The initiative came from the Commission President: shortly before Christmas, Ursula von der Leyen proposed lowering the protection status of the wolf from “strictly protected” to “protected.” The EU should advocate this within the framework of the Bern Convention of the Council of Europe. In a second step, the Commission would then have amended the Habitats Directive accordingly, thus enabling more active management of wolf populations. This would mean significantly more removals, i.e. not just the shooting of conspicuous specimens.
This initiative is currently coming to nothing. There is no qualified majority among the member states. Germany, which would have to abstain due to the opposition of Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens), plays a key role here. The large Member States Italy and France, Poland and Romania are in favor of von der Leyen’s initiative. However, this is not sufficient, especially as Spain would not be in favor either. In view of the lack of prospects for a majority, the Belgian Council Presidency has not yet put the matter to a vote in the Council of Environment Ministers. She also does not want to take the oath in the circle of Permanent Representatives this Wednesday.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the plan will not come to fruition before the European elections. The push for more active wolf management is thus probably over for the next few years. Have a good day!
The President of the Jacques Delors Institute, Enrico Letta, calls for more harmonization of rules in the European single market. In his Report on the Future of the Single Market, parts of which are available to Table.Briefings, Letta writes that many companies suffer from the bureaucratic burden caused largely by overlapping regulations in the EU’s complex multi-level system.
In order to create more clarity here, the EU institutions should “give clear priority to the use of regulations when formulating internal market rules.” If the use of a directive cannot be avoided, the member states should “show more discipline” and not introduce measures that go beyond what is absolutely necessary in accordance with the directive. In his report, Letta also advocates a “European Code of Business Law” in order to level out the differences in company law in the member states.
The states had commissioned the former Italian Prime Minister with the report. On Monday, he sent a draft of the “political introduction” to the governments. The heads of state and government want to discuss Europe’s competitiveness at their special summit on Wednesday and Thursday.
In his introduction, Letta identifies an urgent need for action to ensure that the EU does not continue to lose ground to the USA and China. While per capita economic output in the USA rose by almost 60 percent between 1993 and 2022, growth in Europe was less than half as high, he writes. The cornerstones of the European success model, free trade and openness, are also jeopardized by geopolitical tensions.
Among other things, Letta is in favor of strengthening the freedom of research. He calls for research and development to be elevated to a 5th freedom in the internal market, alongside the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. The aim is to “place research and innovation at the heart of the single market and thus promote an ecosystem.” Europe could benefit from this in areas such as artificial intelligence, biotech and especially in the healthcare sector.
Letta also sees an “urgent need to catch up” in strengthening the single market for financial services, energy and digital communication. When referring to financial services, Letta does not use the usual EU term “capital markets union,” but instead speaks of a “savings and investment union” in his report. However, he means the same: the integration of EU financial markets is intended to mobilize more private money for economic development.
However, Letta is concerned about social acceptance. “Genuine integration of financial markets in Europe will not be realized until European citizens and political decision-makers realize that this integration does not only benefit the financial industry.” Instead, it must become clear how crucial they are for achieving “overarching goals that are otherwise unattainable,” such as the green and digital transformation.
Letta is also calling for more integration when it comes to state aid. The rules on state aid, which have been relaxed since the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine, have shown that large member states such as Germany in particular have benefited and competition has been distorted. As a stronger European industrial policy is nevertheless necessary, according to Letta, the EU should restrict national aid to a greater extent, but gradually expand aid at the European level.
This would probably require a significant increase in the EU budget. Letta also believes that the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) from 2028 to 2034 represents a decisive moment to transform the internal market into a “genuine European market.” This point in time will also be decisive because the Next Generation EU reconstruction program is ending, which poses major financial challenges for the EU.
It is a paradox: in Germany and many other EU countries, the left-wing parties are in retreat ahead of the European elections. But in Brussels of all places, the capital of the EU, the radical left is making strong gains.
In the shadow of the Berlaymont – the hill on which the EU Commission is enthroned – the less affluent inhabitants of the Belgian capital are increasingly leaning towards the Marxist “Parti des Travailleurs Belges” (PTB).
The PTB could even win the Belgian elections in Brussels in June, which will take place at the same time as the European elections. In a poll in February, Raoul Hedebouw’s party was ahead of the liberal MR (17.9 percent) and the green Ecolo (14.2 percent) with 18.9 percent of voting intentions.
The PTB presented itself in a correspondingly good mood at a meeting of European left-wing politicians in Brussels, attended by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, among others, under the motto “Europe for the People.”
More and more people are experiencing social hardship and are calling for a “break with the current policy,” said PTB MEP Marc Botenga at the event, organized by the “European Left” party family together with the PTB. The liberal Belgian government was supporting the EU Commission’s “anti-social policy” instead of taking countermeasures.
“We must not allow the extreme right to absorb people’s anger,” said Botenga. That is why the European left must counter and offer alternatives to Brussels’ “austerity policy.”
What sounds like a remake of the banking and euro crisis ten years ago was at least well received at the event in Brussels. Several hundred participants from all over Europe celebrated their left-wing idols. Corbyn warned against an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine: “Are we sleepwalking into a major war again?” The conflict cannot be resolved through armament, but only through negotiations. “Everyone knows there will be a great war – or a deal.”
Elke Kahr, the communist mayor of Graz, Stefanos Stefanou, Secretary General of AKEL from Cyprus, and Walter Baier, President of the Party of the European Left, also received much applause. Baier warned of a shift to the right in the European elections and called on the left to stand united against it.
However, the left is a long way from unity. The major parties from Germany, France and Spain were not represented at the meeting in Brussels, or only in small numbers. Prominent EU politicians such as Martin Schirdewan and Manon Aubry sent their apologies.
There is a dispute over cooperation with the PTB and other radical left-wing groups. The new “Sarah Wagenknecht Alliance” (BSW) has no fear of contact, as a member of the Bundestag, Andrej Hunko (formerly the left party), said. However, on the other hand, the BSW is no longer trying to position itself as “left-wing” – but as a party of “reason and justice.”
In contrast, the German left accuses the BSW of not clearly distinguishing itself from the AfD. Cooperation between the two parties after the European elections seems out of the question, which poses problems for the future left-wing group in the European Parliament.
Exploratory talks between the various parties and movements have already begun. However, the talks are being hampered by differences of opinion on foreign policy – and by power struggles between the comrades.
In terms of foreign policy, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are having a divisive effect. Left-wing parties from northern Europe are calling for more solidarity with Ukraine, while their comrades from Spain and Ireland are mobilizing for the Palestinians.
Basically, these are the same rifts dividing the 27 EU member states. The only thing all left-wing parties have in common is the demand to end the wars as quickly as possible and to prevent rearmament at the expense of the socially weak.
Another problem is the power struggles within the German left. Following the split-off of the BSW, the Left Party has to fear heavy losses in the European elections. In contrast, the BSW, with its leading candidates Fabio de Masi and Thomas Geisel, is making gains in the polls.
In the latest projection by “Europe Elects,” the BSW is predicted to win three parliamentary seats. This would be part of a modest upswing for the left in Europe: with a total of 47 seats, the left-wing parties could win six more seats than in the last European elections in 2019.
In contrast, the Social Democrats lose 19 seats in the projection and the Greens even 22. The balance of power within the European left in the broadest sense is changing, with radical parties such as those in Brussels feeling a particularly strong tailwind.
However, the wind may change again between now and the elections in June. And it remains to be seen whether the rival parties and movements will ultimately come together to form a parliamentary group. In any case, the mood is combative.
Almost 900,000 people voted for the satirical party “Die Partei” in the 2019 European elections. This brought satirists Martin Sonneborn and Nico Semsrott into the European Parliament. Today, the two no longer speak to each other due to differences of opinion.
Nico Semsrott, the man in the hoodie, joined the Greens, who probably appreciated the newcomer because of his reach. Semsrott made it clear from the outset that he did not intend to work on content. However, Robert Habeck personally gave his approval for Semsrott to join the group in the European Parliament.
Semsrott has now recorded his experiences of working between Brussels and Strasbourg in his biography “See Brussels and Die.” The fact that the result is bitter can be guessed from the subheading: “How I lost my faith in (almost) everything in the European Parliament.” The depressed tone that his fans appreciate runs through the book.
Some of his fellow MEPs are likely to see his descriptions as a fouling of one’s own nest by someone who has not written a single report and has not promoted substantive debates. Nico Semsrott sees himself as a court jester: someone who says what everyone sees but no one wants to admit. In his videos over the past five years, he has repeatedly pointed out absurdities.
He found plenty of material in the European Parliament. On the one hand, there was a bureaucracy led by an Italian who once worked for a now convicted mafioso. At the same time, some MEPs earned money with side jobs and did not take independence very seriously. “My experiences in the European Parliament didn’t disappoint me, they shook me. Even traumatized me in parts,” writes Semsrott. His depression worsened during his time in Brussels.
He also uses much of the book in his current tour program in Germany. For example, the story of the far-right Greek MEP Ioannis Lagos, who was sentenced to 13 years in prison in 2020 and remained an MEP. His staff work in Brussels and Strasbourg, while Lagos’ former bodyguard works from a prison cell. No satirist could make this up.
Semsrott is also surprised by the European Parliament’s expense regulations. Like all MEPs, he receives a first-class rail pass for Germany and Belgium, but can also claim train tickets for the Brussels-Berlin route without having to submit receipts. He received €539 back, even though he had no expenses. On a second occasion, it was only €529; another of the 8,000 parliamentary staff had applied different standards. Semsrott donates the money.
The Kaili affair, which caused turmoil in Brussels at the end of 2022, reassures the satirist. The corruption that he has perceived around him is real: “That means I’m not crazy.” Elsewhere, he lists MEPs who continue to work as lawyers: Rainer Wieland, Axel Voss, Andreas Schwab, Angelika Niebler and Nicola Beer. Voss receives an additional €500 to €1000 a month from Deutsche Telekom. “I’m not saying that Rainer Wieland and all the others are corrupt,” writes Semsrott. “I’m just saying: if I were corrupt, this is exactly what I would do.” Wieland says he earns nothing extra. However, his law firm offers appointments online.
Nico Semsrott was also disconcerted by his encounters with lobbyists, for example with an unnamed chairman of the CDU Economic Council. The man addressed him as “Mr. Sonnenrott” after an event, told him that he had once been an SPD member, too, and about his well-stocked wine cellar at home. Semsrott did not accept the invitation.
How appropriate is criticism from someone who openly admits that the monthly diet of €9,975.42 prevented him from resigning before the end of his parliamentary term? Semsrott is unlikely to make any friends in Parliament with this book.
Because transparency is important to Semsrott, he attaches great importance to clarifying that he did not write the book himself. Others did it for him, based on notes. He did not even read it, he flirts. After five years in the European Parliament, he remains a satirist. Silke Wettach
The initiative came from the Commission President: shortly before Christmas, Ursula von der Leyen proposed lowering the protection status of the wolf from “strictly protected” to “protected.” The EU should advocate this within the framework of the Bern Convention of the Council of Europe. In a second step, the Commission would then have amended the Habitats Directive accordingly, thus enabling more active management of wolf populations. This would mean significantly more removals, i.e. not just the shooting of conspicuous specimens.
This initiative is currently coming to nothing. There is no qualified majority among the member states. Germany, which would have to abstain due to the opposition of Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens), plays a key role here. The large Member States Italy and France, Poland and Romania are in favor of von der Leyen’s initiative. However, this is not sufficient, especially as Spain would not be in favor either. In view of the lack of prospects for a majority, the Belgian Council Presidency has not yet put the matter to a vote in the Council of Environment Ministers. She also does not want to take the oath in the circle of Permanent Representatives this Wednesday.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the plan will not come to fruition before the European elections. The push for more active wolf management is thus probably over for the next few years. Have a good day!
The President of the Jacques Delors Institute, Enrico Letta, calls for more harmonization of rules in the European single market. In his Report on the Future of the Single Market, parts of which are available to Table.Briefings, Letta writes that many companies suffer from the bureaucratic burden caused largely by overlapping regulations in the EU’s complex multi-level system.
In order to create more clarity here, the EU institutions should “give clear priority to the use of regulations when formulating internal market rules.” If the use of a directive cannot be avoided, the member states should “show more discipline” and not introduce measures that go beyond what is absolutely necessary in accordance with the directive. In his report, Letta also advocates a “European Code of Business Law” in order to level out the differences in company law in the member states.
The states had commissioned the former Italian Prime Minister with the report. On Monday, he sent a draft of the “political introduction” to the governments. The heads of state and government want to discuss Europe’s competitiveness at their special summit on Wednesday and Thursday.
In his introduction, Letta identifies an urgent need for action to ensure that the EU does not continue to lose ground to the USA and China. While per capita economic output in the USA rose by almost 60 percent between 1993 and 2022, growth in Europe was less than half as high, he writes. The cornerstones of the European success model, free trade and openness, are also jeopardized by geopolitical tensions.
Among other things, Letta is in favor of strengthening the freedom of research. He calls for research and development to be elevated to a 5th freedom in the internal market, alongside the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. The aim is to “place research and innovation at the heart of the single market and thus promote an ecosystem.” Europe could benefit from this in areas such as artificial intelligence, biotech and especially in the healthcare sector.
Letta also sees an “urgent need to catch up” in strengthening the single market for financial services, energy and digital communication. When referring to financial services, Letta does not use the usual EU term “capital markets union,” but instead speaks of a “savings and investment union” in his report. However, he means the same: the integration of EU financial markets is intended to mobilize more private money for economic development.
However, Letta is concerned about social acceptance. “Genuine integration of financial markets in Europe will not be realized until European citizens and political decision-makers realize that this integration does not only benefit the financial industry.” Instead, it must become clear how crucial they are for achieving “overarching goals that are otherwise unattainable,” such as the green and digital transformation.
Letta is also calling for more integration when it comes to state aid. The rules on state aid, which have been relaxed since the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine, have shown that large member states such as Germany in particular have benefited and competition has been distorted. As a stronger European industrial policy is nevertheless necessary, according to Letta, the EU should restrict national aid to a greater extent, but gradually expand aid at the European level.
This would probably require a significant increase in the EU budget. Letta also believes that the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) from 2028 to 2034 represents a decisive moment to transform the internal market into a “genuine European market.” This point in time will also be decisive because the Next Generation EU reconstruction program is ending, which poses major financial challenges for the EU.
It is a paradox: in Germany and many other EU countries, the left-wing parties are in retreat ahead of the European elections. But in Brussels of all places, the capital of the EU, the radical left is making strong gains.
In the shadow of the Berlaymont – the hill on which the EU Commission is enthroned – the less affluent inhabitants of the Belgian capital are increasingly leaning towards the Marxist “Parti des Travailleurs Belges” (PTB).
The PTB could even win the Belgian elections in Brussels in June, which will take place at the same time as the European elections. In a poll in February, Raoul Hedebouw’s party was ahead of the liberal MR (17.9 percent) and the green Ecolo (14.2 percent) with 18.9 percent of voting intentions.
The PTB presented itself in a correspondingly good mood at a meeting of European left-wing politicians in Brussels, attended by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, among others, under the motto “Europe for the People.”
More and more people are experiencing social hardship and are calling for a “break with the current policy,” said PTB MEP Marc Botenga at the event, organized by the “European Left” party family together with the PTB. The liberal Belgian government was supporting the EU Commission’s “anti-social policy” instead of taking countermeasures.
“We must not allow the extreme right to absorb people’s anger,” said Botenga. That is why the European left must counter and offer alternatives to Brussels’ “austerity policy.”
What sounds like a remake of the banking and euro crisis ten years ago was at least well received at the event in Brussels. Several hundred participants from all over Europe celebrated their left-wing idols. Corbyn warned against an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine: “Are we sleepwalking into a major war again?” The conflict cannot be resolved through armament, but only through negotiations. “Everyone knows there will be a great war – or a deal.”
Elke Kahr, the communist mayor of Graz, Stefanos Stefanou, Secretary General of AKEL from Cyprus, and Walter Baier, President of the Party of the European Left, also received much applause. Baier warned of a shift to the right in the European elections and called on the left to stand united against it.
However, the left is a long way from unity. The major parties from Germany, France and Spain were not represented at the meeting in Brussels, or only in small numbers. Prominent EU politicians such as Martin Schirdewan and Manon Aubry sent their apologies.
There is a dispute over cooperation with the PTB and other radical left-wing groups. The new “Sarah Wagenknecht Alliance” (BSW) has no fear of contact, as a member of the Bundestag, Andrej Hunko (formerly the left party), said. However, on the other hand, the BSW is no longer trying to position itself as “left-wing” – but as a party of “reason and justice.”
In contrast, the German left accuses the BSW of not clearly distinguishing itself from the AfD. Cooperation between the two parties after the European elections seems out of the question, which poses problems for the future left-wing group in the European Parliament.
Exploratory talks between the various parties and movements have already begun. However, the talks are being hampered by differences of opinion on foreign policy – and by power struggles between the comrades.
In terms of foreign policy, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are having a divisive effect. Left-wing parties from northern Europe are calling for more solidarity with Ukraine, while their comrades from Spain and Ireland are mobilizing for the Palestinians.
Basically, these are the same rifts dividing the 27 EU member states. The only thing all left-wing parties have in common is the demand to end the wars as quickly as possible and to prevent rearmament at the expense of the socially weak.
Another problem is the power struggles within the German left. Following the split-off of the BSW, the Left Party has to fear heavy losses in the European elections. In contrast, the BSW, with its leading candidates Fabio de Masi and Thomas Geisel, is making gains in the polls.
In the latest projection by “Europe Elects,” the BSW is predicted to win three parliamentary seats. This would be part of a modest upswing for the left in Europe: with a total of 47 seats, the left-wing parties could win six more seats than in the last European elections in 2019.
In contrast, the Social Democrats lose 19 seats in the projection and the Greens even 22. The balance of power within the European left in the broadest sense is changing, with radical parties such as those in Brussels feeling a particularly strong tailwind.
However, the wind may change again between now and the elections in June. And it remains to be seen whether the rival parties and movements will ultimately come together to form a parliamentary group. In any case, the mood is combative.
Almost 900,000 people voted for the satirical party “Die Partei” in the 2019 European elections. This brought satirists Martin Sonneborn and Nico Semsrott into the European Parliament. Today, the two no longer speak to each other due to differences of opinion.
Nico Semsrott, the man in the hoodie, joined the Greens, who probably appreciated the newcomer because of his reach. Semsrott made it clear from the outset that he did not intend to work on content. However, Robert Habeck personally gave his approval for Semsrott to join the group in the European Parliament.
Semsrott has now recorded his experiences of working between Brussels and Strasbourg in his biography “See Brussels and Die.” The fact that the result is bitter can be guessed from the subheading: “How I lost my faith in (almost) everything in the European Parliament.” The depressed tone that his fans appreciate runs through the book.
Some of his fellow MEPs are likely to see his descriptions as a fouling of one’s own nest by someone who has not written a single report and has not promoted substantive debates. Nico Semsrott sees himself as a court jester: someone who says what everyone sees but no one wants to admit. In his videos over the past five years, he has repeatedly pointed out absurdities.
He found plenty of material in the European Parliament. On the one hand, there was a bureaucracy led by an Italian who once worked for a now convicted mafioso. At the same time, some MEPs earned money with side jobs and did not take independence very seriously. “My experiences in the European Parliament didn’t disappoint me, they shook me. Even traumatized me in parts,” writes Semsrott. His depression worsened during his time in Brussels.
He also uses much of the book in his current tour program in Germany. For example, the story of the far-right Greek MEP Ioannis Lagos, who was sentenced to 13 years in prison in 2020 and remained an MEP. His staff work in Brussels and Strasbourg, while Lagos’ former bodyguard works from a prison cell. No satirist could make this up.
Semsrott is also surprised by the European Parliament’s expense regulations. Like all MEPs, he receives a first-class rail pass for Germany and Belgium, but can also claim train tickets for the Brussels-Berlin route without having to submit receipts. He received €539 back, even though he had no expenses. On a second occasion, it was only €529; another of the 8,000 parliamentary staff had applied different standards. Semsrott donates the money.
The Kaili affair, which caused turmoil in Brussels at the end of 2022, reassures the satirist. The corruption that he has perceived around him is real: “That means I’m not crazy.” Elsewhere, he lists MEPs who continue to work as lawyers: Rainer Wieland, Axel Voss, Andreas Schwab, Angelika Niebler and Nicola Beer. Voss receives an additional €500 to €1000 a month from Deutsche Telekom. “I’m not saying that Rainer Wieland and all the others are corrupt,” writes Semsrott. “I’m just saying: if I were corrupt, this is exactly what I would do.” Wieland says he earns nothing extra. However, his law firm offers appointments online.
Nico Semsrott was also disconcerted by his encounters with lobbyists, for example with an unnamed chairman of the CDU Economic Council. The man addressed him as “Mr. Sonnenrott” after an event, told him that he had once been an SPD member, too, and about his well-stocked wine cellar at home. Semsrott did not accept the invitation.
How appropriate is criticism from someone who openly admits that the monthly diet of €9,975.42 prevented him from resigning before the end of his parliamentary term? Semsrott is unlikely to make any friends in Parliament with this book.
Because transparency is important to Semsrott, he attaches great importance to clarifying that he did not write the book himself. Others did it for him, based on notes. He did not even read it, he flirts. After five years in the European Parliament, he remains a satirist. Silke Wettach
