MEPs before Brunner’s hearing in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). As Austria takes a tough stance on migration issues, his liberal stance was also called into question.
“Human rights are not negotiable“, Brunner replied to the skeptics. He stands for a “fair but determined migration policy”. He deflected attacks from the FPÖ and other far-right politicians with aplomb. However, he did accommodate Italy’s right-wing head of government Giorgia Meloni: The controversial Italian repatriation center in Albania deserves a chance, he said.
He is open to new ideas on migration policy, said Brunner. However, the “return hubs” and other “innovative” proposals that were also discussed at the EU summit would have to be organized in a humane and legally sound manner, together with international organizations. “Saying no from the outset without knowing how it will turn out would not be good”, he emphasized.
Unsurprisingly, the implementation of the migration and asylum pact (GEAS reform) adopted in May should have top priority. Some parts could also be brought forward, according to Brunner. More money will be available for this from spring 2025 – the member states can hope for up to two billion euros. However, the “balance between responsibility and solidarity” must be maintained.
Another focus will be the reform of the Return Directive. The proposal will come “before June 2025”, said Brunner. It is about simpler and faster returns. The conservative ÖVP politician is focusing on digitalization, but also on the mutual recognition of return decisions. In doing so, he is accommodating the German government, among others.
Berlin should also be pleased to hear that Brunner was extremely cautious about Schengen and German border controls. Even when asked several times, he would not commit to resorting to infringement proceedings in the event of possible violations of the Schengen Code. Schengen can only work if the external borders are also secured, he evaded.
At the same time, he is distancing himself from his own government: While Vienna continues to stand on the brakes, Brunner is in favor of the full admission of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area. He also wants to take care of labor migration. In view of the “demographic pressure”, Europe also needs legal migration, but this must take place in an orderly manner.
Brunner did not provide any concrete figures or firm commitments during the hearing. He did not commit to a reduction in irregular migration or to EU funding for fences and other border fortifications. “The use of taxpayers’ money must be efficient and have European added value”, he said. The EU’s budget resources are limited and the focus is on national border protection and “integrated border management”.
“A positive narrative on migration is missing“, criticized Damian Boeselager, who works in the Green parliamentary group. Birgit Sippel, S&D spokesperson for home affairs, was also not satisfied. “Why are you not in a position to explicitly rule out repatriation centers?”, asked the SPD politician. But Brunner was evasive, questions were not possible – and there were boos.
At least the candidate fulfilled one of Parliament’s heartfelt wishes and promised to discuss third-country agreements on migration with MEPs in good time in the future. This was not the case with the previous agreements with Tunisia, for example.
The US election is being followed with great interest around the world – particularly from a geopolitical perspective. For some time now, the world has been increasingly characterized by power-based relationships in which zones of influence are fought over and international rules and negotiated solutions are less likely to apply. How the USA positions itself in this world will have a decisive influence on this development.
The key question for Europe is whether NATO retains its deterrent power and whether its mutual assistance clause remains credible. In order to weaken both, it is not necessary for the USA to withdraw from NATO – just a few sentences about US interests moving away from Europe would suffice. Another key question is whether Europe, together with Canada and some allies in Asia such as Japan, will soon have to take on a larger share of the support for Ukraine. Germany is particularly affected by the question of Europe’s future security order due to its geographical location and its responsibility as the largest EU state.
The outcome of the war is not only relevant for Ukraine: It is about the question of whether a nuclear power can get away with invading a sovereign neighbor and violating all the norms that govern peaceful coexistence between sovereign states in the global community. Other states such as China, North Korea, and Iran are watching closely.
Now Russia, which is itself struggling with the consequences of its war of aggression, is casting its net wider. In October, the Russian parliament ratified a strategic partnership with the world’s most oppressive authoritarian regime. Before the ink was dry on the agreement, images of North Korean soldiers on Russian territory were circulating. Putin did not deny that they were going to war against Ukraine with Russian recruits. According to US intelligence information, there are already 11,000 North Koreans in Russia.
So despite all the efforts of the political West and its inhumane warfare, Russia is far from isolated. Putin gathered representatives from 36 countries at the three-day BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, in October 2024. Since 2009, the BRICS have included Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia have also recently joined. Turkey, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, and other countries are also interested. Despite the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, Putin has succeeded in holding the largest international summit in a long time on Russian territory.
Those present signaled to the political West and the UN Secretary-General present: Your dominance is over, we set the international agenda ourselves. Increasingly, states that have a different idea of the international order than the countries of the political West are organizing themselves.
Together with Xi Jinping, Putin has been pursuing the goal of changing the international world order for years. The two heads of state of the very unequal partners in terms of size and power, Russia and China, wrote this down back in 2022: just over two weeks before the start of the Russian attack on Ukraine, they jointly presented their authoritarian vision of a different world order.
On the one hand, the aim is to weaken the assertiveness of Western norms. China also wants to displace the USA as the strongest world power. Putin is trying to expand Russia’s influence in Eastern Europe and shed its image as a regional power – he has been fighting for recognition as a great power for years. He is therefore involved in many conflicts, from Ukraine and Mali to the war in Syria.
Putin wants to sit at the table again when the big players negotiate, and he doesn’t mind closing ranks with war criminals like Bashar al-Assad. Through hybrid warfare, Moscow and Beijing are trying to weaken democracies in an attempt to establish parallel structures of power and order to the Western-dominated world order.
Against the backdrop of shifts in power politics, the rise of the BRICS, and new military cooperation, it is in the European states’ best interests to maintain their relationship with the USA – regardless of who moves into the White House. To this end, Europeans must make a greater contribution to NATO and support the security policy priorities of the USA, which will move further towards Asia. Partnerships outside Europe must be broadened and deepened. Particularly in the Asian region, for example with South Korea and Japan, with which relations have been significantly expanded in political and military terms in recent years.
Doubts about Jessika Roswall‘s competence were already expressed before her hearing. Among the designated commissioners who were to transform the Green Deal into a Clean Industrial Deal, the lawyer was considered to be less experienced and familiar with the details before the hearing.
Perhaps to dispel this impression, her party colleagues from the EPP emphasized several times during her hearing that the Commissioner-designate for the Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy was doing a “great job” and was “pragmatic” and “positive”.
“We experienced a weak performance by Ms. Roswall”, said Jutta Paulus from the Greens. “She made an effort, acknowledged the goals of the Green Deal, but left many questions unanswered and showed some alarming gaps in her knowledge.” In fact, Roswall sometimes found it difficult to formulate her plans clearly instead of ending lists with “and so on.”
Roswall often repeated that, “as a lawyer,” she wanted to implement regulations instead of introducing new laws. She also wanted to simplify regulations in order to achieve greater efficiency without diluting the environmental goals of the Green Deal.
Tiemo Wölken, ENVI coordinator of the Social Democrats, admonished Roswall in one of the last questions to “be specific”, especially regarding the financing of the environment department’s projects from public funds: “Don’t refer to Nature Credits again, it’s about public money.” Roswall denied that she had only spoken about Nature Credits – in the next EU budget, she would campaign for funding in the environmental sector.
Several MEPs asked Roswall sharply worded questions about the environmental record of the Swedish government, of which she was a member until recently. This government had taken steps backwards in environmental action. Renew coordinator Pascal Canfin, for example, asked how she would deal with this as Commissioner if a member state acted in this way in the future and failed to achieve common goals: “Will you represent the law, only the law, and nothing but the law?” Roswall assured that as Commissioner she would represent the European Union and not – as in her previous role – act as a representative of Sweden.
The future Commissioner for Energy and Housing, Dan Jørgensen, won over MEPs in Brussels on Tuesday with his charm and willingness to talk. The Danish Development Minister noticeably succeeded in winning over the room. When the Social Democrat made a joke (“Nuclear energy: An area where we are united in diversity.”), the MEPs laughed heartily. When he lowered his voice at the end of his hearing, spoke about the victims in Ukraine, and put his hand to his heart, the room fell silent.
In the end, not even his reserved stance on nuclear energy could do Jørgensen any harm. Only the “Patriots” and the industrial politicians of the left voted against him in the end; the right-wing ESN was not present at the subsequent meeting of the coordinators and the chairs of the Industry and Employment Committees. The pro-nuclear members of the ECR are said to have been outraged, but nevertheless supported Jørgensen so as not to jeopardize their candidate Raffaele Fitto.
On the nuclear issue, which is so important for many EU countries, the former Danish energy minister did not show “any great support”, as French Renew MEP Christophe Grudler politely put it between hearings. “It is not the EU’s job to build nuclear power plants“, said Jørgensen, rejecting calls for EU funding for nuclear power plants.
In the first 100 days, Jørgensen first wants to present the roadmap for the phase-out of Russian energy sources and convene a stakeholder dialog on housing. He aims to phase out Russian energy before 2027. Only then will the investment strategy for clean energy and the action plan for electrification follow.
The investment strategy will probably also be the first important contribution to Jørgensen’s main task: lower energy prices. There will not be a new reform of the electricity market for the time being; the reforms that have already been agreed must first take effect.
The parliamentary groups did not receive satisfactory answers to individual core demands. The EPP asked in vain for clear targets for reducing bureaucracy and leaner rules for hydrogen. The designated Energy Commissioner was unwilling to commit to a binding energy efficiency target for 2040, as demanded by the Greens.
Housing is one of the most important social issues for the left-of-center parties in particular. When asked about his goals in the area of housing, Jørgensen stated the following at the hearing:
Left-wing MEP Laila Chaibi was “delighted” that the “taboo subject of state aid rules” was to be tackled. Renew MEP Brigitte van den Berg praised the housing policy goals, but also said that she had the impression “that urgency and ambition are still lacking.”
Some may also be disappointed that few commitments went beyond the mission letter. Green budget politician Rasmus Andresen, for example, is in favor of limiting financial speculation in housing. He told Table.Briefings: “The housing crisis must be met with a strong European response.”
The Commissioner-designate for Start-ups, Research and Innovation, Ekaterina Zaharieva, also had to answer questions from MEPs on Tuesday. The former Bulgarian Foreign Minister is to be responsible for areas that play an important role in Europe’s future capacity for innovation. Accordingly, she wants to place research and development at the “heart of the competitiveness agenda”, said the lawyer. The hearing was organized by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). The Committee on Education and Culture (CULT) was also invited.
Despite the tension that was noticeable in the Commissioner-designate, most observers thought she made a good impression. EPP party colleague Christian Ehler called the hearing “convincing”. “Zaharieva was well prepared and clearly ready to put forward her own ideas”, he told Table.Briefings. Jan Palmowski from the university association The Guild expressed a similarly positive opinion on X. Green MEP Alexandra Geese also saw Zaharieva as “generally well prepared”. She was particularly pleased with the strong commitment to gender equality. Zaharieva was confirmed by the committee coordinators that evening, as the EPP announced on X.
An astonishing number of the questions and answers related to the topic of start-ups. Zaharieva wants to develop a comprehensive start-up and scale-up strategy, she explained. To this end, she wants to keep in touch with the key players in a dedicated start-up forum.
The promotion of military research and the handling of dual-use also played a role. Zaharieva called for the new security policy framework to be recognized. More military research is needed and the EIC could act in a similar way to the US DARPA. After all, R&D in the military sector often offers “added value” for society.
There was criticism from the left regarding what they saw as the continued support of military-related research projects with Israeli participation. However, Zaharieva referred to the applicable rules and the EU’s strict monitoring. Military research should not be funded in Horizon Europe, she said. She emphasized that Horizon Europe would remain open to Israel. After the hearing, Ehler expressed his positive surprise at the “resolute support for the funding of Israeli researchers and against discrimination against them”.
When answering the crucial question: “What do you think about the protection of same-sex marriage and the right to abortion?”, father of seven Michael McGrath from Ireland was evasive. Otherwise, the Commissioner-designate for Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law answered the MEPs’ wide-ranging questions with willingness and attention. And with success, because following the three-hour hearing, Parliament accepted his candidacy.
A little nervous at first, McGrath impressed with his extensive knowledge of the wide-ranging subject area over the course of the meeting. Three committees – Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and Legal Affairs (JURI) – thoroughly questioned the candidate. There were also questions from five other invited committees. The former Irish Finance Minister was obviously able to dispel any doubts about his suitability for the portfolio assigned to him.
“His demeanor was appropriate for the office, he came across as competent and diplomatic“, said Axel Voss (EPP), coordinator in the Legal Affairs Committee. Voss was only unsatisfied with his response to the GDPR: “I would have liked the Commission to have had more courage to modernize.” McGrath also received support from S&D, Renew, and the Greens/EFA, as confirmed by IMCO Chair Anna Cavazzini. The committee will call on Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to include consumer protection in the title of the portfolio.
Svenja Hahn, Coordinator of Renew at IMCO, emphasized that McGrath provided concrete and detailed answers on the most important areas of work such as the Digital Fairness Act and the increasing challenges posed by unsafe products and unfair competition from third countries. “In particular, McGrath was able to make it clear that the existing instruments such as the DSA and the Product Safety Regulation must be used to their full potential.”
In his opening statement, Michael McGrath said he would build the European Democracy Shield against information manipulation and foreign interference. He emphasized that compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should be a prerequisite for the benefits of EU membership.
Birgit Sippel, coordinator of the S&D Group in the LIBE, asked about instruments to ensure that member states are held accountable when they take steps backwards in terms of democracy and the rule of law. McGrath announced that she would re-evaluate the existing instruments. “I am committed to actively supporting member states when it comes to the practical implementation of reforms.”
The implementation of the recommendations made annually in the rule of law report should be better monitored and followed up. The conditionality regulation falls within the remit of the budget commissioner. However, efforts would be made to strengthen the link between the recommendations on the rule of law and access to EU funds.
McGrath received applause several times for his reactions to questions from the far right. He responded to the objection as to whether the Digital Services Act was not an instrument of censorship with a clear rejection. The DSA is not concerned with content, but merely with the question of whether a company has taken the right measures to prevent hate speech and other illegal content.
Law professor René Repasi, legal coordinator for the S&D Group, also gained a positive impression of McGrath. He had answered the questions competently, which was quite remarkable given the fact that he is not a lawyer. “I found his straightforwardness on the rule of law particularly strong. He did not allow himself to be rattled by the provocations of the right-wing populists and answered confidently regarding the fundamental values of the EU.”
In Austria, he was Finance Minister – in Brussels, he is supposed to take care of internal security and migration: Austrian ÖVP politician Magnus Brunner. He lacks the experience for this, argued a number of MEPs before Brunner’s hearing in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). As Austria takes a tough stance on migration issues, his liberal stance was also called into question.
“Human rights are not negotiable“, Brunner replied to the skeptics. He stands for a “fair but determined migration policy”. He deflected attacks from the FPÖ and other far-right politicians with aplomb. However, he did accommodate Italy’s right-wing head of government Giorgia Meloni: The controversial Italian repatriation center in Albania deserves a chance, he said.
He is open to new ideas on migration policy, said Brunner. However, the “return hubs” and other “innovative” proposals that were also discussed at the EU summit would have to be organized in a humane and legally sound manner, together with international organizations. “Saying no from the outset without knowing how it will turn out would not be good”, he emphasized.
Unsurprisingly, the implementation of the migration and asylum pact (GEAS reform) adopted in May should have top priority. Some parts could also be brought forward, according to Brunner. More money will be available for this from spring 2025 – the member states can hope for up to two billion euros. However, the “balance between responsibility and solidarity” must be maintained.
Another focus will be the reform of the Return Directive. The proposal will come “before June 2025”, said Brunner. It is about simpler and faster returns. The conservative ÖVP politician is focusing on digitalization, but also on the mutual recognition of return decisions. In doing so, he is accommodating the German government, among others.
Berlin should also be pleased to hear that Brunner was extremely cautious about Schengen and German border controls. Even when asked several times, he would not commit to resorting to infringement proceedings in the event of possible violations of the Schengen Code. Schengen can only work if the external borders are also secured, he evaded.
At the same time, he is distancing himself from his own government: While Vienna continues to stand on the brakes, Brunner is in favor of the full admission of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area. He also wants to take care of labor migration. In view of the “demographic pressure”, Europe also needs legal migration, but this must take place in an orderly manner.
Brunner did not provide any concrete figures or firm commitments during the hearing. He did not commit to a reduction in irregular migration or to EU funding for fences and other border fortifications. “The use of taxpayers’ money must be efficient and have European added value”, he said. The EU’s budget resources are limited and the focus is on national border protection and “integrated border management”.
“A positive narrative on migration is missing“, criticized Damian Boeselager, who works in the Green parliamentary group. Birgit Sippel, S&D spokesperson for home affairs, was also not satisfied. “Why are you not in a position to explicitly rule out repatriation centers?”, asked the SPD politician. But Brunner was evasive, questions were not possible – and there were boos.
At least the candidate fulfilled one of Parliament’s heartfelt wishes and promised to discuss third-country agreements on migration with MEPs in good time in the future. This was not the case with the previous agreements with Tunisia, for example.
The US election is being followed with great interest around the world – particularly from a geopolitical perspective. For some time now, the world has been increasingly characterized by power-based relationships in which zones of influence are fought over and international rules and negotiated solutions are less likely to apply. How the USA positions itself in this world will have a decisive influence on this development.
The key question for Europe is whether NATO retains its deterrent power and whether its mutual assistance clause remains credible. In order to weaken both, it is not necessary for the USA to withdraw from NATO – just a few sentences about US interests moving away from Europe would suffice. Another key question is whether Europe, together with Canada and some allies in Asia such as Japan, will soon have to take on a larger share of the support for Ukraine. Germany is particularly affected by the question of Europe’s future security order due to its geographical location and its responsibility as the largest EU state.
The outcome of the war is not only relevant for Ukraine: It is about the question of whether a nuclear power can get away with invading a sovereign neighbor and violating all the norms that govern peaceful coexistence between sovereign states in the global community. Other states such as China, North Korea, and Iran are watching closely.
Now Russia, which is itself struggling with the consequences of its war of aggression, is casting its net wider. In October, the Russian parliament ratified a strategic partnership with the world’s most oppressive authoritarian regime. Before the ink was dry on the agreement, images of North Korean soldiers on Russian territory were circulating. Putin did not deny that they were going to war against Ukraine with Russian recruits. According to US intelligence information, there are already 11,000 North Koreans in Russia.
So despite all the efforts of the political West and its inhumane warfare, Russia is far from isolated. Putin gathered representatives from 36 countries at the three-day BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, in October 2024. Since 2009, the BRICS have included Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia have also recently joined. Turkey, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, and other countries are also interested. Despite the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, Putin has succeeded in holding the largest international summit in a long time on Russian territory.
Those present signaled to the political West and the UN Secretary-General present: Your dominance is over, we set the international agenda ourselves. Increasingly, states that have a different idea of the international order than the countries of the political West are organizing themselves.
Together with Xi Jinping, Putin has been pursuing the goal of changing the international world order for years. The two heads of state of the very unequal partners in terms of size and power, Russia and China, wrote this down back in 2022: just over two weeks before the start of the Russian attack on Ukraine, they jointly presented their authoritarian vision of a different world order.
On the one hand, the aim is to weaken the assertiveness of Western norms. China also wants to displace the USA as the strongest world power. Putin is trying to expand Russia’s influence in Eastern Europe and shed its image as a regional power – he has been fighting for recognition as a great power for years. He is therefore involved in many conflicts, from Ukraine and Mali to the war in Syria.
Putin wants to sit at the table again when the big players negotiate, and he doesn’t mind closing ranks with war criminals like Bashar al-Assad. Through hybrid warfare, Moscow and Beijing are trying to weaken democracies in an attempt to establish parallel structures of power and order to the Western-dominated world order.
Against the backdrop of shifts in power politics, the rise of the BRICS, and new military cooperation, it is in the European states’ best interests to maintain their relationship with the USA – regardless of who moves into the White House. To this end, Europeans must make a greater contribution to NATO and support the security policy priorities of the USA, which will move further towards Asia. Partnerships outside Europe must be broadened and deepened. Particularly in the Asian region, for example with South Korea and Japan, with which relations have been significantly expanded in political and military terms in recent years.