The EU finance ministers received a letter from their colleague Vincent Van Peteghem. The Belgian treasurer, currently Chairman of the EIB Board of Governors, is proposing that Spanish Finance Minister Nadia Calviño be appointed to succeed Werner Hoyer at the helm of the EU bank. The ministers have until this evening to decide whether or not to accept the proposal.
After months of soundings by Van Peteghem, one would think his letter to the ministers would have clarified everything. But appearances are deceptive. According to information from Table Media, Calviño’s appointment is anything but certain. Of the big three (member states), only Germany has backed the Spaniard so far. Italy, on the other hand, is backing Calviño’s fiercest rival, Margrethe Vestager from Denmark, and France is still keeping a low profile.
Given the required majority – 68 percent of the capital and 18 member states – the successful appointment will only work under the following conditions: At least two of the big three must be in agreement and the required number of member states must also be on board. And according to reports, Vestager has the edge here. This means that a stalemate is also looming for the meeting of finance ministers (Ecofin) on December 8. If a quick solution is to be found (and the post of head of the bank is not to be included in the big personnel package after the European elections), now is the time for a compromise candidate.
And Van Peteghem reportedly has an ace up his sleeve here: the former Belgian head of government Sophie Wilmès. The financial and economic expert retired from active politics in April 2022 to care for her husband, who was suffering from cancer. He has now recently passed away. If the Belgian wants to return to the political stage, the top job in Luxembourg would be an ideal platform. The assertive Wilmès certainly has what it takes. We will keep you updated.
Europe’s potential winner of the energy transition lies in the north-east of Poland. With 4.9 percent more jobs, the Green Deal could create more new jobs in the Warmińsko-Mazurskie voivodeship by 2050 than anywhere else in the EU, according to a calculation by the Bertelsmann Stiftung in its as yet unpublished study “Energizing EU Cohesion,” which Table.Media obtained in advance. The study examined for over 200 regions in the EU how value creation and employment are developing as a result of the Green Deal energy policy and the goal of climate neutrality.
“Rural regions with a large potential for renewable energies benefit the most, while urban regions that are heavily dependent on carbon-intensive industries tend to experience negative effects,” the authors write. In economically strong regions, employment would fall by up to 2.1 percent.
Overall, however, the foundation expects a welcome equalization of living conditions as a result of the Green Deal. “Targeted energy policy can be cohesion policy if it serves the right regions,” says project manager Thomas Schwab. To achieve this, the two policy areas need to be better coordinated and cohesion funds used accordingly.
In general, urban regions are still more prosperous than rural regions. According to Bertelsmann, the study disproves the prejudice that the Green Deal is an additional burden for people in rural areas. EPP group leader Manfred Weber has been trying for months to use this argument to weaken Ursula von der Leyen’s central project.
According to the EPP, this mainly applies to the agricultural and nature conservation laws of the Green Deal, but also to the Buildings Directive, for example. “The energy transition does not lead to deindustrialization, it compensates for uncertainties,” says Malte Tim Zabel, Co-Director of the “Europe’s Future” program at the Bertelsmann Stiftung.
The redistribution affects regions within EU member states as well as the member states themselves. According to Bertelsmann’s calculations, Berlin, for example, will lose around 26,000 jobs as a result of the energy transition, while Brandenburg could gain over 27,000 jobs.
Within the EU, Masuria is prototypical because, according to the study, value added will increase primarily in Central and Eastern Europe (+0.8%), and to a lesser extent in the West (+0.4%). In contrast, slightly negative effects were seen in Northern and Southern Europe (-0.2%/-0.1%).
The average values are rather low because Bertelsmann did not calculate the effect of the energy transition as a whole but only the additional impact of the Green Deal compared to the energy policy before the von der Leyen cabinet took office.
However, the study also contains a disappointing scenario for the Commission’s latest ambitions: If European manufacturers of energy technology were to double their global market share, value creation in the EU would only increase marginally – the number of jobs would remain unchanged, explains Schwab. So, is the hotly debated industrial policy in Brussels and the European capitals with all its billions in subsidies a waste of time? The expert is Solomon-like: “We did not consider the dimension of de-risking in our study.”
In the long term, the results of the study pose a further challenge for energy policy. Many people are hardly aware that urban areas are among the losers of the transformation. “At the moment, it is more urban regions that are supporting the Green Deal. If negative effects occur, it will be interesting to see whether they continue to show support,” says Schwab.
Bertelsmann sees renewable energy partnerships between cities and the periphery as a model for the future. Such Interreg-funded programs exist in Ireland, for example. “The goal is a long-term commitment,” explains Schwab. “If Berlin, for example, commits to sourcing renewable energy from Brandenburg for the next ten to 30 years, it’s a win-win situation for both regions.”
Following the NIS2 and CER directives, the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) is the next building block for greater security in Europe. The aim of the compromise reached in the final trilogue meeting on Thursday evening: to increase the security of networked light bulbs, thermostats, toasters and webcams in Europe and the security requirements for software. Manufacturers do not have much time: the first obligation comes into force after 18 months.
Anyone buying a networked device today can never be sure how long security updates will be available for it. Depending on the manufacturer, this period can end after just a few months. However, many products are used for years – such as installed webcams, smart doorbells or thermostats. And the software also remains in use for years in many cases. But whether manufacturers still supply updates has not been precisely regulated.
The Cyber Resilience Act is intended to remedy this: In future, it will require suppliers of almost all networked products to provide security-related updates for at least five years as a rule. Manufacturers are to deliver their “products with digital elements” with auto-updates, among other things: as soon as the system is connected to the network, it will automatically download the latest software version. This should also apply to the software itself. The only exception to the regulation is software that can only be used remotely and cannot be operated locally (SaaS). However, anything that runs locally and relies on a server connection is covered by the CRA. Users should be clearly informed when the support period will end.
With the CRA comes the obligation to report security vulnerabilities. This will come into force even before the other obligations from the CRA for manufacturers: actively exploited security gaps must be reported 18 months after the announcement in the EU Official Journal, i.e. probably from late summer 2025. The Commission had called for twelve months, the member states for 24. These gaps must be reported to the national cybersecurity supervisory authorities and the European Network and Information Security Agency ENISA – with short deadlines: the first warning should be sent to the supervisory authorities immediately, but no later than 24 hours after discovery. More detailed information must follow 72 hours after the initial discovery, and a final report must be submitted after 14 days.
According to the regulation, the manufacturer, its representative, the importer or distributor of a “product with digital elements” are responsible for complying with the rules of the CRA. The repercussions for platform operators, for example, who import masses of cheap products from the Far East for which software maintenance has played no role to date – from baby monitors to autonomous lawnmowers – are still hard to predict. However, even after the trilogue, most products are still only subject to the obligation to issue a declaration of conformity. In this declaration, those responsible assure themselves that they comply with the standards and norms and the rules of the CRA. Further certification by third parties is only envisaged for certain product classes.
Free software was discussed particularly intensively right up to the end: software that is fundamentally free and available with its source code forms the backbone of almost all modern-day applications. It can be integrated into other software, for example, to enable effective encryption. It can also be made available to manufacturers and users as a complete package, such as Google’s Android, or as embedded Linux for devices: the diversity of applications is matched by the diversity of providers. A relevant proportion of free and open-source software is managed by foundations that take care of software maintenance. Or it is contributed by unpaid volunteers who work on it out of conviction. At the same time, however, some providers are directly active in the market with software they have adapted themselves.
The negotiators have agreed on a compromise here: Open-source software alone should not bring any relief from the CRA; it must also be freely available in any case. Non-profit foundations are to fall under a “light touch regime” in which they must set up and comply with a “cybersecurity policy.” Pure hobby projects would not be subject to regulation at all. Products that are open source and free, but are only developed by one body and marketed commercially by that body, on the other hand, would be subject to the full CRA regime.
How strict the enforcement will be remains to be seen – when the Cyber Resilience Act comes into force for new products placed on the market from 2027. What is on the market before then will not be subject to the rules. It will therefore be a gradual transition. The market surveillance authorities, which in Germany will have to be mapped in the usual federally complicated networks of responsibilities, will then have to enforce it.
However, the CRA will also be explicitly included among the laws that can be enforced via the right of association. This means that it is not individual, affected consumers who have to take legal action, but qualified representatives.
Intense discussions at the EU ambassador level on Friday afternoon: How should foundation models such as GPT-4 and general purpose AI (GPAI) be regulated in the AI Act? France is opposed to tough regulation and wants “regulated self-regulation” instead. Other countries are somewhat more flexible, even though Germany and Italy had supported the French position in a non-paper. The Spanish Council Presidency nevertheless expressed confidence on Friday that the three countries could be brought back under the Council’s mandate.
This week will be decisive for the AI Act. It is on the agenda of the Council of Digital and Technology Ministers on Tuesday, and the fifth trilogue of the AI Act is scheduled for Wednesday. The Spanish Council Presidency wants to conclude the negotiations. Theoretically, there is still time until February to reach an agreement before the end of the mandate. A delay would bring uncertainty to the process.
There has been no shortage of trials and tribulations in the trilogue so far. The European Parliament, which rejects self-regulation, had written a working paper following the three countries’ non-paper. In it, it attempts to correct misinterpretations of its two-tier approach to the regulation of generative artificial intelligence, according to which powerful models should be regulated more than others. Parliament explains its criteria for classification. It also clarifies once again that regulation should only apply to those models that come onto the market.
Parliament attaches particular importance to ensuring that model developers comply with transparency and documentation obligations and introduce risk management. In this way, they want to protect later users (downstream) from unforeseeable consequences if the models do not perform as they should. However, it was unclear to the Parliament until the weekend what mandate the Spaniards would take into the trilogue on Wednesday.
The positions of the Council and Parliament also differ on other points, such as the use of artificial intelligence in real-time biometric remote surveillance and law enforcement.
MEPs are not the only ones who believe that regulated self-regulation is insufficient for foundation models. This view is also shared by several scientists who have signed a paper by the AI4People Institute. The non-profit institute based in Belgium brings AI companies, scientists, civil society groups and governments together to discuss the risks of AI.
In an open letter to the heads of government of France, Germany and Italy (the initiators of the non-paper), the scientists write that their proposal undermines the effectiveness of the law. It could also pose serious risks to citizens’ rights and European innovation. They put forward three reasons for this:
The EU must hurry if it wants to be at the forefront of AI regulation because work on the regulation of AI is progressing more quickly at the international level. Speed is not a value in itself, but once everyone at the international level has agreed, Europe will have to play by these rules and will no longer be able to put its stamp on the matter.
At their virtual meeting on Friday, the G7 digital and technology ministers agreed on a political framework in the Hiroshima AI Process. The framework, established under Japan’s G7 presidency, includes guidelines and a code of conduct for developers of AI systems. This also includes the OECD report on the development of a common understanding of the G7 on Generative AI and project-based cooperation on AI. The process will be continued under the Italian G7 presidency.
“AI must be developed in line with our values,” said Federal Minister for Digital Affairs Volker Wissing, who represented Germany in the round table. “The G7 Code of Conduct creates the basis for the positive development of AI – AI that people can trust.” He continued: “With this, we show: Democracies can act quickly when it comes to meeting new technologies responsibly. We want to take advantage of this lead and convince partners around the world of the benefits of a value-based use of AI.”
The G7 is working to ensure that other countries, including OECD members in particular, support the Code of Conduct. This is also in the interests of domestic AI developers, explained Wissing. He fears overregulation on the European side. “We have a rapidly growing AI scene, and I want German AI products to be connectable and used worldwide.”
Latvia is still getting to know its new prime minister: Evika Siliņa previously worked mainly behind the scenes. After ongoing disputes in the previous coalition, she now leads a government that is left of center – a peculiarity in the Baltic country.
Latvia has had a new prime minister since mid-September. Evika Siliņa succeeds her party colleague Krišjānis Kariņš, who resigned in August and is now Foreign Minister.
The previous center-right government had collapsed due to the ongoing dispute between the three coalition partners: On the one side was the liberal-conservative alliance Jaunā Vienotība, to which Siliņa and Kariņš belong, and on the other the national-conservative National Alliance and the centrist-conservative United List.
Kariņš had accused his coalition partners of blocking key government projects. The election of Vienotība politician Edgars Rinkēvičs as President of Latvia in May of this year was a turning point. Rinkēvičs was elected with the votes of his party and those of the opposition.
With new partners, the Alliance of Farmers and Greens and the left-leaning Progressives, Siliņa now leads the government – the most liberal in Latvia to date.
Observers regard Siliņa as a surprising choice. Not much is known about the 48-year-old lawyer and her convictions. Before becoming Prime Minister, she was Minister of Social Affairs, albeit for less than a year. “People in the country are still finding out who she is,” says Pauls Raudseps, co-founder and columnist for the magazine “Ir.” Siliņa is seen as quiet and reserved, but has also earned a reputation for doing her job effectively behind the scenes and reaching out to people.
Before embarking on her political career, Siliņa worked as a lawyer and graduated from the Riga Graduate School of Law with a degree in European law, among other things. In 2011, she joined the newly founded Reform Party and ran for the Saeima, the Latvian parliament – but without success. The Reform Party later merged into the ruling party Vienotība.
From 2013 to 2019, she was parliamentary secretary in the Ministry of the Interior, then in the State Chancellery under then Prime Minister Kariņš. In Latvian media, she was repeatedly referred to as his right-hand woman.
When asking which topic concerns her personally the most, the answer is: children’s rights. Siliņa is a mother of three and married.
She attracted attention when she cried during a TV debate. The topic of the discussion was a brutal murder in the city of Jēkabpils. A man had stabbed his ex-wife to death – the woman had previously sought protection from the police several times. The crime horrified the entire country, with several politicians calling for Latvia to finally be one of the last EU countries to ratify the Istanbul Convention on the Protection of Women from Violence.
The new coalition government rushed to get the ratification process underway and at the end of November, after a heated debate, the parliament finally voted in favor. “This government has to prove that it can get things under control,” says journalist Raudseps. “The advantage is that the coalition works well together. That wasn’t the case under Kariņš.”
The Istanbul Convention is not the only issue that the government is tackling quickly: the recognition of same-sex partnerships should also be decided this year. Siliņa had spoken out in favor of this, but it is still a highly controversial issue in Latvia. The Saeima approved an amendment to the law by a narrow majority at the beginning of the month. However, opposition MPs have stopped the law for the time being, and there may now be a referendum.
So, while the country is debating how much progress it is prepared to make, there are a whole host of other pressing issues: for example, the massive rise in energy prices and sharply higher interest rates for home loans, the integration of the Russian minority and the shortage of skilled workers, particularly in the education sector. Latvia is one of the EU countries with the lowest pay for teachers.
The government wants to provide short-term relief for households concerning energy costs and has announced that it will promote competition in the banking sector. The national budget for the coming year focuses primarily on internal and external security as well as education and health.
A few weeks after taking office, Siliņa visited Latvia’s eastern border. Latvia accuses Belarusian ruler Alexander Lukashenko of deliberately smuggling migrants across the border. During her time at the Ministry of the Interior, Siliņa had already made a name for herself as a staunch advocate of a border fence, which is why she is associated with the project in the public eye.
It is therefore unpleasant for her that construction is progressing far more slowly than planned and is overshadowed by allegations of fraud against managers of the construction company responsible. During her visit to the border, she promised that the border fence with both Belarus and Russia would be completed by the end of next year.
Concerning Europe, Siliņa announced a “clear pro-European approach” of her government and spoke out in favor of EU enlargement. Latvia’s solidarity with Ukraine is also undisputed. “My government will continue to urge for the EU’s strong support for Ukraine for as long as it takes,” Siliņa wrote on X (formerly Twitter) just a few days after taking office. The government wants to strengthen the local defense industry, especially in the field of artillery ammunition.
Siliņa is Latvia’s second female prime minister after Laimdota Straujuma, who governed from 2014 to 2016. She completes the group of female heads of government in the Baltic states: Lithuania’s Ingrida Šimonytė and Estonia’s Kaja Kallas are also women at the helm of the country. Sarah Schaefer
The EU finance ministers received a letter from their colleague Vincent Van Peteghem. The Belgian treasurer, currently Chairman of the EIB Board of Governors, is proposing that Spanish Finance Minister Nadia Calviño be appointed to succeed Werner Hoyer at the helm of the EU bank. The ministers have until this evening to decide whether or not to accept the proposal.
After months of soundings by Van Peteghem, one would think his letter to the ministers would have clarified everything. But appearances are deceptive. According to information from Table Media, Calviño’s appointment is anything but certain. Of the big three (member states), only Germany has backed the Spaniard so far. Italy, on the other hand, is backing Calviño’s fiercest rival, Margrethe Vestager from Denmark, and France is still keeping a low profile.
Given the required majority – 68 percent of the capital and 18 member states – the successful appointment will only work under the following conditions: At least two of the big three must be in agreement and the required number of member states must also be on board. And according to reports, Vestager has the edge here. This means that a stalemate is also looming for the meeting of finance ministers (Ecofin) on December 8. If a quick solution is to be found (and the post of head of the bank is not to be included in the big personnel package after the European elections), now is the time for a compromise candidate.
And Van Peteghem reportedly has an ace up his sleeve here: the former Belgian head of government Sophie Wilmès. The financial and economic expert retired from active politics in April 2022 to care for her husband, who was suffering from cancer. He has now recently passed away. If the Belgian wants to return to the political stage, the top job in Luxembourg would be an ideal platform. The assertive Wilmès certainly has what it takes. We will keep you updated.
Europe’s potential winner of the energy transition lies in the north-east of Poland. With 4.9 percent more jobs, the Green Deal could create more new jobs in the Warmińsko-Mazurskie voivodeship by 2050 than anywhere else in the EU, according to a calculation by the Bertelsmann Stiftung in its as yet unpublished study “Energizing EU Cohesion,” which Table.Media obtained in advance. The study examined for over 200 regions in the EU how value creation and employment are developing as a result of the Green Deal energy policy and the goal of climate neutrality.
“Rural regions with a large potential for renewable energies benefit the most, while urban regions that are heavily dependent on carbon-intensive industries tend to experience negative effects,” the authors write. In economically strong regions, employment would fall by up to 2.1 percent.
Overall, however, the foundation expects a welcome equalization of living conditions as a result of the Green Deal. “Targeted energy policy can be cohesion policy if it serves the right regions,” says project manager Thomas Schwab. To achieve this, the two policy areas need to be better coordinated and cohesion funds used accordingly.
In general, urban regions are still more prosperous than rural regions. According to Bertelsmann, the study disproves the prejudice that the Green Deal is an additional burden for people in rural areas. EPP group leader Manfred Weber has been trying for months to use this argument to weaken Ursula von der Leyen’s central project.
According to the EPP, this mainly applies to the agricultural and nature conservation laws of the Green Deal, but also to the Buildings Directive, for example. “The energy transition does not lead to deindustrialization, it compensates for uncertainties,” says Malte Tim Zabel, Co-Director of the “Europe’s Future” program at the Bertelsmann Stiftung.
The redistribution affects regions within EU member states as well as the member states themselves. According to Bertelsmann’s calculations, Berlin, for example, will lose around 26,000 jobs as a result of the energy transition, while Brandenburg could gain over 27,000 jobs.
Within the EU, Masuria is prototypical because, according to the study, value added will increase primarily in Central and Eastern Europe (+0.8%), and to a lesser extent in the West (+0.4%). In contrast, slightly negative effects were seen in Northern and Southern Europe (-0.2%/-0.1%).
The average values are rather low because Bertelsmann did not calculate the effect of the energy transition as a whole but only the additional impact of the Green Deal compared to the energy policy before the von der Leyen cabinet took office.
However, the study also contains a disappointing scenario for the Commission’s latest ambitions: If European manufacturers of energy technology were to double their global market share, value creation in the EU would only increase marginally – the number of jobs would remain unchanged, explains Schwab. So, is the hotly debated industrial policy in Brussels and the European capitals with all its billions in subsidies a waste of time? The expert is Solomon-like: “We did not consider the dimension of de-risking in our study.”
In the long term, the results of the study pose a further challenge for energy policy. Many people are hardly aware that urban areas are among the losers of the transformation. “At the moment, it is more urban regions that are supporting the Green Deal. If negative effects occur, it will be interesting to see whether they continue to show support,” says Schwab.
Bertelsmann sees renewable energy partnerships between cities and the periphery as a model for the future. Such Interreg-funded programs exist in Ireland, for example. “The goal is a long-term commitment,” explains Schwab. “If Berlin, for example, commits to sourcing renewable energy from Brandenburg for the next ten to 30 years, it’s a win-win situation for both regions.”
Following the NIS2 and CER directives, the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) is the next building block for greater security in Europe. The aim of the compromise reached in the final trilogue meeting on Thursday evening: to increase the security of networked light bulbs, thermostats, toasters and webcams in Europe and the security requirements for software. Manufacturers do not have much time: the first obligation comes into force after 18 months.
Anyone buying a networked device today can never be sure how long security updates will be available for it. Depending on the manufacturer, this period can end after just a few months. However, many products are used for years – such as installed webcams, smart doorbells or thermostats. And the software also remains in use for years in many cases. But whether manufacturers still supply updates has not been precisely regulated.
The Cyber Resilience Act is intended to remedy this: In future, it will require suppliers of almost all networked products to provide security-related updates for at least five years as a rule. Manufacturers are to deliver their “products with digital elements” with auto-updates, among other things: as soon as the system is connected to the network, it will automatically download the latest software version. This should also apply to the software itself. The only exception to the regulation is software that can only be used remotely and cannot be operated locally (SaaS). However, anything that runs locally and relies on a server connection is covered by the CRA. Users should be clearly informed when the support period will end.
With the CRA comes the obligation to report security vulnerabilities. This will come into force even before the other obligations from the CRA for manufacturers: actively exploited security gaps must be reported 18 months after the announcement in the EU Official Journal, i.e. probably from late summer 2025. The Commission had called for twelve months, the member states for 24. These gaps must be reported to the national cybersecurity supervisory authorities and the European Network and Information Security Agency ENISA – with short deadlines: the first warning should be sent to the supervisory authorities immediately, but no later than 24 hours after discovery. More detailed information must follow 72 hours after the initial discovery, and a final report must be submitted after 14 days.
According to the regulation, the manufacturer, its representative, the importer or distributor of a “product with digital elements” are responsible for complying with the rules of the CRA. The repercussions for platform operators, for example, who import masses of cheap products from the Far East for which software maintenance has played no role to date – from baby monitors to autonomous lawnmowers – are still hard to predict. However, even after the trilogue, most products are still only subject to the obligation to issue a declaration of conformity. In this declaration, those responsible assure themselves that they comply with the standards and norms and the rules of the CRA. Further certification by third parties is only envisaged for certain product classes.
Free software was discussed particularly intensively right up to the end: software that is fundamentally free and available with its source code forms the backbone of almost all modern-day applications. It can be integrated into other software, for example, to enable effective encryption. It can also be made available to manufacturers and users as a complete package, such as Google’s Android, or as embedded Linux for devices: the diversity of applications is matched by the diversity of providers. A relevant proportion of free and open-source software is managed by foundations that take care of software maintenance. Or it is contributed by unpaid volunteers who work on it out of conviction. At the same time, however, some providers are directly active in the market with software they have adapted themselves.
The negotiators have agreed on a compromise here: Open-source software alone should not bring any relief from the CRA; it must also be freely available in any case. Non-profit foundations are to fall under a “light touch regime” in which they must set up and comply with a “cybersecurity policy.” Pure hobby projects would not be subject to regulation at all. Products that are open source and free, but are only developed by one body and marketed commercially by that body, on the other hand, would be subject to the full CRA regime.
How strict the enforcement will be remains to be seen – when the Cyber Resilience Act comes into force for new products placed on the market from 2027. What is on the market before then will not be subject to the rules. It will therefore be a gradual transition. The market surveillance authorities, which in Germany will have to be mapped in the usual federally complicated networks of responsibilities, will then have to enforce it.
However, the CRA will also be explicitly included among the laws that can be enforced via the right of association. This means that it is not individual, affected consumers who have to take legal action, but qualified representatives.
Intense discussions at the EU ambassador level on Friday afternoon: How should foundation models such as GPT-4 and general purpose AI (GPAI) be regulated in the AI Act? France is opposed to tough regulation and wants “regulated self-regulation” instead. Other countries are somewhat more flexible, even though Germany and Italy had supported the French position in a non-paper. The Spanish Council Presidency nevertheless expressed confidence on Friday that the three countries could be brought back under the Council’s mandate.
This week will be decisive for the AI Act. It is on the agenda of the Council of Digital and Technology Ministers on Tuesday, and the fifth trilogue of the AI Act is scheduled for Wednesday. The Spanish Council Presidency wants to conclude the negotiations. Theoretically, there is still time until February to reach an agreement before the end of the mandate. A delay would bring uncertainty to the process.
There has been no shortage of trials and tribulations in the trilogue so far. The European Parliament, which rejects self-regulation, had written a working paper following the three countries’ non-paper. In it, it attempts to correct misinterpretations of its two-tier approach to the regulation of generative artificial intelligence, according to which powerful models should be regulated more than others. Parliament explains its criteria for classification. It also clarifies once again that regulation should only apply to those models that come onto the market.
Parliament attaches particular importance to ensuring that model developers comply with transparency and documentation obligations and introduce risk management. In this way, they want to protect later users (downstream) from unforeseeable consequences if the models do not perform as they should. However, it was unclear to the Parliament until the weekend what mandate the Spaniards would take into the trilogue on Wednesday.
The positions of the Council and Parliament also differ on other points, such as the use of artificial intelligence in real-time biometric remote surveillance and law enforcement.
MEPs are not the only ones who believe that regulated self-regulation is insufficient for foundation models. This view is also shared by several scientists who have signed a paper by the AI4People Institute. The non-profit institute based in Belgium brings AI companies, scientists, civil society groups and governments together to discuss the risks of AI.
In an open letter to the heads of government of France, Germany and Italy (the initiators of the non-paper), the scientists write that their proposal undermines the effectiveness of the law. It could also pose serious risks to citizens’ rights and European innovation. They put forward three reasons for this:
The EU must hurry if it wants to be at the forefront of AI regulation because work on the regulation of AI is progressing more quickly at the international level. Speed is not a value in itself, but once everyone at the international level has agreed, Europe will have to play by these rules and will no longer be able to put its stamp on the matter.
At their virtual meeting on Friday, the G7 digital and technology ministers agreed on a political framework in the Hiroshima AI Process. The framework, established under Japan’s G7 presidency, includes guidelines and a code of conduct for developers of AI systems. This also includes the OECD report on the development of a common understanding of the G7 on Generative AI and project-based cooperation on AI. The process will be continued under the Italian G7 presidency.
“AI must be developed in line with our values,” said Federal Minister for Digital Affairs Volker Wissing, who represented Germany in the round table. “The G7 Code of Conduct creates the basis for the positive development of AI – AI that people can trust.” He continued: “With this, we show: Democracies can act quickly when it comes to meeting new technologies responsibly. We want to take advantage of this lead and convince partners around the world of the benefits of a value-based use of AI.”
The G7 is working to ensure that other countries, including OECD members in particular, support the Code of Conduct. This is also in the interests of domestic AI developers, explained Wissing. He fears overregulation on the European side. “We have a rapidly growing AI scene, and I want German AI products to be connectable and used worldwide.”
Latvia is still getting to know its new prime minister: Evika Siliņa previously worked mainly behind the scenes. After ongoing disputes in the previous coalition, she now leads a government that is left of center – a peculiarity in the Baltic country.
Latvia has had a new prime minister since mid-September. Evika Siliņa succeeds her party colleague Krišjānis Kariņš, who resigned in August and is now Foreign Minister.
The previous center-right government had collapsed due to the ongoing dispute between the three coalition partners: On the one side was the liberal-conservative alliance Jaunā Vienotība, to which Siliņa and Kariņš belong, and on the other the national-conservative National Alliance and the centrist-conservative United List.
Kariņš had accused his coalition partners of blocking key government projects. The election of Vienotība politician Edgars Rinkēvičs as President of Latvia in May of this year was a turning point. Rinkēvičs was elected with the votes of his party and those of the opposition.
With new partners, the Alliance of Farmers and Greens and the left-leaning Progressives, Siliņa now leads the government – the most liberal in Latvia to date.
Observers regard Siliņa as a surprising choice. Not much is known about the 48-year-old lawyer and her convictions. Before becoming Prime Minister, she was Minister of Social Affairs, albeit for less than a year. “People in the country are still finding out who she is,” says Pauls Raudseps, co-founder and columnist for the magazine “Ir.” Siliņa is seen as quiet and reserved, but has also earned a reputation for doing her job effectively behind the scenes and reaching out to people.
Before embarking on her political career, Siliņa worked as a lawyer and graduated from the Riga Graduate School of Law with a degree in European law, among other things. In 2011, she joined the newly founded Reform Party and ran for the Saeima, the Latvian parliament – but without success. The Reform Party later merged into the ruling party Vienotība.
From 2013 to 2019, she was parliamentary secretary in the Ministry of the Interior, then in the State Chancellery under then Prime Minister Kariņš. In Latvian media, she was repeatedly referred to as his right-hand woman.
When asking which topic concerns her personally the most, the answer is: children’s rights. Siliņa is a mother of three and married.
She attracted attention when she cried during a TV debate. The topic of the discussion was a brutal murder in the city of Jēkabpils. A man had stabbed his ex-wife to death – the woman had previously sought protection from the police several times. The crime horrified the entire country, with several politicians calling for Latvia to finally be one of the last EU countries to ratify the Istanbul Convention on the Protection of Women from Violence.
The new coalition government rushed to get the ratification process underway and at the end of November, after a heated debate, the parliament finally voted in favor. “This government has to prove that it can get things under control,” says journalist Raudseps. “The advantage is that the coalition works well together. That wasn’t the case under Kariņš.”
The Istanbul Convention is not the only issue that the government is tackling quickly: the recognition of same-sex partnerships should also be decided this year. Siliņa had spoken out in favor of this, but it is still a highly controversial issue in Latvia. The Saeima approved an amendment to the law by a narrow majority at the beginning of the month. However, opposition MPs have stopped the law for the time being, and there may now be a referendum.
So, while the country is debating how much progress it is prepared to make, there are a whole host of other pressing issues: for example, the massive rise in energy prices and sharply higher interest rates for home loans, the integration of the Russian minority and the shortage of skilled workers, particularly in the education sector. Latvia is one of the EU countries with the lowest pay for teachers.
The government wants to provide short-term relief for households concerning energy costs and has announced that it will promote competition in the banking sector. The national budget for the coming year focuses primarily on internal and external security as well as education and health.
A few weeks after taking office, Siliņa visited Latvia’s eastern border. Latvia accuses Belarusian ruler Alexander Lukashenko of deliberately smuggling migrants across the border. During her time at the Ministry of the Interior, Siliņa had already made a name for herself as a staunch advocate of a border fence, which is why she is associated with the project in the public eye.
It is therefore unpleasant for her that construction is progressing far more slowly than planned and is overshadowed by allegations of fraud against managers of the construction company responsible. During her visit to the border, she promised that the border fence with both Belarus and Russia would be completed by the end of next year.
Concerning Europe, Siliņa announced a “clear pro-European approach” of her government and spoke out in favor of EU enlargement. Latvia’s solidarity with Ukraine is also undisputed. “My government will continue to urge for the EU’s strong support for Ukraine for as long as it takes,” Siliņa wrote on X (formerly Twitter) just a few days after taking office. The government wants to strengthen the local defense industry, especially in the field of artillery ammunition.
Siliņa is Latvia’s second female prime minister after Laimdota Straujuma, who governed from 2014 to 2016. She completes the group of female heads of government in the Baltic states: Lithuania’s Ingrida Šimonytė and Estonia’s Kaja Kallas are also women at the helm of the country. Sarah Schaefer
