• About Us
  • Our Practice Areas
    • Banking & Financial Services
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Digital & Tech
    • EU & International
    • Food & Drink
    • Green Transition
    • Healthcare, Life Sciences & Wellbeing
    • Trade & Investment (including EU-UK)
    • Transport, Travel & Logistics
  • Our Team
    • FIPRA International
    • Special Advisors
  • FIPRA Network
  • Latest News
  • Events
  • Careers
Skip to content

FIPRA

Search for:
Events

Will German EU Presidency be a crisis semester or provide a post-pandemic reset?

By Robert Madelin
Thursday, 14 May 2020
Will German EU Presidency be a crisis semester or provide a post-pandemic reset?

FIPRA’s global network hosted one of its regular online “client calls” on 13 May 2020 to assess the prospects for the German Presidency of the Council. This note summarises key points.

With Inga Karten, of Miller & Meier Consulting, the FIPRA Network agency in Germany, and Rainer Rudolph, of DGAP, the German Council on Foreign Relations, we focussed on how the COVID19 health crisis has up-ended German planning for the six months, and indeed into the work of the upcoming Trio of Germany, Portugal, Slovenia. Jacki Davis, as the series convenor, moderated the discussion for FIPRA International.

Overall Assessment

Rainer Rudolph emphasised that there would be a high degree of ‘driving by sight.’ At the same time, the MFF and the 2021 budget and the closure of the UK-EU talks – to name but three – would all have to be done on time, whatever else fell by the wayside.

Inga Karten saw a striking disconnect between the stagnant approval ratings of the SPD and Greens, compared with CDU/Merkel confidence ratings. Meanwhile, the CDU campaign to succeed the Chancellor was increasingly framed as a beauty contest on each candidate’s COVID19 performance.

Council work rates were currently at 10% of usual, all digital of course. Even if the Council managed 30% of usual working during the German Presidency, this created huge uncertainties both as to the Council’s collective ability to reach deals on big issues, budget, recovery and immigration, and the bandwidth to discuss the usual range of business.

These difficult conditions raised the question whether highly important but less urgent matters, such as digital, green deal and immigration be delayed. Even stronger doubts arose for the usual round of informal Council meetings and for the events linked to such Councils (for example around the European Year of Rail). We hoped that the African and China agenda would not be lost to sight.

Overall, it is clear that pre-pandemic expectations of the coming German semester have all been put into question. It might be that our expectations for the German Presidency should be scaled back, compared to widespread pre-pandemic optimism. Managing the immediate critical issues would in itself be a success, while legislative business as usual or constitutional discussion would probably and properly be set as lower priorities.

The impact of the pandemic on stakeholders was to make, for example, business leaders much more ‘balanced and thoughtful’ about the breadth of the ‘real’ challenges facing the EU. The pandemic had taken us by surprise and needed a strong response. The Climate was still the big issue. The underlying social impact of the pandemic lock-down also required serious attention from the first. Germany would, as ever, be working very closely with Paris, but also to ensure that the ‘South’ also felt support from the EU and remained committed to the Single Market.

Some specific aspects

The recent judgment of the German Supreme Court as to the legality of previous ECB interventions was seen by all as a joker in the Presidency pack. The implications went both to the EU legal order (a national court challenging the supremacy of EU law and Court) and to the proportionality of specific options for ECB and Eurozone action going forward. On the legal implications, the judges seemed surprised to have provoked what may have been an unintended constitutional conflict. Not all of the discussants were so surprised. There was inevitably a likely impact of their Court’s judgement on the care with which Berlin would want any post-pandemic recovery package to be waterproof against any similar challenge in future. We were sceptical as to possible formal legal challenges to the legality of the Karlsruhe decision from the EU side.

Legal form apart, the pandemic would have a major impact on the structure and scale of the MFF. Mrs Merkel had already said that the MFF would be shifted to a new dimension, with a significant German contribution to a likely increased envelope. But scale would need to go hand-in-hand with a reshaping of the budget balance, for example shifting to incorporate climate-friendliness as a precondition in the subsidies given under the MFF. The German government still needed to take its domestic party base along, and then bring on board the likes of the Netherlands. We expected that a bigger German contribution would put irresistible pressure on the Hague. As to the focus of the added effort, health systems, and emergency management, as well as economic recovery were all very much in scope, as was green recovery and digital.

It was all too clear that the EU was not yet adequately equipped to manage effectively the multiple challenges of a crisis such as the present pandemic. There was not likely to be a debate on the constitutional balance of health competence under the Treaties, and no one expected a shift of competence in the year ahead. It was more probable that added funding for emergency preparedness and cooperation would be the lever with which stronger cooperation would be driven forward. However, added powers of coordination in circumstances of declared common emergencies would be needed, too.

On the Green Deal, it was important also to maintain the degree of urgency. This mattered, because the EU needed to keep up with global standards of coordinated climate management. There was a call from the Bundestag for a fresh debate on burden-sharing as part of any reinforcement of carbon-reduction goals.

For UK-EU talks, there were fears abroad in Berlin that the UK Government wanted to avoid any extension of the end-year deadline for the current talks. A departure, even without a full deal, in December 2020 would mean that the impact of Brexit became inextricably mixed up with the impact of the pandemic, shielding the Brexiteer groups from blame for economic damage. No speaker expected that the German Presidency, or the EU would be the one first suggesting a delay, but no one ruled out an extension of the talks, even beyond the written deadline of end-June.

As to the deeper impact of the crisis on global and national perspectives of decision-makers, we all felt that the EU Member States’ national and local reflexes, revealed at the onset of the pandemic, marked something of a failure and needed to be corrected, so that Europe once more spoke more consistently with one voice. This remained a live and urgent goal, for example in the management of the ongoing health crisis and in the management of vaccine discovery, production and distribution.

EU had to reassert its more open global perspective. China and US and Europe were currently pulling apart, and the management of a global health and economic crisis could not succeed on that basis -indeed, so far we had done better collectively a decade ago.

As to the pandemic’s impact on digital transformation, Germany was prominent among countries where fears for privacy were a parameter of the work to prepare virus-tracing apps. National public opinion did however seem to be moving towards accepting such apps, as part of deconfinement. There was also increasing openness to shared data curation in areas of public good, greater readiness to do remote medical consultations and deploy advanced med tech. Overall, we were optimistic for the digital impact of the pandemic.

Want to learn more?

FIPRA’s EU & International team provides expertise to help clients navigate the inner workings of EU institutions such as the Commission, Council, and Parliament.

Written by
Robert Madelin
Senior Strategist and Special Advisor
Profile
EU & International
EU & International
We help our clients navigate the inner workings of EU institutions such as the Commission, Council and Parliament. We create a narrative to bridge from your culture and concerns, making your voice heard and perspective understood among key officials driving policy, regulation and resolutions. 
More
Latest News
  • News
    Gerd Götz joins FIPRA as a Special Advisor on Green Transition
    17 March 2023
  • Analysis
    PFAS: rooting ambitions for a toxic-free environment in a manageable process
    10 March 2023
  • News
    Erwin Dhondt  joins FIPRA as a Special Advisor for Health Security
    22 February 2023
  • Analysis
    EU’s small but vital step to shipping decarbonisation: the maritime ETS 
    9 February 2023
  • Analysis
    European Parliament’s New Year Resolution: build a powerful but child-friendly online gaming industry
    19 January 2023
Some of our experts
  • Angel Carro
    Angel Carro
    Senior Advisor - International Relations, Food Systems & Biodiversity
  • Derk  Oldenburg
    Derk Oldenburg
    Special Advisor - Telecoms, Transport, Institutional EU Affairs
  • Peter Chase
    Peter Chase
    Special Advisor - EU, International Trade
  • Maria Assimakopoulou-Sorensen
    Maria Assimakopoulou-Sorensen
    Special Advisor - Financial Services, EU Funding
  • Ghazi  Ben Ahmed
    Ghazi Ben Ahmed
    Special Advisor - Trade, Development
  • Una O'Dwyer
    Una O'Dwyer
    Special Advisor - EU Economic Governance
  • Juan Prat y Coll
    Juan Prat y Coll
    Special Advisor - EU, International Relations
  • John Maré
    John Maré
    Special Advisor - International Affairs
  • Daniel Furby
    Daniel Furby
    Senior Advisor - Healthcare, EU Economic Governance, Health Systems
  • David Lawsky
    David Lawsky
    Special Advisor - Competition, Press Relations
  • Dirk Hudig
    Dirk Hudig
    Special Advisor - Competition, Green Transition, Energy, Industrials
  • FIPRA in Australia
    FIPRA in Australia
    is known locally as Richardson Coutts
    FIPRA in Australia
  • FIPRA in Austria
    FIPRA in Austria
    is known locally as Mastermind Public Affairs Consulting
    FIPRA in Austria
  • FIPRA in Belgium
    FIPRA in Belgium
    is known locally as Greenlane Public Affair
    FIPRA in Belgium
  • FIPRA in Canada
    FIPRA in Canada
    is known locally as Earnscliffe Strategy Group
    FIPRA in Canada
  • FIPRA in China
    FIPRA in China
    is known locally as Yuan Associates
    FIPRA in China
  • FIPRA in Croatia
    FIPRA in Croatia
    is known locally as Vlahovic Group
    FIPRA in Croatia
  • FIPRA in Czech Republic
    FIPRA in Czech Republic
    is known locally as PAN Solutions
    FIPRA in Czech Republic
  • FIPRA in Denmark
    FIPRA in Denmark
    is known locally as European Advisers
  • FIPRA in Estonia
    FIPRA in Estonia
    is known locally as META Advisory Group
    FIPRA in Estonia
  • FIPRA in France
    FIPRA in France
    is known locally as Cabinet Samman
    FIPRA in France
  • FIPRA in Georgia
    FIPRA in Georgia
    is known locally as BGI Advisory Services Group
    FIPRA in Georgia
  • FIPRA in Germany
    FIPRA in Germany
    is known locally as Miller & Meier Consulting
    FIPRA in Germany
  • FIPRA in Greece
    FIPRA in Greece
    is known locally as One Team S.A
    FIPRA in Greece
  • FIPRA in Hungary
    FIPRA in Hungary
    is known locally as CEC Group
    FIPRA in Hungary
  • FIPRA in India
    FIPRA in India
    is known locally as Chase India
    FIPRA in India
  • FIPRA in Ireland
    FIPRA in Ireland
    is known locally as Vulcan Consulting
    FIPRA in Ireland
  • FIPRA in Italy
    FIPRA in Italy
    is known locally as Telos A&S
    FIPRA in Italy
  • FIPRA in Japan
    FIPRA in Japan
    is known locally as GR Japan
    FIPRA in Japan
  • FIPRA in Korea
    FIPRA in Korea
    is known locally as FIPRA Korea
  • FIPRA in Latvia
    FIPRA in Latvia
    is known locally as Meta Advisory
    FIPRA in Latvia
  • FIPRA in Luxembourg
    FIPRA in Luxembourg
    is known locally as Huggard Consulting Group
    FIPRA in Luxembourg
  • FIPRA in Malta
    FIPRA in Malta
    is known locally as Maritimus Company Limited
    FIPRA in Malta
  • FIPRA in Mexico
    FIPRA in Mexico
    is known locally as InStrag
    FIPRA in Mexico
  • FIPRA in The Netherlands
    FIPRA in The Netherlands
    is known locally as Public Matters
    FIPRA in The Netherlands
  • FIPRA in Norway
    FIPRA in Norway
    is known locally as First House
    FIPRA in Norway
  • FIPRA in Poland
    FIPRA in Poland
    is known locally as CEC Group
    FIPRA in Poland
  • FIPRA in Portugal
    FIPRA in Portugal
    is known locally as Initium
  • FIPRA in Singapore
    FIPRA in Singapore
    is known locally as Landmark Public Affairs
    FIPRA in Singapore
  • FIPRA in Slovakia
    FIPRA in Slovakia
    is known locally as FIPRA Slovakia
  • FIPRA in Slovenia
    FIPRA in Slovenia
    is known locally as MC Public Affairs S.a.r.l.
    FIPRA in Slovenia
  • FIPRA in South Africa
    FIPRA in South Africa
    is known locally as Ethicore Political Lobbying
    FIPRA in South Africa
  • FIPRA in Spain
    FIPRA in Spain
    is known locally as Influence Spain
    FIPRA in Spain
  • FIPRA in Sweden
    FIPRA in Sweden
    is known locally as Hallvarsson & Halvarsson (H&H)
    FIPRA in Sweden
  • FIPRA in Switzerland
    FIPRA in Switzerland
    is known locally as Hirzel.Neef.Schmid.Counselors
    FIPRA in Switzerland
  • FIPRA in Tunisia
    FIPRA in Tunisia
    is known locally as Mediterranean Development Initiative
    FIPRA in Tunisia
  • FIPRA in Turkey
    FIPRA in Turkey
    is known locally as Stamina Public Affairs
    FIPRA in Turkey
  • FIPRA in Turkey
    FIPRA in Turkey
    is known locally as Stamina Public Affairs
  • FIPRA in Ukraine
    FIPRA in Ukraine
    is known locally as Stober Poltavets & Associates
    FIPRA in Ukraine
  • FIPRA in the United Kingdom
    FIPRA in the United Kingdom
    is known locally as Lexington
    FIPRA in the United Kingdom
  • FIPRA in the United States
    FIPRA in the United States
    is known locally as Alpine Group
    FIPRA in the United States
FIPRA Network

FIPRA

© FIPRA 2023.
All rights reserved.

Follow us on Twitter  Find us on LinkedIn

  • Privacy Policy
Explore
  • About Us
  • Our Practice Areas
  • Our Team
  • FIPRA Network
  • Latest News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • FIPRA Tools
  • Contact Us
Practice Areas
  • Banking & Financial Services
  • Competition & Antitrust
  • Digital & Tech
  • EU & International
  • Food & Drink
  • Green Transition
  • Healthcare, Life Sciences & Wellbeing
  • Trade & Investment (including EU-UK)
  • Transport, Travel & Logistics
Contact

info@fipra.com

Brussels Office  map
FIPRA International SRL
Rue de la Loi 227
Brussels 1040
+32 (0)2 613 28 28
Company number: 0733.774.811

London Office  map
FIPRA International Limited
201 Borough High Street
London
SE1 1JA
+44 (0)203 805 7770
Company number: 3936157