The enemies of democracy use, again and again, democratic institutions in an attempt to destroy them. If one wants to understand the thought processes of the right-wing AfD, this could be an attempt at an explanation.
Delegates at the AfD party conference in Magdeburg argued fiercely about the party’s course. The camp around Björn Höcke wanted to push through the demand to leave the European Union and NATO. The more moderate camp of the party resisted. Co-leader Alice Weidel apparently spent hours trying to negotiate a compromise.
In it, the AfD describes the EU as a failed project and wants it to be refounded as a “Federation of European Nations“. This goal represents a radical departure from the EU as Germany co-founded it and has helped shape it for decades.
The party nominated its top candidate for the European elections, Maximilian Krah, last weekend. He has repeatedly attracted attention for his right-wing extremist statements. A total of 35 candidates are now on the list for the European elections. In their speeches, party members repeatedly demonstrated the party’s ability to connect with the far-right camp.
Why are populists so successful everywhere in Europe right now? “Because the democratic forces do not sufficiently agree that the fear of social decline is an accelerant in this debate”, Martin Schulz explains in an interview.
I wish you a good start to the week.
Mr. Schulz, a trend toward right-wing conservative to nationalist majorities can be observed worldwide. Populists are seizing power, and once-conservative parties are forming alliances that were previously inconceivable. In Germany, the AfD has firmly established itself. What has happened?
Basically, it started 20 years ago with Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, and many like Viktor Orbán, Boris Johnson, Trump, Bolsonaro, Kaczynski or Duterte have followed him. And it was with this attitude: As soon as I have a majority, the state is mine. And those who are against me are not competitors, but enemies. According to the motto: Whoever is not with us is against us, and whoever is against us must leave. That is downright fascist thinking.
You don’t consider them democrats anymore?
Anyone who proceeds in this way calls into question the basic consensus of democracy, namely that the voter decides on the fair competition of arguments. And that whoever has the majority also has the mandate to govern on behalf of those who did not vote for him. This is not always 100 percent successful, but it has always been the basic democratic consensus.
Berlusconi compared you to a concentration camp guard 20 years ago. Looking back: What did this confrontation stand for?
Basically, Silvio Berlusconi, then Italian Prime Minister, was an early Donald Trump: merciless and unrestrained in tearing down all social conventions. He had concentrated maximum media and economic power in one hand – and he wanted to transfer that to the European level during his EU presidency, which was still rotating at the time.
And you wanted to prevent that?
We opposed this as a socialist group. That was essentially the content of my speech back then in the EU Parliament. He freaked out because he suddenly realized that he was coming into an institution in which his mechanisms did not work so easily.
He could have known, he was a member of the European Parliament before.
True. And yet: As prime minister, he could do what he wanted. But he now realized that that didn’t work in the European Parliament. Instead, he encountered an opposition that he didn’t have in Italy at the time.
Did you suspect at the time that Berlusconi would set a trend?
Twenty years ago, many people, including me, perceived Berlusconi’s actions as a frontal attack on everything that constitutes democratic culture – fair debate on the matter at hand, respect for others, recognition of majorities. For him, instrumentalizing state institutions and asserting one’s own interests, was a matter of course. At the time, there was an outcry of indignation, from right to left.
You emphasize the past?
Back then, we were united from left to right. Today, Manfred Weber travels through Europe as the leader of the European People’s Party and says that you should be glad that Forza Italia is in government in Rome, because they are the moderates. This shows how much Europe and the world have changed in these 20 years.
Even in Sweden, a model social democratic country, a right-wing conservative alliance now governs. How could this come about?
Wait a minute, the Social Democrats are still by far the strongest party in Sweden. There is an alliance including the right-wing extremists against the left.
Right – and this alliance provides the government.
But this is not a question for the Swedish social democrats, but for the conservatives, for Manfred Weber. How can you give a party that comes from the neo-fascist milieu, and that is the Sweden Democrats, such governmental power? That also applies to Finland, by the way. That would not be necessary. But these are questions that have to be asked of the EPP.
Do you expect a sharper delineation?
Clearly. Manfred Weber is in the process of creating a situation in the EU Parliament that will make the future Commission president dependent on the Kaczynskis and Orbáns. This is viewed with concern even within the CDU/CSU. I don’t think that’s the path the CDU/CSU parties in Germany want to take. And if they do, we’ll have an interesting European election campaign.
You have known Manfred Weber long and well. Why does he now allow the closeness that would once have been unthinkable?
Yes, I’ve known him a long time, and he’s a respectable man. But he is on the wrong track. The dream that he can reintegrate Orbán, Kaczynski and others into European politics is unrealistic. These people have no value relationship to Europe, if any, but a utility value relationship. The only way to win them over is with money, and Orbán now gives the impression that even that no longer interests him, because he lets himself be bought out by the Russians and the Chinese. That’s why Manfred Weber’s approach is wrong, and I’m very curious to see how Ms. von der Leyen will react to it.
Where does this global trend come from? How can it be explained?
From my point of view, that’s relatively simple. The world is coming apart at the seams. Everything we built up in the second half of the 20th century began to falter with the fall of the Iron Curtain at the latest. The subsequent construct of the unipolar world power, the United States, has proved untenable. Instead, we are now dealing with rising powers in a multipolar world.
Isn’t that a bit abstract?
No, at the same time we have permanent general uncertainty. Everything is getting more expensive, nothing is the same anymore; no one knows what will happen in the future. This is expressed in the feeling that things are still working for me, but what will happen to my children? Climate crisis, war, hunger, epidemics, China, India, Russia – everything seems to be out of control. A deep sense of insecurity – worldwide. This is not an isolated feeling in northern Europe; it is just as prevalent in Latin America, in Asia, in Africa. These are times in which precisely those people are booming who say we have to go back to the old ways. Or they promise a bright future. These are the promises of the populists.
Experience shows that populists fail because of their own promises. Trump, Johnson, Berlusconi: They did not write any success stories, but operated primarily with enemy images.
But it works. And it does so again and again.
Why?
Because the democratic forces do not sufficiently agree that the fear of social decline is an accelerant in this debate. The moment politics mitigates this fear through concrete action, we can protect people from blindly following populists. That is the task and also the responsibility of democracies and institutions.
Objection. Germany received billions in aid last year to buffer the energy crisis, and yet the AfD stands at just under 20 percent nationwide.
One has nothing to do with the other. Crises that do not occur because action was taken are not perceived as such. That is why the federal government has acted responsibly. But when it acts as it does, this is not clear in any way.
Hard to understand…
I meet many people who tell me that the government is not doing such a bad job. But they don’t agree on anything. In politics, you always have to develop your perspective from the status quo; you never get praise retrospectively. But if the status quo is divided, no one trusts you to have a stable future. And that’s why I believe that the AfD’s current high-water mark will be over the moment we arrive at more coherent government action. However, it seems to me that it would be relatively difficult to get the Greens and the FDP to do that.
Populists always work with xenophobia. And with an explicit disdain for the judiciary and the separation of powers. Why does this find so much applause?
In court and in legislative work in parliament, in which the AfD, like all populist parties, hardly takes part, you have to take a stand on facts, you have to prove what you claim. And that’s why the judiciary and parliaments are the places where they least want to be. Because there they are forced to show their colors and prove what they claim.
Why are ordinary AfD voters not interested in this fact?
Because fear of relegation overrides everything. And the AfD has a message: everything is crap – and nothing more. And when you have the feeling that everything is crap, paradoxically many vote for those who tell them that – because at the same time, they pretend to be the only ones who address these problems.
What is the recipe against such roughened polarization?
The AfD is at ten to twelve percent in real terms, and it will retain these voters. But its highs will not last. At the end of a legislative period, voters take stock and ask themselves who should lead us in the coming years. And balance sheets and prospects are connected. You don’t get praise for a good balance sheet, but you may get a vote of confidence for the next period. That’s why the government would be well advised to hold its nerve.
But it faces tough times: There will be three state elections in the east next year…
We will have to look at each state separately. I assume that the Ramelow/Höcke contest will be repeated and Bodo Ramelow will win it. I think Dietmar Woidke has a good chance in Brandenburg. And these two constellations alone suggest that there will be no march-through by the AfD. My urgent advice, also based on my own experience, is not to overestimate demoscopic highs.
We have polarization all over Europe – most recently in Spain, not to mention Israel. Where will this lead?
To the realization that European integration is amazingly stabilizing for democracy. Europe, which is supposedly so undemocratic, is forcing people to give in because of transnational cooperation, especially in the economic sphere. Let’s look at Mrs. Meloni since she became prime minister: She makes a bit of a racket internally, but she has a fierce opposition against her and a president who pays very close attention to the constitution. She is also a reliable partner at the European level. It is also interesting that Marine Le Pen no longer talks about dropping the Euro and Alice Weidel no longer talks about leaving the EU, but at most about restructuring the European Union. Whatever that may mean. This shows me that the integration of Europe also disciplines right-wing populists.
Nevertheless, they are consistently working on a different Europe – as one could see at the AfD party conference.
They will fail to rebuild because, fortunately, the democratic forces in Europe are still clearly in the majority. However, these forces must become even more militant and louder. In Germany, too, not only because of the AfD’s current surge, but also if you look at this party conference in particular. Extreme right-wing statements were made there that we as democrats cannot allow to stand or tolerate. This is a European, national and, above all, social task that concerns us all.
You can read the unabridged interview here in German.
The draft bill for the Digital Services Act was supposed to have been submitted in the spring. Now the Federal Ministry of Digital Affairs and Transport has presented it. On the one hand, it clarifies the structure of supervision of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in Germany. And as expected, the Federal Network Agency under its current president Klaus Müller is to take on the role of Digital Services Coordinator (DSC). The Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) itself was also counting on this.
However, the assignment of authority to the former Regulatory Authority for Posts and Telecommunications was controversial. On the one hand, there are concerns on the part of the federal states, as the DSA’s regulations are partly media regulation. In the federal system of the Federal Republic of Germany, the responsibility for this lies indisputably with the federal states. At the same time, large parts of DSA supervision must be organized away from the state. The Federal Network Agency, as a subordinate authority of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWK) with partial technical supervision by the Federal Ministry of Digital Affairs and Transport (BMDV), has not yet fully met these requirements.
It is true that in other areas, such as the energy market, the Federal Network Agency must become more independent of political considerations because of European requirements. However, the requirements for the DSC are even more stringently formulated: The supervisory authority must be completely independent, comparable most closely with the data protection supervisory authorities.
The draft Digital Services Act now contains a model for this, in which the coordinating body is located at the Federal Network Agency, but is even allowed to act independently of the BNetzA president on core DSA issues.
The Federal Minister for Digital Affairs, Volker Wissing, commented: “With the Federal Network Agency, we are creating a strong platform regulator to consistently enforce the new obligations for online services in Germany as well. In this way, we are placing greater responsibility on platform operators to combat illegal content.”
However, the draft Digital Services Act provides for other responsible bodies for some tasks. The DSA explicitly opens up this possibility, even if each state can ultimately only elevate one body to the position of DSA coordinator. For example, the regulations on data-based online advertising are to be enforced by the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection, in order to achieve consistency here with actual data protection law. And the offices responsible for online crime at the Federal Criminal Police Office are to be significantly increased in order to implement DSA enforcement in the area of criminal law.
However, just a few hours after the official presentation of the draft bill, there is already a dispute on another point: According to the draft bill, the enforcement of youth protection regulations is to be carried out by the Federal Center for the Protection of Children and Young People in the Media (BzKJ, formerly BPjM and before that the Federal Review Board for Publications Harmful to Young People). However, not only media regulation, but also the protection of minors is basically the responsibility of the federal states in the Federal Republic.
This division of responsibilities is enshrined in constitutional law and cannot be ignored by “an arbitrary law”, warns Tobias Schmid, chairman of the North Rhine-Westphalian State Media Authority. “The current regulation overlooks the requirement of state neutrality for the supervision of media content, but above all, it weakens the protection of children and young people online. After all, the media institutions of the federal states have a clear pioneering role in this field in Europe, as the proceedings against Pornhub and others have recently shown.”
LfM chairman Schmid sees an urgent need for clarification here: “Why the Federal Ministry of Digital Affairs and Transport is not implementing this requirement in its draft is sufficiently unclear to avoid the term ‘nonsensical’.”
It has long been decided that the German Network Enforcement Act will be replaced by the DSA. However, it is unclear how this change will be implemented in terms of substance and structure: Discussions between the BMJ and BMDV have been ongoing for months.
The Federal Office of Justice was the competent body for the NetzDG. However, according to its own information, the BMDV is not yet able to answer where its tasks will migrate to, which relate in particular to systemic risks and the regulations on content moderation.
The otherwise often conflicting players in business and consumer protection are showing unusual unity. Ramona Pop, head of the Federation of German Consumer Organizations, warns against the threat of “authority ping-pong“. Bitkom also warns. Regulated companies would have to have a fixed nationwide interlocutor and be able to rely on binding statements without having to address several regulatory authorities at the same time. “Extensive involvement of many authorities working side by side in the same regulatory field will lead to considerable fragmentation, which in turn will entail a great deal of coordination work”, explains Lina Wöstmann, media policy and platforms officer at the IT association.
“The list of authorities responsible for parts of the DSA in addition to the DSC should not be expanded under any circumstances”, also believes Julian Jaursch of the New Responsibility Foundation. “Otherwise, there is a risk of a tangle of responsibilities and costly duplicate structures.” He fears that this would weaken both the DSA application in Germany and Germany’s ability to influence the responsible Digital Services Coordinators Committee at the EU level.
The Internet industry association Eco welcomes the revision of the Telemedia Act by the Digital Services Act and the repeal of the NetzDG. “However, I consider the application and the entry into force planned for Feb. 17, 2024, to be more than ambitious”, says Eco board member Oliver Süme. “Companies definitely need more time for proper planning, implementation and coordination of the provisions.”
However, the tight schedule resulting from the requirements of the Digital Services Act will hardly be touched: The significantly delayed Digital Services Act must be drafted and promulgated in time for February – despite all the circumstances, such as the constitutional court’s call for reasonable consultation times for members of the Bundestag.
In mid-July, the Commission presented its package of measures for sustainable European freight transport. The initiative was eagerly awaited by the industry, because in view of the increasing demand for transport in the future, it is clear that it is high time to push ahead with decarbonization in freight transport now. If this does not succeed, the European Union risks failing in its self-declared goal of climate neutrality by 2050.
More than 50 percent of European freight traffic is still transported by road – a burden not only on the climate, but also on the infrastructure. Current figures from Brussels show: Of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions, 25 percent are attributable to the transport sector – but only 0.4 percent to rail. No one can get past this reality. The message from the EU Commission was accordingly clear: There needs to be a stronger focus on rail freight throughout Europe.
The EU Commission sees another key to decarbonizing freight transport in combined transport (CT). Combining the modes of transport rail, road and waterway not only has ecological advantages. Economic factors also speak for the use of intermodal transport solutions. As early as 2030, 21 billion tonne-kilometers are expected to be handled by combined transport, rising to 26 billion tonne-kilometers by 2050.
Increasing the shift of freight traffic to rail can save large amounts of CO2 compared to road transport. According to the IFEU Institute in Heidelberg, the value per ton and kilometer is 54 grams of CO2.
The better and more effective distribution of freight traffic across various infrastructures results in less congestion on roads and highways. In this way, the volume of traffic is significantly reduced and there are fewer traffic jams. However, for combined transport in Europe to become the successful model desired by the EU Commission, the following five measures must be taken in the further legislative processes to implement the package of measures.
First, rail freight can only develop its full potential if there is “healthy” competition among all players. The creation of fair framework conditions for all market participants is the basis for successful and effective competition. Only in this way can a financially attractive and environmentally friendly rail freight transport system be established that can compete seriously with road and international rail competition. Because as long as road transport using fossil fuels is the significantly cheaper option, there will be no large-scale conversion of logistics chains.
Incomprehensibly, the EU Commission’s proposal falls well short of expectations in this respect of all things. Instead of driving forward the traffic turnaround now, the proposal sets new incentives for transport by truck in the short term, because the permissible total weight for modular trucks in cross-border transports is to be increased to 44 tons in the future. Only from 2035 will these transports then have to be emission-free, which means another twelve years of growth in traffic with diesel trucks.
The consequence is counterproductive: The costs of such truck transports would initially fall as a result per ton, but in the extremely price-sensitive freight transport sector, such signals lead to immediate reactions. Goods would thus be increasingly transported by road again. At this point, we would like to see more courage for greater ambition in shaping the future of freight transport in Europe.
Secondly, new and digitized transshipment terminals are needed throughout Europe. After all, growth by rail can only be made possible with additional access points to the rail network. In addition, the rail infrastructure must be further expanded across the board in order to avoid capacity bottlenecks. Investments in the construction and maintenance of sidings and the expansion of corridors are essential for a successful long-term shift from road to rail.
Thirdly, nationwide solutions must be found for the rail loading of semitrailers that cannot be craned. In Europe, freight transport is mainly carried out using trailers of various designs, but only a very small proportion of these – around five percent – are suitable for combined transport (CT). This backlog represents the biggest hurdle to permeable transport. This makes it all the more urgent to have Europe-wide legal regulations for uniform standards in technology in order to make these semitrailers suitable for rail for standard handling processes in CT. In particular, the approval of the so-called “long truck” should only take place in conjunction with a corresponding standardization of the trailers.
Fourthly, the introduction of Digital Automatic Coupling (DAK) must be accelerated throughout Europe. DAK has enormous potential to make rail freight transport more efficient and thus more competitive. All EU member states must create the appropriate conditions so that the innovation can be used across borders.
Fifth, regulatory simplification is needed. The planning and execution of cross-border freight transport within Europe is complicated and must be drastically simplified. This requires Europe-wide harmonization of legal requirements and regulations. This includes, for example, the digitization of freight documents, the introduction of a common transport language, and a uniform legal framework.
It remains to be hoped that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union will take action in these five fields of action in the coming months. They must ensure that well-intentioned ideas from the Commission do not become obstructive laws for CT. Courageous decisions and great efforts are needed to turn the tide for sustainable rail freight transport.
Sven Wellbrock is Chief Operating Officer Europe and Chief Safety Officer at VTG. The Hamburg-based company is a rail freight car lessor and rail logistics provider and has more than 88,000 rail freight cars at its disposal.
The enemies of democracy use, again and again, democratic institutions in an attempt to destroy them. If one wants to understand the thought processes of the right-wing AfD, this could be an attempt at an explanation.
Delegates at the AfD party conference in Magdeburg argued fiercely about the party’s course. The camp around Björn Höcke wanted to push through the demand to leave the European Union and NATO. The more moderate camp of the party resisted. Co-leader Alice Weidel apparently spent hours trying to negotiate a compromise.
In it, the AfD describes the EU as a failed project and wants it to be refounded as a “Federation of European Nations“. This goal represents a radical departure from the EU as Germany co-founded it and has helped shape it for decades.
The party nominated its top candidate for the European elections, Maximilian Krah, last weekend. He has repeatedly attracted attention for his right-wing extremist statements. A total of 35 candidates are now on the list for the European elections. In their speeches, party members repeatedly demonstrated the party’s ability to connect with the far-right camp.
Why are populists so successful everywhere in Europe right now? “Because the democratic forces do not sufficiently agree that the fear of social decline is an accelerant in this debate”, Martin Schulz explains in an interview.
I wish you a good start to the week.
Mr. Schulz, a trend toward right-wing conservative to nationalist majorities can be observed worldwide. Populists are seizing power, and once-conservative parties are forming alliances that were previously inconceivable. In Germany, the AfD has firmly established itself. What has happened?
Basically, it started 20 years ago with Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, and many like Viktor Orbán, Boris Johnson, Trump, Bolsonaro, Kaczynski or Duterte have followed him. And it was with this attitude: As soon as I have a majority, the state is mine. And those who are against me are not competitors, but enemies. According to the motto: Whoever is not with us is against us, and whoever is against us must leave. That is downright fascist thinking.
You don’t consider them democrats anymore?
Anyone who proceeds in this way calls into question the basic consensus of democracy, namely that the voter decides on the fair competition of arguments. And that whoever has the majority also has the mandate to govern on behalf of those who did not vote for him. This is not always 100 percent successful, but it has always been the basic democratic consensus.
Berlusconi compared you to a concentration camp guard 20 years ago. Looking back: What did this confrontation stand for?
Basically, Silvio Berlusconi, then Italian Prime Minister, was an early Donald Trump: merciless and unrestrained in tearing down all social conventions. He had concentrated maximum media and economic power in one hand – and he wanted to transfer that to the European level during his EU presidency, which was still rotating at the time.
And you wanted to prevent that?
We opposed this as a socialist group. That was essentially the content of my speech back then in the EU Parliament. He freaked out because he suddenly realized that he was coming into an institution in which his mechanisms did not work so easily.
He could have known, he was a member of the European Parliament before.
True. And yet: As prime minister, he could do what he wanted. But he now realized that that didn’t work in the European Parliament. Instead, he encountered an opposition that he didn’t have in Italy at the time.
Did you suspect at the time that Berlusconi would set a trend?
Twenty years ago, many people, including me, perceived Berlusconi’s actions as a frontal attack on everything that constitutes democratic culture – fair debate on the matter at hand, respect for others, recognition of majorities. For him, instrumentalizing state institutions and asserting one’s own interests, was a matter of course. At the time, there was an outcry of indignation, from right to left.
You emphasize the past?
Back then, we were united from left to right. Today, Manfred Weber travels through Europe as the leader of the European People’s Party and says that you should be glad that Forza Italia is in government in Rome, because they are the moderates. This shows how much Europe and the world have changed in these 20 years.
Even in Sweden, a model social democratic country, a right-wing conservative alliance now governs. How could this come about?
Wait a minute, the Social Democrats are still by far the strongest party in Sweden. There is an alliance including the right-wing extremists against the left.
Right – and this alliance provides the government.
But this is not a question for the Swedish social democrats, but for the conservatives, for Manfred Weber. How can you give a party that comes from the neo-fascist milieu, and that is the Sweden Democrats, such governmental power? That also applies to Finland, by the way. That would not be necessary. But these are questions that have to be asked of the EPP.
Do you expect a sharper delineation?
Clearly. Manfred Weber is in the process of creating a situation in the EU Parliament that will make the future Commission president dependent on the Kaczynskis and Orbáns. This is viewed with concern even within the CDU/CSU. I don’t think that’s the path the CDU/CSU parties in Germany want to take. And if they do, we’ll have an interesting European election campaign.
You have known Manfred Weber long and well. Why does he now allow the closeness that would once have been unthinkable?
Yes, I’ve known him a long time, and he’s a respectable man. But he is on the wrong track. The dream that he can reintegrate Orbán, Kaczynski and others into European politics is unrealistic. These people have no value relationship to Europe, if any, but a utility value relationship. The only way to win them over is with money, and Orbán now gives the impression that even that no longer interests him, because he lets himself be bought out by the Russians and the Chinese. That’s why Manfred Weber’s approach is wrong, and I’m very curious to see how Ms. von der Leyen will react to it.
Where does this global trend come from? How can it be explained?
From my point of view, that’s relatively simple. The world is coming apart at the seams. Everything we built up in the second half of the 20th century began to falter with the fall of the Iron Curtain at the latest. The subsequent construct of the unipolar world power, the United States, has proved untenable. Instead, we are now dealing with rising powers in a multipolar world.
Isn’t that a bit abstract?
No, at the same time we have permanent general uncertainty. Everything is getting more expensive, nothing is the same anymore; no one knows what will happen in the future. This is expressed in the feeling that things are still working for me, but what will happen to my children? Climate crisis, war, hunger, epidemics, China, India, Russia – everything seems to be out of control. A deep sense of insecurity – worldwide. This is not an isolated feeling in northern Europe; it is just as prevalent in Latin America, in Asia, in Africa. These are times in which precisely those people are booming who say we have to go back to the old ways. Or they promise a bright future. These are the promises of the populists.
Experience shows that populists fail because of their own promises. Trump, Johnson, Berlusconi: They did not write any success stories, but operated primarily with enemy images.
But it works. And it does so again and again.
Why?
Because the democratic forces do not sufficiently agree that the fear of social decline is an accelerant in this debate. The moment politics mitigates this fear through concrete action, we can protect people from blindly following populists. That is the task and also the responsibility of democracies and institutions.
Objection. Germany received billions in aid last year to buffer the energy crisis, and yet the AfD stands at just under 20 percent nationwide.
One has nothing to do with the other. Crises that do not occur because action was taken are not perceived as such. That is why the federal government has acted responsibly. But when it acts as it does, this is not clear in any way.
Hard to understand…
I meet many people who tell me that the government is not doing such a bad job. But they don’t agree on anything. In politics, you always have to develop your perspective from the status quo; you never get praise retrospectively. But if the status quo is divided, no one trusts you to have a stable future. And that’s why I believe that the AfD’s current high-water mark will be over the moment we arrive at more coherent government action. However, it seems to me that it would be relatively difficult to get the Greens and the FDP to do that.
Populists always work with xenophobia. And with an explicit disdain for the judiciary and the separation of powers. Why does this find so much applause?
In court and in legislative work in parliament, in which the AfD, like all populist parties, hardly takes part, you have to take a stand on facts, you have to prove what you claim. And that’s why the judiciary and parliaments are the places where they least want to be. Because there they are forced to show their colors and prove what they claim.
Why are ordinary AfD voters not interested in this fact?
Because fear of relegation overrides everything. And the AfD has a message: everything is crap – and nothing more. And when you have the feeling that everything is crap, paradoxically many vote for those who tell them that – because at the same time, they pretend to be the only ones who address these problems.
What is the recipe against such roughened polarization?
The AfD is at ten to twelve percent in real terms, and it will retain these voters. But its highs will not last. At the end of a legislative period, voters take stock and ask themselves who should lead us in the coming years. And balance sheets and prospects are connected. You don’t get praise for a good balance sheet, but you may get a vote of confidence for the next period. That’s why the government would be well advised to hold its nerve.
But it faces tough times: There will be three state elections in the east next year…
We will have to look at each state separately. I assume that the Ramelow/Höcke contest will be repeated and Bodo Ramelow will win it. I think Dietmar Woidke has a good chance in Brandenburg. And these two constellations alone suggest that there will be no march-through by the AfD. My urgent advice, also based on my own experience, is not to overestimate demoscopic highs.
We have polarization all over Europe – most recently in Spain, not to mention Israel. Where will this lead?
To the realization that European integration is amazingly stabilizing for democracy. Europe, which is supposedly so undemocratic, is forcing people to give in because of transnational cooperation, especially in the economic sphere. Let’s look at Mrs. Meloni since she became prime minister: She makes a bit of a racket internally, but she has a fierce opposition against her and a president who pays very close attention to the constitution. She is also a reliable partner at the European level. It is also interesting that Marine Le Pen no longer talks about dropping the Euro and Alice Weidel no longer talks about leaving the EU, but at most about restructuring the European Union. Whatever that may mean. This shows me that the integration of Europe also disciplines right-wing populists.
Nevertheless, they are consistently working on a different Europe – as one could see at the AfD party conference.
They will fail to rebuild because, fortunately, the democratic forces in Europe are still clearly in the majority. However, these forces must become even more militant and louder. In Germany, too, not only because of the AfD’s current surge, but also if you look at this party conference in particular. Extreme right-wing statements were made there that we as democrats cannot allow to stand or tolerate. This is a European, national and, above all, social task that concerns us all.
You can read the unabridged interview here in German.
The draft bill for the Digital Services Act was supposed to have been submitted in the spring. Now the Federal Ministry of Digital Affairs and Transport has presented it. On the one hand, it clarifies the structure of supervision of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in Germany. And as expected, the Federal Network Agency under its current president Klaus Müller is to take on the role of Digital Services Coordinator (DSC). The Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) itself was also counting on this.
However, the assignment of authority to the former Regulatory Authority for Posts and Telecommunications was controversial. On the one hand, there are concerns on the part of the federal states, as the DSA’s regulations are partly media regulation. In the federal system of the Federal Republic of Germany, the responsibility for this lies indisputably with the federal states. At the same time, large parts of DSA supervision must be organized away from the state. The Federal Network Agency, as a subordinate authority of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWK) with partial technical supervision by the Federal Ministry of Digital Affairs and Transport (BMDV), has not yet fully met these requirements.
It is true that in other areas, such as the energy market, the Federal Network Agency must become more independent of political considerations because of European requirements. However, the requirements for the DSC are even more stringently formulated: The supervisory authority must be completely independent, comparable most closely with the data protection supervisory authorities.
The draft Digital Services Act now contains a model for this, in which the coordinating body is located at the Federal Network Agency, but is even allowed to act independently of the BNetzA president on core DSA issues.
The Federal Minister for Digital Affairs, Volker Wissing, commented: “With the Federal Network Agency, we are creating a strong platform regulator to consistently enforce the new obligations for online services in Germany as well. In this way, we are placing greater responsibility on platform operators to combat illegal content.”
However, the draft Digital Services Act provides for other responsible bodies for some tasks. The DSA explicitly opens up this possibility, even if each state can ultimately only elevate one body to the position of DSA coordinator. For example, the regulations on data-based online advertising are to be enforced by the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection, in order to achieve consistency here with actual data protection law. And the offices responsible for online crime at the Federal Criminal Police Office are to be significantly increased in order to implement DSA enforcement in the area of criminal law.
However, just a few hours after the official presentation of the draft bill, there is already a dispute on another point: According to the draft bill, the enforcement of youth protection regulations is to be carried out by the Federal Center for the Protection of Children and Young People in the Media (BzKJ, formerly BPjM and before that the Federal Review Board for Publications Harmful to Young People). However, not only media regulation, but also the protection of minors is basically the responsibility of the federal states in the Federal Republic.
This division of responsibilities is enshrined in constitutional law and cannot be ignored by “an arbitrary law”, warns Tobias Schmid, chairman of the North Rhine-Westphalian State Media Authority. “The current regulation overlooks the requirement of state neutrality for the supervision of media content, but above all, it weakens the protection of children and young people online. After all, the media institutions of the federal states have a clear pioneering role in this field in Europe, as the proceedings against Pornhub and others have recently shown.”
LfM chairman Schmid sees an urgent need for clarification here: “Why the Federal Ministry of Digital Affairs and Transport is not implementing this requirement in its draft is sufficiently unclear to avoid the term ‘nonsensical’.”
It has long been decided that the German Network Enforcement Act will be replaced by the DSA. However, it is unclear how this change will be implemented in terms of substance and structure: Discussions between the BMJ and BMDV have been ongoing for months.
The Federal Office of Justice was the competent body for the NetzDG. However, according to its own information, the BMDV is not yet able to answer where its tasks will migrate to, which relate in particular to systemic risks and the regulations on content moderation.
The otherwise often conflicting players in business and consumer protection are showing unusual unity. Ramona Pop, head of the Federation of German Consumer Organizations, warns against the threat of “authority ping-pong“. Bitkom also warns. Regulated companies would have to have a fixed nationwide interlocutor and be able to rely on binding statements without having to address several regulatory authorities at the same time. “Extensive involvement of many authorities working side by side in the same regulatory field will lead to considerable fragmentation, which in turn will entail a great deal of coordination work”, explains Lina Wöstmann, media policy and platforms officer at the IT association.
“The list of authorities responsible for parts of the DSA in addition to the DSC should not be expanded under any circumstances”, also believes Julian Jaursch of the New Responsibility Foundation. “Otherwise, there is a risk of a tangle of responsibilities and costly duplicate structures.” He fears that this would weaken both the DSA application in Germany and Germany’s ability to influence the responsible Digital Services Coordinators Committee at the EU level.
The Internet industry association Eco welcomes the revision of the Telemedia Act by the Digital Services Act and the repeal of the NetzDG. “However, I consider the application and the entry into force planned for Feb. 17, 2024, to be more than ambitious”, says Eco board member Oliver Süme. “Companies definitely need more time for proper planning, implementation and coordination of the provisions.”
However, the tight schedule resulting from the requirements of the Digital Services Act will hardly be touched: The significantly delayed Digital Services Act must be drafted and promulgated in time for February – despite all the circumstances, such as the constitutional court’s call for reasonable consultation times for members of the Bundestag.
In mid-July, the Commission presented its package of measures for sustainable European freight transport. The initiative was eagerly awaited by the industry, because in view of the increasing demand for transport in the future, it is clear that it is high time to push ahead with decarbonization in freight transport now. If this does not succeed, the European Union risks failing in its self-declared goal of climate neutrality by 2050.
More than 50 percent of European freight traffic is still transported by road – a burden not only on the climate, but also on the infrastructure. Current figures from Brussels show: Of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions, 25 percent are attributable to the transport sector – but only 0.4 percent to rail. No one can get past this reality. The message from the EU Commission was accordingly clear: There needs to be a stronger focus on rail freight throughout Europe.
The EU Commission sees another key to decarbonizing freight transport in combined transport (CT). Combining the modes of transport rail, road and waterway not only has ecological advantages. Economic factors also speak for the use of intermodal transport solutions. As early as 2030, 21 billion tonne-kilometers are expected to be handled by combined transport, rising to 26 billion tonne-kilometers by 2050.
Increasing the shift of freight traffic to rail can save large amounts of CO2 compared to road transport. According to the IFEU Institute in Heidelberg, the value per ton and kilometer is 54 grams of CO2.
The better and more effective distribution of freight traffic across various infrastructures results in less congestion on roads and highways. In this way, the volume of traffic is significantly reduced and there are fewer traffic jams. However, for combined transport in Europe to become the successful model desired by the EU Commission, the following five measures must be taken in the further legislative processes to implement the package of measures.
First, rail freight can only develop its full potential if there is “healthy” competition among all players. The creation of fair framework conditions for all market participants is the basis for successful and effective competition. Only in this way can a financially attractive and environmentally friendly rail freight transport system be established that can compete seriously with road and international rail competition. Because as long as road transport using fossil fuels is the significantly cheaper option, there will be no large-scale conversion of logistics chains.
Incomprehensibly, the EU Commission’s proposal falls well short of expectations in this respect of all things. Instead of driving forward the traffic turnaround now, the proposal sets new incentives for transport by truck in the short term, because the permissible total weight for modular trucks in cross-border transports is to be increased to 44 tons in the future. Only from 2035 will these transports then have to be emission-free, which means another twelve years of growth in traffic with diesel trucks.
The consequence is counterproductive: The costs of such truck transports would initially fall as a result per ton, but in the extremely price-sensitive freight transport sector, such signals lead to immediate reactions. Goods would thus be increasingly transported by road again. At this point, we would like to see more courage for greater ambition in shaping the future of freight transport in Europe.
Secondly, new and digitized transshipment terminals are needed throughout Europe. After all, growth by rail can only be made possible with additional access points to the rail network. In addition, the rail infrastructure must be further expanded across the board in order to avoid capacity bottlenecks. Investments in the construction and maintenance of sidings and the expansion of corridors are essential for a successful long-term shift from road to rail.
Thirdly, nationwide solutions must be found for the rail loading of semitrailers that cannot be craned. In Europe, freight transport is mainly carried out using trailers of various designs, but only a very small proportion of these – around five percent – are suitable for combined transport (CT). This backlog represents the biggest hurdle to permeable transport. This makes it all the more urgent to have Europe-wide legal regulations for uniform standards in technology in order to make these semitrailers suitable for rail for standard handling processes in CT. In particular, the approval of the so-called “long truck” should only take place in conjunction with a corresponding standardization of the trailers.
Fourthly, the introduction of Digital Automatic Coupling (DAK) must be accelerated throughout Europe. DAK has enormous potential to make rail freight transport more efficient and thus more competitive. All EU member states must create the appropriate conditions so that the innovation can be used across borders.
Fifth, regulatory simplification is needed. The planning and execution of cross-border freight transport within Europe is complicated and must be drastically simplified. This requires Europe-wide harmonization of legal requirements and regulations. This includes, for example, the digitization of freight documents, the introduction of a common transport language, and a uniform legal framework.
It remains to be hoped that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union will take action in these five fields of action in the coming months. They must ensure that well-intentioned ideas from the Commission do not become obstructive laws for CT. Courageous decisions and great efforts are needed to turn the tide for sustainable rail freight transport.
Sven Wellbrock is Chief Operating Officer Europe and Chief Safety Officer at VTG. The Hamburg-based company is a rail freight car lessor and rail logistics provider and has more than 88,000 rail freight cars at its disposal.
