Your contact for new licenses
Tomorrow, the European Commission will present the autumn package of the European Semester – the first time under the new debt rules. The Commission will give its opinion on the member states’ medium-term fiscal plans and their budgets for 2025. It will also submit proposals for those states that are subject to an excessive deficit procedure.
22 member states have already submitted their medium-term fiscal plans. The big absentee is Germany. Together with Belgium, Bulgaria, Austria and Lithuania, Germany is one of the Member States that was unable to agree on a fiscal plan due to government crises. Before the end of the traffic light coalition, Berlin argued with Brussels about the assumptions the fiscal plan was based on. The German government complained that the Commission’s assumptions left too little room for investment.
As much as the Commission would prefer to see the fiscal plan sooner rather than later: it knows that the plan would hardly be resilient before the government is formed. For Lithuania, for example, the Commission has approved a postponement until the spring. The Commission would rather have a plan with a government that is capable of acting than a quick plan without political backing.
However, the discussions are unlikely to become any easier under a new federal government, especially as the economic figures and therefore the assumptions the plan is based on are not getting any rosier for Germany. Ten days ago, the Commission once again revised its economic forecasts for Germany downwards. And soon the Trump variable is likely to shake up the assumptions considerably.
Have an energetic start to the week,
On Wednesday afternoon, the Von der Leyen Commission II will face the vote of MEPs in Strasbourg. The bar is not as high as on July 18, when Ursula von der Leyen needed 360 votes for her re-election, i.e. more than half of all 719 elected MEPs had to vote for her. This time, the votes of the absolute majority of MPs present will suffice. Between 320 and 340 votes should be enough.
It is expected that the Commission will be confirmed with the majority of votes from the Von der Leyen coalition: the EPP Group has 188 seats, S&D 136, Renew 77. In addition, votes from the ECR, the 24 Fratelli d’Italia MEPs, the three Czechs and three Belgians are expected to vote in favor. At least the eleven Hungarian MEPs from the far-right Patriots Group will vote in favor of the Commission in order to strengthen Hungarian Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi.
The EPP is confident that von der Leyen will get the necessary majority for her new Commission. The Christian Democrats will probably vote largely unanimously in her favor, but the approval of the 22 Spanish MEPs from the Partido Popular is in question. They are firmly opposed to the Socialist Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera.
The Social Democrats are very displeased. They are upset about the handling of Ribera, but also because Raffaele Fitto retains the prominent position and because S&D was thwarted by the EPP on many points during the hearings. This dissatisfaction will also be reflected in votes against. The French and German delegations in particular, with 13 and 14 MEPs respectively, could vote against. It is estimated that a total of 50 to 60 no votes will come from the S&D Group. In the end, the rejection will probably not be so clear-cut. The Socialists and Democrats want to appoint two executive vice-presidents to the new Commission, Teresa Ribera and Roxana Minzatu, as well as Commissioners Dan Jørgensen and Glenn Micallef. Maroš Šefčovič is also close to the party family. It would therefore be surprising if the S&D Group were to refuse to support the Commission as a whole.
Von der Leyen can probably also count on broad support from Renew. The Liberals will discuss the events of the past two weeks again at a parliamentary group meeting on Monday. But they have a lot to lose: Although only the fifth largest group in Parliament, with a total of five Commissioners, including two Vice-Presidents, they have the second largest representation after the EPP.
The five FDP MEPs refused to vote for von der Leyen in July, but on Wednesday they intend to vote in favor of the Commission. “The global challenges are great, the EU must now be able to act,” MEP Moritz Körner told Table.Briefings. The Commission must start its work quickly in order to make the European economy competitive again, to support Ukraine and to be able to react to Trump. Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, who was a fierce critic of von der Leyen, also wants to raise her hand for the Commission.
It is still open how the Greens will position themselves. The group is furious with the EPP and its leader Manfred Weber: the CSU politician had insisted that the Greens be kept out of the negotiations with the S&D and Renew in order to avoid being pinned down to cooperation with the parties to the left of the Christian Democrats. According to reports, however, von der Leyen is trying to appease the eco group. She met with the Green candidate for chancellor Robert Habeck on Thursday, and the topic is likely to have been discussed. Unlike the ECR and Patriots, who are also not part of the informal coalition, the Greens do not have a commissioner. This means that no Green would be harmed if Parliament were to fail the Commission. It is reported that fewer Greens will vote for the Commission than for von der Leyen on July 18. At that time, however, they were still hoping to become part of the informal coalition.
International climate financing must increase to at least USD300 billion per year by 2035. Previously, 100 billion per year was considered a binding target. The industrialized countries in particular must provide these funds – from their budgets, via privately mobilized funds or multilateral development banks (MDBs). Developing countries can also contribute to this goal via their MDBs or through voluntary contributions. The industrialized countries and the EU in particular have thus achieved a fundamental goal for this COP: expanding the donor base.
It is clear to everyone involved that 300 billion is not enough to cover the developing countries’ need for funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), adapt to climate change (adaptation) and cover loss and damage. A process is therefore set up to provide a total of at least USD1.3 trillion a year in climate financing with the help of other financial sources.
It is the famous minimum consensus that was reached in Baku at 2:39 a.m. on Sunday morning – not without criticism from the Global South. India rejected the agreement but was unable to prevent it. African and Latin American countries consider the sums to be too small and the associated commitments to be too weak.
This is because the wording is vague. It is completely unclear whether the 1.3 trillion will ever be reached. In future, larger sums are to be made available via so-called “innovative financial sources.” This refers to taxes on flying, for example, revenue from carbon markets or the redirection of subsidies for fossil fuels. There are also no specific obligations for individual countries. This is another of the large number of collective goals, many of which have often not been achieved to date.
Several times during this climate conference, it looked as if the rifts between industrialized and developing countries were too deep to be overcome, partly due to the lack of trust. The issue of money divided the globe into North and South. Europe has a particular responsibility here. The EU already pays the largest share of climate financing and is the only one to pay its “fair share.”
However, Europe also demands a lot from all other countries when it comes to reducing emissions. Not all countries are enthusiastic about commitments to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, even though they have hardly contributed to global warming. This dispute was also evident in Baku. Europe called for confirmation and concretization of the “renunciation of fossil fuels” decided in Dubai in 2023 at COP28. But the project failed. The topic of mitigation failed to reach an agreement and was postponed to the interim climate conference in Bonn in June. Some developing countries, but above all Saudi Arabia, had tried to water down the Dubai resolution.
The EU always demands ambitious climate targets, the global South counters: Those who demand mitigation must deliver money. EU representatives often show little empathy for the reluctance to reduce emissions in emerging countries. EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra defended the agreed target in the plenary hall of the COP that very night. Loud coughing and booing during his speech made the rejection in the room obvious.
In Brazil, where the next COP 2025 will take place, the dispute will inevitably continue. This is because, on the one hand, the organization of the aforementioned mobilization of USD1.3 trillion is to be discussed there, and new climate targets are also to be set. If the EU wants to achieve something – such as pushing other players to make tough cuts to their emissions – it should have a better strategy than in Baku or more money at hand.
For EPP leader Manfred Weber, the matter is clear: Giorgia Meloni is a reliable partner in Europe, as is the ECR Group, of which Meloni’s party is the largest member. Compared to the MEPs to their right in the European Parliament, the Fratelli d’Italia may give the impression of being a moderate political force.
But to realize what the party is made of, it is worth taking a closer look at its logo. There are plenty of occasions to do so, it can often be admired in considerable size at appearances by Meloni and her party friends.
The logo is adorned with a green, white and red flame rising from a black line. The symbolism goes back to the period after 1945, when supporters and confidants of Benito Mussolini founded a new party, the neo-fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano. Much later, when people wanted to distance themselves from this legacy, they tried to reinterpret it, but the following interpretation has remained to this day: The line stands for Mussolini’s coffin, the flame symbolizes the spirit of the fascist dictator.
Even before the Italian parliamentary elections in 2022, many people, including those from her own party, had appealed to Meloni to remove the flame and coffin from the logo. But Meloni stuck to her guns and emphasized how proud she is of the flame.
Now the debate has, well, flared up again. “If we want to look to the future, then the time will come to extinguish the flame,” Luca Ciriani, Minister for Relations with Parliament, told the newspaper Il Foglio. The 57-year-old said that the flame belonged to a bygone era, the time of his youth – from which, however, he did not want to distance himself. The desire to turn away from post-fascism does not go that far after all.
It is questionable whether Ciriani’s proposal will be heard. So far, he has represented a single opinion. Fabio Rampelli, Vice President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, was immediately on hand as a vehement defender of the flame. “Almost 30 percent of Italians have put a cross under our symbol,” the newspaper Corriere della Sera quotes him. “It doesn’t seem to me that the citizens see a problem here. On the contrary, perhaps they are voting for us precisely because we have the flame.” There is a good chance that Meloni will continue to have the spirit of Mussolini behind her in future appearances. Sarah Schaefer
Tomorrow, the European Commission will present the autumn package of the European Semester – the first time under the new debt rules. The Commission will give its opinion on the member states’ medium-term fiscal plans and their budgets for 2025. It will also submit proposals for those states that are subject to an excessive deficit procedure.
22 member states have already submitted their medium-term fiscal plans. The big absentee is Germany. Together with Belgium, Bulgaria, Austria and Lithuania, Germany is one of the Member States that was unable to agree on a fiscal plan due to government crises. Before the end of the traffic light coalition, Berlin argued with Brussels about the assumptions the fiscal plan was based on. The German government complained that the Commission’s assumptions left too little room for investment.
As much as the Commission would prefer to see the fiscal plan sooner rather than later: it knows that the plan would hardly be resilient before the government is formed. For Lithuania, for example, the Commission has approved a postponement until the spring. The Commission would rather have a plan with a government that is capable of acting than a quick plan without political backing.
However, the discussions are unlikely to become any easier under a new federal government, especially as the economic figures and therefore the assumptions the plan is based on are not getting any rosier for Germany. Ten days ago, the Commission once again revised its economic forecasts for Germany downwards. And soon the Trump variable is likely to shake up the assumptions considerably.
Have an energetic start to the week,
On Wednesday afternoon, the Von der Leyen Commission II will face the vote of MEPs in Strasbourg. The bar is not as high as on July 18, when Ursula von der Leyen needed 360 votes for her re-election, i.e. more than half of all 719 elected MEPs had to vote for her. This time, the votes of the absolute majority of MPs present will suffice. Between 320 and 340 votes should be enough.
It is expected that the Commission will be confirmed with the majority of votes from the Von der Leyen coalition: the EPP Group has 188 seats, S&D 136, Renew 77. In addition, votes from the ECR, the 24 Fratelli d’Italia MEPs, the three Czechs and three Belgians are expected to vote in favor. At least the eleven Hungarian MEPs from the far-right Patriots Group will vote in favor of the Commission in order to strengthen Hungarian Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi.
The EPP is confident that von der Leyen will get the necessary majority for her new Commission. The Christian Democrats will probably vote largely unanimously in her favor, but the approval of the 22 Spanish MEPs from the Partido Popular is in question. They are firmly opposed to the Socialist Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera.
The Social Democrats are very displeased. They are upset about the handling of Ribera, but also because Raffaele Fitto retains the prominent position and because S&D was thwarted by the EPP on many points during the hearings. This dissatisfaction will also be reflected in votes against. The French and German delegations in particular, with 13 and 14 MEPs respectively, could vote against. It is estimated that a total of 50 to 60 no votes will come from the S&D Group. In the end, the rejection will probably not be so clear-cut. The Socialists and Democrats want to appoint two executive vice-presidents to the new Commission, Teresa Ribera and Roxana Minzatu, as well as Commissioners Dan Jørgensen and Glenn Micallef. Maroš Šefčovič is also close to the party family. It would therefore be surprising if the S&D Group were to refuse to support the Commission as a whole.
Von der Leyen can probably also count on broad support from Renew. The Liberals will discuss the events of the past two weeks again at a parliamentary group meeting on Monday. But they have a lot to lose: Although only the fifth largest group in Parliament, with a total of five Commissioners, including two Vice-Presidents, they have the second largest representation after the EPP.
The five FDP MEPs refused to vote for von der Leyen in July, but on Wednesday they intend to vote in favor of the Commission. “The global challenges are great, the EU must now be able to act,” MEP Moritz Körner told Table.Briefings. The Commission must start its work quickly in order to make the European economy competitive again, to support Ukraine and to be able to react to Trump. Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, who was a fierce critic of von der Leyen, also wants to raise her hand for the Commission.
It is still open how the Greens will position themselves. The group is furious with the EPP and its leader Manfred Weber: the CSU politician had insisted that the Greens be kept out of the negotiations with the S&D and Renew in order to avoid being pinned down to cooperation with the parties to the left of the Christian Democrats. According to reports, however, von der Leyen is trying to appease the eco group. She met with the Green candidate for chancellor Robert Habeck on Thursday, and the topic is likely to have been discussed. Unlike the ECR and Patriots, who are also not part of the informal coalition, the Greens do not have a commissioner. This means that no Green would be harmed if Parliament were to fail the Commission. It is reported that fewer Greens will vote for the Commission than for von der Leyen on July 18. At that time, however, they were still hoping to become part of the informal coalition.
International climate financing must increase to at least USD300 billion per year by 2035. Previously, 100 billion per year was considered a binding target. The industrialized countries in particular must provide these funds – from their budgets, via privately mobilized funds or multilateral development banks (MDBs). Developing countries can also contribute to this goal via their MDBs or through voluntary contributions. The industrialized countries and the EU in particular have thus achieved a fundamental goal for this COP: expanding the donor base.
It is clear to everyone involved that 300 billion is not enough to cover the developing countries’ need for funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), adapt to climate change (adaptation) and cover loss and damage. A process is therefore set up to provide a total of at least USD1.3 trillion a year in climate financing with the help of other financial sources.
It is the famous minimum consensus that was reached in Baku at 2:39 a.m. on Sunday morning – not without criticism from the Global South. India rejected the agreement but was unable to prevent it. African and Latin American countries consider the sums to be too small and the associated commitments to be too weak.
This is because the wording is vague. It is completely unclear whether the 1.3 trillion will ever be reached. In future, larger sums are to be made available via so-called “innovative financial sources.” This refers to taxes on flying, for example, revenue from carbon markets or the redirection of subsidies for fossil fuels. There are also no specific obligations for individual countries. This is another of the large number of collective goals, many of which have often not been achieved to date.
Several times during this climate conference, it looked as if the rifts between industrialized and developing countries were too deep to be overcome, partly due to the lack of trust. The issue of money divided the globe into North and South. Europe has a particular responsibility here. The EU already pays the largest share of climate financing and is the only one to pay its “fair share.”
However, Europe also demands a lot from all other countries when it comes to reducing emissions. Not all countries are enthusiastic about commitments to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, even though they have hardly contributed to global warming. This dispute was also evident in Baku. Europe called for confirmation and concretization of the “renunciation of fossil fuels” decided in Dubai in 2023 at COP28. But the project failed. The topic of mitigation failed to reach an agreement and was postponed to the interim climate conference in Bonn in June. Some developing countries, but above all Saudi Arabia, had tried to water down the Dubai resolution.
The EU always demands ambitious climate targets, the global South counters: Those who demand mitigation must deliver money. EU representatives often show little empathy for the reluctance to reduce emissions in emerging countries. EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra defended the agreed target in the plenary hall of the COP that very night. Loud coughing and booing during his speech made the rejection in the room obvious.
In Brazil, where the next COP 2025 will take place, the dispute will inevitably continue. This is because, on the one hand, the organization of the aforementioned mobilization of USD1.3 trillion is to be discussed there, and new climate targets are also to be set. If the EU wants to achieve something – such as pushing other players to make tough cuts to their emissions – it should have a better strategy than in Baku or more money at hand.
For EPP leader Manfred Weber, the matter is clear: Giorgia Meloni is a reliable partner in Europe, as is the ECR Group, of which Meloni’s party is the largest member. Compared to the MEPs to their right in the European Parliament, the Fratelli d’Italia may give the impression of being a moderate political force.
But to realize what the party is made of, it is worth taking a closer look at its logo. There are plenty of occasions to do so, it can often be admired in considerable size at appearances by Meloni and her party friends.
The logo is adorned with a green, white and red flame rising from a black line. The symbolism goes back to the period after 1945, when supporters and confidants of Benito Mussolini founded a new party, the neo-fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano. Much later, when people wanted to distance themselves from this legacy, they tried to reinterpret it, but the following interpretation has remained to this day: The line stands for Mussolini’s coffin, the flame symbolizes the spirit of the fascist dictator.
Even before the Italian parliamentary elections in 2022, many people, including those from her own party, had appealed to Meloni to remove the flame and coffin from the logo. But Meloni stuck to her guns and emphasized how proud she is of the flame.
Now the debate has, well, flared up again. “If we want to look to the future, then the time will come to extinguish the flame,” Luca Ciriani, Minister for Relations with Parliament, told the newspaper Il Foglio. The 57-year-old said that the flame belonged to a bygone era, the time of his youth – from which, however, he did not want to distance himself. The desire to turn away from post-fascism does not go that far after all.
It is questionable whether Ciriani’s proposal will be heard. So far, he has represented a single opinion. Fabio Rampelli, Vice President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, was immediately on hand as a vehement defender of the flame. “Almost 30 percent of Italians have put a cross under our symbol,” the newspaper Corriere della Sera quotes him. “It doesn’t seem to me that the citizens see a problem here. On the contrary, perhaps they are voting for us precisely because we have the flame.” There is a good chance that Meloni will continue to have the spirit of Mussolini behind her in future appearances. Sarah Schaefer