.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
1
Von der Leyen’s Surprise Deregulation Drive Sparks Controversy in Brussels
Nice of her to let the elected officials what she's decided to do, even if it was a surprise for them 🤣 -
1,843
-
10
Vote Rigging and Money Laundering Allegations Hit Thai Senate
You shouldn't be shocked as it's fake news 😉 -
1
Von der Leyen’s Surprise Deregulation Drive Sparks Controversy in Brussels
Ursula von der Leyen has kicked off her second term as European Commission president with a sweeping and rapid deregulation push—one that took many in Brussels by surprise. Few officials had prior knowledge of the plan before it was already in motion, leaving policymakers scrambling to catch up with the new direction. Facing pressure from right-wing governments, von der Leyen has made cutting bureaucratic red tape a cornerstone of her second term, aiming to boost Europe's economic competitiveness. However, this shift in focus has come at the expense of environmental regulations and other long-standing priorities, raising concerns among various stakeholders in the European policymaking community. POLITICO spoke with a range of Brussels insiders, including Commission officials, national diplomats, European Parliament lawmakers, industry representatives, and NGO figures. Their accounts describe a centralized, fast-moving agenda designed to "simplify" European Union regulations while easing burdens on businesses. The rapid nature of these changes has alarmed many in Brussels, particularly those who have spent years crafting the very regulations now being reconsidered. Some Commission staffers have been left “depressed” as years of regulatory efforts are swiftly undone. Cabinet officials, too, have struggled to exert influence over von der Leyen’s highly centralized approach to policymaking. This top-down strategy has raised transparency concerns across EU institutions. “When we’re going that fast, how can we be sure we’re getting it right?” questioned a senior national regulator, who, like others interviewed, spoke anonymously due to the sensitivity of the discussions. The deregulation push began in November during a meeting in Budapest, where von der Leyen announced a major shift in EU green policy. The move surprised many, as it signaled a departure from some of the Commission’s previous environmental priorities. The plan has the backing of key EU member states, including France and Germany, as well as von der Leyen’s political allies in the center-right European People’s Party (EPP). At the heart of the effort is an “omnibus” bill aimed at simplifying a set of laws designed to hold companies accountable for environmental and social damages. Von der Leyen has insisted that the bill will not weaken existing regulations but will streamline them by eliminating unnecessary duplication and paperwork. She argues that this will make the EU a more attractive place to do business. However, critics warn that reopening these files could ultimately lead to a dilution of the laws themselves. The suddenness of this initiative has caught even Commission officials off guard. Four officials admitted to POLITICO that they first learned of the plan—which directly affects their work—through von der Leyen’s Budapest speech. Since then, the deregulation push has expanded, with promises of “at least” five omnibus packages in 2025 and the scrapping of previous Commission proposals deemed too burdensome. Despite the criticism, von der Leyen’s push for a faster, more agile approach to EU lawmaking has its supporters. Jean-Paul Servais, head of the global securities watchdog IOSCO, defended the urgency of the effort, stating: “In wartime, speed is maybe the most important aspect.” European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde also voiced her support, co-authoring an op-ed in the Financial Times alongside von der Leyen. In it, they argued that the EU has “too much at stake” to allow excessive regulation to hold back economic growth. They praised the deregulation effort as an “unprecedented simplification” initiative aimed at keeping Europe competitive on the global stage, promising to “do whatever is necessary to bring Europe back on track.” Still, as one senior Commission official noted, the EU executive branch is “only one player in this game.” The official pointed out that EU governments and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) often dilute legislative proposals during negotiations. “If they want ambition, we give them ambition. But then they have to be ambitious.” As von der Leyen forges ahead with her deregulatory agenda, the debate over the balance between economic growth and regulatory oversight is set to intensify. While some see the push as a necessary step to maintain Europe’s global standing, others fear it could come at the cost of hard-won environmental and social protections. The speed and scope of these changes ensure that the controversy surrounding them is far from over. Based on a report by Politico 2025-02-19- 1
-
-
0
Trump Shrugs Off Potential EU Ban on U.S. Food Imports
President Donald Trump on Sunday dismissed concerns over reports that the European Union might respond to his "reciprocal" tariff policy by restricting imports of certain American food products. "That’s all right. I don’t mind. Let them do it. Let them do it," Trump told reporters. "They’re just hurting themselves if they do that. I can’t imagine it, but it doesn’t matter." According to a report from the Financial Times, citing three unnamed officials, the European Commission is set to move forward next week with plans to limit imports of specific U.S. food products that do not comply with EU regulations. Among the potential targets of these restrictions are U.S. soybean crops, which use pesticides that are banned in the EU. European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Olivér Várhelyi emphasized the EU's stance in a recent interview with the Financial Times. "We have very clear signals from the parliament, very clear signals also from the member states and from our farmers: whatever is banned in the EU, it should be banned in the EU, even if it is an imported product," he stated. Trump recently signed a presidential memorandum proposing reciprocal tariffs, arguing that the policy is necessary to counter unfair and discriminatory trade practices from both adversaries and allies. While the tariffs were not enacted immediately, the memorandum initiated a review process to implement them. Under this plan, reciprocal tariffs would be determined based on five factors: the tariffs imposed on U.S. products by a given nation, unfair taxes, costs to U.S. businesses and consumers from foreign policies, exchange rates, and any other measures deemed unfair by the U.S. trade representative’s office. White House officials indicated that Trump aims to move quickly on implementing the tariffs, suggesting they could be in place within "weeks" or, at most, "a few months." Defending the policy on Sunday, Trump reiterated the fairness of reciprocal tariffs. "We’re having reciprocal tariffs. Whatever they charge, we charge. It’s very simple. If a certain country—like India, which is very high tariff—if they charge us X dollars, we charge them X dollars," he said. "It’s a fair thing to do," he added. "Even the media said it was fair, and it’s going to be very good for the United States." Based on a report by The Hill 2025-02-19 -
0
US Senator Warns of ‘Dangerous Surrender’ in UK’s Chagos Deal with Mauritius
A senior US senator has strongly criticized Sir Keir Starmer’s agreement to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, calling it a “dangerous surrender” that jeopardizes Western security interests in the Indian Ocean. Jim Risch, the Republican chair of the Senate’s foreign relations committee and a close ally of Donald Trump, has warned that this move poses an “unneeded risk to our military position” and could allow China to gain greater insight into US activities at Diego Garcia, the crucial American naval base on the largest island in the archipelago. “Ceding ground to China is dangerous surrender, and the US and the UK need to work together to push back on this,” Risch stated during a visit to London, speaking at the think tank Policy Exchange. “While this is ultimately a British decision, retaining sovereign control over Diego Garcia is imperative for our collective security.” The Trump administration is currently reviewing the deal ahead of Starmer’s upcoming visit to Washington DC. Several high-profile Republicans, including Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, and Mike Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser, have publicly voiced their concerns. However, with the White House currently focused on Ukraine negotiations and efforts to broker a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the Chagos Islands have not yet become a top priority. Risch, who was recently invited by Trump to celebrate the release of American schoolteacher Marc Fogel from Russian detention, emphasized the strategic importance of Diego Garcia. “Diego Garcia plays an indispensable role in helping all of us deter Chinese aggression,” he said. “I’m concerned that the decision to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius creates unneeded risk to our military position in the Indian Ocean and will allow [the] Chinese to gain greater insight into our activities at Diego Garcia. We understand that the government has put measures in place to limit the Chinese navy’s ability to encroach upon Diego Garcia, but it isn’t just about the Chinese navy. We are equally worried about collection activities conducted by China’s commercial — so-called commercial — and oceanographic spy vessels.” Beyond the Chagos issue, Risch also criticized Britain’s military capabilities, arguing that “the British military is too small” to meet current security challenges. His concerns were echoed by HR McMaster, Trump’s former national security adviser, who recalled working on the Chagos issue during the first Trump administration and described the deal as a “travesty.” “This would put us at a significant strategic disadvantage,” McMaster said. Policy Exchange has blamed the Chagos deal on what it describes as a “hyper-legalist” and “flawed” approach to international law led by Attorney General Lord Hermer. The 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled 13-1 in favor of Mauritius’ claim over the islands, has played a significant role in Britain’s decision to proceed with the handover. The lone dissenting judge was American, while the majority included a Russian and a Chinese judge. Starmer has argued that the ICJ ruling created legal uncertainty that threatened the future of Diego Garcia. His plan involves leasing the base from Mauritius for £90 million annually, with the payment increasing over 99 years in line with inflation. However, critics believe this concession was unnecessary. Stephen Doughty, a foreign office minister, recently defended the decision, writing in *The Times* that Britain had to finalize a deal before Mauritius secured a binding ICJ ruling. He warned that such a judgment could have “serious real-world operational impacts,” including potential consequences from UN bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which controls electromagnetic spectrum allocations, and the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which regulates airspace. However, Tom Tugendhat, the former UK security minister, dismissed these concerns, stating that the ITU had “absolutely no authority to interfere in — let alone shut down — our satellite facilities on Diego Garcia.” He argued that the real threat to the base came not from international legal bodies but from the UK government’s own willingness to concede to Mauritius. “The main threat to the future of our military base in the Indian Ocean is not some unilateral punitive action of an international body. It is simply the government’s distorted interpretation of the UK’s legal obligations and its willingness to surrender meekly to a Mauritian shakedown,” he said. Richard Ekins KC, co-author of the Policy Exchange report, also criticized the UK government, stating that it was “failing to defend the UK’s legal rights.” “The government’s attempts to rationalize its surrender of a vital strategic asset betray a damaging hyper-legalist disposition. No international court can force the UK to cede the Chagos and no responsible government should pretend that its hands are tied,” he said. The report suggests that the controversial guidance issued by Hermer to government lawyers last year may be a key factor behind the Chagos deal. His directive advised legal teams to assess “the likelihood of a legal challenge being successful” even if a case never reached court. The report describes this approach as “badly misguided,” arguing that any legal advice based on it is “worse than useless.” “As long as the UK does not accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ over the Chagos sovereignty dispute, the prospects of a binding judgment against Britain are non-existent,” the report concludes. Based on a report by The Times 2025-02-19
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now