A mere day after Ursula von der Leyen concluded her Balkan tour, the focus on EU enlargement shifts to Berlin, where Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock is convening a high-level European conference today at Werderscher Markt. Various European secretaries of state and 20 ministers, including Ukraine’s Dmytro Kuleba, are expected to be in attendance.
The conference agenda encompasses discussions on EU enlargement, essential reforms, and the EU’s global capabilities. During a speech in Tirana earlier in October, Baerbock characterized enlargement as a “geopolitical necessity” and advocated for expedited integration.
With von der Leyen’s recent tour of Western Balkan capitals still fresh in memory, it will be intriguing to observe whether Minister Baerbock delineates a distinct stance from the Commission President, potentially outlining clear interim steps towards accession.
A centerpiece of the Green Deal – the Buildings Directive – was significantly watered down at the last trilogue in early October. That much has come around by now. But how much the ambition of the bill will really be watered down still depends on the final meeting of negotiators, scheduled for Dec. 7.
Practically overturned a few weeks ago were the minimum standards for the most inefficient classes of buildings – the “compulsory renovation“, as conservative opponents of the law say. Technically, the “worst first” approach has been softened beyond recognition. The 43 percent of each national building stock is now considered the worst building in terms of energy performance, Table.Media has confirmed from negotiating circles. In this group, member states must ensure 55 percent of retrofits by 2030.
However, how strict the renovation regulations for affected houses will be and how much energy they will have to save in concrete terms is largely left up to national governments. “Climate-friendly implementation of the directive will depend heavily on the goodwill of the member states“, says Eva Brardinelli of the Climate Action Network.
The German government’s more cautious approach since the dispute over the Building Energy Act played a very important role in the October trilogue, reports Oliver Rapf, managing director of the think tank Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE). “It took momentum out of the negotiation dynamics.”
However, one important point will not be clarified until December 7. For 2030 and 2035, the directive is to stipulate what percentage of primary energy savings the member states must achieve by then. Overall, the Parliament does not want to fall behind the savings targets of the Commission proposal.
“But the member states are in the driver’s seat”, Rapf says. “It certainly wouldn’t be good for the project if it got dragged into the EU election campaign.” An agreement must be in place by the end of the year if the directive is to be adopted in this legislature. All sides have shown willingness to do so, he says, and Rapf sees that as positive in view of the opposition, some of which has been fierce.
However, an agreement in December would not yet settle the conflicts. After a possible entry into force of the directive in the second quarter of 2024, the member states would then have two years to implement it – and precisely because of the leeway that has been won for national governments, building refurbishment could become a hot topic for the German parliamentary elections in the fall of 2025.
Rapf assumes that Germany will probably not have to tighten up the Building Energy Act (GEG) for new buildings. The German standard is already close to the future requirements for zero-emission buildings from the EU directive. For the renovation of existing buildings, however, the German government would have to define a renovation path. How strict this will be depends on the one hand on the last trialogue, but also on the climate action will of the parties.
Pressure is being exerted not only by environmental associations but also by the construction industry. Energy efficiency is needed, says the Central Association of the German Construction Industry (ZDB). “The climate targets for the building sector cannot be achieved solely with renewable energies“, says Michel Durieux of the ZDB. “Ambitious energy savings targets create momentum for action, and we need that.”
The association wants to keep the implementation of the Buildings Directive out of the Bundestag election campaign as far as possible, but to set the course as early as possible. On the one hand, a new federal government in Germany – which is expected to be sworn in December 2025 – would only have a few months until the deadline in spring or summer 2026. On the other hand, building owners would have to be able to make their investment decisions with legal certainty.
“The transposition of the Buildings Directive into German law should therefore be on the ministries’ agenda as early as the beginning of 2024“, says Durieux. Then the consultation of the associations can begin in good time and the discussion can be conducted “without excitement”. “After the Bundestag elections, the parliamentary procedure can then begin.”
Many of the threats posed by artificial intelligence (AI) are international in nature. Therefore, they can best be addressed with international cooperation. Guided by this idea, 28 countries and the EU issued a joint statement Wednesday at the AI Safety Summit in the United Kingdom. The US simultaneously announced the establishment of an Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute.
“We are committed to working together in an inclusive way to ensure human-centric, trustworthy, and responsible AI that is secure and serves the good of all”, the paper, called the Bletchley Declaration, states. This is to be done by fostering collaboration within existing international forums and initiatives to address “the broad range of risks posed by AI“.
With the two-day AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park initiated by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the UK wants to create a role for itself as a mediator between the economic blocs of the USA, China, and the EU after Brexit. Ministers, leaders from the US and EU, and tech entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk and Sam Altman of ChatGPT were represented. The summit is expected to focus on the existential risks posed by Frontier Models, high-performing pioneer models, in the future.
In the US, AI developers have come together to form a forum that defines Frontier Models as “large-scale machine learning models that exceed the capabilities of the most advanced models currently available and can perform a variety of tasks”.
Ahead of the summit, Sunak had warned that such AI models could also facilitate the construction of chemical or biological weapons. “In the most unlikely but extreme cases, there is even a risk of humanity losing control of AI completely”, Sunak said.
“I’ve seen a lot of debate about whether we should focus on the known harms of AI today or the more existential risks the technology may pose in the future”, EU Commission Vice-President Věra Jourová said in her opening statement. This is the wrong debate, she said. “Both are necessary and possible.”
Volker Wissing, Minister for Digital Affairs, said on the sidelines of the AI Safety Summit that there should be no competition for the toughest regulation of AI. What is important, on the other hand, is that there are internationally coordinated rules for AI that enable a uniform competitive environment in order to leverage the opportunities offered by AI. He said the G7 countries had chosen the right path to achieve this. Wissing called the Code of Conduct published at the beginning of the week a milestone.
The EU’s work on regulation for AI (AI Act) is, among other things, about promoting the development of AI that follows European values. However, the signatories of the Bletchley Declaration also included countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, so the declaration was somewhat superficial in the eyes of some Europeans.
The fact that China was invited to the summit at all was met with criticism. Wu Zhaohui, China’s vice minister of science and technology, said at the opening session that Beijing is willing to strengthen cooperation on AI security to help build an international governance framework. “Countries, regardless of their size and scale, have the same right to develop and use AI”, he said. China, however, has its own AI strategy, which is committed to socialist values.
For its part, shortly after US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on AI, the US used the British summit to announce the creation of a US Institute for AI Security. Today, Thursday, on the second day of the summit, US Vice President Kamala Harris, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and German Minister for Economic Affairs Robert Habeck are also expected at Bletchley Park.
Mr. Lagodinsky, you are the only Jew among the German MEPs. There is not a single one in the Bundestag. Why is that?
First of all, I want to clear up an unpleasant theory of conspiracy ideologists. They draw the picture of a Bundestag that is full of Jewish deputies. They act as if there are millions of Jews living in Germany. This is wrong. The Jewish community in Germany is very small. We have about 100,000 formal members. Most of them are from Ukraine and other successor states of the USSR.
And that is perhaps one of the answers to the question: People who come to Germany are first of all not concerned with getting involved politically, but with building up an existence. I am an exception. But I know other people who come from the community and would like to get politically involved in parties. But the nature of our party system is such that it’s not so easy for migrants to get offices and positions as lateral entrants.
What goes through your mind when you see Hamas sympathizers celebrating and rioting on Berlin streets?
This is terrible. Many people in Germany and many Jewish people in Germany are losing their sense of security. Even worse: the feeling of security for the future is lost. Something like this has far-reaching consequences for life planning over several generations. I know Jews who are now asking themselves whether their children and grandchildren should still grow up in Europe or whether it would not be better for them to grow up abroad, for example in the USA.
We have been observing anti-Jewish attacks for many years. Has the current conflict in the Middle East exacerbated this problem?
Yes, I am appalled by the massiveness of the attacks. Often the perpetrators grew up in Germany, were educated at schools and universities in Germany. In the meantime, it is no longer just a question of people who deliberately approve of terrorist attacks. That has to be dealt with under criminal law. There is now a level in between. Many people feel uneasy with the Jewish state simply because it is Jewish. And they openly oppose the position of the German government, which supports Israel, our conclusions from Germany’s history. You don’t solve the problem by “deporting” these people from Germany. We must not forget: These people and their sometimes abhorrent views are now part of our society.
Was this phenomenon not taken seriously enough?
Quite clearly, we have been negligent in dealing with the problem of anti-Semitism. We have to talk about migrant anti-Semitism. To call it only Muslim anti-Semitism is too simplistic. I also observe a misguided relationship to violence as a means of confrontation, an inability to resolve conflicts without aggression, a tendency to keep enemy images and emotional reflexes in check. This is an erosion of the culture of discourse that is very dangerous, no matter who it is directed against. For example, Armenians have been telling me for years that they are being attacked and treated with hostility, especially by the Turkish community.
Marco Buschmann recently said in the Bundestag that Jewish houses of worship in Germany cannot be allowed to burn again. What does that mean in consequence if the offenders grew up here? Some suggest that deportations are necessary.
Many of these proposals are supported by good motives. But it is often just an expression of helplessness. I believe that the group of offenders who can be deported is very small. Many people are German citizens, others are stateless. Where should they be deported to? To Lebanon, where they have never been? We will only find answers if we understand the phenomenon as our own problem.
And how does that work?
We need a massive education offensive. We need to examine the extent to which we can make religious communities more accountable. It cannot be that the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, for example, took so long to condemn the terrorist attacks by Hamas in Israel. We must call on these institutions, but we must not regard them as foreign actors, but as domestic actors. We must also finally question where the boundaries of these community identities are.
To be honest, perhaps we also need to question more critically the role of religion in such conflicts. We have uncritically overemphasized the religious component of the diverse society. But there are important secular traditions in these communities. And these traditions must be strengthened. Then we will hopefully take the wind out of the sails of uncritical solidarization. After all, many of the communities that are now protesting have nothing to do with Palestine; the emotionalization runs along the Islamist and pan-Islamic lines.
Have society and security authorities learned lessons from the anti-Semitic attacks?
You can never learn enough lessons from these abuses. It is never enough. We must strengthen the BND and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Because many anti-Semites who are prepared to use violence cannot be tracked down with normal, common investigative methods. We saw that just a few days ago in Duisburg. Someone is said to have taken an interest in Jewish institutions. And who was the source of the tip? Foreign intelligence services.
For me, this clearly means that the security authorities need to get a better overview. That is what the Jewish communities want. This does not mean that Germany should become a high-security prison. But a decisive approach would be important. This does not mean that we should ban every waving of a Palestinian flag. We have to make trade-offs here.
Can we as a German society learn from other EU countries how to do things better?
When I look at what’s going on on the streets in other states, I don’t see who we could learn from. This is a pan-European challenge. But when I at least hear the political commitments of the relevant players in Germany and when I see how the police are currently proceeding, then I am optimistic that the urgency has arrived.
European countries have already added as many solar systems this year as they did in the entire past year. According to forecasts by the consulting firm Rystad Energy, the expansion will continue in 2023:
“Rooftop solar is driving the transformation of Europe’s renewable energy landscape, from a niche market to a powerful force in reshaping the continent’s energy mix,” said Vegard Wiik Vollset, Vice President and Head of EMEA renewables research at Rystad Energy.
By contrast, the expansion of wind energy is not developing as positively. New installations in the onshore wind sector have decreased by eleven percent in 2023 compared to the previous year. Lengthy approval processes and rising costs in the supply chain are cited as the cause. Two percent more capacity was installed offshore, less than in the recent past. nib
As a Parliamentarian, you can make a career for yourself in a number of ways. For example, as a “lawmaker“, by promoting groundbreaking legislative projects as a rapporteur. Other MEPs head an important committee or a parliamentary group. One MEP from Stuttgart has chosen a different path: For almost a decade and a half, he has played a decisive role when it comes to internal and fundamental issues of the people’s representation.
When the Stuttgart lawyer Rainer Wieland entered the Strasbourg Parliament in 1997 as a junior member, his career plan was hardly to prepare and make important decisions primarily in the engine room of the Parliament. It simply happened that way because the deputies first elected him to the post of Vice-President in 2009 and then again every two and a half years with a handsome percentage of votes. This makes him by far the one with the longest experience in the Presidium, Parliament’s most important decision-making body. In addition to the President of Parliament, the Presidium also includes 14 deputies.
The 66-year-old lawyer is involved, for example, when it comes to organizing parliamentary majorities for filling top administrative positions in Parliament. Or deciding how to proceed with the additional voluntary pension scheme for MEPs, whose reserves will soon be exhausted. Wieland, who has had a personal friendship with Günther Oettinger since their university days together, was appointed to two reform commissions by Parliament President Roberta Metsola in this legislative period alone.
This shows how much his voice and his legal as well as political expertise are in demand. At one point, it was a matter of implementing the 14 points to strengthen parliamentary transparency following the corruption scandal involving Vice-President Eva Kaili, who has since been ousted. Metsola also brought him into the “Parliament 2024” working group, which is currently preparing the first reform of Parliament’s working methods in over 20 years and plans to present its findings to the heads of the parliamentary groups before Christmas.
Wieland is a passionate Parliamentarian. This is noticeable when he is on session duty and leads debates in a manner that is as disciplined as it is friendly. The debate culture in the European Parliament, where most MEPs read their two-minute speeches off the screen, still alienates him. But he is visibly pleased when he gets to announce MEPs who can still talk properly, such as Reinhard Bütikofer (Greens) or Guy Verhofstadt (Renew).
He fights for the free mandate and defends the independence of Parliamentarians. Thus, he asserts the right of MPs not to make every contact public. Citizens and stakeholders, especially if they come from countries without freedom of expression, should have the opportunity to speak confidentially with MEPs. Some social democrats, who criticize him publicly for this, agree with him behind closed doors.
Wieland also defends the fact that MEPs, for example, if they are freelancers, have income in addition to their parliamentary allowances. In contrast to other colleagues in parliament, some of whom earn large sums of money in committees and side jobs, Wieland concentrates fully on his mandate. He has not declared any additional income since 1999. Because he doesn’t earn anything on the side: Since 1999, his work in the Stuttgart law firm, in which he is a co-owner, has been suspended.
Kosovo is close to his heart. He has been visiting the country regularly for years and is campaigning for the small country and the other Western Balkan states to be admitted to the EU. And as Vice-President of the European Parliament, he has been responsible for many properties in Strasbourg and Brussels for years. In this function, he has ensured that the technical equipment of the MEPs is now up to date.
Midway through the term, Wieland, who – uncharacteristically for a politician – does not seek out the media, found himself in the headlines of the German tabloid press. Remodeling work in the top-floor wing of the Brussels Parliament, where the Vice-President’s office is located, was scandalized by a Green budget controller. The fact was that the majority of the presidium had decided on the work, which had a volume of around €600,000. Rooms were to be converted as a model to test the “working of the future” in parliament.
While Green Party deputy Daniel Freund accused him of a “conflict of interest”, Wieland said that only his office had been considered for the decided work because it was on the top floor. For this reason alone, he said, it had been possible to limit the disruption to the other offices caused by the extensive work on the water supply.
The campaign made waves but did not change the fact that Wieland was again confirmed as Vice-President in the first round a short time later. It may, however, have diminished his chances of re-entering Parliament in June. Although he would like to remain in Strasbourg for another term, Wieland, who had long held the top spot on the list in Baden-Württemberg, was urged to make way for a female candidate.
Wieland made room for Andrea Wechsler. He might have won in a combat vote. But he probably also wanted to spare his party, which had just passed a quota, the burden of the European election campaign.
In 2024, the CDU Baden-Württemberg cannot run again with a list on which only men have the safe seats. Three other prominent MEPs come from the southwest: Daniel Caspary, head of the CDU/CSU group, Andreas Schwab, Internal Market expert, and Norbert Lins, head of the Agriculture Committee. Thus, Wieland is now competing in the uncertain fifth place in Baden-Württemberg. However, this should not diminish his commitment to the election campaign that is about to begin. Markus Grabitz
A mere day after Ursula von der Leyen concluded her Balkan tour, the focus on EU enlargement shifts to Berlin, where Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock is convening a high-level European conference today at Werderscher Markt. Various European secretaries of state and 20 ministers, including Ukraine’s Dmytro Kuleba, are expected to be in attendance.
The conference agenda encompasses discussions on EU enlargement, essential reforms, and the EU’s global capabilities. During a speech in Tirana earlier in October, Baerbock characterized enlargement as a “geopolitical necessity” and advocated for expedited integration.
With von der Leyen’s recent tour of Western Balkan capitals still fresh in memory, it will be intriguing to observe whether Minister Baerbock delineates a distinct stance from the Commission President, potentially outlining clear interim steps towards accession.
A centerpiece of the Green Deal – the Buildings Directive – was significantly watered down at the last trilogue in early October. That much has come around by now. But how much the ambition of the bill will really be watered down still depends on the final meeting of negotiators, scheduled for Dec. 7.
Practically overturned a few weeks ago were the minimum standards for the most inefficient classes of buildings – the “compulsory renovation“, as conservative opponents of the law say. Technically, the “worst first” approach has been softened beyond recognition. The 43 percent of each national building stock is now considered the worst building in terms of energy performance, Table.Media has confirmed from negotiating circles. In this group, member states must ensure 55 percent of retrofits by 2030.
However, how strict the renovation regulations for affected houses will be and how much energy they will have to save in concrete terms is largely left up to national governments. “Climate-friendly implementation of the directive will depend heavily on the goodwill of the member states“, says Eva Brardinelli of the Climate Action Network.
The German government’s more cautious approach since the dispute over the Building Energy Act played a very important role in the October trilogue, reports Oliver Rapf, managing director of the think tank Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE). “It took momentum out of the negotiation dynamics.”
However, one important point will not be clarified until December 7. For 2030 and 2035, the directive is to stipulate what percentage of primary energy savings the member states must achieve by then. Overall, the Parliament does not want to fall behind the savings targets of the Commission proposal.
“But the member states are in the driver’s seat”, Rapf says. “It certainly wouldn’t be good for the project if it got dragged into the EU election campaign.” An agreement must be in place by the end of the year if the directive is to be adopted in this legislature. All sides have shown willingness to do so, he says, and Rapf sees that as positive in view of the opposition, some of which has been fierce.
However, an agreement in December would not yet settle the conflicts. After a possible entry into force of the directive in the second quarter of 2024, the member states would then have two years to implement it – and precisely because of the leeway that has been won for national governments, building refurbishment could become a hot topic for the German parliamentary elections in the fall of 2025.
Rapf assumes that Germany will probably not have to tighten up the Building Energy Act (GEG) for new buildings. The German standard is already close to the future requirements for zero-emission buildings from the EU directive. For the renovation of existing buildings, however, the German government would have to define a renovation path. How strict this will be depends on the one hand on the last trialogue, but also on the climate action will of the parties.
Pressure is being exerted not only by environmental associations but also by the construction industry. Energy efficiency is needed, says the Central Association of the German Construction Industry (ZDB). “The climate targets for the building sector cannot be achieved solely with renewable energies“, says Michel Durieux of the ZDB. “Ambitious energy savings targets create momentum for action, and we need that.”
The association wants to keep the implementation of the Buildings Directive out of the Bundestag election campaign as far as possible, but to set the course as early as possible. On the one hand, a new federal government in Germany – which is expected to be sworn in December 2025 – would only have a few months until the deadline in spring or summer 2026. On the other hand, building owners would have to be able to make their investment decisions with legal certainty.
“The transposition of the Buildings Directive into German law should therefore be on the ministries’ agenda as early as the beginning of 2024“, says Durieux. Then the consultation of the associations can begin in good time and the discussion can be conducted “without excitement”. “After the Bundestag elections, the parliamentary procedure can then begin.”
Many of the threats posed by artificial intelligence (AI) are international in nature. Therefore, they can best be addressed with international cooperation. Guided by this idea, 28 countries and the EU issued a joint statement Wednesday at the AI Safety Summit in the United Kingdom. The US simultaneously announced the establishment of an Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute.
“We are committed to working together in an inclusive way to ensure human-centric, trustworthy, and responsible AI that is secure and serves the good of all”, the paper, called the Bletchley Declaration, states. This is to be done by fostering collaboration within existing international forums and initiatives to address “the broad range of risks posed by AI“.
With the two-day AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park initiated by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the UK wants to create a role for itself as a mediator between the economic blocs of the USA, China, and the EU after Brexit. Ministers, leaders from the US and EU, and tech entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk and Sam Altman of ChatGPT were represented. The summit is expected to focus on the existential risks posed by Frontier Models, high-performing pioneer models, in the future.
In the US, AI developers have come together to form a forum that defines Frontier Models as “large-scale machine learning models that exceed the capabilities of the most advanced models currently available and can perform a variety of tasks”.
Ahead of the summit, Sunak had warned that such AI models could also facilitate the construction of chemical or biological weapons. “In the most unlikely but extreme cases, there is even a risk of humanity losing control of AI completely”, Sunak said.
“I’ve seen a lot of debate about whether we should focus on the known harms of AI today or the more existential risks the technology may pose in the future”, EU Commission Vice-President Věra Jourová said in her opening statement. This is the wrong debate, she said. “Both are necessary and possible.”
Volker Wissing, Minister for Digital Affairs, said on the sidelines of the AI Safety Summit that there should be no competition for the toughest regulation of AI. What is important, on the other hand, is that there are internationally coordinated rules for AI that enable a uniform competitive environment in order to leverage the opportunities offered by AI. He said the G7 countries had chosen the right path to achieve this. Wissing called the Code of Conduct published at the beginning of the week a milestone.
The EU’s work on regulation for AI (AI Act) is, among other things, about promoting the development of AI that follows European values. However, the signatories of the Bletchley Declaration also included countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, so the declaration was somewhat superficial in the eyes of some Europeans.
The fact that China was invited to the summit at all was met with criticism. Wu Zhaohui, China’s vice minister of science and technology, said at the opening session that Beijing is willing to strengthen cooperation on AI security to help build an international governance framework. “Countries, regardless of their size and scale, have the same right to develop and use AI”, he said. China, however, has its own AI strategy, which is committed to socialist values.
For its part, shortly after US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on AI, the US used the British summit to announce the creation of a US Institute for AI Security. Today, Thursday, on the second day of the summit, US Vice President Kamala Harris, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and German Minister for Economic Affairs Robert Habeck are also expected at Bletchley Park.
Mr. Lagodinsky, you are the only Jew among the German MEPs. There is not a single one in the Bundestag. Why is that?
First of all, I want to clear up an unpleasant theory of conspiracy ideologists. They draw the picture of a Bundestag that is full of Jewish deputies. They act as if there are millions of Jews living in Germany. This is wrong. The Jewish community in Germany is very small. We have about 100,000 formal members. Most of them are from Ukraine and other successor states of the USSR.
And that is perhaps one of the answers to the question: People who come to Germany are first of all not concerned with getting involved politically, but with building up an existence. I am an exception. But I know other people who come from the community and would like to get politically involved in parties. But the nature of our party system is such that it’s not so easy for migrants to get offices and positions as lateral entrants.
What goes through your mind when you see Hamas sympathizers celebrating and rioting on Berlin streets?
This is terrible. Many people in Germany and many Jewish people in Germany are losing their sense of security. Even worse: the feeling of security for the future is lost. Something like this has far-reaching consequences for life planning over several generations. I know Jews who are now asking themselves whether their children and grandchildren should still grow up in Europe or whether it would not be better for them to grow up abroad, for example in the USA.
We have been observing anti-Jewish attacks for many years. Has the current conflict in the Middle East exacerbated this problem?
Yes, I am appalled by the massiveness of the attacks. Often the perpetrators grew up in Germany, were educated at schools and universities in Germany. In the meantime, it is no longer just a question of people who deliberately approve of terrorist attacks. That has to be dealt with under criminal law. There is now a level in between. Many people feel uneasy with the Jewish state simply because it is Jewish. And they openly oppose the position of the German government, which supports Israel, our conclusions from Germany’s history. You don’t solve the problem by “deporting” these people from Germany. We must not forget: These people and their sometimes abhorrent views are now part of our society.
Was this phenomenon not taken seriously enough?
Quite clearly, we have been negligent in dealing with the problem of anti-Semitism. We have to talk about migrant anti-Semitism. To call it only Muslim anti-Semitism is too simplistic. I also observe a misguided relationship to violence as a means of confrontation, an inability to resolve conflicts without aggression, a tendency to keep enemy images and emotional reflexes in check. This is an erosion of the culture of discourse that is very dangerous, no matter who it is directed against. For example, Armenians have been telling me for years that they are being attacked and treated with hostility, especially by the Turkish community.
Marco Buschmann recently said in the Bundestag that Jewish houses of worship in Germany cannot be allowed to burn again. What does that mean in consequence if the offenders grew up here? Some suggest that deportations are necessary.
Many of these proposals are supported by good motives. But it is often just an expression of helplessness. I believe that the group of offenders who can be deported is very small. Many people are German citizens, others are stateless. Where should they be deported to? To Lebanon, where they have never been? We will only find answers if we understand the phenomenon as our own problem.
And how does that work?
We need a massive education offensive. We need to examine the extent to which we can make religious communities more accountable. It cannot be that the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, for example, took so long to condemn the terrorist attacks by Hamas in Israel. We must call on these institutions, but we must not regard them as foreign actors, but as domestic actors. We must also finally question where the boundaries of these community identities are.
To be honest, perhaps we also need to question more critically the role of religion in such conflicts. We have uncritically overemphasized the religious component of the diverse society. But there are important secular traditions in these communities. And these traditions must be strengthened. Then we will hopefully take the wind out of the sails of uncritical solidarization. After all, many of the communities that are now protesting have nothing to do with Palestine; the emotionalization runs along the Islamist and pan-Islamic lines.
Have society and security authorities learned lessons from the anti-Semitic attacks?
You can never learn enough lessons from these abuses. It is never enough. We must strengthen the BND and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Because many anti-Semites who are prepared to use violence cannot be tracked down with normal, common investigative methods. We saw that just a few days ago in Duisburg. Someone is said to have taken an interest in Jewish institutions. And who was the source of the tip? Foreign intelligence services.
For me, this clearly means that the security authorities need to get a better overview. That is what the Jewish communities want. This does not mean that Germany should become a high-security prison. But a decisive approach would be important. This does not mean that we should ban every waving of a Palestinian flag. We have to make trade-offs here.
Can we as a German society learn from other EU countries how to do things better?
When I look at what’s going on on the streets in other states, I don’t see who we could learn from. This is a pan-European challenge. But when I at least hear the political commitments of the relevant players in Germany and when I see how the police are currently proceeding, then I am optimistic that the urgency has arrived.
European countries have already added as many solar systems this year as they did in the entire past year. According to forecasts by the consulting firm Rystad Energy, the expansion will continue in 2023:
“Rooftop solar is driving the transformation of Europe’s renewable energy landscape, from a niche market to a powerful force in reshaping the continent’s energy mix,” said Vegard Wiik Vollset, Vice President and Head of EMEA renewables research at Rystad Energy.
By contrast, the expansion of wind energy is not developing as positively. New installations in the onshore wind sector have decreased by eleven percent in 2023 compared to the previous year. Lengthy approval processes and rising costs in the supply chain are cited as the cause. Two percent more capacity was installed offshore, less than in the recent past. nib
As a Parliamentarian, you can make a career for yourself in a number of ways. For example, as a “lawmaker“, by promoting groundbreaking legislative projects as a rapporteur. Other MEPs head an important committee or a parliamentary group. One MEP from Stuttgart has chosen a different path: For almost a decade and a half, he has played a decisive role when it comes to internal and fundamental issues of the people’s representation.
When the Stuttgart lawyer Rainer Wieland entered the Strasbourg Parliament in 1997 as a junior member, his career plan was hardly to prepare and make important decisions primarily in the engine room of the Parliament. It simply happened that way because the deputies first elected him to the post of Vice-President in 2009 and then again every two and a half years with a handsome percentage of votes. This makes him by far the one with the longest experience in the Presidium, Parliament’s most important decision-making body. In addition to the President of Parliament, the Presidium also includes 14 deputies.
The 66-year-old lawyer is involved, for example, when it comes to organizing parliamentary majorities for filling top administrative positions in Parliament. Or deciding how to proceed with the additional voluntary pension scheme for MEPs, whose reserves will soon be exhausted. Wieland, who has had a personal friendship with Günther Oettinger since their university days together, was appointed to two reform commissions by Parliament President Roberta Metsola in this legislative period alone.
This shows how much his voice and his legal as well as political expertise are in demand. At one point, it was a matter of implementing the 14 points to strengthen parliamentary transparency following the corruption scandal involving Vice-President Eva Kaili, who has since been ousted. Metsola also brought him into the “Parliament 2024” working group, which is currently preparing the first reform of Parliament’s working methods in over 20 years and plans to present its findings to the heads of the parliamentary groups before Christmas.
Wieland is a passionate Parliamentarian. This is noticeable when he is on session duty and leads debates in a manner that is as disciplined as it is friendly. The debate culture in the European Parliament, where most MEPs read their two-minute speeches off the screen, still alienates him. But he is visibly pleased when he gets to announce MEPs who can still talk properly, such as Reinhard Bütikofer (Greens) or Guy Verhofstadt (Renew).
He fights for the free mandate and defends the independence of Parliamentarians. Thus, he asserts the right of MPs not to make every contact public. Citizens and stakeholders, especially if they come from countries without freedom of expression, should have the opportunity to speak confidentially with MEPs. Some social democrats, who criticize him publicly for this, agree with him behind closed doors.
Wieland also defends the fact that MEPs, for example, if they are freelancers, have income in addition to their parliamentary allowances. In contrast to other colleagues in parliament, some of whom earn large sums of money in committees and side jobs, Wieland concentrates fully on his mandate. He has not declared any additional income since 1999. Because he doesn’t earn anything on the side: Since 1999, his work in the Stuttgart law firm, in which he is a co-owner, has been suspended.
Kosovo is close to his heart. He has been visiting the country regularly for years and is campaigning for the small country and the other Western Balkan states to be admitted to the EU. And as Vice-President of the European Parliament, he has been responsible for many properties in Strasbourg and Brussels for years. In this function, he has ensured that the technical equipment of the MEPs is now up to date.
Midway through the term, Wieland, who – uncharacteristically for a politician – does not seek out the media, found himself in the headlines of the German tabloid press. Remodeling work in the top-floor wing of the Brussels Parliament, where the Vice-President’s office is located, was scandalized by a Green budget controller. The fact was that the majority of the presidium had decided on the work, which had a volume of around €600,000. Rooms were to be converted as a model to test the “working of the future” in parliament.
While Green Party deputy Daniel Freund accused him of a “conflict of interest”, Wieland said that only his office had been considered for the decided work because it was on the top floor. For this reason alone, he said, it had been possible to limit the disruption to the other offices caused by the extensive work on the water supply.
The campaign made waves but did not change the fact that Wieland was again confirmed as Vice-President in the first round a short time later. It may, however, have diminished his chances of re-entering Parliament in June. Although he would like to remain in Strasbourg for another term, Wieland, who had long held the top spot on the list in Baden-Württemberg, was urged to make way for a female candidate.
Wieland made room for Andrea Wechsler. He might have won in a combat vote. But he probably also wanted to spare his party, which had just passed a quota, the burden of the European election campaign.
In 2024, the CDU Baden-Württemberg cannot run again with a list on which only men have the safe seats. Three other prominent MEPs come from the southwest: Daniel Caspary, head of the CDU/CSU group, Andreas Schwab, Internal Market expert, and Norbert Lins, head of the Agriculture Committee. Thus, Wieland is now competing in the uncertain fifth place in Baden-Württemberg. However, this should not diminish his commitment to the election campaign that is about to begin. Markus Grabitz
