Europe
Franco-German rift threatens to derail EU competitiveness summit
Serious disputes between Germany and France are overshadowing today’s (February 12) special European Union summit on competitiveness.
The objective of this informal gathering is to draft new measures to bolster the EU economy. Experts argue that the internal market requires urgent reform; currently, trade barriers between EU member states are equivalent to a 45% tariff on goods and a staggering 110% tariff on services.
According to German Foreign Policy, while some proposals have met little resistance, others remain deeply divisive. Chief among these are demands for preferential treatment for EU-made goods in public procurement and the issuance of joint EU debt to finance critical investments in high-tech sectors.
France supports both initiatives, while Germany rejects them outright.
Conversely, a consensus appears to be emerging on strengthening private pension systems to utilize deposits for investment, modeled after the Canadian pension fund system. While this move would expose pensions to new market risks, a joint Franco-German concept paper explicitly endorses the project.
Objective: The Capital Markets Union
The agenda for today’s special summit at Alden Biesen Castle in Belgium includes initiatives regarding a potential Capital Markets Union (CMU). One primary goal is to create a unified EU capital market capable of generating larger investments than are currently possible within individual member states.
This integration is expected to help the EU compete with the US in sectors such as startup financing. Last year, German and French finance ministers Lars Klingbeil and Roland Lescure commissioned a report on the matter, which was presented in mid-January.
The report’s authors—former German Finance Minister Jörg Kukies and former Governor of the Bank of France Christian Noyer—propose encouraging larger financial groups across the EU to engage in joint investments while leveraging private pension services.
According to the report, if private pension services are significantly bolstered, pension funds could be utilized to inject substantial capital into private companies. This would, inevitably, turn pensions into objects of speculation. Klingbeil has already begun efforts to strengthen these private pension frameworks.
Diverging paths toward a “sovereign and competitive” Europe
Klingbeil is currently drafting a ten-point plan to strengthen the capital markets union. “In light of global upheavals, we are focusing on a sovereign and competitive Europe,” the SPD politician stated, adding that “strong capital markets” are the key to achieving this.
Among the ten points proposed by the Federal Finance Minister is the EU-wide standardization of the legal structures for small and medium-sized enterprises. Until now, only the European Company (SE) designation existed. Additionally, the plan seeks to standardize insolvency laws and streamline bureaucracy, though specific details remain vague.
Klingbeil’s plan also includes initiatives to strengthen private pension services, aiming for the comprehensive use of pension funds for investment and the inclusion of associated risks. To implement this, Klingbeil intends to rely initially on the “E6 format”—comprising Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the Netherlands—rather than the entire EU. According to the minister, this would represent a further step toward a “multi-speed Europe.”
Plans to abolish unanimity for a “multi-speed” Europe
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also signaled clear support for a “multi-speed Europe.” In a letter sent to EU heads of state and government on Monday ahead of today’s summit, von der Leyen noted that while the primary goal should always be to “reach an agreement among all 27 member states,” no one should “hesitate to use the possibilities for enhanced cooperation provided for in the Treaties.”
Under the EU’s founding documents, closer cooperation in specific policy areas is permitted provided at least nine member states join forces. To date, this mechanism has rarely been utilized.
One model discussed in the past is “Core Europe,” a Germany-centered alliance that would allow the EU’s power center to pursue deeper integration than the states on the union’s geographic periphery. Recently, Wolfgang Ischinger, President of the Munich Security Conference, proposed such a “core Europe” for the EU’s foreign and potentially military policy.
Merz vs. Macron
The option for “different speeds” within the EU is a critical factor for the summit, as German and French proposals to increase competitiveness have once again diverged sharply.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who initiated the special summit, advocates primarily for strengthening the internal market, reducing bureaucracy, and pursuing deregulation. The specifics of the latter two points remain entirely undefined; however, there are indications that the EU must stop supporting “zombie enterprises” that are no longer fit for the modern age. Such a move could impact everything from labor protections to environmental standards.
Merz also supports the simplification of digital legislation, though it remains unclear whether this would affect data protection standards.
From the perspective of French President Emmanuel Macron, these measures are insufficient. Macron warns that the world is experiencing a “deep geopolitical rift” hitting the EU from two sides: rapidly accelerating competition from China and continuous pressure from the Trump administration in the US. In an interview published in four leading European daily newspapers, Macron warned: “If we do nothing, Europe will perish within five years.”
French demands: “Made in Europe” and eurobonds
Consequently, Macron advocates not only for deregulation and the diversification of foreign trade relations but also for “prioritizing European products.”
This concept is being discussed under the “Made in Europe” banner. It would require a minimum proportion of jointly produced goods in EU public procurement across at least three sectors: steel, eco-technology, and electric vehicles. For electric cars, the proposed quota is 70%, while for solar panels—where Chinese competition is most intense—it ranges between 10% and 20%. This demand is being championed most vocally by French EU Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné.
Furthermore, Macron is pushing for “joint debt capacity,” or Eurobonds, to fund investment in key sectors. The French leader argues that the EU is under-investing in defense, security, technology, ecological transition, artificial intelligence, and quantum technology. In his view, the EU has no choice but to engage in joint borrowing to close the investment gap with the US and China.
Germany emphasizes national interest
The German government rejects these final two demands, citing national interests.
Berlin fears that introducing a minimum “Made in Europe” quota for procurement would trigger retaliation. EU exporters could find themselves at a disadvantage in procurement processes outside of Europe. As the EU’s largest exporter, Germany would be the most affected by any such restrictions.
Furthermore, Germany remains staunchly opposed to EU joint debt, symbolized by Eurobonds. Berlin’s rejection is not merely a matter of principle; Germany’s debt is only half that of France, allowing it to easily assume its own debt to stimulate investment. Moreover, Berlin calculates that such investments would primarily benefit German companies rather than EU firms in general.
Italy sides with Germany
Rome has aligned itself with Berlin, stating that now is not the time to discuss the European joint debt proposed by Macron.
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani stated on Wednesday that while the government generally recognizes the need for joint borrowing to invest in strategic sectors, there is no point in entertaining the idea while France and Germany remain in conflict over it.
“Instead of starting a debate on issues where no agreement can be reached, I prefer to find solutions on matters where various countries already agree,” Tajani told Sky TV. “If an agreement cannot be reached, there is no point in entering a discussion, even on issues we find positive.”
Italy continued to support EU joint debt even under the current Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni. However, in recent weeks, Meloni has drifted away from Macron’s “Made in Europe” proposals—which favored European companies in procurement and local content rules—and has moved closer to Merz.
Rome makes no secret of the fact that its cautious stance on discussing joint debt at the EU leaders’ meeting is a strategy to avoid tension with Germany. “I have always supported Eurobonds, but currently there is no agreement between Germany and France,” Tajani said. “Starting a discussion and dividing ourselves is pointless. We must find what unites us and move forward.”
Europe
China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans
The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.
In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.
According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.
The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.
At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.
“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”
The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.
The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.
European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.
Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.
A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”
Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”
Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.
In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.
The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.
A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.
Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.
Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.
The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.
“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”
Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.
Shagina said:
“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”
In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.
Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.
“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.
Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.
A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”
“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.
Europe
Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
European countries are increasingly tightening their citizenship rules. Most recently, the Norwegian government has drafted legislation that would raise the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from three years to seven.
The proposed amendments to the citizenship law were presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion.
Under the draft legislation, stateless individuals born in Norway, as well as those who arrived in the country as children, would be required to reside in Norway for at least five years before becoming eligible for citizenship.
The government also plans to increase residency requirements for foreign nationals who are married to or cohabiting with Norwegian citizens.
Language requirements are set to become more demanding as well. The proposal would raise the required level of spoken Norwegian proficiency from A2 to B1. The new rules would apply to applicants aged between 18 and 67.
Commenting on the changes, Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng said: “Obtaining and holding Norwegian citizenship should be a privilege.”
The government argues that simplifying administrative procedures while simultaneously tightening eligibility criteria will help reduce the country’s large backlog of pending applications and shorten processing times.
Norway is the latest European country to announce revisions to its citizenship rules.
In Finland, the minimum residency requirement for citizenship was increased from five years to eight years on October 1, 2024.
The country also plans to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for applicants aged between 18 and 64 from the beginning of 2027.
Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said: “The introduction of a citizenship test is the final component of a comprehensive reform aimed at making citizenship requirements more stringent.”
Sweden has also approved a similar reform. Beginning in June 2026, the standard residency requirement for citizenship will increase from five years to eight years. Authorities are also introducing a financial self-sufficiency requirement for applicants and expanding the scope of security screenings.
Explaining the rationale behind the changes, Migration Minister Johan Forssell said: “It was possible to become a citizen after living in the country for five years without knowing a single word of Swedish, learning anything about Swedish society, or even having one’s own source of income.”
The most far-reaching changes have been implemented in Portugal. Portuguese President Antonio Jose Seguro has signed legislation raising the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from five years to 10 years.
For citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the requirement has been set at seven years.
The residency period will now be calculated from the date a residence permit is granted rather than from the date a citizenship application is submitted. The new rules will also affect the children of immigrants.
Previously, children could obtain citizenship one year after birth if their parents held residence permits. Under the new rules, at least one parent must have legally resided in the country for a minimum of five years.
The law also introduces a mandatory examination covering Portuguese history, culture, values and social structures.
Migration policies are tightening across the European Union as well. On June 17, the European Parliament approved legislation allowing irregular migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin to be deported to third countries.
The new EU rules permit the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the bloc’s borders. African countries are reportedly among the options being discussed for such facilities.
Europe
SpaceX warns EU satellite spectrum plan could disrupt connectivity in Ukraine
SpaceX has sharply criticised a European Union plan to restrict access to satellite spectrum, arguing that the proposal risks degrading connectivity in Ukraine and disrupting emergency communications services.
In a document shared with European officials and reviewed by the Financial Times, SpaceX warned:
“This proposal significantly increases the likelihood that Europeans will be deprived of direct-to-device satellite services, or that new European operations will create global interference issues, including for emergency services such as those operating in Ukraine.”
In a proposal unveiled in May, the EU recommended reserving part of the spectrum band used for direct satellite-to-smartphone connectivity for European operators, thereby limiting the frequencies available to US and Chinese providers.
The 2 GHz frequency band in question is currently used by two US companies, Viasat and EchoStar.
SpaceX argued that the EU plan prioritises “an operator’s country of establishment over economic, technical and regulatory realities.”
When the proposal was announced, EU technology chief Henna Virkkunen defended the move, saying the bloc wanted to “increase European capacity in this sector.” She added that other parts of the frequency band would remain open to international operators, arguing that prioritising European providers was justified.
Other participants involved in discussions over the proposal said some EU officials were specifically seeking to limit Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.
Europe’s initiative follows a warning from Washington. In March, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cautioned that it could take retaliatory measures if the EU chose to favour European satellite operators over alternatives such as Starlink.
At the time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told the Financial Times: “Some of the discussions in Europe regarding satellite sovereignty concern us. If Europe decides to move down that path, then, as you know, we will have to consider reciprocal measures.”
The European Commission’s proposal has not yet entered formal negotiations with EU member states or the European Parliament.
A source close to SpaceX said the company remained hopeful of influencing the outcome of the process, given concerns raised by both businesses and several European governments.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
