BRUSSELS — EU countries shouldn’t be afraid of integrating at different speeds if that’s what it takes to gain crucial leverage on the world stage, Mario Draghi said Monday. “We must take the steps that are currently possible, with the partners who are actually willing, in the domains where progress can currently be made,” said the former European Central Bank president and ex-prime minister of Italy during a ceremony at the University of Leuven in Belgium, where he was awarded an honorary doctorate. “Power requires Europe to move from confederation to federation,” said Draghi, stressing that only in domains where EU countries have pooled their competences has the bloc gained clout on the global stage.  “Where Europe has federated, [such as] on trade, on competition, on the single market, on monetary policy, we are respected as a power and negotiate as one,” he said, citing trade agreements recently negotiated with India and Latin America. Draghi’s call comes as Europe struggles to keep pace with the U.S. and China, and is facing Russian aggression in Ukraine plus a transatlantic ally that no longer acknowledges the benefits of its historic European ties. “This is a future in which Europe risks becoming subordinated, divided and de-industrialized at once, and a Europe that cannot defend its interests will not preserve its values for longer,” Draghi warned. In the face of those challenges, areas of weakness are those where EU capitals continue to maintain a grip, such as defense, industrial policy or foreign affairs, Draghi said. In these, he added, “we are treated as a loose assembly of middle-sized states to be divided and dealt with accordingly.” The former top official praised the bloc’s recent stance on Greenland, where it decided to resist rather than accommodate threats coming from the U.S. “By standing together in the face of direct threat, Europeans discovered the solidarity that had previously seemed out of reach,” he said.  Draghi will take part in an informal gathering of European leaders next week aimed at discussing the direction for the bloc’s competitiveness, together with another former Italian prime minister, Enrico Letta. Both have laid out their economic visions in reports that form the building blocks of President Ursula von der Leyen’s second term atop the European Commission.

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

German industrial giant Bosch on Friday confirmed plans to cut 20,000 jobs after profits nearly halved last year, underlining the mounting strain on Germany’s once-dominant manufacturing sector and increasing the pressure on politicians in Berlin to find a solution. Official data released Friday also showed Germany’s unemployment rate, unadjusted for seasonal factors, rising to 6.6 percent — the highest level in twelve years. The number of unemployed people surpassed three million in January. “Economic reality is also reflected in our results,” Bosch CEO Stefan Hartung said, describing 2025 as “a difficult and, in some cases, painful year” for the company, which is a leading supplier of parts for cars. The move lands amid a deepening slump in the country’s automotive industry, long the backbone of German manufacturing. The sector has been shedding jobs rapidly: A 2025 study by EY found that more than 50,000 automotive positions were cut in Germany last year alone. Germany’s automotive downturn has become a wider political test for the government in Berlin and Europe more widely. Once the economy’s crown jewel, the industry is now being challenged by current policy on electric vehicles, energy costs and aggressive competition from Chinese manufacturers. As suppliers weaken, the risk is shifting from lower profits to a lasting loss of competitiveness. With layoffs rising and investment decisions being delayed, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government is coming under growing pressure from workers, unions and industry leaders to rethink Germany’s industrial strategy — as doubts spread domestically and across Europe about the country’s ability to remain an economic powerhouse.

BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s three largest political groups are discussing new safeguards against the unpredictability of President Donald Trump in a bid to break a deadlock over approving the EU–U.S. trade deal, according to two lawmakers and three officials familiar with the talks. Center-left and liberal lawmakers are asking for a clause to be included in enabling legislation that is now before the house, under which the deal would be voided if Trump restarts his threats against the territorial sovereignty of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. “We will need to have safeguards in place with a clear reference to territorial sovereignty directed at Trump’s unpredictability,” said an official of the Socialists & Democrats familiar with the discussions, granted anonymity to speak about confidential deliberations. There are already suspension clauses in the text, but lawmakers want to include definitions — including threats to territorial sovereignty — to strengthen them. Apart from the sovereignty clause, the definitions should specify that new tariff threats would trigger an automatic suspension of the agreement, said an official from the liberal Renew Europe group. That could pave the way for a vote on the Parliament’s position to be scheduled for the next meeting of its International Trade Committee on Feb. 23-24. For the EU to implement its side of the bargain, the Parliament and Council of the EU, representing the bloc’s 27 members, would still need to reach a final compromise. “This could be perhaps a date to vote,” Bernd Lange, the chair of the committee, told POLITICO, referring to the Feb. 23-24 meeting. Lange added that outstanding issues — including whether to schedule a vote on the deal at all — will be discussed at a meeting of lead negotiators scheduled for Wednesday next week. “The question of safeguard[s] is an important one and will be solved in the proper way,” he added. The Parliament froze ratification of the agreement, reached by Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last July, after the U.S. president threatened tariffs on European allies backing Greenland, a self-governing Danish protectorate. The center-right European People’s Party has pushed to sign off on the deal following calls from EU countries to unblock the implementation after Trump walked back threats to seize Greenland. But S&D, Renew and the Greens have so far balked, arguing further details are needed on the “framework” deal agreed by Trump with NATO chief Mark Rutte. An EPP official with knowledge of the discussions said the center-right group was open to stricter suspension safeguards in case Trump turns hostile again. “If he threatens [again] then the deal is off, but not the rest of our economic cooperation,” the official said. One of the S&D’s demands had been to officially ask the Commission to launch an investigation into whether Washington is coercing Europe to give up Greenland, which could lead to the launch of the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument. This trade “bazooka” is the bloc’s most powerful trade retaliatory weapon — but the EPP strongly opposes deploying it. “Anti-coercion is a serious and nuclear weapon that should be last discussed with strategic allies,” the EPP’s top trade lawmaker Željana Zovko told POLITICO, adding that the tool is “not serious diplomacy, only for drama queens.” Lawmakers are also discussing adding a sunset clause that would require the Commission to review the agreement after a set period, as well as excluding its steel provisions from ratification until the U.S. withdraws its 50 percent tariffs on European goods containing steel. MEPs say this violates the 15 percent all-inclusive rate agreed last summer.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission’s vice president Henna Virkkunen sounded the alarm about Europe’s dependence on foreign technology on Tuesday, saying “it’s very clear that Europe is having our independence moment.” “During the last year, everybody has really realized how important it is that we are not dependent on one country or one company when it comes to some very critical technologies,” she said at an event organized by POLITICO. “In these times … dependencies, they can be weaponized against us,” Virkkunen said. The intervention at the event — titled Europe’s race for digital leadership — comes at a particularly sensitive time in transatlantic relations, after U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent threats to take over Greenland forced European politicians to consider retaliation. Virkkunen declined to single out the United States as one of the partners that the EU must de-risk from. She pointed to the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as incidents that point to Europe’s “vulnerabilities.” She said the U.S. is a key partner, but also noted that “it’s very important for our competitiveness and for our security, that we have also our own capacity, that we are not dependent.” The Commission’s executive vice president for tech sovereignty swung behind the idea of using public contracts as a way to support the development of European technology companies and products. “We should use public procurement, of course, much more actively also to boost our own growing technologies in the European Union,” she said when asked about her stance on plans to “Buy European.” Those plans, being pushed by the French EU commissioner Stéphane Séjourné, in charge of European industy, to ensure that billions in procurement contracts flow to EU businesses, are due to be outlined in an upcoming Industrial Accelerator Act that has been delayed multiple times. “Public services, governments, municipalities, regions, also the European Commission, we are very big customers for ICT services,” Virkkunen said. “And we can also boost very much European innovations [and startups] when we are buying services.” Virkkunen is overseeing a package of legislation aimed at promoting tech sovereignty that is expected to come out this spring, including action on cloud and artificial intelligence, and microchips — industries in which Europe is behind global competitors. When asked where she saw the biggest need for Europe to break away from foreign reliance, the commissioner said that while it was difficult to pick only one area, “chips are very much a pre-condition for any other technologies.” “We are not able to design and manufacture very advanced chips. It’s very problematic for our technology customer. So I see that semiconductor chips, they are very much key for any other technologies,” she said.

BERLIN — German Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil expressed frustration with the EU’s response to the Greenland crisis, telling POLITICO the bloc must avoid a return to business as usual after U.S. President Donald Trump backed down from his threats to seize the Arctic territory and impose new tariffs on European countries. “Anyone in Europe who now thinks that we can sit back and relax, saying that everything has turned out fine somehow, take a deep breath and then carry on as before, has failed to understand what is at stake here,” Klingbeil told POLITICO’s Berlin Playbook Podcast in an interview conducted on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. Klingbeil’s comments came ahead of an EU emergency summit in Brussels on Thursday during which European leaders agreed the post-World War II world order is slipping away, but diverged on the best strategy for dealing with Trump going forward. Klingbeil, who also acts as Germany’s finance minister, in particular voiced frustration over the European Commission’s handling of the Greenland crisis over the course of the past week, suggesting the Commission was not acting with enough urgency. “When I returned from Brussels on Monday, I was extremely frustrated because I had held talks with the Commission where I was given the impression that everything was great, everything was on the right track, and I don’t think that is appropriate given the situation we are in,” Klingbeil said. Klingbeil said that his frustration with the EU’s pace prompted him to reach out to his counterparts in Spain, France, the Netherlands, Italy and Poland to discuss economic competitiveness, raw materials and defense financing, among other matters, during a virtual meeting next week. “The urgency and pace that we actually need are not there at the moment, and that is something that greatly concerns me,” he said. “I’m a big fan and believer in the European Union, but I think a few countries need to take the lead now,” Klingbeil said. “I’m hopeful due to the fact that everyone in this circle has understood what’s at stake and that we can achieve something together.” Klingbeil also suggested Germany should pursue a middle ground when it comes to dealing with the Trump administration, seeking to preserve ties to the extent possible while strengthening Europe. “We must keep our hand outstretched at all times, and I believe that we must never destroy or jeopardize transatlantic relations on our part,” he said. “But I also believe — and I have made this clear over the last few days — that it is important for us to be clear and unambiguous as Europeans.”

BRUSSELS — The multi-billion-dollar battle between Netflix and Paramount to buy Warner Bros. Discovery has moved to the heart of Europe. Warner Bros. has accepted Netflix’s $82.7 billion bid (which would also include buying HBO) — which Netflix amended this week to a cash offer. But that’s not stopping Paramount, whose $108.4 billion offer for a larger chunk of the business was rejected, from doing all it can to stay in the race. Paramount has met with officials at the European Commission’s competition department, DG COMP, to discuss the Warner Bros. deal as it edges closer to submitting a draft of its formal filing, according to a person familiar with the case, granted anonymity to speak freely. Paramount’s aim is to speed up the process of getting the Commission to give an antitrust greenlight for its Warner Bros. bid. On a tour of European capitals earlier this month, Paramount CEO David Ellison went to the heart of European cinema, Paris, and had lunch with French President Emmanuel Macron.  He also booked time with the culture ministers of France and the U.K., signaling that the company’s strategy in Europe is not just to throw in more cash to secure a deal, but rather to win over hearts and minds by appealing to the continent’s love of the arts. Paramount hopes that support from European politicians and leading cultural figures will overcome the reservations Warner Bros. shareholders feel toward its bid, which they have repeatedly rejected. That’s why while in Paris, Ellison also met with key figures from the film industry, including the president of the National Film Board, Gaëtan Bruel; Gaumont CEO Sidonie Dumas; Richard Patry, the head of the French Exhibition Association; and Metropolitan Filmexport boss Victor Hadida.  Part of its strategy is to talk up its love of cinema and to claim that it can defend the movies against streaming giant Netflix. As part of its bid, Paramount has promised to release at least 30 films in theaters every year, and committed to honor “healthy traditional windows” of movie releases. THE DEATH OF CINEMA? The cinema industry has reservations about both bids. The International Union of Cinemas (UNIC) — which held a meeting with the European Commission’s competition department last week — namechecked theatrical release schedules as a “key principle” that had to be protected in any deal in a statement. But it said Thursday that it doesn’t support either of the current bids, adding that both could result in a “significant downside for European cinema.” UNIC’s key worry is that after the deal, the U.S. will end up producing fewer movies, to the detriment of European cinemagoers. French movies might get critical acclaim, but what really drives revenue are Hollywood blockbusters. EPP SUPPORT One victory Paramount has scored has been to draw the support of one of the European Parliament’s most influential lawmakers, Germany’s Andreas Schwab from the center-right European People’s Party.  Schwab, a competition policy expert, has been following the deal since its early days and was quick to warn the Commission against a potential Amazon offer for Warner Bros. last year. And ultimately it’s the competition argument, rather than the cultural one, that won him over. “The Paramount bid would be a better choice than Netflix for the balance of the market,” he told POLITICO.  BEEFING UP Both camps have entrusted global public affairs consultancies with well-rooted Brussels branches to massage the message: FGS Global for Netflix and Brunswick for Paramount. Each firm has also lined up legal heavyweights. Netflix is advised by global U.S. law firm Skadden, whose Brussels team is led by Ingrid Vandenborre (her CV includes getting Activision Blizzard’s $69 billion acquisition by Microsoft in 2023 over the line after an epic cross-border antitrust review).  Paramount relies on U.S. global powerhouse Latham & Watkins; in the driving seat is Carles Esteva Mosso, formerly a senior official at DG COMP. Warner Bros., meanwhile, is advised by another of Brussels’ top competition lawyers, Johan Ysewyn of Covington & Burling. Netflix and Paramount had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.

In a continent of SPAs and GmbHs, what’s the value of an Inc.? A “freedom fries”-style linguistic argument has broken out over the naming of a corporate law proposal for startups, highlighting anti-American sentiment in Europe amid Donald Trump’s threats against Greenland. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, during a speech in Davos, suggested using the name “EU Inc.” instead of the somewhat dry “28th regime.” Her suggestion has drawn disdain from the lead lawmaker on the proposal. An American abbreviation like “Inc.” — short for the U.S.-specific “incorporated” legal entity — is “maybe not the right way to call this one” in the current geopolitical context, said René Repasi, a German Social Democrat. The row reflects deeper resistance to the Americanization of language and culture in Europe. In a continent of French Sociétés Anonymes and German GmbHs, Brussels’ embrace of U.S. corporate terminology may be a bridge too far. Some lawmakers have been rankled by the rise of “Acts” — from the Digital Markets Act to the AI Act — which mirror the punchy legislative branding of Capitol Hill, abandoning traditional European “directives” and “regulations” when used in the EU executive’s primary communication method, English. Von der Leyen has also come under fire for rolling back her green agenda during her current, second mandate. Critics have said her drive to cut red tape is a poorly disguised attempt to appease President Donald Trump, who has criticized EU regulation for discriminating against U.S. business. This latest geopolitically flavored semantic squabble summons memories of 2003, when an American lawmaker — upset with France’s refusal to join the invasion of Iraq — renamed “French fries” as “freedom fries” in three congressional cafeterias. Repasi’s proposal for the 28th regime rebrand? Societas Europaea Unificata (S.EU), a Latin-derived term that translates to “unified European company.” Parliament voted in favor of his choice of name, which echoes past proposals like the 2008 Societas Privata Europaea. “We go back to the roots of our continent’s languages,” said Repasi, explaining Parliament’s choice of a Latin-derived term rather than an American abbreviation. “I cannot be the only one who struggles to pronounce the proposed name of the new corporate form,” Kim van Sparrentak said in Monday’s debate on the proposal. (The Dutch Greens MEP still voted for the proposal with the Latin-rooted name.) COVERING THE BASIS Beyond the naming spat, there are more profound ideological splits over the regime to create a single EU window for registering companies, which Commissioner Michael McGrath is expected to unveil in late March. The idea is to create a flourishing startup landscape, and stem a flight of talent and ideas across the Atlantic. Repasi warned that the regime must not become a vehicle for “charlatans” to escape labor standards, echoing a complaint from Lukas Mandl, of the European People’s Party, that the proposal should not give rise to a “gold digger mentality” that could destabilize the European social partnership model. “If there is no credible solution how employee participation … can be secured, I see difficulties that the progressive side of the House can support such a 28th regime,” he said, citing the failure of previous attempts like the SPE and SUP due to the same issue. Another substantive issue may prove to be its legal basis, on which lawmakers haven’t yet agreed. It’s on this issue that the creators of the “EU Inc.” naming proposal — who were delighted to see von der Leyen endorse it — are really hoping to make an impact. The “EU Inc.” movement, led by founders who have taken their roadshow to capitals across the bloc, is pushing for a regulation to ensure a single, directly applicable rulebook that prevents member states from “gold-plating” the law with national quirks. If von der Leyen “chooses a title that’s very dear to pressure groups, that guarantees applause,” said Repasi, worrying that the Commission may put forward a proposal that would impinge on national labor rules. The new name in particular “sends a wrong signal,” said Repasi. The Parliament’s report steers towards what Repasi describes as a more pragmatic directive, a choice rooted in what he says is Council arithmetic. A regulation on corporate law would require the unanimous consent of all 27 member countries, a high bar that Repasi fears would create a “Frankenstein’s monster” as each capital demands its own specific national carve-outs .  By opting for a directive, the EU can move forward via qualified majority voting, bypassing the “unanimity trap” that famously saw previous attempts at corporate law harmonization languish for decades. “If we want to have a regulation which ends up in unanimity … we can wait for Godot,” said Repasi.

STRASBOURG — The European Parliament plans to ask the European Commission on Monday to start the process for activating the bloc’s most powerful trade weapon against the United States, a senior trade lawmaker said on Wednesday. “I expect that the coordinators will decide to request to start the investigation procedure of the [Anti-Coercion Instrument]. Of course, between now and Monday there’s a lot of time and we will see what will happen,” trade committee chair Bernd Lange told reporters in Strasbourg. The statement by Lange, a German Social Democrat, comes as relations between the EU and the United States hit an all-time low, following President Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on European countries that have rallied to Copenhagen’s side. Resolve within the bloc is growing to hit back against Trump, with the Parliament also formally freezing on Wednesday the ratification of the EU-U.S. trade deal that was struck last summer. “Europe must speak the language Trump understands. We are ready to move forward with the ACI. I would have preferred a decision today, but I hope for a strong and united statement on Monday. We don’t have time to waste,” said Swedish MEP Karin Karlsbro of the liberal Renew group. Jörgen Warborn, the European People’s Party top trade MEP, took a more cautious line, reflecting the party’s transatlantic leanings. “It’s too early to say” if he will agree to ask Commission to launch the ACI, Warborn told reporters. Further, Warborn told POLITICO: “We now need to coordinate further and discuss which options we have in case of further actions. Nothing is off the table.” EU leaders are toughening their position and want the European Commission to ready its trade “bazooka,” with Germany joining France in saying it will ask the Commission to explore unleashing the tool at an emergency meeting of leaders on Thursday unless Trump walks back on his threats, POLITICO reported on Tuesday. The trade weapon, which can be deployed at the request of any affected party, including the European Parliament, is one of the EU’s main levers against the U.S.: It includes a wide range of possible measures such as imposing tariffs, restricting exports of strategic goods, or excluding U.S. companies from tenders. A decision to use the instrument would not be taken lightly because it would have a significant impact on the EU economy. This story has been updated.

China’s foreign ministry on Wednesday said a new European Commission proposal to restrict high-risk tech vendors from critical supply chains amounted to “blatant protectionism,” warning European officials that Beijing will take “necessary measures” to protect Chinese firms. Beijing has “serious concerns” over the bill, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun told reporters, according to state news agencies’ reports. “Using non-technical standards to forcibly restrict or even prohibit companies from participating in the market, without any factual evidence, seriously violates market principles and fair competition rules,” Guo said. The European Commission on Tuesday unveiled its proposal to revamp the bloc’s Cybersecurity Act. The bill seeks to crack down on risky technology vendors in critical supply chains ranging across energy, transport, health care and other sectors. Though the legislation itself does not name any specific countries or companies, it is widely seen as being targeted at China. 5G suppliers Huawei and ZTE are in the EU’s immediate crosshairs, while other Chinese vendors are expected to be hit at a later stage. European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier responded to the Chinese foreign ministry, saying Europe has allowed high-risk vendors from outside the EU in strategic sectors for “far too long.” “We are indeed radically changing this. Because we cannot be naive anymore,” Regnier said in a statement. The exclusion of high-risk suppliers will always be based on “strong risk assessments” and in coordination with EU member countries, he said. China “urges the EU to avoid going further down the wrong path of protectionism,” the Chinese foreign ministry’s Guo told reporters. He added the EU bill would “not only fail to achieve so-called security but will also incur huge costs,” saying some restrictions on using Huawei had already “caused enormous economic losses” in Europe in past years. European telecom operators warned Tuesday that the law would impose multi-billion euro costs on the industry if restrictions on using Huawei and ZTE were to become mandatory across Europe. A Huawei spokesperson said in a statement that laws to block suppliers based on their country of origin violate the EU’s “basic legal principles of fairness, non-discrimination, and proportionality,” as well as its World Trade Organization obligations. The company “reserve[s] all rights to safeguard our legitimate interests,” the spokesperson said. ZTE did not respond to requests for comment on the EU’s plans.