Today, the European Parliament is voting on the political agreement on the renaturation law. The most confusing legislative process of the last ten years is thus coming to an end. There was no majority in favor of the report in the parliamentary committees, but there was in the plenary. The Christian Democratic EPP had refused to even consider the Commission’s proposal. EPP group leader Manfred Weber opposed his party colleague, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The Council had largely gutted the Commission’s legislative proposal. In the trialogue, a compromise was reached that deviated significantly from the Commission’s original proposal and is now to be adopted by Parliament.
So today the oath will be sworn in Strasbourg. There are many indications that the EPP will not succeed in mobilizing a majority against the law. Although the gutted version of the Nature Restoration Act is still a red flag for many voters in rural areas, up to 50 EPP MEPs are likely to vote in favor of it. The Liberals could tip the scales and are likely to vote in favor by two-thirds. Most socialists will probably vote “yes“, only the Romanian delegation and some Italians and Spaniards could dissent.
If things turn out as outlined, the Greens will be able to celebrate the adoption of the law this afternoon as a great triumph. The cheers are not justified. The toothless law carries less weight than the Habitats Directive. And its impact on species extinction is also limited. In the end, it was not species protection that won, but the Commission. It can put its check mark behind another Green Deal legislative procedure.
We wish you a wonderful day!
The World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi, which is also being attended by the EU Commission and EU trade ministers, has been underway since Monday. In the run-up to the conference, a high-ranking EU official emphasized that the WTO is “more important than ever” for the EU, as a large part of the EU’s foreign trade operates according to WTO rules.
But the WTO is in crisis. Firstly, because successful negotiations are almost impossible thanks to the unanimity principle. Secondly, because the dispute settlement mechanism – long the ace of the WTO – is only partially functional due to the US blockade on the appointment of new judges. Observers expect little progress in the reform of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism – also because the lead diplomat Marco Molina was dismissed by his government in Guatemala last week.
The success of the negotiations at the last ministerial conference on fisheries subsidies also seems to be losing its shine two years later. Two-thirds of the 164 WTO members must ratify the agreement for it to enter into force. So far, only 69 members have done so.
Moreover, the compromise could only be reached because the controversial part on overfishing was shifted to a negotiation for a second agreement. These negotiations are proving difficult and success at this ministerial conference would come as a surprise.
WTO advocates will therefore consider it a success if the conference can agree on an extension of the moratorium on tariffs on e-commerce services.
The EU delegation hopes to make progress in the discussion on industrial policy subsidies. A decision must be made as to whether the rules on market-distorting subsidies need to be changed given the need for green transformation. The EU is thus reacting to the industrial policy efforts of China and the USA. It would like to steer the global subsidy race into multilaterally regulated channels.
“A basic idea is that you need a proper notification system for subsidies“, explains a senior EU official. You also need definitions so that you can then enforce more discipline in subsidy policy. With good definitions, certain flexibilities could then be introduced for subsidies that have a minimal trade-distorting effect but are important for achieving environmental goals.
This is still a long way off. Although there is a relatively large consensus that the current WTO rules are no longer fit for purpose, says Cláudia Azevedo, an analyst on green trade at the Europe Jacques Delors think tank, “it is not a good time to start major negotiations”. The idea is therefore to lay the groundwork in case the political environment is more receptive to these proposals in the future.
According to Azevedo, the environment is not a priority for many countries. India, for example, communicated before the ministerial conference that it did not want to discuss non-trade issues at all. And while the EU likes to present itself as an advocate of the WTO and free trade, many countries are not buying it. They see the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the Deforestation Regulation as protectionist measures by the EU.
In addition, the USA and China do not want to be restricted by WTO rules when pursuing their industrial policy goals. Between the unilateral advance of the major powers, most of which ignore the WTO, and the countries of the global South, which see their market access threatened by new sustainability regulations, the chances of a WTO reform in the EU’s interests are extremely slim.
The danger that research results could be misused has long been real, says EU Research Commissioner Iliana Ivanova. Many questions have arisen, such as how civilian and military research can continue to be clearly separated from one another or how research facilities can be protected. Many member states have urged the European Union to present some common guidelines so that they can better prepare for possible risks, Ivanova reports in the interview. Recommendations on research security have therefore been drawn up.
“We need to maintain a balance and continue to be able to offer the openness and freedom that is in the DNA of the Horizon Europe program“, says Ivanova. The aim is to be open to the world and to foreign partners. Just as is the case with the negotiations with Switzerland. Ivanova hopes that the country will soon rejoin the European Research Area.
Optimistically, the negotiations could be successfully concluded towards the end of the year or early next year, explains the Commissioner. Great Britain had already joined at the beginning of this year. There is a strong will on the part of the Commission to achieve a successful result.
The politician from Bulgaria has now been Commissioner for Research for six months. Maintaining – or better still increasing – the budget for research and innovation remains an important goal for her. “This was and is a priority because I do not believe that we can overcome the many global challenges without additional and higher investment in research and innovation.” The results of the Horizon 2020 evaluation showed that the commitment to research and innovation is paying off. It is expected that one euro invested will bring a benefit of five euros to citizens by 2040.
“European research and innovation have contributed to major discoveries, the fight against pandemics, the development of vaccines, and responses to global challenges such as climate change and geopolitical tensions”, says Ivanova.
She is not happy about the recent €2.1 billion cut, explains Ivanova. But she is “aware that we are operating within a very important and complex framework here. And of course, we have to take care of very important emergencies.” Support for the widening countries should also be continued. There is a persistent gap between the countries that have achieved excellence in research and innovation and receive the majority of Horizon funding, and those countries that are not yet reaching their full potential.
“Good progress has already been made with the existing widening measures.” Nevertheless, she is convinced that more needs to be done, “because this is not just about excellence and widening. It’s also about access to excellence in general.” Information must be provided that reaches all participants and all beneficiaries throughout Europe at an early stage so that everyone has the same access. They are currently working on this.
You can read the full interview with Iliana Ivanova in German here.
In view of a meeting of EU agriculture ministers in Brussels, hundreds of farmers have protested, sometimes violently, against the Union’s agricultural policy. A total of 900 tractors blocked roads in the EU district on Monday, as the Belga news agency reported, citing the police. Farmers set fire to tires, poured manure onto the road and set off pyrotechnics against police officers. The officers used water cannons. In addition to loud honking, small explosions were also repeatedly heard.
The police set up numerous roadblocks around the EU institutions. Some farmers managed to break through the barriers with their tractors, as reported by Belga. Police officers were also pelted with manure and other projectiles, including eggs, sticks and bottles, and had to retreat in some cases. The police responded by using tear gas and water to disperse the demonstrators.
Two subway stations in the EU district were closed. There were numerous traffic disruptions in the Belgian capital. Among other things, the route to the airport was affected as tractors blocked a traffic circle. Brussels Airport advised travelers to take the train .
However, the Flemish farmers’ association Boerenbond distanced itself from the violent protests. A spokeswoman for the association told the Belga agency that the protests in Brussels were in stark contrast to the peaceful and safe protests in the country to date and were not the way to make your voice heard.
Farmers in Madrid have also announced protests for Monday. Around 5,000 farmers are expected to demonstrate in front of the European Commission’s headquarters in the afternoon. dpa
MEP Martin Sonneborn has been a member of the European Parliament since 2014. Apart from (confused) “one-minute speeches on issues of political importance” and occasional comments on the situation of the Armenians, to whom Sonneborn feels a connection for family reasons, his membership of the Parliament has been characterized by inactivity. He claims to be a satirical politician. However, he occasionally boasts that his voting behavior has sometimes been the deciding factor in plenary votes. He told the Rheinische Post newspaper in an interview: “It’s not that I would vote against something sensible.”
When Alexei Navalny‘s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, speaks in the European Parliament at 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, Sonneborn, who uses abusive language in his social media posts against working colleagues and slurs their surnames, is likely to be back in his seat in one of the back rows. Sonneborn has not yet commented publicly on Navalny’s death. During the votes in the European Parliament on resolutions on Navalny’s arrest and the inhumane prison conditions, Sonneborn has shown indifference.
Sonneborn abstained when the European Parliament passed a resolution on Feb. 16, 2023, condemning the “deterioration of the inhumane prison conditions of Navalny and other political prisoners in Russia”.
On April 29, 2021, Sonneborn voted against the European Parliament resolution calling for Navalny’s immediate release, emphasizing Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity and criticizing Russia’s attempts to destabilize the EU. Like him, 39 MPs from the far-right ID parliamentary group also voted, including many relevant right-wing extremists. Twenty left-wing MEPs and individual MEPs from other groups also voted no. No MEPs from the Greens or the EPP voted “no”.
Sonneborn abstained on Jan. 21, 2021, when the European Parliament passed a resolution calling for Navalny’s release with 581 votes in favor just days after his arrest by Russian security authorities upon his return from Berlin. The resolution condemns the use of internationally banned nerve agents against people and calls on the EU and its member states to reconsider their cooperation with Russia.
Only on Sept. 17, 2020, could Sonneborn bring himself to vote for a European Parliament resolution condemning the Kremlin’s poison attack on Navalny. The resolution recalled that the use of chemical weapons is a crime under international law. It calls for an independent international investigation into the attack and calls on the EU and the member states to find a common position on Russia and to speak with one voice towards Moscow. mgr
Today, the European Parliament is voting on the political agreement on the renaturation law. The most confusing legislative process of the last ten years is thus coming to an end. There was no majority in favor of the report in the parliamentary committees, but there was in the plenary. The Christian Democratic EPP had refused to even consider the Commission’s proposal. EPP group leader Manfred Weber opposed his party colleague, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The Council had largely gutted the Commission’s legislative proposal. In the trialogue, a compromise was reached that deviated significantly from the Commission’s original proposal and is now to be adopted by Parliament.
So today the oath will be sworn in Strasbourg. There are many indications that the EPP will not succeed in mobilizing a majority against the law. Although the gutted version of the Nature Restoration Act is still a red flag for many voters in rural areas, up to 50 EPP MEPs are likely to vote in favor of it. The Liberals could tip the scales and are likely to vote in favor by two-thirds. Most socialists will probably vote “yes“, only the Romanian delegation and some Italians and Spaniards could dissent.
If things turn out as outlined, the Greens will be able to celebrate the adoption of the law this afternoon as a great triumph. The cheers are not justified. The toothless law carries less weight than the Habitats Directive. And its impact on species extinction is also limited. In the end, it was not species protection that won, but the Commission. It can put its check mark behind another Green Deal legislative procedure.
We wish you a wonderful day!
The World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi, which is also being attended by the EU Commission and EU trade ministers, has been underway since Monday. In the run-up to the conference, a high-ranking EU official emphasized that the WTO is “more important than ever” for the EU, as a large part of the EU’s foreign trade operates according to WTO rules.
But the WTO is in crisis. Firstly, because successful negotiations are almost impossible thanks to the unanimity principle. Secondly, because the dispute settlement mechanism – long the ace of the WTO – is only partially functional due to the US blockade on the appointment of new judges. Observers expect little progress in the reform of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism – also because the lead diplomat Marco Molina was dismissed by his government in Guatemala last week.
The success of the negotiations at the last ministerial conference on fisheries subsidies also seems to be losing its shine two years later. Two-thirds of the 164 WTO members must ratify the agreement for it to enter into force. So far, only 69 members have done so.
Moreover, the compromise could only be reached because the controversial part on overfishing was shifted to a negotiation for a second agreement. These negotiations are proving difficult and success at this ministerial conference would come as a surprise.
WTO advocates will therefore consider it a success if the conference can agree on an extension of the moratorium on tariffs on e-commerce services.
The EU delegation hopes to make progress in the discussion on industrial policy subsidies. A decision must be made as to whether the rules on market-distorting subsidies need to be changed given the need for green transformation. The EU is thus reacting to the industrial policy efforts of China and the USA. It would like to steer the global subsidy race into multilaterally regulated channels.
“A basic idea is that you need a proper notification system for subsidies“, explains a senior EU official. You also need definitions so that you can then enforce more discipline in subsidy policy. With good definitions, certain flexibilities could then be introduced for subsidies that have a minimal trade-distorting effect but are important for achieving environmental goals.
This is still a long way off. Although there is a relatively large consensus that the current WTO rules are no longer fit for purpose, says Cláudia Azevedo, an analyst on green trade at the Europe Jacques Delors think tank, “it is not a good time to start major negotiations”. The idea is therefore to lay the groundwork in case the political environment is more receptive to these proposals in the future.
According to Azevedo, the environment is not a priority for many countries. India, for example, communicated before the ministerial conference that it did not want to discuss non-trade issues at all. And while the EU likes to present itself as an advocate of the WTO and free trade, many countries are not buying it. They see the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the Deforestation Regulation as protectionist measures by the EU.
In addition, the USA and China do not want to be restricted by WTO rules when pursuing their industrial policy goals. Between the unilateral advance of the major powers, most of which ignore the WTO, and the countries of the global South, which see their market access threatened by new sustainability regulations, the chances of a WTO reform in the EU’s interests are extremely slim.
The danger that research results could be misused has long been real, says EU Research Commissioner Iliana Ivanova. Many questions have arisen, such as how civilian and military research can continue to be clearly separated from one another or how research facilities can be protected. Many member states have urged the European Union to present some common guidelines so that they can better prepare for possible risks, Ivanova reports in the interview. Recommendations on research security have therefore been drawn up.
“We need to maintain a balance and continue to be able to offer the openness and freedom that is in the DNA of the Horizon Europe program“, says Ivanova. The aim is to be open to the world and to foreign partners. Just as is the case with the negotiations with Switzerland. Ivanova hopes that the country will soon rejoin the European Research Area.
Optimistically, the negotiations could be successfully concluded towards the end of the year or early next year, explains the Commissioner. Great Britain had already joined at the beginning of this year. There is a strong will on the part of the Commission to achieve a successful result.
The politician from Bulgaria has now been Commissioner for Research for six months. Maintaining – or better still increasing – the budget for research and innovation remains an important goal for her. “This was and is a priority because I do not believe that we can overcome the many global challenges without additional and higher investment in research and innovation.” The results of the Horizon 2020 evaluation showed that the commitment to research and innovation is paying off. It is expected that one euro invested will bring a benefit of five euros to citizens by 2040.
“European research and innovation have contributed to major discoveries, the fight against pandemics, the development of vaccines, and responses to global challenges such as climate change and geopolitical tensions”, says Ivanova.
She is not happy about the recent €2.1 billion cut, explains Ivanova. But she is “aware that we are operating within a very important and complex framework here. And of course, we have to take care of very important emergencies.” Support for the widening countries should also be continued. There is a persistent gap between the countries that have achieved excellence in research and innovation and receive the majority of Horizon funding, and those countries that are not yet reaching their full potential.
“Good progress has already been made with the existing widening measures.” Nevertheless, she is convinced that more needs to be done, “because this is not just about excellence and widening. It’s also about access to excellence in general.” Information must be provided that reaches all participants and all beneficiaries throughout Europe at an early stage so that everyone has the same access. They are currently working on this.
You can read the full interview with Iliana Ivanova in German here.
In view of a meeting of EU agriculture ministers in Brussels, hundreds of farmers have protested, sometimes violently, against the Union’s agricultural policy. A total of 900 tractors blocked roads in the EU district on Monday, as the Belga news agency reported, citing the police. Farmers set fire to tires, poured manure onto the road and set off pyrotechnics against police officers. The officers used water cannons. In addition to loud honking, small explosions were also repeatedly heard.
The police set up numerous roadblocks around the EU institutions. Some farmers managed to break through the barriers with their tractors, as reported by Belga. Police officers were also pelted with manure and other projectiles, including eggs, sticks and bottles, and had to retreat in some cases. The police responded by using tear gas and water to disperse the demonstrators.
Two subway stations in the EU district were closed. There were numerous traffic disruptions in the Belgian capital. Among other things, the route to the airport was affected as tractors blocked a traffic circle. Brussels Airport advised travelers to take the train .
However, the Flemish farmers’ association Boerenbond distanced itself from the violent protests. A spokeswoman for the association told the Belga agency that the protests in Brussels were in stark contrast to the peaceful and safe protests in the country to date and were not the way to make your voice heard.
Farmers in Madrid have also announced protests for Monday. Around 5,000 farmers are expected to demonstrate in front of the European Commission’s headquarters in the afternoon. dpa
MEP Martin Sonneborn has been a member of the European Parliament since 2014. Apart from (confused) “one-minute speeches on issues of political importance” and occasional comments on the situation of the Armenians, to whom Sonneborn feels a connection for family reasons, his membership of the Parliament has been characterized by inactivity. He claims to be a satirical politician. However, he occasionally boasts that his voting behavior has sometimes been the deciding factor in plenary votes. He told the Rheinische Post newspaper in an interview: “It’s not that I would vote against something sensible.”
When Alexei Navalny‘s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, speaks in the European Parliament at 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, Sonneborn, who uses abusive language in his social media posts against working colleagues and slurs their surnames, is likely to be back in his seat in one of the back rows. Sonneborn has not yet commented publicly on Navalny’s death. During the votes in the European Parliament on resolutions on Navalny’s arrest and the inhumane prison conditions, Sonneborn has shown indifference.
Sonneborn abstained when the European Parliament passed a resolution on Feb. 16, 2023, condemning the “deterioration of the inhumane prison conditions of Navalny and other political prisoners in Russia”.
On April 29, 2021, Sonneborn voted against the European Parliament resolution calling for Navalny’s immediate release, emphasizing Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity and criticizing Russia’s attempts to destabilize the EU. Like him, 39 MPs from the far-right ID parliamentary group also voted, including many relevant right-wing extremists. Twenty left-wing MEPs and individual MEPs from other groups also voted no. No MEPs from the Greens or the EPP voted “no”.
Sonneborn abstained on Jan. 21, 2021, when the European Parliament passed a resolution calling for Navalny’s release with 581 votes in favor just days after his arrest by Russian security authorities upon his return from Berlin. The resolution condemns the use of internationally banned nerve agents against people and calls on the EU and its member states to reconsider their cooperation with Russia.
Only on Sept. 17, 2020, could Sonneborn bring himself to vote for a European Parliament resolution condemning the Kremlin’s poison attack on Navalny. The resolution recalled that the use of chemical weapons is a crime under international law. It calls for an independent international investigation into the attack and calls on the EU and the member states to find a common position on Russia and to speak with one voice towards Moscow. mgr
