The socialist party family PES is meeting in Rome to select Nicolas Schmit from Luxembourg as their lead candidate in the European elections. The Social Democrats have not given up hope of making Schmit President of the Commission. However, the polls show the EPP and its candidate Ursula von der Leyen clearly in the lead.
Markus Grabitz and I have heard that the Social Democrats therefore want to position themselves for the future President of the European Council. Their clear favorite: the long-serving Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa, who resigned at the beginning of November in the wake of corruption investigations. His party colleagues are confident that Costa will soon have put the matter behind him.
If the election results allow it, leading Social Democrats also want to claim another top job, namely that of President of the European Parliament, at least in the second half of the mandate. S&D Group leader Iratxe García Peréz and EP Vice-President Katarina Barley are said to have ambitions to succeed Roberta Metsola. The post of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, currently held by Spanish Socialist Josep Borrell, appears less desirable to the Social Democrats – it could be devalued by a new Defense Commissioner.
After the 2019 European elections, Jens Geier, as head of the German SPD MEPs in the European Parliament, negotiated with the other heads of delegation about posts in Parliament, such as committee chairs. He is now handing over the role after seven years. Geier informed the SPD MEPs in Strasbourg of this on Wednesday evening. His successor is to be elected on March 12. Two MEPs have registered their interest; the deadline for applications is noon on March 8.
Wishing you a peaceful weekend!
In his speech on the State of the Nation and future policy, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed two audiences: the domestic market and foreign countries. Briefly summarized: While society in Russia can look forward to numerous support programs, development projects, an alleged increase in life expectancy and basically a better life, foreign countries, primarily the West, must be wary of the use of nuclear weapons.
Putin threatens more clearly and calmly than ever before: The strategic nuclear forces are “in full readiness for use”. However, these forces were put on alert just three days after the start of the full-scale invasion two years ago.
The speech by the Russian president, who is likely to be re-elected in a dubious election in two weeks, was less surprising in its content than in its tone. The biggest war in Europe since 1945, for which Putin is responsible, was pushed into the background: although Putin spoke much longer than a year ago, at two hours and seven minutes, he was much shorter on the war, its causes and consequences. As always, the West was to blame.
On the other hand, Putin threatened much more blatantly than before. Apparently grateful for French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to possibly send French troops to Ukraine, Putin recalled “those who have already sent their contingents to our territory” – an allusion to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union. But it is also a warning of a possible attack or invasion of Russian territory. And according to Russian understanding, this territory now also includes the occupied territories in eastern Ukraine.
Putin mentioned seven different modern weapons systems by name. He emphasized that there are more in development and that a conflict today would end more tragically than in the past. “They should finally understand that we also have weapons, they already know that, I just mentioned it, that can hit targets on their territory.” In the end, Putin summarized his message to the West, which supports Ukraine in its resistance against Russia’s aggression, succinctly and ultimately: “Without a strong and sovereign Russia, a stable world order is impossible.”
Putin devoted less than half an hour of his entire speech to the war in Ukraine. Instead, he laid out various plans for social developments, some of them in great detail. Russia’s demographic problems – Putin’s second most important topic after security structures since he came to power in 2000 – are to be resolved with new support programs for families.
A large family with many children should become the norm. Health, education, artificial intelligence, credit waivers for poor regions, a new nuclear icebreaker called Stalingrad and even a gas supply for allotment gardens were all on the agenda. Two weeks before the presidential election, from which Putin’s main challenger, the war-critical Boris Nadezhdin, was excluded, the president distributed fictitious gifts.
His soporific remarks – as the camera in the hall showed more than once – are intentional. The war is to be forgotten, his own dead are merely mentioned as heroic victims and as role models for a strengthened fatherland. The distraction from problems, and the promise of a golden future, which, according to initial assessments by economic experts, could only be achieved through tax increases, is reminiscent of his four-hour annual press conference in December.
Even then, his appearance was intended to make people forget the war. Then, as now, the aim was to show that this was a man of power who knows no doubts about his course, who is prepared to be aggressive and who, above all, wants to negotiate a new security architecture for the world with the USA alone. It is no coincidence that he specifically mentioned only the United States, with which Russia is prepared to engage in a “dialogue” on issues of “strategic stability”. It is about nuclear weapons. At the same time, however, Putin questioned: “They seriously want to discuss strategic stability with us, while at the same time, as they themselves say, they want to strategically defeat Russia on the battlefield?”
A willingness to talk sounds different. But Putin is not looking for it at all and, at least in this speech, is not showing any signs of it. Instead, he repeats more clearly than ever that Russia’s place is at the table of the most powerful, whatever the cost.
In Berlin, the opposition drew a line from Putin’s speech to the German Chancellor’s refusal to supply cruise missiles. The tone of Putin’s speech made it clear how devastating the Chancellor’s recent Taurus volte-face and the open conflict between Scholz and Macron were, said the deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, Johann Wadephul.
The deputy parliamentary group leader of the co-governing FDP, Michael Link, called for clear signals to be sent to stop Putin’s aggressive policy. One way of strengthening NATO and the EU would be a security agreement between the EU and the UK.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is expected to be the Christian Democratic EPP’s candidate for the European elections in June. She intends to have her candidature confirmed in Bucharest next week. Von der Leyen’s de-risking approach has been a defining feature of EU-China relations since 2019, and she intends to continue this program in a possible second term of office.
She has already left her mark on the discussion surrounding the European and German China strategy during her first term of office. “This is the geopolitical Commission that I have in mind, and that Europe urgently needs,” von der Leyen emphasized during the presentation of her program in the EU Parliament in November 2019.
According to Marc Julienne, Director of the Asia department at the French think tank l’Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) Table.Media, von der Leyen has generally made the right choice with this geopolitical approach. The events of the last five years surrounding the Covid pandemic and the attack on Ukraine have proven her right in her approach, says Julienne.
However, von der Leyen’s approach has “triggered mixed feelings” in the French capital. On the one hand, the concept of risk reduction with regard to China is welcomed there. On the other hand, von der Leyen is considered too US-aligned in Paris, which is traditionally rather Washington-skeptical, says Julienne.
A new chapter is now on the horizon: The US elections this fall. However, the future of the transatlantic coordination on China will only partially depend on the outcome of the US elections, explains Noah Barkin from Rhodium Group and the Berlin office of the German Marshall Fund. “If Donald Trump returns to the White House and starts a trade conflict with Europe, then it is more difficult to envision close collaboration between Washington and Brussels on China.” Barkin is certain, however, that a possible US President Trump will not lead to a significant change in Europe’s approach to China.
“As a former German defense minister, she saw the relationship with China through a security prism from the beginning,” Barkin emphasizes. This is evident, for example, in the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. The Commission President was “not a fan” of it, and she did not openly express her support for the agreement. Most of the negotiations were held under Jean-Claude Juncker’s previous Commission.
However, von der Leyen did not only inherit the disliked CAI from Juncker but also the now widely known triad of partner, competitor and rival. The Juncker Commission presented this as its China strategy in March 2019. The CAI now seems like a distant memory, somewhere at the back of the EU’s historical mind – while the classification as competitor and rival has shifted more into focus.
Brussels has significantly expanded the EU economy’s defensive capabilities since 2019. The EU has repeatedly made advances that have provoked Beijing’s ire. One example is the planned tariffs on Chinese electric cars, which China considers to be an unfriendly act. Von der Leyen believes they are a necessary means of preventing export dumping. The planned Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the Anti-Coercion Instrument are also a thorn in Beijing’s side.
The brewing friction between the two sides has also been reflected in the recent exchange between Brussels and Beijing, after the Covid-19 pandemic further complicated it: There was no EU-China summit in 2021, because of the rampant coronavirus. In the following year, the format was held in the form of a video call.
Under the shock of the start of the war against Ukraine, Brussels had one issue above all on its list: To win over Beijing as a voice of reason that could influence Moscow. China didn’t want to hear much about this and only wanted to talk trade. The online summit turned out to be a disaster. Both sides seemed ill-prepared for the concerns of the other.
2023 was a decisive year for EU relations under von der Leyen: At the end of March, she was the first Commission President to hold a keynote speech on China, coining the de-risking motto in Brussels. During her visit with Macron in Beijing just a few days later in April, she persisted in her confrontational approach. In December, the first in-person EU-China summit was held in Beijing. Von der Leyen spoke with China’s President Xi Jinping for several hours.
Steven Blockmans, Director of Research at the Brussels-based think tank Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), already sees a direction for von der Leyen’s second term in office: “Tensions between China and the EU are bound to rise,” says Blockmans. This will lead the next Commission to put the emphasis in the EU’s approach to the PRC even more on systemic rivalry.
After five years, the EU Commission President has laid the foundations for the geopolitical Commission – but there are still unresolved issues:
The Rassemblement National (RN) campaign for the 2024 European elections will be launched in Marseille on Sunday. In France’s second-largest city, MEP Jordan Bardella, lead candidate of the far-right party, will hold his first election event, accompanied by Marine Le Pen. For the party with the flame, which is leading in the polls, the choice of France’s second-largest city is anything but coincidental.
Marseille is the constituency of the leader of La France Insoumise, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the RN wants to oppose him on his political turf. The neighboring city of Nice is the stronghold of the leader of the conservative Les Républicains, Eric Ciotti, and the RN hopes to win additional votes in the region there.
The election campaign is going well for the RN – and very badly for Renaissance, the French branch of Renew, which represents President Emmanuel Macron’s political camp. This is because the polls in France are consistent and continue to see the far-right party far ahead: Eleven percentage points now separate the RN (30%) from Renaissance (19%) according to a survey by Odoxa for Public Sénat and the regional press, which was published on Feb. 27. The RN is thus ahead of its 2019 result, which was 23.3% at the time.
For the RN, however, there is far more at stake than just winning five additional seats in the European Parliament. The party makes no secret of the fact that a victory in the European elections would be the launch pad to install Marine Le Pen as the next President of the French Republic in the Élysée Palace and Jordan Bardella as Prime Minister and Head of Government in the Matignon Palace. The next presidential elections in France will take place in 2027.
The danger is registered at the Élysée Palace. Emmanuel Macron and Gabriel Attal, his prime minister, have set the tone in Paris this week. And it is Ukraine that is becoming the scene of the confrontation between the Renaissance and the Rassemblement National. Last Tuesday in the French parliament, the Assemblée Nationale, there was a heated exchange between the Prime Minister and Marine Le Pen, the leader of the RN parliamentary group. The exchange took place after the head of state’s declaration that he would not rule out sending Western troops to Ukraine.
By mentioning the deployment of troops in Ukraine for the first time, “the President of the Republic has taken a further step towards warmongering, thereby creating an existential risk for 70 million French people and in particular for our armed forces, which are already deployed in Eastern Europe”, Marine Le Pen raged.
“You have been waiting for the first opportunity to recall the true loyalties you have [and] to show the true face you have”, Gabriel Attal replied. “When you read the research like that of the Washington Post, you have to wonder if Vladimir Putin’s troops are not already in our country,” he continued. “I’m talking about you and your troops, Mrs. Le Pen. If you had been elected in 2022, we would now be supplying weapons to Russia to break up Ukraine, that’s the reality”, he added to boos from the RN MPs.
In communication strategy, this is called “shockvertising” or “shock strategy” to increase attention and get the recipient of the message to react. When Emmanuel Macron said on Monday evening that “nothing is ruled out” concerning sending troops to Ukraine, this was not only intended to shake up France’s European allies and Russian President Vladimir Putin a few days before his speech. It is also a political maneuver on the French political chessboard.
Emmanuel Macron aims to regain control, as the ongoing agricultural crisis is weighing on his government in favor of the RN. To this end, he wants to highlight the far-right party’s incoherence towards Russia and make it clear what is at stake: Putin will be re-elected in the east next March. In November, Donald Trump, who is considered just as Russophile as Marine Le Pen, has every chance of becoming President of the United States again.
In Europe, Valerie Hayer, who is about to be officially nominated as the leading candidate for the Renaissance, still has three months to get Emmanuel Macron’s message across and turn the polls around.
The digital and sustainable transformation, the necessary renewal of public infrastructure, and the strengthening of European sovereignty will lead to a considerable need for funding in the coming years. Europe has a lot of catching up to do to make itself fit for the future.
These tasks cannot be accomplished with public funds alone. Private capital must therefore be mobilized. Equity financing from within companies and bank-based debt capital are the key pillars for this.
In addition, an EU-wide single market can help with access to financing and facilitate venture and risk capital financing. The Savings Banks Finance Group and the German Cooperative Financial Network therefore support a European capital markets union.
However, the freedom to move freely in European competition and the associated corporate responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Strengthening the European single market in the financial and capital market sector should therefore not be confused with shifting risks to third parties.
The following already applies throughout the EU: Private customer deposits at banks are protected up to €100,000 and are paid out to customers within a few days in the event of a crisis. Less efficient institutions can therefore promise their customers the same protection as rock-solid institutions. This makes sense in the interests of consumer and savings protection.
Fair competition requires that all credit institutions in Europe make their own efforts to establish effective deposit protection and do not rely on others. And the risks of banks that are too large must not be passed on to others. This is why the German savings banks and cooperative banks do not want to be liable for the risky business activities of large international banks with the security funds they have saved to protect their customers.
This would weaken their prevention-oriented institutional protection systems and thus the financing of German SMEs. We want to provide our financial services to medium-sized, small and micro enterprises as well as private customers in all regions of the country at fair conditions and with a regional focus on our home country.
We agree with the Federal Chancellor, the Federal Minister of Finance, the Federal Minister of Economics and the entire Federal Government that the plans being discussed in Brussels for the structure of the banking system with a communitized deposit guarantee scheme in Europe run counter to this. We are irritated that the German Bundesbank is deviating from this unified German position.
The time is not ripe, as the EU is now more than ever far removed from separating public finance and banks. Communitizing liability then means a crushing burden on the shoulders of our customers. The conclusion from this can only be The banks’ own responsibility must be strengthened and protected. This is the only way to ensure that imbalances do not occur in the first place, which would then have to be absorbed by everyone’s stamina.
The socialist party family PES is meeting in Rome to select Nicolas Schmit from Luxembourg as their lead candidate in the European elections. The Social Democrats have not given up hope of making Schmit President of the Commission. However, the polls show the EPP and its candidate Ursula von der Leyen clearly in the lead.
Markus Grabitz and I have heard that the Social Democrats therefore want to position themselves for the future President of the European Council. Their clear favorite: the long-serving Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa, who resigned at the beginning of November in the wake of corruption investigations. His party colleagues are confident that Costa will soon have put the matter behind him.
If the election results allow it, leading Social Democrats also want to claim another top job, namely that of President of the European Parliament, at least in the second half of the mandate. S&D Group leader Iratxe García Peréz and EP Vice-President Katarina Barley are said to have ambitions to succeed Roberta Metsola. The post of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, currently held by Spanish Socialist Josep Borrell, appears less desirable to the Social Democrats – it could be devalued by a new Defense Commissioner.
After the 2019 European elections, Jens Geier, as head of the German SPD MEPs in the European Parliament, negotiated with the other heads of delegation about posts in Parliament, such as committee chairs. He is now handing over the role after seven years. Geier informed the SPD MEPs in Strasbourg of this on Wednesday evening. His successor is to be elected on March 12. Two MEPs have registered their interest; the deadline for applications is noon on March 8.
Wishing you a peaceful weekend!
In his speech on the State of the Nation and future policy, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed two audiences: the domestic market and foreign countries. Briefly summarized: While society in Russia can look forward to numerous support programs, development projects, an alleged increase in life expectancy and basically a better life, foreign countries, primarily the West, must be wary of the use of nuclear weapons.
Putin threatens more clearly and calmly than ever before: The strategic nuclear forces are “in full readiness for use”. However, these forces were put on alert just three days after the start of the full-scale invasion two years ago.
The speech by the Russian president, who is likely to be re-elected in a dubious election in two weeks, was less surprising in its content than in its tone. The biggest war in Europe since 1945, for which Putin is responsible, was pushed into the background: although Putin spoke much longer than a year ago, at two hours and seven minutes, he was much shorter on the war, its causes and consequences. As always, the West was to blame.
On the other hand, Putin threatened much more blatantly than before. Apparently grateful for French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to possibly send French troops to Ukraine, Putin recalled “those who have already sent their contingents to our territory” – an allusion to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union. But it is also a warning of a possible attack or invasion of Russian territory. And according to Russian understanding, this territory now also includes the occupied territories in eastern Ukraine.
Putin mentioned seven different modern weapons systems by name. He emphasized that there are more in development and that a conflict today would end more tragically than in the past. “They should finally understand that we also have weapons, they already know that, I just mentioned it, that can hit targets on their territory.” In the end, Putin summarized his message to the West, which supports Ukraine in its resistance against Russia’s aggression, succinctly and ultimately: “Without a strong and sovereign Russia, a stable world order is impossible.”
Putin devoted less than half an hour of his entire speech to the war in Ukraine. Instead, he laid out various plans for social developments, some of them in great detail. Russia’s demographic problems – Putin’s second most important topic after security structures since he came to power in 2000 – are to be resolved with new support programs for families.
A large family with many children should become the norm. Health, education, artificial intelligence, credit waivers for poor regions, a new nuclear icebreaker called Stalingrad and even a gas supply for allotment gardens were all on the agenda. Two weeks before the presidential election, from which Putin’s main challenger, the war-critical Boris Nadezhdin, was excluded, the president distributed fictitious gifts.
His soporific remarks – as the camera in the hall showed more than once – are intentional. The war is to be forgotten, his own dead are merely mentioned as heroic victims and as role models for a strengthened fatherland. The distraction from problems, and the promise of a golden future, which, according to initial assessments by economic experts, could only be achieved through tax increases, is reminiscent of his four-hour annual press conference in December.
Even then, his appearance was intended to make people forget the war. Then, as now, the aim was to show that this was a man of power who knows no doubts about his course, who is prepared to be aggressive and who, above all, wants to negotiate a new security architecture for the world with the USA alone. It is no coincidence that he specifically mentioned only the United States, with which Russia is prepared to engage in a “dialogue” on issues of “strategic stability”. It is about nuclear weapons. At the same time, however, Putin questioned: “They seriously want to discuss strategic stability with us, while at the same time, as they themselves say, they want to strategically defeat Russia on the battlefield?”
A willingness to talk sounds different. But Putin is not looking for it at all and, at least in this speech, is not showing any signs of it. Instead, he repeats more clearly than ever that Russia’s place is at the table of the most powerful, whatever the cost.
In Berlin, the opposition drew a line from Putin’s speech to the German Chancellor’s refusal to supply cruise missiles. The tone of Putin’s speech made it clear how devastating the Chancellor’s recent Taurus volte-face and the open conflict between Scholz and Macron were, said the deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, Johann Wadephul.
The deputy parliamentary group leader of the co-governing FDP, Michael Link, called for clear signals to be sent to stop Putin’s aggressive policy. One way of strengthening NATO and the EU would be a security agreement between the EU and the UK.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is expected to be the Christian Democratic EPP’s candidate for the European elections in June. She intends to have her candidature confirmed in Bucharest next week. Von der Leyen’s de-risking approach has been a defining feature of EU-China relations since 2019, and she intends to continue this program in a possible second term of office.
She has already left her mark on the discussion surrounding the European and German China strategy during her first term of office. “This is the geopolitical Commission that I have in mind, and that Europe urgently needs,” von der Leyen emphasized during the presentation of her program in the EU Parliament in November 2019.
According to Marc Julienne, Director of the Asia department at the French think tank l’Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) Table.Media, von der Leyen has generally made the right choice with this geopolitical approach. The events of the last five years surrounding the Covid pandemic and the attack on Ukraine have proven her right in her approach, says Julienne.
However, von der Leyen’s approach has “triggered mixed feelings” in the French capital. On the one hand, the concept of risk reduction with regard to China is welcomed there. On the other hand, von der Leyen is considered too US-aligned in Paris, which is traditionally rather Washington-skeptical, says Julienne.
A new chapter is now on the horizon: The US elections this fall. However, the future of the transatlantic coordination on China will only partially depend on the outcome of the US elections, explains Noah Barkin from Rhodium Group and the Berlin office of the German Marshall Fund. “If Donald Trump returns to the White House and starts a trade conflict with Europe, then it is more difficult to envision close collaboration between Washington and Brussels on China.” Barkin is certain, however, that a possible US President Trump will not lead to a significant change in Europe’s approach to China.
“As a former German defense minister, she saw the relationship with China through a security prism from the beginning,” Barkin emphasizes. This is evident, for example, in the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. The Commission President was “not a fan” of it, and she did not openly express her support for the agreement. Most of the negotiations were held under Jean-Claude Juncker’s previous Commission.
However, von der Leyen did not only inherit the disliked CAI from Juncker but also the now widely known triad of partner, competitor and rival. The Juncker Commission presented this as its China strategy in March 2019. The CAI now seems like a distant memory, somewhere at the back of the EU’s historical mind – while the classification as competitor and rival has shifted more into focus.
Brussels has significantly expanded the EU economy’s defensive capabilities since 2019. The EU has repeatedly made advances that have provoked Beijing’s ire. One example is the planned tariffs on Chinese electric cars, which China considers to be an unfriendly act. Von der Leyen believes they are a necessary means of preventing export dumping. The planned Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the Anti-Coercion Instrument are also a thorn in Beijing’s side.
The brewing friction between the two sides has also been reflected in the recent exchange between Brussels and Beijing, after the Covid-19 pandemic further complicated it: There was no EU-China summit in 2021, because of the rampant coronavirus. In the following year, the format was held in the form of a video call.
Under the shock of the start of the war against Ukraine, Brussels had one issue above all on its list: To win over Beijing as a voice of reason that could influence Moscow. China didn’t want to hear much about this and only wanted to talk trade. The online summit turned out to be a disaster. Both sides seemed ill-prepared for the concerns of the other.
2023 was a decisive year for EU relations under von der Leyen: At the end of March, she was the first Commission President to hold a keynote speech on China, coining the de-risking motto in Brussels. During her visit with Macron in Beijing just a few days later in April, she persisted in her confrontational approach. In December, the first in-person EU-China summit was held in Beijing. Von der Leyen spoke with China’s President Xi Jinping for several hours.
Steven Blockmans, Director of Research at the Brussels-based think tank Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), already sees a direction for von der Leyen’s second term in office: “Tensions between China and the EU are bound to rise,” says Blockmans. This will lead the next Commission to put the emphasis in the EU’s approach to the PRC even more on systemic rivalry.
After five years, the EU Commission President has laid the foundations for the geopolitical Commission – but there are still unresolved issues:
The Rassemblement National (RN) campaign for the 2024 European elections will be launched in Marseille on Sunday. In France’s second-largest city, MEP Jordan Bardella, lead candidate of the far-right party, will hold his first election event, accompanied by Marine Le Pen. For the party with the flame, which is leading in the polls, the choice of France’s second-largest city is anything but coincidental.
Marseille is the constituency of the leader of La France Insoumise, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the RN wants to oppose him on his political turf. The neighboring city of Nice is the stronghold of the leader of the conservative Les Républicains, Eric Ciotti, and the RN hopes to win additional votes in the region there.
The election campaign is going well for the RN – and very badly for Renaissance, the French branch of Renew, which represents President Emmanuel Macron’s political camp. This is because the polls in France are consistent and continue to see the far-right party far ahead: Eleven percentage points now separate the RN (30%) from Renaissance (19%) according to a survey by Odoxa for Public Sénat and the regional press, which was published on Feb. 27. The RN is thus ahead of its 2019 result, which was 23.3% at the time.
For the RN, however, there is far more at stake than just winning five additional seats in the European Parliament. The party makes no secret of the fact that a victory in the European elections would be the launch pad to install Marine Le Pen as the next President of the French Republic in the Élysée Palace and Jordan Bardella as Prime Minister and Head of Government in the Matignon Palace. The next presidential elections in France will take place in 2027.
The danger is registered at the Élysée Palace. Emmanuel Macron and Gabriel Attal, his prime minister, have set the tone in Paris this week. And it is Ukraine that is becoming the scene of the confrontation between the Renaissance and the Rassemblement National. Last Tuesday in the French parliament, the Assemblée Nationale, there was a heated exchange between the Prime Minister and Marine Le Pen, the leader of the RN parliamentary group. The exchange took place after the head of state’s declaration that he would not rule out sending Western troops to Ukraine.
By mentioning the deployment of troops in Ukraine for the first time, “the President of the Republic has taken a further step towards warmongering, thereby creating an existential risk for 70 million French people and in particular for our armed forces, which are already deployed in Eastern Europe”, Marine Le Pen raged.
“You have been waiting for the first opportunity to recall the true loyalties you have [and] to show the true face you have”, Gabriel Attal replied. “When you read the research like that of the Washington Post, you have to wonder if Vladimir Putin’s troops are not already in our country,” he continued. “I’m talking about you and your troops, Mrs. Le Pen. If you had been elected in 2022, we would now be supplying weapons to Russia to break up Ukraine, that’s the reality”, he added to boos from the RN MPs.
In communication strategy, this is called “shockvertising” or “shock strategy” to increase attention and get the recipient of the message to react. When Emmanuel Macron said on Monday evening that “nothing is ruled out” concerning sending troops to Ukraine, this was not only intended to shake up France’s European allies and Russian President Vladimir Putin a few days before his speech. It is also a political maneuver on the French political chessboard.
Emmanuel Macron aims to regain control, as the ongoing agricultural crisis is weighing on his government in favor of the RN. To this end, he wants to highlight the far-right party’s incoherence towards Russia and make it clear what is at stake: Putin will be re-elected in the east next March. In November, Donald Trump, who is considered just as Russophile as Marine Le Pen, has every chance of becoming President of the United States again.
In Europe, Valerie Hayer, who is about to be officially nominated as the leading candidate for the Renaissance, still has three months to get Emmanuel Macron’s message across and turn the polls around.
The digital and sustainable transformation, the necessary renewal of public infrastructure, and the strengthening of European sovereignty will lead to a considerable need for funding in the coming years. Europe has a lot of catching up to do to make itself fit for the future.
These tasks cannot be accomplished with public funds alone. Private capital must therefore be mobilized. Equity financing from within companies and bank-based debt capital are the key pillars for this.
In addition, an EU-wide single market can help with access to financing and facilitate venture and risk capital financing. The Savings Banks Finance Group and the German Cooperative Financial Network therefore support a European capital markets union.
However, the freedom to move freely in European competition and the associated corporate responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Strengthening the European single market in the financial and capital market sector should therefore not be confused with shifting risks to third parties.
The following already applies throughout the EU: Private customer deposits at banks are protected up to €100,000 and are paid out to customers within a few days in the event of a crisis. Less efficient institutions can therefore promise their customers the same protection as rock-solid institutions. This makes sense in the interests of consumer and savings protection.
Fair competition requires that all credit institutions in Europe make their own efforts to establish effective deposit protection and do not rely on others. And the risks of banks that are too large must not be passed on to others. This is why the German savings banks and cooperative banks do not want to be liable for the risky business activities of large international banks with the security funds they have saved to protect their customers.
This would weaken their prevention-oriented institutional protection systems and thus the financing of German SMEs. We want to provide our financial services to medium-sized, small and micro enterprises as well as private customers in all regions of the country at fair conditions and with a regional focus on our home country.
We agree with the Federal Chancellor, the Federal Minister of Finance, the Federal Minister of Economics and the entire Federal Government that the plans being discussed in Brussels for the structure of the banking system with a communitized deposit guarantee scheme in Europe run counter to this. We are irritated that the German Bundesbank is deviating from this unified German position.
The time is not ripe, as the EU is now more than ever far removed from separating public finance and banks. Communitizing liability then means a crushing burden on the shoulders of our customers. The conclusion from this can only be The banks’ own responsibility must be strengthened and protected. This is the only way to ensure that imbalances do not occur in the first place, which would then have to be absorbed by everyone’s stamina.
