Europe
Quo Vadis World Economy-III: The EU’s test with the interventionist state
Both sides of the Atlantic reacted differently to the 2008–9 financial crisis. While the US and UK were pouring vast amounts of money into the market through enormously large rescue packages to bail out big banks. Evidently, this is a policy separate from the neoliberal doctrine of ‘fiscal discipline.’ On the other hand, Germany-led EU went for the neoliberal way. It did not only pursue the austerity measures that sparked social tensions throughout the continent and led to the rise of left and right populisms but also forced anti-austerity countries to implement them.
Now, while the ‘post-neoliberalism’ is being discussed, the United States is pursuing “protectionist” economic policies and seeking to involve its European and Asian allies in its struggle against China (and Russia). As a result of being severed with inexpensive Russian energy, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the CHIP Act are fueling the EU’s concerns about deindustrialization. On the one hand, indebted and having dependent competitiveness on state interventions, Southern and Eastern Europe and the richer Northern countries, not in favor of rescuing the poorer with joint EU loans, on the other, Brussels is awaiting much more challenging days.
Letter of objection to the European Commission
The European Commission has received a letter signed by Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, and Slovakia.
Not signatories to the letter, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands also oppose the overall concept. The letter raises concerns about a proposed joint fund to support and shield the green industry from US subsidies. Instead of looking for new money, the letter demands, existing loan capacity should be utilized.
Only around 100 billion euros of the total of 390 billion euros of the post-pandemic recovery fund have been used, the seven countries recalled.
Central banks against governments
The tension between governments and central banks, which increase interest rates and employ monetary tightening to focus on ‘fighting inflation,’ is a prime illustration of the contention.
However, the epidemic years were a glorious time: The IMF, the World Bank, and national central banks all issued statements urging governments to “spend as much as you can.” It is believed that at that period, the United States pumped more than $2 trillion into the market via bond purchases and monetary expansion. During the same period, the EU helped the member countries stay afloat through joint borrowing and joint funds.
Now the disparity is widening, and it seems to be one of the most discussed topics among policymakers in the informal gatherings in the halls at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Davos summit.
Anticipating further inflationary pressure due to pandemics, geopolitical conflicts, and green transitions related to the ‘climate crisis,’ governments have prioritized spending more to ease the financial burden on consumers, notwithstanding the central banks argue and act the other way around.
Crying out “fiscal authorities must do more” in recent years, central banks seem to have received their wish, although in an unexpected form.
Furthermore, this difference, called “fiscal authority against monetary authority,” has not yet wholly appeared. According to IMF economist Gita Gopinath, the limits of tension between fiscal and monetary authorities have not been tested.
The European Union (EU) may be the only place where the rising tension is more visible. Member governments continue to unveil substantial aid packages to their citizens battling with energy and food inflation despite the European Central Bank’s aggressive interest rate increases to combat inflation.
Summary: Government aid packages
In the context of energy, the diverging monetary and fiscal policies are pretty evident.
To help with grid fees, a significant part of electricity bills, the Austrian government, for instance, is getting ready to offer a new aid package. In addition to the initial support package of 475 million euros until the middle of 2024, Vienna has revealed intentions to distribute an extra 200 million euros. Thus, the government will pay 80% of the network/infrastructure costs.
Due to rising wholesale power prices, France’s electricity and natural gas regulator CRE has suggested a 108 percent hike in residential electricity rates.
Despite the CRE’s recommendation, the French government only raised the rate by 15% with subsidies for electricity prices.
Households, small local governments, and micro-enterprises with annual revenues of less than 2 million euros are eligible for the government’s “tariff shield” system.
Greece, one of the EU’s weakest economies, even gave subsidies on energy bills to 840 million euros. Citing a fall in gas prices, Kostas Skrekas, the minister of energy, announced that subsidies would be reduced to 95 million euros.
Is the energy crisis over?
Governments seem to have concluded that the worst is over, thanks to the mild winter and energy costs plummeting.
For example, RTE, the French power grid operator, recently announced the risk of power cuts left behind. According to RTE, this is due to increased nuclear power output and the mild winter. RTE has reported that the utilization of nuclear energy capacity has reached 70%.
Once again, the mild winter seems to be reducing power use. This year’s consumption was 8.5% lower than the average for the same period of 2014-2019. Also decreasing by 13% was the use of natural gas.
Indeed, natural gas’s MW/s price on the Dutch stock market dropped from 200 euros to 70 euros in January. Moreover, 81 percent of the EU’s gas storage tanks are still full, and it is anticipated that this rate for Germany is close to 90%.
Still, Klaus Müller, the president of Germany’s federal grid agency Bundesnetzagentur, pointed out that if many heat pumps and charging stations continue to be installed, local power cuts will become a source of concern.
In order to avoid power outages, TransnetBW, the grid operator in southern Germany, has asked residents to decrease their energy use in the evenings.
South Holland has similar problems. The grid is reportedly overloaded due to balancing demand and integrating new energy sources.
For this reason, inconveniences occur in the ‘transition to green energy,’ an objective of these two countries. The load on the electricity grid is growing as demand for industrial heat pumps and charging stations increases. Considering a 27 percent growth in demand for electric cars in Germany alone, it is next to impossible to expect this problem to be solved quickly. In the short term, major transmission issues, particularly on local low-voltage lines, are anticipated to arise in Germany. From 2020 to 2021, investment in distribution networks had a 10% increase, much below the expected 40% rise.
Eurelectric predicts that in 2021, between 375 and 425 billion euros would need to be invested in energy infrastructure to render it endurable for the new electrification mechanisms. In addition, the inflationist change in electrical equipment over the last two years makes this prediction seem unduly optimistic.
The flutters of Brussels
The 0.2 percent shrinkage in Germany, the largest economy of the Old Continent, in the last quarter of 2022 is another indication that things are not going well. However, Olaf Scholz has pointed to declining energy prices and a mild winter as evidence that the recession is beginning to turn around.
One of the largest steel makers in Germany and the world, Thyssenkrupp, has urged the German government to match Washington’s “protectionism,” a sign that warning bells are ringing. Martina Merz, CEO of the conglomerate, emphasized the need to succeed in the green transition without deindustrializing the continent. Highlighting the sufferings of the steel, cement, and chemical industries from higher energy costs, Merz said that “tomorrow’s markets are being carved up now.”
Carved-up markets are ominous words that require no explanation. The European Commission’s “Green Deal Industrial Plan” seems like another dead-cat bounce by Brussels before the EU leaders’ summit to be held next week. The proposed draft urged Europe and its allies to combat “unfair subsidies” and “prolonged market distortions.” The United States and China seem to be the primary targets of this battle.
The loosening of the EU’s government incentives system appears vital for Europe in the ‘green energy transition.’ EU members have the same right as governments outside the EU to provide subsidies to businesses operating within the union.
The combined economic might of Germany and France, of course, exists here as well. Recalling that German and French industries get 77% of EU-wide state incentives (€356 billion and €162 billion, respectively), financially weak nations in the south, such as Italy, Spain, and Portugal, are once again bringing up joint EU borrowing for subsidies. The German and Dutch coalition, on the other hand, blame poor countries for seeking ‘grants’ rather than using the money in the pandemic recovery fund as a loan.
Moreover, the fragmentation is not only between EU countries but indeed between regions. Craig Douglas, the founder of World Fund, for instance, says the discrepancies between the specific buckets of capital in Europe are sharp, and there is more regional capital available in Aachen or Bavaria than in Paris if they want to build a manufacturing facility.
‘Europe is in panic mode’
Fear of the escape of investments created by the IRA has gripped all of Europe. “Europe is in panic mode,” Paul Tang, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, told the Financial Times (FT).
Panic is not a temporary problem. Concerns over the very fundamentals of the EU’s economic model are not comparable to this panic. Long before the IRA, the pandemic and the Ukraine crisis have already started to undermine the economic orthodoxy of the German-led EU.
Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, is among those drawing attention to this, reminding that a more ‘interventionist’ approach could have a long-term impact far beyond the IRA.
However, the genie is out of the bottle. Ineligible for state subsidies, several EU-based manufacturers decide to relocate their operations to the other side of the Atlantic. These are by no means a few. Since the transition to “green capitalism” calls for significant investments, state interventions are crucial in managing and directing these investments and convincing society with the carrot and stick for this shift. A state that provides only fiscal discipline and austerity is no longer acceptable. Therefore, without German-French intervention, the goal of “strategic autonomy of Europe,” which has been brought up specifically by France, is unrealistic.
Moreover, the EU is still far away from the ‘clean technology’ investments and initiatives flowing to Asia and North America. In other words, the challenge comes not only from the United States but also from Asia, particularly China. In the next article, I put an end to the with a piece focusing on Asia and ‘developing countries,’ especially China.
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
