Robert Habeck is in Brussels today, and a mammoth program awaits the Minister of Economic Affairs. The Vice-Chancellor will be received by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and, according to the Berlaymont on Friday, will meet other Commissioners: Maroš Šefčovič, Thierry Breton, Didier Reynders, Kadri Simson and Wopke Hoekstra. As his ministry announced on Sunday, he will also meet with Margrethe Vestager. Further talks are planned with the Belgian Council Presidency.
Habeck has so many topics on his plate that his people are not sure if he can fit them all in. The Vice-Chancellor is bringing four large blocks of topics with him. Firstly: enlargement and reforms. Linked to this is the thorny issue of financing the EU and the Commission’s desire for its own revenue.
Secondly: trade policy. Habeck is looking to close ranks ahead of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi at the end of February and the Mercosur Agreement. The anti-dumping investigations against EVs and solar modules from China will also be a topic.
Thirdly: competition law and the economic security package with the regulation on the screening of foreign direct investment, which Margrethe Vestager and Valdis Dombrovskis will present in two weeks. According to the ministry, Habeck’s main aim is to ensure that domestic investment momentum is maintained.
Fourthly: Green Deal. Habeck wants to promote the conclusion of important laws – for example, the emission standards for trucks and the certification of carbon emissions are still open. And then there is the question of content for a Green Deal 2.0.
If his busy schedule allows it, the minister wants to promote the German position on other issues – the ban on forced labor, the emergency instrument for the internal market and the carbon management strategy for industry, which Šefčovič wants to present at the beginning of February.
Habeck has to perform a balancing act when it comes to subsidies. On the one hand, the Green Party does not want companies to rely solely on state aid as a result of the Net-Zero Industry Act. However, the Green politician does want to push for individual cases of state aid, for example for the green restructuring of Arcelor Mittal’s steel production.
Have a good start to the week.
In June, when the EU population will go to the polls and elect the European Parliament for the tenth time, the future direction of the Union will be decided. Even though the EP still cannot elect a government, it is still more powerful on many issues than many of the national parliaments in the 27 member states. This realization has long since reached other capitals around the world. And the temptation to influence Europe’s ballot is correspondingly great.
There are three main ways to exert harmful influence:
Two of the gateways in particular are considered potentially sensitive for the EU.
Jakub Janda, Director of the European Values Center for Security Policy in Prague, expects “massive, tailor-made Russian disinformation campaigns that address real internal European social and political problems in order to support pro-Russian politicians.”
Online disinformation campaigns have repeatedly shaped EU officials’ attention to possible influence in recent years. This is why it was important for the negotiators to provide at least the largest platforms in the EU with some regulations to combat “systemic risks” with the Digital Services Act. These include attempts to manipulate elections.
Russia in particular is considered the originator of online propaganda in social networks. The most famous – but by no means the only – example is the so-called Internet Research Agency. In Germany, the St. Petersburg manipulation company became known as the troll factory. It was part of the empire of the late leader of the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin. Especially its attempts to influence the 2016 US presidential election campaign made it famous, although it is now officially considered to have been disbanded. However, it seems almost impossible that Russia under Vladimir Putin would not make any further efforts of this kind.
In contrast, there is a diverse mix of intelligence services, the European External Action Service and its national counterparts, academics, journalists, commissions, fact-checkers and volunteers. In recent years, dozens of initiatives and projects have been launched to identify fake news, propaganda and manipulation, often funded by research or supported by foundations concerned about democracy. Among other things, this has resulted in cybersecurity-like procedural standards. Some of the actors work closely with the platform operators. Some providers are also constantly taking active action against disinformation networks themselves.
However, there are many doubts as to whether the current approach will be successful in the long term – and the commitment of the operators varies greatly. The EU Commission intends to urge operators to take swift action this year in its supervision of the Digital Services Act. For example, by insisting that linguistic and cultural experts at the platforms follow up on relevant information. So far, this has not been the case for some platforms in all EU languages.
However, how misinformation is generated and disseminated by artificial intelligence, for example, is also a concern for the relevant authorities – combined with how platforms can identify this. This is a new problem, and the EU’s AI Act cannot help here. An example from Switzerland shows what such problems can look like nowadays.
The political focus on disinformation is fundamentally correct, says Jakub Janda. However, this should not distract from the other gateways: “There is little focus on Russian influence operations targeting the far right or even mainstream parties in Europe.” However, this is the core of the problem in Europe, while at the same time, there are “very few measures being taken.”
Only a few member states have legislation comparable to the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the USA. A corresponding initiative by the Commission is only a few weeks old. Revisions to espionage legislation, such as those undertaken by the Baltic countries, are also a rarity. Just a few weeks ago, the case of Maximilian Krah, a member of the AfD Federal Executive Board, shed light on possible Chinese intelligence activities in Germany.
Janda warns: while the threat is being taken seriously in large parts of Central and Eastern Europe – with the express exception of Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary – most Western European states are underestimating the situation and doing far too little. This includes the large EU member states of all countries. Germany, France, Spain and Italy account for 314 of the 720 seats in the 2024 European elections.
Janda also considers another form of influence to be possible: “We have to reckon with Chinese operations in which threats are made via European intermediary companies that Anti-People’s Republic policies would mean economic damage for Europe.” The Commission and the European Parliament have recently frequently called for a tougher stance towards China – which has not gone unnoticed by the state and party leadership in Beijing.
From the nomination of candidates and the election programs and the actual election campaign to the public discourse before the election: currently, there seem to be many opportunities for foreign actors to attempt to exert influence. Whether they are successful in the narrower sense is not necessarily decisive: simply unsettling the public can be part of the goal.
However, the European Parliament believes that an attack on the voting process itself is fairly unlikely. Only Estonia offers its citizens a fully digital ballot. However, experts say that in some countries, such as Germany, the initial transmission of election results would theoretically be vulnerable to cyberattacks.
This would not mean a successful attack on the election, as the actual results could not be changed. According to concerns of responsible officials, however, trust in the integrity of the election process would suffer if a winner was first declared provisionally, but the result then had to be corrected.
This is another reason why the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity ENISA, in cooperation with other agencies, rehearsed an emergency for the second time in October. A large-scale attack on the European elections was simulated – and the cooperation of the many players involved. However, an exercise evaluation is not expected to be published until after the 2024 European elections. And there is still some time to prepare for possible attempts to exert influence.
A political agreement has been reached, but the fine-tuning of the AI Act is continuing. According to current plans, the trilogue parties want to complete the technical work by the beginning of February 2024. Companies are eagerly awaiting the results. “The biggest disadvantage is that we still don’t know the exact content of the AI Act,” says Daniel Abbou, Managing Director of the German AI Association. “The uncertainty is still relatively high.” The AI experts at the international commercial law firm Bird & Bird are also observing this: “Companies are currently waiting in the wings,” says lawyer Oliver Belitz.
Because it is obvious to everyone that Europe has some catching up to do when it comes to artificial intelligence. This applies to both the development of AI and its application in business. According to a survey conducted by the digital association Bitkom, only 15 percent of companies use AI so far. Meanwhile, most of them are well aware that the use of AI will be a decisive competitive factor in the future – in practically all sectors.
The Berlin-based start-up Xayn is an AI company that develops generative AI solutions for companies and institutions. It combines the advantages of large and small language models. It is currently difficult to predict what the AI Act will mean for companies in Europe and Germany, says co-founder and CEO Leif-Nissen Lundbæk. The spectrum ranges from “Europe will be completely left behind in AI development” to “Europe will set binding ethical guidelines for global AI development”. “In my view, all options are still open,” says Lundbæk. “In other words: We are in a very exciting phase here.”
He is optimistic about the future of his own company in light of the AI Act. “We already have a very strong focus on transparency and data protection – both areas that are also affected by the AI Act and with which we have already developed a USP,” says Lundbæk. “Compared to other companies that have not yet dealt with this, we have a clear head start.”
As long as the final text of the AI Act has not been published, companies cannot start implementing the requirements. However, Oliver Belitz from Bird & Bird says that it is already possible and advisable to examine the already known content of the AI Act and make initial preparations. “We saw during the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation that it is not a good idea for companies to put off preparing for upcoming regulatory requirements.” Because then it often ends up being hectic and expensive. “Many companies still remember that painfully.”
Once the AI Act comes into force (expected in the summer of 2024), there will be a staggered transition phase: While the majority of the regulations will apply 24 months after coming into force, this will apply to some regulations, for example, on prohibited AI systems, after just six months. “Anyone who uses AI systems that are subject to stricter regulation under the AI Act and thus has to make significant changes to their structures should start implementing them as early as possible,” warns Belitz.
The AI Act places some of the highest requirements on AI systems, which it classifies as “high risk.” If an AI system falls into this category, transparency, documentation and risk management requirements must be met – all aspects that are part of good corporate governance. “However, it makes a big difference whether a company imposes certain governance requirements voluntarily and complies with them; or whether these requirements are based on a legal obligation. In the latter case, not only is the technical standard to be complied with precisely specified – non-compliance is also regularly punished with severe fines,” says Belitz.
The AI Act is now also attracting international attention. In the UK, many companies that previously paid little attention to the topic have now woken up. “Clients outside the EU also currently have a great need for advice if they want to offer AI systems in the EU,” says Belitz. “These companies are now realizing: Oops, there’s a lot to implement, which can involve high costs.”
The big question is whether the AI Act will achieve its goal: It wants to prepare the ground for trustworthy AI, based on European values, while promoting innovation and minimizing risks. Oliver Belitz from Bird & Bird believes that the AI Act’s intention of limiting risks and achieving a high level of protection for citizens has largely been fulfilled. Only on the side of promoting innovation does the law have little potential. “But that is also more a task for economic policy.”
That the AI Act is structured as a regulation is to be welcomed. “The same rules apply everywhere for anyone who wants to operate in the European market with AI systems. This is because the AI Act comes into force immediately in all EU member states without the need for a national transposition act. There is therefore no risk of different transpositions in the individual member states – as is the case with the EU Copyright Directive, for example.”
The uniform rules are also important to Daniel Abbou from the German AI Association. “That is the strongest argument in favor of the AI Act.” However, the question is how the AI Act will be implemented. After all, it makes a big difference if, for example, the data protection authorities are responsible for monitoring and sanctions in Germany and the Ministry of Economic Affairs in another country. “Then the Act makes no sense at all,” says Abbou. “It can’t be that there are countries where controls are more relaxed than in another. I am very concerned that there will be 27 different interpretations of the AI Act.”
Abbou therefore believes that setting up a European AI Office is the right thing to do. “But I would first like to see it established and functioning and that decisions are not delegated to national bodies.”
In Germany, there are often philosophical discussions about AI. “But we don’t talk enough about ways AI can help our economy and our administration in concrete terms,” says Abbou. His hope for 2024 is that these discussions will now take place. “Let’s not kid ourselves, demographic change will strike mercilessly and filling vacancies will become increasingly difficult. AI can be a helpful tool here.”
Public administration in particular is sitting on an inexhaustible treasure trove of data. “We need to slowly start realizing that we can use this data to build models that make administration more effective and services better.”
The CEO of Xayn also expects the perspective on artificial intelligence to change: “After the big hype about AI, I think it will become more concrete this year: What exactly are AI applications that will be practically implemented and enforced?” says Lundbæk. It’s less about being able to write emails in the style of Shakespeare by pushing a button. “Rather, it’s about B2B topics that seem drier at first glance. In short: in my view, this is the start of the really exciting phase in AI development.”
Oh, Monday. If you lack the necessary energy to start the working week after the winter vacations or even just the weekend, try the following lines:
“Pump up the jam, pump it up
While your feet are stompin’
And the jam is pumpin’
Look ahead, the crowd is jumpin’“
You might want to turn the music up and dance around the table. Not only will you be doing something for your circulation, but you’ll also be getting in the mood for the Belgian Council Presidency, which began this year.
“Pump up the jam” by Technotronic, the house disco classic from 1989, is one of 58 tracks on the Spotify playlist that Belgium put together in good tradition at the start of its presidency. That’s almost four hours of Belgian pop music.
It has become a wild mix, which is hardly surprising given Belgium’s linguistic diversity. However, language plays a rather subordinate role in many of the songs, as electronic music is one of Belgium’s most important pop-cultural exports. “Turn the tide” by Sylver or “Désenchantée” by Kate Ryan mean nothing to you? Then take a listen. There were times when these tracks were played on repeat on the radio – just like the annoying “No limit” by 2 Unlimited.
Their stomping contrasts sharply with the music of legendary chanson singer Jacques Brel, who was born near Brussels. He is represented on the playlist with “Le plat pays” from 1962. The pop duo Soulsister and “The way to your heart” are more upbeat. “Laat de zon in je hart,” advises pop singer Willy Sommers, while singer Yasmine demands: “Meisjes aan de macht.”
Of course, Stromae, internationally acclaimed and a modern representative of Belgian electronic music, is not to be left out. His super-hit “Alors on danse” from 2010 didn’t make it onto the playlist, but “Papaoutai” did.
However, the playlist starts with singer Angèl – the Belgians may be also sending a message to the EU by choosing this song: “Bruxelles je t’aime.” Sarah Schaefer
Robert Habeck is in Brussels today, and a mammoth program awaits the Minister of Economic Affairs. The Vice-Chancellor will be received by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and, according to the Berlaymont on Friday, will meet other Commissioners: Maroš Šefčovič, Thierry Breton, Didier Reynders, Kadri Simson and Wopke Hoekstra. As his ministry announced on Sunday, he will also meet with Margrethe Vestager. Further talks are planned with the Belgian Council Presidency.
Habeck has so many topics on his plate that his people are not sure if he can fit them all in. The Vice-Chancellor is bringing four large blocks of topics with him. Firstly: enlargement and reforms. Linked to this is the thorny issue of financing the EU and the Commission’s desire for its own revenue.
Secondly: trade policy. Habeck is looking to close ranks ahead of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi at the end of February and the Mercosur Agreement. The anti-dumping investigations against EVs and solar modules from China will also be a topic.
Thirdly: competition law and the economic security package with the regulation on the screening of foreign direct investment, which Margrethe Vestager and Valdis Dombrovskis will present in two weeks. According to the ministry, Habeck’s main aim is to ensure that domestic investment momentum is maintained.
Fourthly: Green Deal. Habeck wants to promote the conclusion of important laws – for example, the emission standards for trucks and the certification of carbon emissions are still open. And then there is the question of content for a Green Deal 2.0.
If his busy schedule allows it, the minister wants to promote the German position on other issues – the ban on forced labor, the emergency instrument for the internal market and the carbon management strategy for industry, which Šefčovič wants to present at the beginning of February.
Habeck has to perform a balancing act when it comes to subsidies. On the one hand, the Green Party does not want companies to rely solely on state aid as a result of the Net-Zero Industry Act. However, the Green politician does want to push for individual cases of state aid, for example for the green restructuring of Arcelor Mittal’s steel production.
Have a good start to the week.
In June, when the EU population will go to the polls and elect the European Parliament for the tenth time, the future direction of the Union will be decided. Even though the EP still cannot elect a government, it is still more powerful on many issues than many of the national parliaments in the 27 member states. This realization has long since reached other capitals around the world. And the temptation to influence Europe’s ballot is correspondingly great.
There are three main ways to exert harmful influence:
Two of the gateways in particular are considered potentially sensitive for the EU.
Jakub Janda, Director of the European Values Center for Security Policy in Prague, expects “massive, tailor-made Russian disinformation campaigns that address real internal European social and political problems in order to support pro-Russian politicians.”
Online disinformation campaigns have repeatedly shaped EU officials’ attention to possible influence in recent years. This is why it was important for the negotiators to provide at least the largest platforms in the EU with some regulations to combat “systemic risks” with the Digital Services Act. These include attempts to manipulate elections.
Russia in particular is considered the originator of online propaganda in social networks. The most famous – but by no means the only – example is the so-called Internet Research Agency. In Germany, the St. Petersburg manipulation company became known as the troll factory. It was part of the empire of the late leader of the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin. Especially its attempts to influence the 2016 US presidential election campaign made it famous, although it is now officially considered to have been disbanded. However, it seems almost impossible that Russia under Vladimir Putin would not make any further efforts of this kind.
In contrast, there is a diverse mix of intelligence services, the European External Action Service and its national counterparts, academics, journalists, commissions, fact-checkers and volunteers. In recent years, dozens of initiatives and projects have been launched to identify fake news, propaganda and manipulation, often funded by research or supported by foundations concerned about democracy. Among other things, this has resulted in cybersecurity-like procedural standards. Some of the actors work closely with the platform operators. Some providers are also constantly taking active action against disinformation networks themselves.
However, there are many doubts as to whether the current approach will be successful in the long term – and the commitment of the operators varies greatly. The EU Commission intends to urge operators to take swift action this year in its supervision of the Digital Services Act. For example, by insisting that linguistic and cultural experts at the platforms follow up on relevant information. So far, this has not been the case for some platforms in all EU languages.
However, how misinformation is generated and disseminated by artificial intelligence, for example, is also a concern for the relevant authorities – combined with how platforms can identify this. This is a new problem, and the EU’s AI Act cannot help here. An example from Switzerland shows what such problems can look like nowadays.
The political focus on disinformation is fundamentally correct, says Jakub Janda. However, this should not distract from the other gateways: “There is little focus on Russian influence operations targeting the far right or even mainstream parties in Europe.” However, this is the core of the problem in Europe, while at the same time, there are “very few measures being taken.”
Only a few member states have legislation comparable to the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the USA. A corresponding initiative by the Commission is only a few weeks old. Revisions to espionage legislation, such as those undertaken by the Baltic countries, are also a rarity. Just a few weeks ago, the case of Maximilian Krah, a member of the AfD Federal Executive Board, shed light on possible Chinese intelligence activities in Germany.
Janda warns: while the threat is being taken seriously in large parts of Central and Eastern Europe – with the express exception of Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary – most Western European states are underestimating the situation and doing far too little. This includes the large EU member states of all countries. Germany, France, Spain and Italy account for 314 of the 720 seats in the 2024 European elections.
Janda also considers another form of influence to be possible: “We have to reckon with Chinese operations in which threats are made via European intermediary companies that Anti-People’s Republic policies would mean economic damage for Europe.” The Commission and the European Parliament have recently frequently called for a tougher stance towards China – which has not gone unnoticed by the state and party leadership in Beijing.
From the nomination of candidates and the election programs and the actual election campaign to the public discourse before the election: currently, there seem to be many opportunities for foreign actors to attempt to exert influence. Whether they are successful in the narrower sense is not necessarily decisive: simply unsettling the public can be part of the goal.
However, the European Parliament believes that an attack on the voting process itself is fairly unlikely. Only Estonia offers its citizens a fully digital ballot. However, experts say that in some countries, such as Germany, the initial transmission of election results would theoretically be vulnerable to cyberattacks.
This would not mean a successful attack on the election, as the actual results could not be changed. According to concerns of responsible officials, however, trust in the integrity of the election process would suffer if a winner was first declared provisionally, but the result then had to be corrected.
This is another reason why the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity ENISA, in cooperation with other agencies, rehearsed an emergency for the second time in October. A large-scale attack on the European elections was simulated – and the cooperation of the many players involved. However, an exercise evaluation is not expected to be published until after the 2024 European elections. And there is still some time to prepare for possible attempts to exert influence.
A political agreement has been reached, but the fine-tuning of the AI Act is continuing. According to current plans, the trilogue parties want to complete the technical work by the beginning of February 2024. Companies are eagerly awaiting the results. “The biggest disadvantage is that we still don’t know the exact content of the AI Act,” says Daniel Abbou, Managing Director of the German AI Association. “The uncertainty is still relatively high.” The AI experts at the international commercial law firm Bird & Bird are also observing this: “Companies are currently waiting in the wings,” says lawyer Oliver Belitz.
Because it is obvious to everyone that Europe has some catching up to do when it comes to artificial intelligence. This applies to both the development of AI and its application in business. According to a survey conducted by the digital association Bitkom, only 15 percent of companies use AI so far. Meanwhile, most of them are well aware that the use of AI will be a decisive competitive factor in the future – in practically all sectors.
The Berlin-based start-up Xayn is an AI company that develops generative AI solutions for companies and institutions. It combines the advantages of large and small language models. It is currently difficult to predict what the AI Act will mean for companies in Europe and Germany, says co-founder and CEO Leif-Nissen Lundbæk. The spectrum ranges from “Europe will be completely left behind in AI development” to “Europe will set binding ethical guidelines for global AI development”. “In my view, all options are still open,” says Lundbæk. “In other words: We are in a very exciting phase here.”
He is optimistic about the future of his own company in light of the AI Act. “We already have a very strong focus on transparency and data protection – both areas that are also affected by the AI Act and with which we have already developed a USP,” says Lundbæk. “Compared to other companies that have not yet dealt with this, we have a clear head start.”
As long as the final text of the AI Act has not been published, companies cannot start implementing the requirements. However, Oliver Belitz from Bird & Bird says that it is already possible and advisable to examine the already known content of the AI Act and make initial preparations. “We saw during the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation that it is not a good idea for companies to put off preparing for upcoming regulatory requirements.” Because then it often ends up being hectic and expensive. “Many companies still remember that painfully.”
Once the AI Act comes into force (expected in the summer of 2024), there will be a staggered transition phase: While the majority of the regulations will apply 24 months after coming into force, this will apply to some regulations, for example, on prohibited AI systems, after just six months. “Anyone who uses AI systems that are subject to stricter regulation under the AI Act and thus has to make significant changes to their structures should start implementing them as early as possible,” warns Belitz.
The AI Act places some of the highest requirements on AI systems, which it classifies as “high risk.” If an AI system falls into this category, transparency, documentation and risk management requirements must be met – all aspects that are part of good corporate governance. “However, it makes a big difference whether a company imposes certain governance requirements voluntarily and complies with them; or whether these requirements are based on a legal obligation. In the latter case, not only is the technical standard to be complied with precisely specified – non-compliance is also regularly punished with severe fines,” says Belitz.
The AI Act is now also attracting international attention. In the UK, many companies that previously paid little attention to the topic have now woken up. “Clients outside the EU also currently have a great need for advice if they want to offer AI systems in the EU,” says Belitz. “These companies are now realizing: Oops, there’s a lot to implement, which can involve high costs.”
The big question is whether the AI Act will achieve its goal: It wants to prepare the ground for trustworthy AI, based on European values, while promoting innovation and minimizing risks. Oliver Belitz from Bird & Bird believes that the AI Act’s intention of limiting risks and achieving a high level of protection for citizens has largely been fulfilled. Only on the side of promoting innovation does the law have little potential. “But that is also more a task for economic policy.”
That the AI Act is structured as a regulation is to be welcomed. “The same rules apply everywhere for anyone who wants to operate in the European market with AI systems. This is because the AI Act comes into force immediately in all EU member states without the need for a national transposition act. There is therefore no risk of different transpositions in the individual member states – as is the case with the EU Copyright Directive, for example.”
The uniform rules are also important to Daniel Abbou from the German AI Association. “That is the strongest argument in favor of the AI Act.” However, the question is how the AI Act will be implemented. After all, it makes a big difference if, for example, the data protection authorities are responsible for monitoring and sanctions in Germany and the Ministry of Economic Affairs in another country. “Then the Act makes no sense at all,” says Abbou. “It can’t be that there are countries where controls are more relaxed than in another. I am very concerned that there will be 27 different interpretations of the AI Act.”
Abbou therefore believes that setting up a European AI Office is the right thing to do. “But I would first like to see it established and functioning and that decisions are not delegated to national bodies.”
In Germany, there are often philosophical discussions about AI. “But we don’t talk enough about ways AI can help our economy and our administration in concrete terms,” says Abbou. His hope for 2024 is that these discussions will now take place. “Let’s not kid ourselves, demographic change will strike mercilessly and filling vacancies will become increasingly difficult. AI can be a helpful tool here.”
Public administration in particular is sitting on an inexhaustible treasure trove of data. “We need to slowly start realizing that we can use this data to build models that make administration more effective and services better.”
The CEO of Xayn also expects the perspective on artificial intelligence to change: “After the big hype about AI, I think it will become more concrete this year: What exactly are AI applications that will be practically implemented and enforced?” says Lundbæk. It’s less about being able to write emails in the style of Shakespeare by pushing a button. “Rather, it’s about B2B topics that seem drier at first glance. In short: in my view, this is the start of the really exciting phase in AI development.”
Oh, Monday. If you lack the necessary energy to start the working week after the winter vacations or even just the weekend, try the following lines:
“Pump up the jam, pump it up
While your feet are stompin’
And the jam is pumpin’
Look ahead, the crowd is jumpin’“
You might want to turn the music up and dance around the table. Not only will you be doing something for your circulation, but you’ll also be getting in the mood for the Belgian Council Presidency, which began this year.
“Pump up the jam” by Technotronic, the house disco classic from 1989, is one of 58 tracks on the Spotify playlist that Belgium put together in good tradition at the start of its presidency. That’s almost four hours of Belgian pop music.
It has become a wild mix, which is hardly surprising given Belgium’s linguistic diversity. However, language plays a rather subordinate role in many of the songs, as electronic music is one of Belgium’s most important pop-cultural exports. “Turn the tide” by Sylver or “Désenchantée” by Kate Ryan mean nothing to you? Then take a listen. There were times when these tracks were played on repeat on the radio – just like the annoying “No limit” by 2 Unlimited.
Their stomping contrasts sharply with the music of legendary chanson singer Jacques Brel, who was born near Brussels. He is represented on the playlist with “Le plat pays” from 1962. The pop duo Soulsister and “The way to your heart” are more upbeat. “Laat de zon in je hart,” advises pop singer Willy Sommers, while singer Yasmine demands: “Meisjes aan de macht.”
Of course, Stromae, internationally acclaimed and a modern representative of Belgian electronic music, is not to be left out. His super-hit “Alors on danse” from 2010 didn’t make it onto the playlist, but “Papaoutai” did.
However, the playlist starts with singer Angèl – the Belgians may be also sending a message to the EU by choosing this song: “Bruxelles je t’aime.” Sarah Schaefer
