The enemy is on the left or is a liberal – but certainly not on the right. This is how Éric Ciotti’s worldview can be confidently summarized. The current leader of the French conservatives Les Républicains already said that he would rather vote for the far-right candidate Éric Zemmour than Macron in the 2022 presidential election, should there be a run-off between the two. He also believes that France is in danger because of the “extremely dangerous” left-wing movement La France Insoumise.
Ciotti’s conclusion: An alliance of the right with the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) is needed in the upcoming French parliamentary elections. “We are saying the same things, so let’s stop making up an invented opposition”, Ciotti explained to the astonished TV presenter of the TF1 channel on Tuesday.
Ciotti therefore wants to tear down the firewall to the RN that has stood until now. He has led his party far to the right, with little success. In the European elections, Les Républicains only received 7.3 percent of the vote – although the party has already provided several presidents. Now there are calls for his resignation, and many leading representatives of Ciotti’s own party also reject the move. “It is better to lose elections than to lose your soul“, said Senator Sophie Primas and announced her withdrawal from the party.
RN founder Marine Le Pen, on the other hand, called Ciotti’s move “courageous”. This is all too timely for the far-right: Despite its great popularity, the RN will probably not be able to win an absolute majority on its own in the new elections.
The move could also have consequences in the European Parliament if Ciotti takes the plan seriously: “If the French Les Républicains really do take this path to the right, there will no longer be any room in the EPP for this once proud party, which is pushing itself to the margins with this ingratiation”, said Jürgen Hardt, foreign policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU, on Tuesday.
The first meeting of the seven political group leaders after the European elections was over quicker than planned. Two hours were scheduled for the first Conference of Presidents (COP) of the group leaders with EU Parliament President Roberta Metsola. It was over 15 minutes before the end. The only result: Metsola, who speaks to the heads of state and government by virtue of her office before the European Council, is to remind them that the European Parliament is sticking to the Top Candidate Principle.
However, the EPP, S&D and Renew did not go so far as to make the election winner Ursula von der Leyen the European Parliament’s candidate for the post. This is also striking: The group leaders did not take a decision to aim for the election of the Commission President as early as the first week of the session in mid-July.
So it is only an indirect request to Metsola to campaign in the round for the heads of state and government to propose EPP top candidate Ursula von der Leyen to the European Parliament for a second term of office. According to the treaties, it is the task of the European Council to propose a candidate for the post in the light of the outcome of the European elections. Important: Normally, the heads of state and government take their decisions unanimously; a qualified majority is sufficient for the proposal of the Commission President.
Before the COP, EPP leader Manfred Weber had sat down with Iratxe García Pérez (S&D) and Valérie Hayer (Renew). This was the regular exchange between the three group leaders of the old informal Von der Leyen coalition, it was emphasized afterwards, and not the start of negotiations on the content of a new alliance.
All eyes are now on the Council. Weber repeated what he has been saying since Sunday evening: “I expect German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to take the first step and propose Ursula von der Leyen as Commission President.” The heads of state and government are to propose a personnel package at their meeting on Monday, with von der Leyen as Commission President.
According to eyewitnesses, Weber and Green Party leader Terry Reintke remained in the room for around half an hour longer and spoke privately. Afterwards, Reintke said that it had only been preliminary talks, not negotiations. They were still ready for these.
Weber once again only extended his invitation to negotiations to social democrats and liberals. The Greens fulfilled the three main criteria for cooperation with the EPP – pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine, pro-rule of law. However, the Greens had, for example, rejected the migration pact – a key issue for Weber. He rejected the question of whether he would rather cooperate with EU-critical forces in the ECR group than with the Greens. ECR MPs from the Czech Republic and Italy had voted in favor of the migration pact. Weber is therefore still not ruling out cooperation with at least parts of the ECR.
While Weber waits for the dinner of the heads of state and government on Monday, the political groups are sorting themselves out. The newly elected MEPs arrived in Brussels on Tuesday. The first national delegations of the political groups elected their chairs. The heads of the national delegations have a lot to do in the weeks leading up to the constituent meeting. They have to negotiate with the other heads of delegation to decide who goes where: decisions have to be made on the posts of group leaders, coordinators, committee chairs, vice-presidents and quaestors in Parliament. The number of MPs in their delegation is a decisive factor.
Daniel Caspary was re-elected to the group of 29 CDU/CSU MEPs. He received 16 votes with one abstention and 11 votes against (see News in this issue). On Monday, the European SPD, which now only has 14 MEPs, had already unanimously re-elected René Repasi as its leader in the Willi Brandt House.
It is not yet clear whether Moritz Körner will continue to lead the five-member FDP group in the Renew parliamentary group. Top candidate Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann would have first dibs, but the 66-year-old is new to the European Parliament. The Greens do not want to elect the head of the badly shrunken German group until the last week of June. The Left Party, which now only has three MEPs from Germany, is also aiming for this. Contributors: Lukas Scheid, Till Hoppe
The EU Supply Chain Directive is “a symbol of the past’s failed policies”, the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA) told Table.Briefings. “Europe should correct this misguided decision with renewed vigor and a clear mandate.” Oliver Zander, Managing Director of Gesamtmetall, also commented: “The directive is and remains wrong and overburdens companies”. The German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) is also pushing for change, pointing to the overburdening of medium-sized companies. “If the new EU Commission focuses on industrial policy, it should also have the courage to look for a pragmatic solution”. At the same time, the VCI emphasizes the fundamental importance of the directive, saying that it “pursues an important and correct goal”.
Supply chain regulation continues to divide opinion in the German economy. Not least due to pressure from large lobby groups, the Grand Coalition passed a tamer national law than planned. For example, it dispensed with civil liability. At European level, the Belgian Council Presidency had to significantly weaken the directive in the final stages in order to gain a majority of countries in the Council. However, European industry associations and the FDP failed in their attempt to prevent the regulation altogether. It goes further than the German directive, which provides for civil liability. German associations are now making a new attempt to achieve national and European changes.
They are encouraged by the Federal Minister of Economics, Robert Habeck. At the Family Business Day, he spoke of the need to take a pragmatic approach to implementing the new EU law quickly by suspending or significantly reducing it. The protection of human rights and environmental standards will only be successful “if regulations are also accepted by companies”. He made similar comments six months ago. At the same time, he leaves no doubt that supply chain laws are “ethically correct”. Goods for which children worked, adults suffered or the environment was destroyed “should not be sold in our country”. His party had been one of the staunchest advocates of supply chain regulation in the EU Parliament.
The German government has been discussing for some time how to proceed with the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) in light of the criticism of the German law and the adoption of the EU regulation. “In the end, decisions will probably no longer be made on the basis of technical policy arguments,” Table.Briefings learned from government circles. The coalition leaders have long been weighing up interests, which the specialist departments can only influence to a limited extent. The handling of the LkSG threatens to become an item in the poker game for the difficult budget consultations, it is said.
Stopping the law would be “an important contribution to the economic turnaround“, said FDP parliamentary group leader Christian Dürr in response to Habeck. SPD parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich, on the other hand, firmly rejects Habeck’s idea. He said that the Minister for Economic Affairs was doing a disservice to the “long-standing efforts towards an economic policy based on human rights and fair wages and directed against exploitation“. It is “common practice to adapt national regulations to EU law”, said Mützenich. “Until then, however, the law will remain in force.”
The LkSG has been in force since 2023 and initially applied to companies with at least 3,000 employees, and since 2024 to companies with 1,000 or more employees. Large companies – around 900 according to the BMZ – have therefore already submitted their first annual report. The Volkswagen Group, for example, published this at the end of May.
The EU directive must be transposed into national law by the EU member states within two years. It initially applies to companies with more than 5,000 employees, with the threshold later falling to 1,000 employees.
MEPs also announced, not least during the election campaign, that they wanted to amend and restrict the European Supply Chain Act once again. In an interview with Table.Briefings before the European elections, environmental politician Peter Liese (CDU) suggested revising the law and limiting it to deliveries “in which large quantities are imported from countries where there are actually huge problems with deforestation or child labor, for example.”
It is difficult to say whether it is realistic to amend the law again, explained Liese’s party colleague Axel Voss, who helped negotiate the EU supply chain law as shadow rapporteur for the EPP. The new EU Commission would have to be prepared to do this; at most, the Parliament could speak out in favor of an amendment in an own-initiative report. In principle, Voss considers the European law to be significantly less bureaucratic – it would therefore only make sense for German companies to change it if the German law were to disappear. However, this argument is no longer heard in Germany: The mood is too poisoned by the debate surrounding the LkSG, said Voss.
Minister of Labor Hubertus Heil, who is in charge of the LkSG, advocates ambitious rules in the area of corporate responsibility, but has already shown himself willing to compromise on a simplification of the LkSG during the negotiations for the European regulation. In practice, there is one main problem: large companies pass on obligations to SMEs, although this is not permitted. However, many SMEs are prepared to accept this for fear of losing orders. The same conflict now arises when it comes to recording climate emissions.
Observers believe that an appropriate balance of interests between the government and business in the LkSG is possible in principle. The prerequisite would be a fundamental agreement of all stakeholders to the basic principle of corporate responsibility. However, Table.Briefings has learned from government circles that this is lacking. In particular, the BDA and parts of the BDI – especially Gesamtmetall – are conducting a discourse that ultimately aims to abolish supply chain regulation. This makes a compromise and pragmatic solutions in the existing “system” more difficult, they say.
Oliver Zander, Managing Director of Gesamtmetall, explained that the association “remains committed to the UN Guiding Principles [on Business and Human Rights]”, which form the basis for supply chain laws. However, the Guiding Principles make a clear distinction “between the responsibilities of the various actors in the area of business and human rights”. Unfortunately, states do not adequately fulfill their duty to protect human rights. However, the “obvious gap” cannot be filled by companies in the metal and electrical industry, Zander tells Table.Briefings. The BDA did not answer a corresponding question. In contrast, the VCI states: “We are firmly committed to the basic principle of corporate responsibility in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles. They have proven themselves as an international standard.” The principles are also anchored in the chemical industry standard for sustainable value creation.
Markus Löning, former Human Rights Commissioner of the German government, believes Habeck’s proposal is misguided. “This is a disturbing signal to many companies where the risk management processes are already very advanced”, he told Table.Briefings. He also does not believe that this will actually provide companies with comprehensive relief: Companies are obliged by various EU directives to comply with human rights in their supply chains, he said. However, it would make sense for legislators to address the question of how companies could coordinate the requirements of different supply chain laws, for example on deforestation, forced labor, or supply chains, in such a way that they could manage them with a risk system. Löning runs the consultancy firm Löning Human Rights & Responsible Business.
“Companies should be aware of the risks in their supply chain for their own sake, regardless of how strict or comprehensive the regulations are”, said Tanja Relly, Senior Strategic Business Development at Ecovadis, a provider of sustainability ratings. “Bureaucracy and costs would just be an excuse to avoid transforming your own company.” The German Sustainable Business Association (BNW) also sharply criticized the initiative and referred to the ongoing implementation of the law in companies. “If the law does not take effect now, companies will be left with the costs – and we run the risk of stifling the economy of tomorrow,” said Managing Director Katharina Reuter. “We should seize the momentum now and not sacrifice transparency and human rights for flimsy profit and lobbying interests.”
In the end, the upswing was weaker than expected – nevertheless, the far-right parties were among the most important winners of the European elections. In Western Europe in particular, they made gains in numerous member states. In total, far-right parties will hold around 175 seats in the future, almost a quarter of the Parliament.
The largest single right-wing parties are the French Rassemblement National (RN, 30 seats), the Italian Fratelli d’Italia (FdI, 24), the Polish PiS (18), the German AfD (15) and the Hungarian Fidesz (10). They are followed by the Italian Lega (8), the Dutch PVV of Geert Wilders, the Austrian FPÖ, the Spanish Vox and the Polish Konfederacja (6 each).
However, it is still largely unclear how these parties will come together in parliamentary groups. Traditionally, the ECR group (with FdI and PiS, among others) has tended to bring together NATO-friendly right-wing parties, while the ID (with RN and AfD) has tended to bring together Russia-friendly right-wing parties. The Hungarian Fidesz has been non-attached since leaving the EPP.
However, this constellation has been shaken up in recent weeks. In light of numerous scandals, the AfD was excluded from the ID parliamentary group at the instigation of the RN. At the same time, RN leader Marine Le Pen visibly tried to move closer to Giorgia Meloni’s FdI. The Hungarian Fidesz is seeking to join the ECR Group, but not all members are welcome there.
And then the EPP group also sent out signals of an opening to the right – but only to those parties that are “pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine and pro the rule of law”, which, according to the EPP, includes the FdI, but not the RN and PiS. Europe’s right is in the process of restructuring itself, but what could it look like in the future?
Scenario 1: No changes. If everything remains as before, FdI, PiS and Vox would find themselves in the EKR group, RN, Lega, PVV and FPÖ in the ID; AfD, Fidesz and Konfederacja would be non-attached. Both right-wing groups could count on support from a few small newcomer parties, but with around 75 and 65 seats in the new parliament, they would only remain fourth and fifth behind the liberal Renew. However, it is rather unlikely that such a large block of far-right parties would forego the advantages of parliamentary group membership.
Scenario 2: Fidesz to the ECR. Fidesz has repeatedly expressed its desire to join the ECR. However, while PiS and FdI would be open to this possibility, other members are threatening to leave the group in this case: the Czech ODS (3 seats), for example, fears that this would cause the group to shift further to the right, and the Romanian AUR (5 seats) does not want to cooperate with Fidesz due to its anti-Hungarian nationalism. Fidesz’s accession could therefore possibly lead to the ECR becoming smaller rather than larger in the end.
Scenario 3: Fidesz to ID. As an alternative, Fidesz could therefore also join the ID parliamentary group, which is open to this in principle. So far, Fidesz has avoided this, also to avoid working together with the AfD – but the AfD is no longer in the party anyway. In this scenario, the EKR and ID would both have around 75 seats, although the EKR would probably retain a slight lead.
Scenario 4: New AfD parliamentary group. The AfD is also reluctant to remain non-attached. However, a return to the ID is likely to be blocked for the time being – especially as the French RN is now in the national parliamentary election campaign. This means that the only option is to form its own parliamentary group, which, according to the parliament’s rules of procedure, requires MEPs from at least seven different countries. In addition to Konfederacja, the Bulgarian Vazrazhdane (3 seats), the Hungarian MHM (1), the Greek NIKI (1) and perhaps the Spanish SALF (3), all of which have recently entered parliament, as well as individual defectors from ECR or ID member parties would also be eligible. Overall, it is likely to be quite close. However, if the AfD succeeds, the third right-wing group could expect around 35 seats.
Scenario 5: Large right-wing group. The idea of a merger of the ECR and ID into a single large right-wing group has been circulating in the European debate for years without ever becoming a reality. This time too, politicians from PiS, RN and Fidesz have brought this idea back into play – probably also in order to benefit from Giorgia Meloni’s political influence and good relationship with the EPP. However, Meloni herself has little interest in this: On the one hand, the merger would jeopardize precisely that good relationship with the EPP; on the other, the FdI would be second only to the RN in the large parliamentary group in terms of sheer numbers. As in scenario 2, the departure of a number of old members would also have to be expected here, either towards the EPP or the new AfD group, which would almost certainly come into being in this case. This scenario is therefore also very unlikely.
Scenario 6: Group of EPP friends. The EPP’s attempts to divide the far-right camp into an “acceptable” and an “unacceptable” part could ultimately lead to a final scenario: a group that only contains right-wing parties that the EPP considers to be “pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine and pro-rule of law”. As these criteria are quite flexible in practice, the parties with which EPP member parties have entered into coalitions at national level or have been prepared to do so could also serve as a yardstick. In this case, the new group could include FdI, Lega, PVV, FPÖ, Vox, ODS, the Swedish SD (3), the Finnish PS (1), the Estonian ECRE (1) and the Croatian DP (1) , i.e. a total of around 60 seats. This scenario would lead to a significant shuffling of previous ECR and ID parties. However, it is not to be taken entirely seriously – after all, there are also established networks among the far-right parties that they will not give up without further ado.
The enemy is on the left or is a liberal – but certainly not on the right. This is how Éric Ciotti’s worldview can be confidently summarized. The current leader of the French conservatives Les Républicains already said that he would rather vote for the far-right candidate Éric Zemmour than Macron in the 2022 presidential election, should there be a run-off between the two. He also believes that France is in danger because of the “extremely dangerous” left-wing movement La France Insoumise.
Ciotti’s conclusion: An alliance of the right with the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) is needed in the upcoming French parliamentary elections. “We are saying the same things, so let’s stop making up an invented opposition”, Ciotti explained to the astonished TV presenter of the TF1 channel on Tuesday.
Ciotti therefore wants to tear down the firewall to the RN that has stood until now. He has led his party far to the right, with little success. In the European elections, Les Républicains only received 7.3 percent of the vote – although the party has already provided several presidents. Now there are calls for his resignation, and many leading representatives of Ciotti’s own party also reject the move. “It is better to lose elections than to lose your soul“, said Senator Sophie Primas and announced her withdrawal from the party.
RN founder Marine Le Pen, on the other hand, called Ciotti’s move “courageous”. This is all too timely for the far-right: Despite its great popularity, the RN will probably not be able to win an absolute majority on its own in the new elections.
The move could also have consequences in the European Parliament if Ciotti takes the plan seriously: “If the French Les Républicains really do take this path to the right, there will no longer be any room in the EPP for this once proud party, which is pushing itself to the margins with this ingratiation”, said Jürgen Hardt, foreign policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU, on Tuesday.
The first meeting of the seven political group leaders after the European elections was over quicker than planned. Two hours were scheduled for the first Conference of Presidents (COP) of the group leaders with EU Parliament President Roberta Metsola. It was over 15 minutes before the end. The only result: Metsola, who speaks to the heads of state and government by virtue of her office before the European Council, is to remind them that the European Parliament is sticking to the Top Candidate Principle.
However, the EPP, S&D and Renew did not go so far as to make the election winner Ursula von der Leyen the European Parliament’s candidate for the post. This is also striking: The group leaders did not take a decision to aim for the election of the Commission President as early as the first week of the session in mid-July.
So it is only an indirect request to Metsola to campaign in the round for the heads of state and government to propose EPP top candidate Ursula von der Leyen to the European Parliament for a second term of office. According to the treaties, it is the task of the European Council to propose a candidate for the post in the light of the outcome of the European elections. Important: Normally, the heads of state and government take their decisions unanimously; a qualified majority is sufficient for the proposal of the Commission President.
Before the COP, EPP leader Manfred Weber had sat down with Iratxe García Pérez (S&D) and Valérie Hayer (Renew). This was the regular exchange between the three group leaders of the old informal Von der Leyen coalition, it was emphasized afterwards, and not the start of negotiations on the content of a new alliance.
All eyes are now on the Council. Weber repeated what he has been saying since Sunday evening: “I expect German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to take the first step and propose Ursula von der Leyen as Commission President.” The heads of state and government are to propose a personnel package at their meeting on Monday, with von der Leyen as Commission President.
According to eyewitnesses, Weber and Green Party leader Terry Reintke remained in the room for around half an hour longer and spoke privately. Afterwards, Reintke said that it had only been preliminary talks, not negotiations. They were still ready for these.
Weber once again only extended his invitation to negotiations to social democrats and liberals. The Greens fulfilled the three main criteria for cooperation with the EPP – pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine, pro-rule of law. However, the Greens had, for example, rejected the migration pact – a key issue for Weber. He rejected the question of whether he would rather cooperate with EU-critical forces in the ECR group than with the Greens. ECR MPs from the Czech Republic and Italy had voted in favor of the migration pact. Weber is therefore still not ruling out cooperation with at least parts of the ECR.
While Weber waits for the dinner of the heads of state and government on Monday, the political groups are sorting themselves out. The newly elected MEPs arrived in Brussels on Tuesday. The first national delegations of the political groups elected their chairs. The heads of the national delegations have a lot to do in the weeks leading up to the constituent meeting. They have to negotiate with the other heads of delegation to decide who goes where: decisions have to be made on the posts of group leaders, coordinators, committee chairs, vice-presidents and quaestors in Parliament. The number of MPs in their delegation is a decisive factor.
Daniel Caspary was re-elected to the group of 29 CDU/CSU MEPs. He received 16 votes with one abstention and 11 votes against (see News in this issue). On Monday, the European SPD, which now only has 14 MEPs, had already unanimously re-elected René Repasi as its leader in the Willi Brandt House.
It is not yet clear whether Moritz Körner will continue to lead the five-member FDP group in the Renew parliamentary group. Top candidate Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann would have first dibs, but the 66-year-old is new to the European Parliament. The Greens do not want to elect the head of the badly shrunken German group until the last week of June. The Left Party, which now only has three MEPs from Germany, is also aiming for this. Contributors: Lukas Scheid, Till Hoppe
The EU Supply Chain Directive is “a symbol of the past’s failed policies”, the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA) told Table.Briefings. “Europe should correct this misguided decision with renewed vigor and a clear mandate.” Oliver Zander, Managing Director of Gesamtmetall, also commented: “The directive is and remains wrong and overburdens companies”. The German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) is also pushing for change, pointing to the overburdening of medium-sized companies. “If the new EU Commission focuses on industrial policy, it should also have the courage to look for a pragmatic solution”. At the same time, the VCI emphasizes the fundamental importance of the directive, saying that it “pursues an important and correct goal”.
Supply chain regulation continues to divide opinion in the German economy. Not least due to pressure from large lobby groups, the Grand Coalition passed a tamer national law than planned. For example, it dispensed with civil liability. At European level, the Belgian Council Presidency had to significantly weaken the directive in the final stages in order to gain a majority of countries in the Council. However, European industry associations and the FDP failed in their attempt to prevent the regulation altogether. It goes further than the German directive, which provides for civil liability. German associations are now making a new attempt to achieve national and European changes.
They are encouraged by the Federal Minister of Economics, Robert Habeck. At the Family Business Day, he spoke of the need to take a pragmatic approach to implementing the new EU law quickly by suspending or significantly reducing it. The protection of human rights and environmental standards will only be successful “if regulations are also accepted by companies”. He made similar comments six months ago. At the same time, he leaves no doubt that supply chain laws are “ethically correct”. Goods for which children worked, adults suffered or the environment was destroyed “should not be sold in our country”. His party had been one of the staunchest advocates of supply chain regulation in the EU Parliament.
The German government has been discussing for some time how to proceed with the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) in light of the criticism of the German law and the adoption of the EU regulation. “In the end, decisions will probably no longer be made on the basis of technical policy arguments,” Table.Briefings learned from government circles. The coalition leaders have long been weighing up interests, which the specialist departments can only influence to a limited extent. The handling of the LkSG threatens to become an item in the poker game for the difficult budget consultations, it is said.
Stopping the law would be “an important contribution to the economic turnaround“, said FDP parliamentary group leader Christian Dürr in response to Habeck. SPD parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich, on the other hand, firmly rejects Habeck’s idea. He said that the Minister for Economic Affairs was doing a disservice to the “long-standing efforts towards an economic policy based on human rights and fair wages and directed against exploitation“. It is “common practice to adapt national regulations to EU law”, said Mützenich. “Until then, however, the law will remain in force.”
The LkSG has been in force since 2023 and initially applied to companies with at least 3,000 employees, and since 2024 to companies with 1,000 or more employees. Large companies – around 900 according to the BMZ – have therefore already submitted their first annual report. The Volkswagen Group, for example, published this at the end of May.
The EU directive must be transposed into national law by the EU member states within two years. It initially applies to companies with more than 5,000 employees, with the threshold later falling to 1,000 employees.
MEPs also announced, not least during the election campaign, that they wanted to amend and restrict the European Supply Chain Act once again. In an interview with Table.Briefings before the European elections, environmental politician Peter Liese (CDU) suggested revising the law and limiting it to deliveries “in which large quantities are imported from countries where there are actually huge problems with deforestation or child labor, for example.”
It is difficult to say whether it is realistic to amend the law again, explained Liese’s party colleague Axel Voss, who helped negotiate the EU supply chain law as shadow rapporteur for the EPP. The new EU Commission would have to be prepared to do this; at most, the Parliament could speak out in favor of an amendment in an own-initiative report. In principle, Voss considers the European law to be significantly less bureaucratic – it would therefore only make sense for German companies to change it if the German law were to disappear. However, this argument is no longer heard in Germany: The mood is too poisoned by the debate surrounding the LkSG, said Voss.
Minister of Labor Hubertus Heil, who is in charge of the LkSG, advocates ambitious rules in the area of corporate responsibility, but has already shown himself willing to compromise on a simplification of the LkSG during the negotiations for the European regulation. In practice, there is one main problem: large companies pass on obligations to SMEs, although this is not permitted. However, many SMEs are prepared to accept this for fear of losing orders. The same conflict now arises when it comes to recording climate emissions.
Observers believe that an appropriate balance of interests between the government and business in the LkSG is possible in principle. The prerequisite would be a fundamental agreement of all stakeholders to the basic principle of corporate responsibility. However, Table.Briefings has learned from government circles that this is lacking. In particular, the BDA and parts of the BDI – especially Gesamtmetall – are conducting a discourse that ultimately aims to abolish supply chain regulation. This makes a compromise and pragmatic solutions in the existing “system” more difficult, they say.
Oliver Zander, Managing Director of Gesamtmetall, explained that the association “remains committed to the UN Guiding Principles [on Business and Human Rights]”, which form the basis for supply chain laws. However, the Guiding Principles make a clear distinction “between the responsibilities of the various actors in the area of business and human rights”. Unfortunately, states do not adequately fulfill their duty to protect human rights. However, the “obvious gap” cannot be filled by companies in the metal and electrical industry, Zander tells Table.Briefings. The BDA did not answer a corresponding question. In contrast, the VCI states: “We are firmly committed to the basic principle of corporate responsibility in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles. They have proven themselves as an international standard.” The principles are also anchored in the chemical industry standard for sustainable value creation.
Markus Löning, former Human Rights Commissioner of the German government, believes Habeck’s proposal is misguided. “This is a disturbing signal to many companies where the risk management processes are already very advanced”, he told Table.Briefings. He also does not believe that this will actually provide companies with comprehensive relief: Companies are obliged by various EU directives to comply with human rights in their supply chains, he said. However, it would make sense for legislators to address the question of how companies could coordinate the requirements of different supply chain laws, for example on deforestation, forced labor, or supply chains, in such a way that they could manage them with a risk system. Löning runs the consultancy firm Löning Human Rights & Responsible Business.
“Companies should be aware of the risks in their supply chain for their own sake, regardless of how strict or comprehensive the regulations are”, said Tanja Relly, Senior Strategic Business Development at Ecovadis, a provider of sustainability ratings. “Bureaucracy and costs would just be an excuse to avoid transforming your own company.” The German Sustainable Business Association (BNW) also sharply criticized the initiative and referred to the ongoing implementation of the law in companies. “If the law does not take effect now, companies will be left with the costs – and we run the risk of stifling the economy of tomorrow,” said Managing Director Katharina Reuter. “We should seize the momentum now and not sacrifice transparency and human rights for flimsy profit and lobbying interests.”
In the end, the upswing was weaker than expected – nevertheless, the far-right parties were among the most important winners of the European elections. In Western Europe in particular, they made gains in numerous member states. In total, far-right parties will hold around 175 seats in the future, almost a quarter of the Parliament.
The largest single right-wing parties are the French Rassemblement National (RN, 30 seats), the Italian Fratelli d’Italia (FdI, 24), the Polish PiS (18), the German AfD (15) and the Hungarian Fidesz (10). They are followed by the Italian Lega (8), the Dutch PVV of Geert Wilders, the Austrian FPÖ, the Spanish Vox and the Polish Konfederacja (6 each).
However, it is still largely unclear how these parties will come together in parliamentary groups. Traditionally, the ECR group (with FdI and PiS, among others) has tended to bring together NATO-friendly right-wing parties, while the ID (with RN and AfD) has tended to bring together Russia-friendly right-wing parties. The Hungarian Fidesz has been non-attached since leaving the EPP.
However, this constellation has been shaken up in recent weeks. In light of numerous scandals, the AfD was excluded from the ID parliamentary group at the instigation of the RN. At the same time, RN leader Marine Le Pen visibly tried to move closer to Giorgia Meloni’s FdI. The Hungarian Fidesz is seeking to join the ECR Group, but not all members are welcome there.
And then the EPP group also sent out signals of an opening to the right – but only to those parties that are “pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine and pro the rule of law”, which, according to the EPP, includes the FdI, but not the RN and PiS. Europe’s right is in the process of restructuring itself, but what could it look like in the future?
Scenario 1: No changes. If everything remains as before, FdI, PiS and Vox would find themselves in the EKR group, RN, Lega, PVV and FPÖ in the ID; AfD, Fidesz and Konfederacja would be non-attached. Both right-wing groups could count on support from a few small newcomer parties, but with around 75 and 65 seats in the new parliament, they would only remain fourth and fifth behind the liberal Renew. However, it is rather unlikely that such a large block of far-right parties would forego the advantages of parliamentary group membership.
Scenario 2: Fidesz to the ECR. Fidesz has repeatedly expressed its desire to join the ECR. However, while PiS and FdI would be open to this possibility, other members are threatening to leave the group in this case: the Czech ODS (3 seats), for example, fears that this would cause the group to shift further to the right, and the Romanian AUR (5 seats) does not want to cooperate with Fidesz due to its anti-Hungarian nationalism. Fidesz’s accession could therefore possibly lead to the ECR becoming smaller rather than larger in the end.
Scenario 3: Fidesz to ID. As an alternative, Fidesz could therefore also join the ID parliamentary group, which is open to this in principle. So far, Fidesz has avoided this, also to avoid working together with the AfD – but the AfD is no longer in the party anyway. In this scenario, the EKR and ID would both have around 75 seats, although the EKR would probably retain a slight lead.
Scenario 4: New AfD parliamentary group. The AfD is also reluctant to remain non-attached. However, a return to the ID is likely to be blocked for the time being – especially as the French RN is now in the national parliamentary election campaign. This means that the only option is to form its own parliamentary group, which, according to the parliament’s rules of procedure, requires MEPs from at least seven different countries. In addition to Konfederacja, the Bulgarian Vazrazhdane (3 seats), the Hungarian MHM (1), the Greek NIKI (1) and perhaps the Spanish SALF (3), all of which have recently entered parliament, as well as individual defectors from ECR or ID member parties would also be eligible. Overall, it is likely to be quite close. However, if the AfD succeeds, the third right-wing group could expect around 35 seats.
Scenario 5: Large right-wing group. The idea of a merger of the ECR and ID into a single large right-wing group has been circulating in the European debate for years without ever becoming a reality. This time too, politicians from PiS, RN and Fidesz have brought this idea back into play – probably also in order to benefit from Giorgia Meloni’s political influence and good relationship with the EPP. However, Meloni herself has little interest in this: On the one hand, the merger would jeopardize precisely that good relationship with the EPP; on the other, the FdI would be second only to the RN in the large parliamentary group in terms of sheer numbers. As in scenario 2, the departure of a number of old members would also have to be expected here, either towards the EPP or the new AfD group, which would almost certainly come into being in this case. This scenario is therefore also very unlikely.
Scenario 6: Group of EPP friends. The EPP’s attempts to divide the far-right camp into an “acceptable” and an “unacceptable” part could ultimately lead to a final scenario: a group that only contains right-wing parties that the EPP considers to be “pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine and pro-rule of law”. As these criteria are quite flexible in practice, the parties with which EPP member parties have entered into coalitions at national level or have been prepared to do so could also serve as a yardstick. In this case, the new group could include FdI, Lega, PVV, FPÖ, Vox, ODS, the Swedish SD (3), the Finnish PS (1), the Estonian ECRE (1) and the Croatian DP (1) , i.e. a total of around 60 seats. This scenario would lead to a significant shuffling of previous ECR and ID parties. However, it is not to be taken entirely seriously – after all, there are also established networks among the far-right parties that they will not give up without further ado.
