Your contact for new licenses
What a day. The USA elects disruptor-in-chief Donald Trump as POTUS, and the government coalition in Germany collapses. On Nov. 6, 2024, the world seems to have gone a little further off the rails.
However, early elections in Germany (probably in March) are not necessarily bad news for the European Union. The divided coalition would hardly have been able to act. In any case, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has not imposed himself as a leader for the other EU states during his three years in office.
What is really worrying is the deeper reason for the failure of the traffic light coalition: The unwillingness of the three supposed partners to compromise. Neither the SPD nor the Greens and certainly not the FDP were willing or able to look beyond their own beliefs. Scholz therefore accused Christian Lindner of acting “irresponsibly” in a remarkable reckoning in the evening. But the FDP leader is not the only scapegoat.
However, when parties in the democratic center are no longer capable of constructive cooperation, they deepen the polarization of society and pave the way for those who despise democracy. The USA is a cautionary example of this.
Mr. Juncker, what does the return of Donald Trump mean for Europe?
Trump has a view of Europe that is not very well-informed and is sometimes distorted. He thinks that the European Union is an invention of the Europeans against the USA, which is not true. You have to keep emphasizing what we have achieved together and back it up with facts, which he is sometimes receptive to and sometimes not. If you start talking to him, his interest in Europe grows.
Trump comes into his second term better prepared than he was for his first in 2016. Do you expect him to be even more aggressive?
He became president in 2016 without having seriously entertained the expectation. I assume that he is better prepared today. For the European Union, we need to pick up where we left him in 2020.
What specific advice do you have?
We must now meet him on an equal footing and make it clear that the European Union is not just a bunch of member states thrown together, but a consolidated European entity. It has always been the endeavor of all American presidents, as well as the Russian and Chinese presidents, to break down the European Union into its constituent parts through bilateral contacts with the governments. We must make it clear that we are capable of putting forward our views uniformly when the need arises.
Is the European Union even united and capable of acting here?
It is important that we achieve a unified view of our relations with the United States. That is an arduous process. But if we fail to do so, we will always remain number two in our relationship with America.
Who can take the lead? Germany and France are paralyzed by government crises.
It requires Germany’s fragmented political landscape to be put back together again. And for French politics to show that it is not fragmented when it comes to representing continental interests. It would also be good if the Franco-German relationship became closer and more powerful than it currently appears to be.
Nationalist forces such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán feel boosted by Donald Trump’s election victory. Do you believe that these forces will become stronger – and with them the centrifugal forces in the EU?
I wouldn’t say that I don’t fear that. One thing must be made clear to those who leave the common path: They alone only supposedly count in relation to the USA, despite all the friendly words exchanged. And that we can only successfully represent our interests if we speak with one voice. This applies above all to trade issues.
As President of the European Commission, you negotiated with Trump to avert high tariffs on European cars.
In 2018, I managed to strike a deal with Trump that brought the American trade war against Europe to an end or at least interrupted it. If you make it clear to the American President that the European Commission has exclusive competence in trade matters, then we will succeed in making the European voice heard on an equal footing.
From your conversations with Donald Trump: What is the best way to deal with his unpredictability?
Firstly, he must be taken seriously. He is the elected president of the Americans, who can call the approval of large sections of American society his own. Secondly, we must try to realize what his domestic policy problems are during the negotiations. “America first” means that American domestic policy is dominant. So you have to find out exactly what the Americans’ expectations are and where concessions from the Europeans will make it possible to conclude more global deals than initially thought. In 2018, Trump was particularly concerned about farmers, which we have addressed.
Did you think it was wise to offer him another trade package for higher US exports to Europe, similar to what you did back then?
That depends on the specific steps that Trump will take. I assume that he still has problems with the US bilateral trade deficit. You have to explain to him that there is not only the exchange of goods but also the exchange of financial services. Taking both together, the USA has a positive trade balance with Europe. You have to insist on this again and again. He is not deaf when you present European arguments rationally and at the same time point out that European concerns are also partly American concerns.
In view of the geopolitical situation, Europe has little choice but to come to terms with Trump. China and Russia have forged an alliance, and Joe Biden, a staunch transatlanticist, is now leaving.
We have to get involved in the complicated relationship between China and the USA in such a way that the European Union’s independence is not downplayed by the others. But the situation is difficult. I know from my conversations with Trump that he has always wanted a close relationship with Russia.
At the beginning of his first term in the White House, he expressed great respect for the Chinese president, whom he described as a wise leader. The US-China relationship has darkened in recent years. We must try to de-risk China in such a way that we do not appear to be unconditional allies of the US in the eyes of the Chinese. And we must make it clear in our contacts with the Americans that China cannot be pushed to the sidelines of international relations.
Following Donald Trump’s election victory, the European Union is struggling to find its ability to act. At a dinner in Budapest on the eve of the informal EU summit, the heads of state and government will discuss possible consequences today, with diplomats expecting a “very open” debate. Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke to French President Emmanuel Macron on the phone on Wednesday morning. They will “coordinate closely in Budapest and continue to do so in the coming weeks”, said Scholz.
The discussions within Europe will be anything but easy. It is no secret that the vast majority of EU heads of state and government were counting on a different election outcome. The reactions of Scholz and Macron sounded like incantations. Germany and the United States are bound by a “partnership – indeed, friendship – that has grown over decades”, said Scholz. “That’s why we are better off together!”
Viktor Orbán‘s reaction was quite different: Hungary’s Prime Minister congratulated former and future US President Trump on the “greatest comeback” in American history. It was a “much-needed victory for the world”. Orbán sees himself in pole position in the race to win the returnee’s favor.
The Hungarian will want to use his connection to Trump for his own purposes in order to increase his weight in Europe. Other nationalist and radical right-wing forces that are ideologically close to Trump will also try to do so. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders congratulated the election winner in capital letters. AfD leader Alice Weidel is betting that Trump’s comeback will give her party a tailwind in the next elections. Italy’s right-wing head of government Giorgia Meloni congratulated Trump and pointed out that Italy and the USA had “a strategic bond that will certainly be strengthened now”.
The traditional heavyweights, on the other hand, are no longer leading figures: Scholz is fighting for the survival of his government. Macron will see his campaign for more “European sovereignty” confirmed, but the president has lost a lot of authority. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk, on the other hand, is being held back by his country’s dependence on the USA as a security guarantor.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the new Council President António Costa are therefore likely to have a leadership role to play. They must try to keep the EU states together where Trump is trying to divide them with bilateral offers. There is a real danger that centrifugal forces will become stronger.
In Brussels, the diplomats are encouraging each other. They want to emphasize their common interests and show their willingness to engage in dialogue. They were taken by surprise in 2016, but then quickly managed to find a working basis. This time, at least they know what to expect.
Moritz Schularick believes this is an illusion: “The big difference is that Trump is now prepared and we are not”, warned the President of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy at a Table.Briefings event. There are some indications that the returnee will pursue his agenda unchecked this time and show even less consideration for allies. Even if they – like Orbán or Wilders – are ideologically close to him: High tariffs, for example, would also affect the Hungarian or Dutch economy.
CDU leader Friedrich Merz also sees Trump in a stronger starting position than in 2016, especially as the Republicans also control the Senate and House of Representatives. Merz expects that the Europeans will now be confronted with “a new phase of strong protectionism and very high tariffs”.
The EU should not react to this by sealing off its own markets, he demanded at an event at the Jacques Delors Center of the Berlin Hertie School. Instead, it should strive for slimmed-down free trade agreements with countries such as India or Indonesia – and possibly even with China. To achieve this, however, the competitiveness of European companies must be strengthened.
In order to avert a trade war, von der Leyen could offer Trump a deal that increases US exports to Europe. In this way, her predecessor Jean-Claude Juncker was able to dissuade the US President from imposing high tariffs on European cars. (See the Interview with Juncker in this issue.) The Commission is preparing countermeasures in case Trump rejects the offer and raises tariffs across the board as threatened.
The challenges for Europeans in security policy could become even greater. The European allies have taken on more responsibility in recent years, as Scholz emphasized. However, the higher defense budgets are still far too low to be able to do without the American protective umbrella. The same applies to support for Ukraine, where the USA continues to bear the main burden when it comes to armaments. The security policy dependency on the USA in turn makes the EU “totally vulnerable to economic blackmail”, says Schularick.
It is unlikely that the Europeans will have the strength to fill the gap if the USA fails to support Ukraine. If Vladimir Putin triumphs in his war of aggression against the neighboring country, Europe will face completely different questions concerning security on its eastern flank.
Federal Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius traveled to Paris on Wednesday evening to meet his French counterpart Sébastien Lecornu and send a signal of Franco-German unity. He suggested the meeting to his counterpart on Wednesday during a telephone call “over breakfast”, said Pistorius. The German defense minister announced that he would organize a meeting in Berlin with the defense ministers of France, Poland, Great Britain and Italy within the next two weeks.
Von der Leyen also wants to appoint Andrius Kubilius as her own Defense Commissioner, who will primarily support the ramp-up of arms production and encourage the EU states to procure more weapons together. During his hearing in the EU Parliament, the Lithuanian said that it was foreseeable that the USA would focus on the strategic challenge posed by China. This long-term shift makes an independent European defense strategy more necessary than ever. Kubilius also referred to intelligence services’ findings that Russia could put the EU and NATO to the test by the end of the decade.
Europe must spend more money on defense, use the funds better, and spend them in Europe if possible, Kubilius emphasized. The scarce money must be used to strengthen the European arms industry. In the event of war, it is important that the arms industry does not produce too far away from the front line. The EU states also need weapons whose use is not tied to any conditions. Kubilius put the requirement for the next few years at €500 billion.
The candidate for the post of Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, Olivér Várhelyi, has a distinctly EU biography. He was very open about his CV at the hearing of the Agriculture and Environment, AGRI and ENVI Committees. In his introductory remarks, the 52-year-old lawyer, who is not a member of Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party, explains in detail in slightly Americanized English what he has already done in Brussels: Among other things, he was Head of Unit in the Commission, Permanent Representative of his country to the EU and, for the past five years, Enlargement Commissioner in the Von der Leyen Commission I.
Várhelyi made a visible effort to approach Parliament. He always responded objectively. He also apologized personally for calling MEPs “idiots” in the European Parliament in Strasbourg last year. He had not meant anyone personally. The Hungarian presented his substantive plans in both major areas of the portfolio in a technically convincing manner. He cut a confident figure and said nothing that could be interpreted to his disadvantage.
Nevertheless, he was not nominated. The Greens, S&D and Liberals refused to support him in the coordinators’ round. The ECR and the two radical right-wing groups voted in his favor. The EPP had no objections to his appearance but did not want to join the radical right-wing groups.
Orbán had threatened to withdraw his candidate if he had to attend a second oral hearing. The EPP finally succeeded in having Várhelyi answer new written questions, which must be submitted on Monday. The round of coordinators will then decide on the nomination on Monday, for which a two-thirds majority is still required. The pressure on the Socialists should then be great to vote in favor, because one day later the Socialist Teresa Ribera will attend the hearing as Executive Vice-President. A rejection of Várhelyi could significantly worsen her chances of obtaining the necessary majority.
Before the three-hour hearing took place, there was a scandal. The S&D, Renew and Greens made it clear that Várhelyi – however he would perform – would have to attend a second hearing anyway. The candidate is said to have protested against the announcement that he would have to sit in detention regardless of his performance and threatened to withdraw from the application.
According to information available to Table.Briefings, this led to a crisis meeting between the group leaders Manfred Weber (EPP), Iratxe Gárcia (S&D) and Válerie Hayer (Renew). Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is also said to have been present. Apparently, it was possible to calm the waters. It was decided that Várhelyi should also be given a chance, just like all the other Commissioners.
The aim is to improve the health of citizens, said Várhelyi. His plans:
In the subsequent four rounds of questions, it became clear that the candidate was met with great reservations among the MEPs. The MEPs from the more left-wing ENVI in particular insinuated a close political affinity with Viktor Orbán in their questions. EPP coordinator Peter Liese, for example, criticized Hungary for using the Russian Covid vaccine Sputnik. However, the candidate remained unperturbed and, when asked, emphasized that the EU Medicines Agency (EMA) was the only legitimate regulatory authority. This would also remain the case in the event of a new pandemic.
S&D coordinator Christophe Clergeau called for a commitment that transgender should not be treated as an illness. He also demanded a commitment from Várhelyi to support an EU plan for legalized and decriminalized abortion. Even when asked, the candidate maintained that abortion was the responsibility of the member states.
When asked about specific measures that he wanted to implement in the first hundred days to improve animal welfare, Várhelyi mentioned animal transport and cage farming. He then referred to a recent case of blatant cruelty to animals during a livestock transport on the Bulgarian-Turkish border and said: “First of all, I must ensure that the existing rules for animal transportation are adhered to.”
When German AfD MEP Anja Arndt came out as anti-vaxx and asked for support for opponents of Covid vaccinations, he explicitly distanced himself. He then received widespread applause. He did not doubt that the vaccines approved by the EMA were safe.
She did not let technical issues get in the way: Maria Luís Albuquerque, former Portuguese Finance Minister, long-time employee of the financial administration and most recently a banker, knows her subject matter inside out. The coordinators of the EU Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) rewarded this by confirming Albuquerque as Commissioner for Financial Markets. Only the left-wing group and the far-right ESN group voted against Albuquerque in the coordinators’ vote, as confirmed by several parliamentary sources.
Albuquerque mastered her hearing without making any major promises to Parliament that went beyond the content of her mission letter. She avoided offending the major political groups. Committee member Markus Ferber (CSU) said that he was “very satisfied” with what the Commissioner-designate said during the three-hour hearing. Green coordinator Kira Marie Peter-Hansen and Liberal coordinator Stéphanie Yon-Courtin were also positive.
Albuquerque’s positions were moderate on practically all issues:
There were critical questions from the left and right about Albuquerque’s professional past. Shortly after her term as Portuguese Finance Minister, she began working for a London-based asset manager while continuing to sit in the Portuguese parliament. Until recently, she also worked for the European branch of Morgan Stanley.
Albuquerque assured the MEPs that, as a non-executive director, she had not been directly involved in day-to-day business decisions. Instead, she had a supervisory role within the company. One of her tasks was to ensure that the applicable regulations were adhered to.
Jozef Síkela wants to drive forward Brussels’ Global Gateway infrastructure initiative as the designated EU Commissioner for International Partnerships. He was confirmed for the post on Wednesday. At the hearing in the EU Parliament, it became clear that the EU is still struggling with the definition of the initiative, which is supposed to be an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Is Global Gateway official development assistance, a “partnership of equals” with investments – or both?
All descriptions were mentioned at Síkela’s hearing. The EU wants to pursue a “Team Europe” approach – but the definition remains vague, for example with regard to the question of how much funding comes from which sources and who is responsible. This has not made it easy for Global Gateway to present itself to the outside world. The designated EU Commissioner wants to change this, among other things through closer contact with civil society organizations in the partner countries. “We need more visibility.”
According to Síkela, one thing is clear: Global Gateway urgently needs to acquire massive funding from the private sector. The banker wants to work more closely with the development banks in the EU member states and the European Investment Bank (EIB). Síkela also sees work to be done in marketing and communication in order to take Global Gateway from “start-up to scale-up“.
The Czech outlined six points for the successful implementation of Global Gateway:
Síkela openly criticized the BRI at his hearing: “Our partners need more from Europe. Recently, however, they have received more attention from assertive actors with aggressive approaches that bring little development and few clear benefits”, he said in a clear reference to China. The People’s Republic is not doing a good job with the BRI, said Síkela. “In some countries, there is great disappointment with Chinese activities”, he stated, citing the rights of indigenous peoples in relation to land grabbing as an example. “I have received a strong call for more European presence.”
The politician remained vague on the topics of transparency and tracking. “Of course there has to be measurability”, said Síkela. He was prepared to discuss the options for doing so. The EU parliamentarians criticized the fact that monitoring Global Gateway and the associated use of taxpayers’ money had been difficult up to now – because there was no information. Síkela promised improvement in this area. “I have no problem with monitoring.”
“I very much hope that we were able to convince Mr. Síkela today to push ahead with Global Gateway 2.0”, S&D MEP Udo Bullmann told Table.Briefings after the hearing. “He will only be successful with Global Gateway if he aligns his strategy with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and involves relevant stakeholders, such as the European Parliament as budget legislator, appropriately.” Bullmann is critical of the current Global Gateway approach: “Not only because we do not give our partner countries enough of a say, but also because the European Parliament and civil society organizations are not sufficiently involved in the evaluation of the results.”
What a day. The USA elects disruptor-in-chief Donald Trump as POTUS, and the government coalition in Germany collapses. On Nov. 6, 2024, the world seems to have gone a little further off the rails.
However, early elections in Germany (probably in March) are not necessarily bad news for the European Union. The divided coalition would hardly have been able to act. In any case, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has not imposed himself as a leader for the other EU states during his three years in office.
What is really worrying is the deeper reason for the failure of the traffic light coalition: The unwillingness of the three supposed partners to compromise. Neither the SPD nor the Greens and certainly not the FDP were willing or able to look beyond their own beliefs. Scholz therefore accused Christian Lindner of acting “irresponsibly” in a remarkable reckoning in the evening. But the FDP leader is not the only scapegoat.
However, when parties in the democratic center are no longer capable of constructive cooperation, they deepen the polarization of society and pave the way for those who despise democracy. The USA is a cautionary example of this.
Mr. Juncker, what does the return of Donald Trump mean for Europe?
Trump has a view of Europe that is not very well-informed and is sometimes distorted. He thinks that the European Union is an invention of the Europeans against the USA, which is not true. You have to keep emphasizing what we have achieved together and back it up with facts, which he is sometimes receptive to and sometimes not. If you start talking to him, his interest in Europe grows.
Trump comes into his second term better prepared than he was for his first in 2016. Do you expect him to be even more aggressive?
He became president in 2016 without having seriously entertained the expectation. I assume that he is better prepared today. For the European Union, we need to pick up where we left him in 2020.
What specific advice do you have?
We must now meet him on an equal footing and make it clear that the European Union is not just a bunch of member states thrown together, but a consolidated European entity. It has always been the endeavor of all American presidents, as well as the Russian and Chinese presidents, to break down the European Union into its constituent parts through bilateral contacts with the governments. We must make it clear that we are capable of putting forward our views uniformly when the need arises.
Is the European Union even united and capable of acting here?
It is important that we achieve a unified view of our relations with the United States. That is an arduous process. But if we fail to do so, we will always remain number two in our relationship with America.
Who can take the lead? Germany and France are paralyzed by government crises.
It requires Germany’s fragmented political landscape to be put back together again. And for French politics to show that it is not fragmented when it comes to representing continental interests. It would also be good if the Franco-German relationship became closer and more powerful than it currently appears to be.
Nationalist forces such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán feel boosted by Donald Trump’s election victory. Do you believe that these forces will become stronger – and with them the centrifugal forces in the EU?
I wouldn’t say that I don’t fear that. One thing must be made clear to those who leave the common path: They alone only supposedly count in relation to the USA, despite all the friendly words exchanged. And that we can only successfully represent our interests if we speak with one voice. This applies above all to trade issues.
As President of the European Commission, you negotiated with Trump to avert high tariffs on European cars.
In 2018, I managed to strike a deal with Trump that brought the American trade war against Europe to an end or at least interrupted it. If you make it clear to the American President that the European Commission has exclusive competence in trade matters, then we will succeed in making the European voice heard on an equal footing.
From your conversations with Donald Trump: What is the best way to deal with his unpredictability?
Firstly, he must be taken seriously. He is the elected president of the Americans, who can call the approval of large sections of American society his own. Secondly, we must try to realize what his domestic policy problems are during the negotiations. “America first” means that American domestic policy is dominant. So you have to find out exactly what the Americans’ expectations are and where concessions from the Europeans will make it possible to conclude more global deals than initially thought. In 2018, Trump was particularly concerned about farmers, which we have addressed.
Did you think it was wise to offer him another trade package for higher US exports to Europe, similar to what you did back then?
That depends on the specific steps that Trump will take. I assume that he still has problems with the US bilateral trade deficit. You have to explain to him that there is not only the exchange of goods but also the exchange of financial services. Taking both together, the USA has a positive trade balance with Europe. You have to insist on this again and again. He is not deaf when you present European arguments rationally and at the same time point out that European concerns are also partly American concerns.
In view of the geopolitical situation, Europe has little choice but to come to terms with Trump. China and Russia have forged an alliance, and Joe Biden, a staunch transatlanticist, is now leaving.
We have to get involved in the complicated relationship between China and the USA in such a way that the European Union’s independence is not downplayed by the others. But the situation is difficult. I know from my conversations with Trump that he has always wanted a close relationship with Russia.
At the beginning of his first term in the White House, he expressed great respect for the Chinese president, whom he described as a wise leader. The US-China relationship has darkened in recent years. We must try to de-risk China in such a way that we do not appear to be unconditional allies of the US in the eyes of the Chinese. And we must make it clear in our contacts with the Americans that China cannot be pushed to the sidelines of international relations.
Following Donald Trump’s election victory, the European Union is struggling to find its ability to act. At a dinner in Budapest on the eve of the informal EU summit, the heads of state and government will discuss possible consequences today, with diplomats expecting a “very open” debate. Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke to French President Emmanuel Macron on the phone on Wednesday morning. They will “coordinate closely in Budapest and continue to do so in the coming weeks”, said Scholz.
The discussions within Europe will be anything but easy. It is no secret that the vast majority of EU heads of state and government were counting on a different election outcome. The reactions of Scholz and Macron sounded like incantations. Germany and the United States are bound by a “partnership – indeed, friendship – that has grown over decades”, said Scholz. “That’s why we are better off together!”
Viktor Orbán‘s reaction was quite different: Hungary’s Prime Minister congratulated former and future US President Trump on the “greatest comeback” in American history. It was a “much-needed victory for the world”. Orbán sees himself in pole position in the race to win the returnee’s favor.
The Hungarian will want to use his connection to Trump for his own purposes in order to increase his weight in Europe. Other nationalist and radical right-wing forces that are ideologically close to Trump will also try to do so. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders congratulated the election winner in capital letters. AfD leader Alice Weidel is betting that Trump’s comeback will give her party a tailwind in the next elections. Italy’s right-wing head of government Giorgia Meloni congratulated Trump and pointed out that Italy and the USA had “a strategic bond that will certainly be strengthened now”.
The traditional heavyweights, on the other hand, are no longer leading figures: Scholz is fighting for the survival of his government. Macron will see his campaign for more “European sovereignty” confirmed, but the president has lost a lot of authority. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk, on the other hand, is being held back by his country’s dependence on the USA as a security guarantor.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the new Council President António Costa are therefore likely to have a leadership role to play. They must try to keep the EU states together where Trump is trying to divide them with bilateral offers. There is a real danger that centrifugal forces will become stronger.
In Brussels, the diplomats are encouraging each other. They want to emphasize their common interests and show their willingness to engage in dialogue. They were taken by surprise in 2016, but then quickly managed to find a working basis. This time, at least they know what to expect.
Moritz Schularick believes this is an illusion: “The big difference is that Trump is now prepared and we are not”, warned the President of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy at a Table.Briefings event. There are some indications that the returnee will pursue his agenda unchecked this time and show even less consideration for allies. Even if they – like Orbán or Wilders – are ideologically close to him: High tariffs, for example, would also affect the Hungarian or Dutch economy.
CDU leader Friedrich Merz also sees Trump in a stronger starting position than in 2016, especially as the Republicans also control the Senate and House of Representatives. Merz expects that the Europeans will now be confronted with “a new phase of strong protectionism and very high tariffs”.
The EU should not react to this by sealing off its own markets, he demanded at an event at the Jacques Delors Center of the Berlin Hertie School. Instead, it should strive for slimmed-down free trade agreements with countries such as India or Indonesia – and possibly even with China. To achieve this, however, the competitiveness of European companies must be strengthened.
In order to avert a trade war, von der Leyen could offer Trump a deal that increases US exports to Europe. In this way, her predecessor Jean-Claude Juncker was able to dissuade the US President from imposing high tariffs on European cars. (See the Interview with Juncker in this issue.) The Commission is preparing countermeasures in case Trump rejects the offer and raises tariffs across the board as threatened.
The challenges for Europeans in security policy could become even greater. The European allies have taken on more responsibility in recent years, as Scholz emphasized. However, the higher defense budgets are still far too low to be able to do without the American protective umbrella. The same applies to support for Ukraine, where the USA continues to bear the main burden when it comes to armaments. The security policy dependency on the USA in turn makes the EU “totally vulnerable to economic blackmail”, says Schularick.
It is unlikely that the Europeans will have the strength to fill the gap if the USA fails to support Ukraine. If Vladimir Putin triumphs in his war of aggression against the neighboring country, Europe will face completely different questions concerning security on its eastern flank.
Federal Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius traveled to Paris on Wednesday evening to meet his French counterpart Sébastien Lecornu and send a signal of Franco-German unity. He suggested the meeting to his counterpart on Wednesday during a telephone call “over breakfast”, said Pistorius. The German defense minister announced that he would organize a meeting in Berlin with the defense ministers of France, Poland, Great Britain and Italy within the next two weeks.
Von der Leyen also wants to appoint Andrius Kubilius as her own Defense Commissioner, who will primarily support the ramp-up of arms production and encourage the EU states to procure more weapons together. During his hearing in the EU Parliament, the Lithuanian said that it was foreseeable that the USA would focus on the strategic challenge posed by China. This long-term shift makes an independent European defense strategy more necessary than ever. Kubilius also referred to intelligence services’ findings that Russia could put the EU and NATO to the test by the end of the decade.
Europe must spend more money on defense, use the funds better, and spend them in Europe if possible, Kubilius emphasized. The scarce money must be used to strengthen the European arms industry. In the event of war, it is important that the arms industry does not produce too far away from the front line. The EU states also need weapons whose use is not tied to any conditions. Kubilius put the requirement for the next few years at €500 billion.
The candidate for the post of Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, Olivér Várhelyi, has a distinctly EU biography. He was very open about his CV at the hearing of the Agriculture and Environment, AGRI and ENVI Committees. In his introductory remarks, the 52-year-old lawyer, who is not a member of Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party, explains in detail in slightly Americanized English what he has already done in Brussels: Among other things, he was Head of Unit in the Commission, Permanent Representative of his country to the EU and, for the past five years, Enlargement Commissioner in the Von der Leyen Commission I.
Várhelyi made a visible effort to approach Parliament. He always responded objectively. He also apologized personally for calling MEPs “idiots” in the European Parliament in Strasbourg last year. He had not meant anyone personally. The Hungarian presented his substantive plans in both major areas of the portfolio in a technically convincing manner. He cut a confident figure and said nothing that could be interpreted to his disadvantage.
Nevertheless, he was not nominated. The Greens, S&D and Liberals refused to support him in the coordinators’ round. The ECR and the two radical right-wing groups voted in his favor. The EPP had no objections to his appearance but did not want to join the radical right-wing groups.
Orbán had threatened to withdraw his candidate if he had to attend a second oral hearing. The EPP finally succeeded in having Várhelyi answer new written questions, which must be submitted on Monday. The round of coordinators will then decide on the nomination on Monday, for which a two-thirds majority is still required. The pressure on the Socialists should then be great to vote in favor, because one day later the Socialist Teresa Ribera will attend the hearing as Executive Vice-President. A rejection of Várhelyi could significantly worsen her chances of obtaining the necessary majority.
Before the three-hour hearing took place, there was a scandal. The S&D, Renew and Greens made it clear that Várhelyi – however he would perform – would have to attend a second hearing anyway. The candidate is said to have protested against the announcement that he would have to sit in detention regardless of his performance and threatened to withdraw from the application.
According to information available to Table.Briefings, this led to a crisis meeting between the group leaders Manfred Weber (EPP), Iratxe Gárcia (S&D) and Válerie Hayer (Renew). Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is also said to have been present. Apparently, it was possible to calm the waters. It was decided that Várhelyi should also be given a chance, just like all the other Commissioners.
The aim is to improve the health of citizens, said Várhelyi. His plans:
In the subsequent four rounds of questions, it became clear that the candidate was met with great reservations among the MEPs. The MEPs from the more left-wing ENVI in particular insinuated a close political affinity with Viktor Orbán in their questions. EPP coordinator Peter Liese, for example, criticized Hungary for using the Russian Covid vaccine Sputnik. However, the candidate remained unperturbed and, when asked, emphasized that the EU Medicines Agency (EMA) was the only legitimate regulatory authority. This would also remain the case in the event of a new pandemic.
S&D coordinator Christophe Clergeau called for a commitment that transgender should not be treated as an illness. He also demanded a commitment from Várhelyi to support an EU plan for legalized and decriminalized abortion. Even when asked, the candidate maintained that abortion was the responsibility of the member states.
When asked about specific measures that he wanted to implement in the first hundred days to improve animal welfare, Várhelyi mentioned animal transport and cage farming. He then referred to a recent case of blatant cruelty to animals during a livestock transport on the Bulgarian-Turkish border and said: “First of all, I must ensure that the existing rules for animal transportation are adhered to.”
When German AfD MEP Anja Arndt came out as anti-vaxx and asked for support for opponents of Covid vaccinations, he explicitly distanced himself. He then received widespread applause. He did not doubt that the vaccines approved by the EMA were safe.
She did not let technical issues get in the way: Maria Luís Albuquerque, former Portuguese Finance Minister, long-time employee of the financial administration and most recently a banker, knows her subject matter inside out. The coordinators of the EU Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) rewarded this by confirming Albuquerque as Commissioner for Financial Markets. Only the left-wing group and the far-right ESN group voted against Albuquerque in the coordinators’ vote, as confirmed by several parliamentary sources.
Albuquerque mastered her hearing without making any major promises to Parliament that went beyond the content of her mission letter. She avoided offending the major political groups. Committee member Markus Ferber (CSU) said that he was “very satisfied” with what the Commissioner-designate said during the three-hour hearing. Green coordinator Kira Marie Peter-Hansen and Liberal coordinator Stéphanie Yon-Courtin were also positive.
Albuquerque’s positions were moderate on practically all issues:
There were critical questions from the left and right about Albuquerque’s professional past. Shortly after her term as Portuguese Finance Minister, she began working for a London-based asset manager while continuing to sit in the Portuguese parliament. Until recently, she also worked for the European branch of Morgan Stanley.
Albuquerque assured the MEPs that, as a non-executive director, she had not been directly involved in day-to-day business decisions. Instead, she had a supervisory role within the company. One of her tasks was to ensure that the applicable regulations were adhered to.
Jozef Síkela wants to drive forward Brussels’ Global Gateway infrastructure initiative as the designated EU Commissioner for International Partnerships. He was confirmed for the post on Wednesday. At the hearing in the EU Parliament, it became clear that the EU is still struggling with the definition of the initiative, which is supposed to be an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Is Global Gateway official development assistance, a “partnership of equals” with investments – or both?
All descriptions were mentioned at Síkela’s hearing. The EU wants to pursue a “Team Europe” approach – but the definition remains vague, for example with regard to the question of how much funding comes from which sources and who is responsible. This has not made it easy for Global Gateway to present itself to the outside world. The designated EU Commissioner wants to change this, among other things through closer contact with civil society organizations in the partner countries. “We need more visibility.”
According to Síkela, one thing is clear: Global Gateway urgently needs to acquire massive funding from the private sector. The banker wants to work more closely with the development banks in the EU member states and the European Investment Bank (EIB). Síkela also sees work to be done in marketing and communication in order to take Global Gateway from “start-up to scale-up“.
The Czech outlined six points for the successful implementation of Global Gateway:
Síkela openly criticized the BRI at his hearing: “Our partners need more from Europe. Recently, however, they have received more attention from assertive actors with aggressive approaches that bring little development and few clear benefits”, he said in a clear reference to China. The People’s Republic is not doing a good job with the BRI, said Síkela. “In some countries, there is great disappointment with Chinese activities”, he stated, citing the rights of indigenous peoples in relation to land grabbing as an example. “I have received a strong call for more European presence.”
The politician remained vague on the topics of transparency and tracking. “Of course there has to be measurability”, said Síkela. He was prepared to discuss the options for doing so. The EU parliamentarians criticized the fact that monitoring Global Gateway and the associated use of taxpayers’ money had been difficult up to now – because there was no information. Síkela promised improvement in this area. “I have no problem with monitoring.”
“I very much hope that we were able to convince Mr. Síkela today to push ahead with Global Gateway 2.0”, S&D MEP Udo Bullmann told Table.Briefings after the hearing. “He will only be successful with Global Gateway if he aligns his strategy with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and involves relevant stakeholders, such as the European Parliament as budget legislator, appropriately.” Bullmann is critical of the current Global Gateway approach: “Not only because we do not give our partner countries enough of a say, but also because the European Parliament and civil society organizations are not sufficiently involved in the evaluation of the results.”