There is movement in the succession debate surrounding Werner Hoyer, the outgoing president of the European Investment Bank (EIB). According to information obtained by Table.Media, the Danish government has put EU Commissioner Margrethe Vestager in the race for the top post at the head of the EU’s house bank. Vestager has been traded as a potential successor to Hoyer for some time. Hoyer is leaving the bank at the end of the year after twelve years in office.
It remains to be seen whether Vestager will have to vacate her current post as Vice-President and Commissioner for Competition. The president of the Brussels authority, Ursula von der Leyen, has reportedly set this as a condition for applying to the EIB. In addition, the Spanish government is also expected to put forward a candidate for the top job in Luxembourg. However, Madrid would not announce the candidacy until after the July 23 election. According to the information, this will be the current Spanish Finance Minister Nadia Calviño. She is said to have the support of German Minister for Finance Christian Lindner.
So far, only Italy and Poland raised their fingers. Rome has put former Economy Minister Daniele Franco in the race, Warsaw the current EIB Vice-President Teresa Czerwińska. While Franco, an Italian, has an impeccable resume that absolutely qualifies him for the job at the head of the EU’s house bank, his age of 70 means he is unlikely to be a serious candidate. In the case of Poland’s Czerwinska, no one believes that the EU states will offer the current PiS government in Warsaw a top EU job. Franco and Czerwińska are therefore seen as stooges of their states for later high-ranking EU posts.
Hoyer’s successor should be in place by the end of the year and not be involved in the personnel merry-go-round after the European elections. This was communicated internally to the bank by Belgium’s Finance Minister Vincent Van Peteghem, currently Chairman of the EIB’s Board of Directors. This means that the member states have until October at the most to find a successor for the long-serving German EIB president in time, as internal processes of the bank, such as a review of candidates by the bank’s own ethics committee, have to be taken into account.
“We live in a completely different world than in 2020, when the MFF was negotiated”, said Ursula von der Leyen. Measured against this, the increase in the EU’s multi-year financial framework proposed by the Commission is “limited to the absolute must”.
Some member states see things differently. They are expected to contribute €66 billion by the end of the 2027 budget period, plus up to €33 billion in loans for Ukraine. These sums will hardly be supported by the Council, according to Berlin. After all, even the federal budget is not as flush with money as it has been in recent years.
Budget Commissioner Johannes Hahn counters: without the additional funds, the EU would not be able to fulfill the additional tasks that member states have entrusted to it, the Austrian argued. “We have already mobilized every single euro in our budget”, said a senior EU official.
However, countries such as Germany or the Netherlands, which are careful to be frugal, do not reject the wishes from Brussels across the board. Rather, they distinguish between the different uses:
On Ukraine aid, most states show willingness to talk. “There is a strong political commitment to help the country”, said an EU diplomat. Increased interest costs, on the other hand, could be absorbed by reallocating funds within the existing framework.
The negotiations that now lie ahead will be difficult. The heads of state and government will discuss the proposals for the first time at the EU summit next week. Time is pressing: The European Parliament wants to link the proposed revision of the MFF with the negotiations on the budget for 2024, but EU law sets clear deadlines for annual budget planning: an agreement must be reached by Nov. 13, with a three-week extension if necessary.
Unsurprisingly, the European Parliament is more supportive of the additional funding. The rapporteur of the EPP group, Jan Olbrycht, said that the demand for an additional €15 billion to cope with migration was right. It was also laudable that the Commission wanted to remove rising interest rates from the MFF ceilings: this would prevent this from being to the detriment of EU programs such as Erasmus+.
The head of the SPD in Parliament, Jens Geier, said the proposals were a step in the right direction. “Against the background of an underfunded EU budget and heavily stretched national budgets, no ambitious proposal was to be expected.”
Geier also sees merit in the approach of the new Strategic Technologies Platform, which von der Leyen says will later be “expanded into a fully fleshed-out sovereignty fund”. The new pot is supposed to be part of the response to the US Inflation Reduction Act. However, due to a lack of financial leeway, the Commission is relying on merging existing pots such as the Innovation Fund, InvestEU and Cohesion Fund.
The approach: Investors who meet the eligibility criteria of one of the pots should be able to receive funds from the others – by obtaining a “sovereignty seal”. This will allow more project developers to benefit from clean technology funding through the Innovation Fund. This has been oversubscribed several times over, while many funds in the cohesion funds have not been drawn down. With the help of private investors, the aim is to mobilize €160 billion, von der Leyen said.
The assistance to Ukraine is designed for four years, until the end of the current financial framework. The money is to be paid in the form of loans and non-repayable guarantees and grants, providing Kyiv with secure and predictable financing.
The details are to be determined annually on the basis of Ukrainian needs. For implementation, von der Leyen proposes the creation of a new budget instrument called the “Ukraine Facility”. The EU wants to finance the repayable aid through new loans on the financial markets. For the non-repayable grants, a new budget title is to be created in the MFF, the “Ukraine Reserve”.
In practice, this means that the EU wants to overspend its budget for Ukraine and take on additional new debt. This is the first time that the Commission has drawn up a multi-year plan to support a country that is not a member. Disbursement of the money is to be tied to reforms. Von der Leyen also promises independent monitoring, for which a separate audit board is to be set up.
So far, the Commission’s proposals for new sources of revenue for the EU have been met with little approval in the Council. Negotiations on the own resources package proposed for 2021 are at a standstill, and diplomats doubt that it will come at all. This is because many governments are resisting granting the EU greater financial independence. The main purpose of the own resources is to repay the debts incurred for Next Generation EU. This is a task that the member states would otherwise have to perform through transfers from their national budgets.
The Commission is now making a new attempt, with a somewhat adapted package. Hahn’s proposal, for example, envisages a kind of virtual corporate taxation: Finance ministers are to cede 0.5 percent of statistically recorded corporate profits until a new framework for corporate taxation (BEFIT) is adopted. The industry association Business Europe immediately warned that this should not be at the expense of companies. with Eric Bonse
The general direction on the Nature Restoration Law, eagerly awaited by EU parliamentarians, was approved by the Environment Council on Tuesday. The yes vote on the NRL, as the Nature Restoration Law is known in Brussels circles, was previously unclear. With three countries “opposed” (the Netherlands, Poland and Austria) and five “reluctant” (Finland, Italy, Malta, Denmark and Belgium), according to sources close to French Environment Minister Christophe Béchu, the EU Council was initially “quite divided”. In the end, Poland, Italy, Finland and Sweden voted against the text. Austria and Belgium abstained, and the Netherlands requested a postponement of the adoption of the text.
Given this division, it was not even clear last week whether the vote on the regulation would make it onto the agenda of environment ministers. The Swedish EU presidency had “hinted” early last week that it might remove the text from the agenda of yesterday’s meeting, according to sources close to the French minister. In response, Béchu and his counterparts from Germany (Steffi Lemke), Spain (Teresa Ribera) and Luxembourg (Joëlle Welfring) wrote to Swedish Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari on June 13 to express their “concern”. The four ministers highlighted in particular the signal that the adoption of the general approach could send to the European Parliament, which is largely divided on the issue, especially the EPP.
Before the NRL can be adopted, it still has to overcome many hurdles: the vote in the Environment Committee, that in plenary, and then the trilogue phase, which would start at best under the Spanish presidency and would have to be completed in the first quarter of 2024 so that the text can be promulgated before the European elections on June 9, 2024.
However, the fact that the Council has reached a common position despite the tensions gives Frenchman Pascal Canfin (Renew), chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on the Environment (ENVI), the opportunity to revise the text once again before its submission to Parliament in mid-July. “I can incorporate compromise elements from the general approach text into the text I will present to the plenary”, Canfin told Table.Media. “This new text will not be the same as the one voted on June 15”, he added.
The EPP nevertheless continues to stand by its “no” vote on the current nature restoration text. “As Christian Democrats, we will continue our opposition together with large parts of the Liberals”, said Christine Schneider (CDU), EPP Group rapporteur for the NRL. She expressed confidence that they will have “a majority” in the plenary of the European Parliament to reject the proposal.
“Our major concerns are by no means resolved”, she added. That’s why she is calling on the Commission to come up with a new text. The current version, she said, offers “far too much” room for interpretation, jeopardizes food security and affordability, and therefore stirs up “understandably great fears”. The EPP has been calling for the Commission to give in for months, but in an interview with Table.Media, EU Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans made it clear that the Commission would not submit a new proposal.
The EPP had not succeeded in rejecting the text in the ENVI Committee on June 15. However, it was able to defeat the main compromise amendments negotiated by the other political groups. Therefore, adoption in committee on June 27 and in plenary during the week of July 10 is uncertain.
The political tensions surrounding the NRL come just six months after the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Framework for Biodiversity, in which the EU and its member states committed to restoring 30 percent of degraded ecosystems by the end of the decade.
The EU Commission has presented its vision for risk reduction in economic issues. With its economic security strategy, Brussels wants to strengthen its own production and supply chains – and prevent future-relevant technology from flowing to authoritarian third countries, above all China or Russia. The strategy, presented in Brussels on Tuesday, is intended to bundle the de-risking announced by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen into a concrete, joint EU approach. It is the first time the EU has combined security and trade in a single strategy.
The EU Commission is keen to coordinate national approaches more effectively. The problem: A large part of the points mentioned in the strategy concern competencies of the member states. EU politicians and interest groups are also already urging caution about implementing some of the ideas. In particular, the possible monitoring of European investments abroad – commonly known as “outbound investment screening” – is likely to be the subject of much discussion. A concrete proposal is to be presented by the end of the year.
The EU Commission’s strategy is to remain open to further design. Together with member states and the European Parliament, it wants to develop “joint responses” to possible gaps “in the EU’s economic security arsenal“, the text says. The Commission has identified risks to the EU’s overarching economic security in the following areas:
The approach to responding to these risks is based on three pillars: Promoting, protecting, partnering. Specific new announcements can be found in the chapter entitled “protecting”.
The paper does not mention China directly. Von der Leyen and her fellow EU commissioners stressed several times on Tuesday that the strategy is independent of any particular country, but that it has a “geopolitical filter”, as Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager put it. If this filter were currently applied, only China and Russia would indeed come out as target countries, stressed the Dane, who was thus the only one of the three commissioners to clearly name any countries: “China poses particular concerns in terms of technology security and tech loss.” However, Vestager said the strategy was intended for the long term. In the future, the filter would then perhaps focus on entirely different countries.
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell sounded a completely different verbal horn. He reiterated several times that China is by no means a target country for the strategy. “We do not want to restrict the development, nor the prosperity of other countries”, said the Spaniard. Borrell rather did not endear himself to von der Leyen with a comment on the EU Commission chief’s China policy speech in late March. “It was a very interesting speech, rich in content, and it was very much appreciated”, Borrell said. “But it does not define the position of the European Union.”
A fierce debate about the strategy seems already programmed. The European Parliament also urged caution: “Too many measures must not end in isolation. Otherwise we will harm our economy more than we support and protect it”, said Daniel Caspary, chairman of the CDU/CSU group and member of the EU Parliament’s Committee on International Trade.
Trade Committee Chairman Bernd Lange (SPD) warned against “unconditionally following the US approach” with the European strategy. “I don’t believe in using foreign investment as a political weapon. No company is forced to invest anywhere, certainly not where there is a risk of technology transfer”, Lange wrote on Twitter, referring to possible screening of investments abroad.
“The EU Commission’s plans for economic security in Europe must not get out of hand in the direction of state-controlled foreign trade“, said DIHK foreign trade director Volker Treier. Companies need support in the form of reliable trade rules and a regulatory environment with little bureaucracy in order to better diversify sales and supply sources, Treier stressed.
The economic security strategy is to be discussed with heads of state and government at next week’s EU summit.
What does the future hold? That is the central question that drives Christian Ehler. Whether it’s climate protection, digitization or the potential of the creative industry for democracy, the European politician wants his decisions not only to respond to current developments, but also to set a strategically important course for the future.
This is one of the reasons why, in addition to economics, in which he earned his doctorate, he is particularly interested in research policy, the consequences of which often only become apparent twenty years later. In 2021, the CDU politician was awarded the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany for his commitment in this area. Today, he is, among other things, coordinator of his parliamentary group in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and spokesman for industrial policy.
Ehler recently secured the role of rapporteur for the Net-Zero Industry Act – one of the most forward-looking dossiers currently being negotiated in Brussels. With his draft report, Ehler wants to ensure that industry continues to invest in Europe and create jobs – all under the banner of sustainability.
Ehler has been a member of the European Parliament since 2004 and currently fears that the Commission and member states lack a strategic view. As a result, European competitiveness could suffer greatly as a result of regulations, the Green Deal or, in particular, digitization. “I sometimes have the feeling that Europe is throwing legislation into a raging river and hoping that the direction of travel will already change”, says the 59-year-old. The CDU, for example, takes climate change seriously. “Nevertheless, we should focus on CO2 reduction now when rebuilding our economies, instead of tackling all the important issues of global injustice in the labor market at the same time.”
Christian Ehler, who also used to work as a journalist, describes his approach as unusual – just like his socialization and his hobbies: As the child of famous writers, he learned to look at things from different perspectives. For example, he is a convinced advocate of the social market economy and is equipped with the typical ideological tools of a CDU member. Nevertheless, he has very strong sympathies for unionized workers, for example. “During the major financial crises at the beginning of the millennium, I wanted not only to strengthen financial market supervision, but also to consider how people with average earnings could secure themselves for old age and come to own property in the future”, explains the native Bavarian, who lives in Brandenburg, Strasbourg and Brussels.
He also considers the gender debate to be important, if only because the dramatic underrepresentation of women on supervisory boards and executive boards is downright absurd. He still benefits from this differentiated view of important issues today, even though he took a more middle-class path, first as an entrepreneur and then as a CDU and EPP politician.
In his spare time, the father of three is passionate about collecting art objects – and old cars. His children find it embarrassing, he admits. But for himself, he says, it’s a way to look at the beauty of the past – and not without melancholy. By Janna Degener-Storr
There is movement in the succession debate surrounding Werner Hoyer, the outgoing president of the European Investment Bank (EIB). According to information obtained by Table.Media, the Danish government has put EU Commissioner Margrethe Vestager in the race for the top post at the head of the EU’s house bank. Vestager has been traded as a potential successor to Hoyer for some time. Hoyer is leaving the bank at the end of the year after twelve years in office.
It remains to be seen whether Vestager will have to vacate her current post as Vice-President and Commissioner for Competition. The president of the Brussels authority, Ursula von der Leyen, has reportedly set this as a condition for applying to the EIB. In addition, the Spanish government is also expected to put forward a candidate for the top job in Luxembourg. However, Madrid would not announce the candidacy until after the July 23 election. According to the information, this will be the current Spanish Finance Minister Nadia Calviño. She is said to have the support of German Minister for Finance Christian Lindner.
So far, only Italy and Poland raised their fingers. Rome has put former Economy Minister Daniele Franco in the race, Warsaw the current EIB Vice-President Teresa Czerwińska. While Franco, an Italian, has an impeccable resume that absolutely qualifies him for the job at the head of the EU’s house bank, his age of 70 means he is unlikely to be a serious candidate. In the case of Poland’s Czerwinska, no one believes that the EU states will offer the current PiS government in Warsaw a top EU job. Franco and Czerwińska are therefore seen as stooges of their states for later high-ranking EU posts.
Hoyer’s successor should be in place by the end of the year and not be involved in the personnel merry-go-round after the European elections. This was communicated internally to the bank by Belgium’s Finance Minister Vincent Van Peteghem, currently Chairman of the EIB’s Board of Directors. This means that the member states have until October at the most to find a successor for the long-serving German EIB president in time, as internal processes of the bank, such as a review of candidates by the bank’s own ethics committee, have to be taken into account.
“We live in a completely different world than in 2020, when the MFF was negotiated”, said Ursula von der Leyen. Measured against this, the increase in the EU’s multi-year financial framework proposed by the Commission is “limited to the absolute must”.
Some member states see things differently. They are expected to contribute €66 billion by the end of the 2027 budget period, plus up to €33 billion in loans for Ukraine. These sums will hardly be supported by the Council, according to Berlin. After all, even the federal budget is not as flush with money as it has been in recent years.
Budget Commissioner Johannes Hahn counters: without the additional funds, the EU would not be able to fulfill the additional tasks that member states have entrusted to it, the Austrian argued. “We have already mobilized every single euro in our budget”, said a senior EU official.
However, countries such as Germany or the Netherlands, which are careful to be frugal, do not reject the wishes from Brussels across the board. Rather, they distinguish between the different uses:
On Ukraine aid, most states show willingness to talk. “There is a strong political commitment to help the country”, said an EU diplomat. Increased interest costs, on the other hand, could be absorbed by reallocating funds within the existing framework.
The negotiations that now lie ahead will be difficult. The heads of state and government will discuss the proposals for the first time at the EU summit next week. Time is pressing: The European Parliament wants to link the proposed revision of the MFF with the negotiations on the budget for 2024, but EU law sets clear deadlines for annual budget planning: an agreement must be reached by Nov. 13, with a three-week extension if necessary.
Unsurprisingly, the European Parliament is more supportive of the additional funding. The rapporteur of the EPP group, Jan Olbrycht, said that the demand for an additional €15 billion to cope with migration was right. It was also laudable that the Commission wanted to remove rising interest rates from the MFF ceilings: this would prevent this from being to the detriment of EU programs such as Erasmus+.
The head of the SPD in Parliament, Jens Geier, said the proposals were a step in the right direction. “Against the background of an underfunded EU budget and heavily stretched national budgets, no ambitious proposal was to be expected.”
Geier also sees merit in the approach of the new Strategic Technologies Platform, which von der Leyen says will later be “expanded into a fully fleshed-out sovereignty fund”. The new pot is supposed to be part of the response to the US Inflation Reduction Act. However, due to a lack of financial leeway, the Commission is relying on merging existing pots such as the Innovation Fund, InvestEU and Cohesion Fund.
The approach: Investors who meet the eligibility criteria of one of the pots should be able to receive funds from the others – by obtaining a “sovereignty seal”. This will allow more project developers to benefit from clean technology funding through the Innovation Fund. This has been oversubscribed several times over, while many funds in the cohesion funds have not been drawn down. With the help of private investors, the aim is to mobilize €160 billion, von der Leyen said.
The assistance to Ukraine is designed for four years, until the end of the current financial framework. The money is to be paid in the form of loans and non-repayable guarantees and grants, providing Kyiv with secure and predictable financing.
The details are to be determined annually on the basis of Ukrainian needs. For implementation, von der Leyen proposes the creation of a new budget instrument called the “Ukraine Facility”. The EU wants to finance the repayable aid through new loans on the financial markets. For the non-repayable grants, a new budget title is to be created in the MFF, the “Ukraine Reserve”.
In practice, this means that the EU wants to overspend its budget for Ukraine and take on additional new debt. This is the first time that the Commission has drawn up a multi-year plan to support a country that is not a member. Disbursement of the money is to be tied to reforms. Von der Leyen also promises independent monitoring, for which a separate audit board is to be set up.
So far, the Commission’s proposals for new sources of revenue for the EU have been met with little approval in the Council. Negotiations on the own resources package proposed for 2021 are at a standstill, and diplomats doubt that it will come at all. This is because many governments are resisting granting the EU greater financial independence. The main purpose of the own resources is to repay the debts incurred for Next Generation EU. This is a task that the member states would otherwise have to perform through transfers from their national budgets.
The Commission is now making a new attempt, with a somewhat adapted package. Hahn’s proposal, for example, envisages a kind of virtual corporate taxation: Finance ministers are to cede 0.5 percent of statistically recorded corporate profits until a new framework for corporate taxation (BEFIT) is adopted. The industry association Business Europe immediately warned that this should not be at the expense of companies. with Eric Bonse
The general direction on the Nature Restoration Law, eagerly awaited by EU parliamentarians, was approved by the Environment Council on Tuesday. The yes vote on the NRL, as the Nature Restoration Law is known in Brussels circles, was previously unclear. With three countries “opposed” (the Netherlands, Poland and Austria) and five “reluctant” (Finland, Italy, Malta, Denmark and Belgium), according to sources close to French Environment Minister Christophe Béchu, the EU Council was initially “quite divided”. In the end, Poland, Italy, Finland and Sweden voted against the text. Austria and Belgium abstained, and the Netherlands requested a postponement of the adoption of the text.
Given this division, it was not even clear last week whether the vote on the regulation would make it onto the agenda of environment ministers. The Swedish EU presidency had “hinted” early last week that it might remove the text from the agenda of yesterday’s meeting, according to sources close to the French minister. In response, Béchu and his counterparts from Germany (Steffi Lemke), Spain (Teresa Ribera) and Luxembourg (Joëlle Welfring) wrote to Swedish Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari on June 13 to express their “concern”. The four ministers highlighted in particular the signal that the adoption of the general approach could send to the European Parliament, which is largely divided on the issue, especially the EPP.
Before the NRL can be adopted, it still has to overcome many hurdles: the vote in the Environment Committee, that in plenary, and then the trilogue phase, which would start at best under the Spanish presidency and would have to be completed in the first quarter of 2024 so that the text can be promulgated before the European elections on June 9, 2024.
However, the fact that the Council has reached a common position despite the tensions gives Frenchman Pascal Canfin (Renew), chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on the Environment (ENVI), the opportunity to revise the text once again before its submission to Parliament in mid-July. “I can incorporate compromise elements from the general approach text into the text I will present to the plenary”, Canfin told Table.Media. “This new text will not be the same as the one voted on June 15”, he added.
The EPP nevertheless continues to stand by its “no” vote on the current nature restoration text. “As Christian Democrats, we will continue our opposition together with large parts of the Liberals”, said Christine Schneider (CDU), EPP Group rapporteur for the NRL. She expressed confidence that they will have “a majority” in the plenary of the European Parliament to reject the proposal.
“Our major concerns are by no means resolved”, she added. That’s why she is calling on the Commission to come up with a new text. The current version, she said, offers “far too much” room for interpretation, jeopardizes food security and affordability, and therefore stirs up “understandably great fears”. The EPP has been calling for the Commission to give in for months, but in an interview with Table.Media, EU Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans made it clear that the Commission would not submit a new proposal.
The EPP had not succeeded in rejecting the text in the ENVI Committee on June 15. However, it was able to defeat the main compromise amendments negotiated by the other political groups. Therefore, adoption in committee on June 27 and in plenary during the week of July 10 is uncertain.
The political tensions surrounding the NRL come just six months after the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Framework for Biodiversity, in which the EU and its member states committed to restoring 30 percent of degraded ecosystems by the end of the decade.
The EU Commission has presented its vision for risk reduction in economic issues. With its economic security strategy, Brussels wants to strengthen its own production and supply chains – and prevent future-relevant technology from flowing to authoritarian third countries, above all China or Russia. The strategy, presented in Brussels on Tuesday, is intended to bundle the de-risking announced by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen into a concrete, joint EU approach. It is the first time the EU has combined security and trade in a single strategy.
The EU Commission is keen to coordinate national approaches more effectively. The problem: A large part of the points mentioned in the strategy concern competencies of the member states. EU politicians and interest groups are also already urging caution about implementing some of the ideas. In particular, the possible monitoring of European investments abroad – commonly known as “outbound investment screening” – is likely to be the subject of much discussion. A concrete proposal is to be presented by the end of the year.
The EU Commission’s strategy is to remain open to further design. Together with member states and the European Parliament, it wants to develop “joint responses” to possible gaps “in the EU’s economic security arsenal“, the text says. The Commission has identified risks to the EU’s overarching economic security in the following areas:
The approach to responding to these risks is based on three pillars: Promoting, protecting, partnering. Specific new announcements can be found in the chapter entitled “protecting”.
The paper does not mention China directly. Von der Leyen and her fellow EU commissioners stressed several times on Tuesday that the strategy is independent of any particular country, but that it has a “geopolitical filter”, as Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager put it. If this filter were currently applied, only China and Russia would indeed come out as target countries, stressed the Dane, who was thus the only one of the three commissioners to clearly name any countries: “China poses particular concerns in terms of technology security and tech loss.” However, Vestager said the strategy was intended for the long term. In the future, the filter would then perhaps focus on entirely different countries.
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell sounded a completely different verbal horn. He reiterated several times that China is by no means a target country for the strategy. “We do not want to restrict the development, nor the prosperity of other countries”, said the Spaniard. Borrell rather did not endear himself to von der Leyen with a comment on the EU Commission chief’s China policy speech in late March. “It was a very interesting speech, rich in content, and it was very much appreciated”, Borrell said. “But it does not define the position of the European Union.”
A fierce debate about the strategy seems already programmed. The European Parliament also urged caution: “Too many measures must not end in isolation. Otherwise we will harm our economy more than we support and protect it”, said Daniel Caspary, chairman of the CDU/CSU group and member of the EU Parliament’s Committee on International Trade.
Trade Committee Chairman Bernd Lange (SPD) warned against “unconditionally following the US approach” with the European strategy. “I don’t believe in using foreign investment as a political weapon. No company is forced to invest anywhere, certainly not where there is a risk of technology transfer”, Lange wrote on Twitter, referring to possible screening of investments abroad.
“The EU Commission’s plans for economic security in Europe must not get out of hand in the direction of state-controlled foreign trade“, said DIHK foreign trade director Volker Treier. Companies need support in the form of reliable trade rules and a regulatory environment with little bureaucracy in order to better diversify sales and supply sources, Treier stressed.
The economic security strategy is to be discussed with heads of state and government at next week’s EU summit.
What does the future hold? That is the central question that drives Christian Ehler. Whether it’s climate protection, digitization or the potential of the creative industry for democracy, the European politician wants his decisions not only to respond to current developments, but also to set a strategically important course for the future.
This is one of the reasons why, in addition to economics, in which he earned his doctorate, he is particularly interested in research policy, the consequences of which often only become apparent twenty years later. In 2021, the CDU politician was awarded the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany for his commitment in this area. Today, he is, among other things, coordinator of his parliamentary group in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and spokesman for industrial policy.
Ehler recently secured the role of rapporteur for the Net-Zero Industry Act – one of the most forward-looking dossiers currently being negotiated in Brussels. With his draft report, Ehler wants to ensure that industry continues to invest in Europe and create jobs – all under the banner of sustainability.
Ehler has been a member of the European Parliament since 2004 and currently fears that the Commission and member states lack a strategic view. As a result, European competitiveness could suffer greatly as a result of regulations, the Green Deal or, in particular, digitization. “I sometimes have the feeling that Europe is throwing legislation into a raging river and hoping that the direction of travel will already change”, says the 59-year-old. The CDU, for example, takes climate change seriously. “Nevertheless, we should focus on CO2 reduction now when rebuilding our economies, instead of tackling all the important issues of global injustice in the labor market at the same time.”
Christian Ehler, who also used to work as a journalist, describes his approach as unusual – just like his socialization and his hobbies: As the child of famous writers, he learned to look at things from different perspectives. For example, he is a convinced advocate of the social market economy and is equipped with the typical ideological tools of a CDU member. Nevertheless, he has very strong sympathies for unionized workers, for example. “During the major financial crises at the beginning of the millennium, I wanted not only to strengthen financial market supervision, but also to consider how people with average earnings could secure themselves for old age and come to own property in the future”, explains the native Bavarian, who lives in Brandenburg, Strasbourg and Brussels.
He also considers the gender debate to be important, if only because the dramatic underrepresentation of women on supervisory boards and executive boards is downright absurd. He still benefits from this differentiated view of important issues today, even though he took a more middle-class path, first as an entrepreneur and then as a CDU and EPP politician.
In his spare time, the father of three is passionate about collecting art objects – and old cars. His children find it embarrassing, he admits. But for himself, he says, it’s a way to look at the beauty of the past – and not without melancholy. By Janna Degener-Storr
