BRUSSELS — The European Union’s sweeping privacy reforms are off to a bad start. National governments want to shoot down a key legal change at the heart of the European Commission’s proposal to reform the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a document obtained by POLITICO showed. The document is the first official negotiating text weighing in on the issue — and it shows how contentious reforming the GDPR will be. The privacy law is seen as the “third rail” of European tech policy, and is one of the EU’s most fiercely lobbied pieces of legislation in history. Amending it is expected to trigger a massive political and lobbying storm in Brussels. The Commission in November presented its “digital omnibus” plan as part of a bigger overhaul of data and AI laws that seeks to boost AI technology in Europe. It is one of (so far) 10 so-called omnibuses that aim to slash red tape and boost European competitiveness proposed by Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission. The new document, dated Feb. 20, was prepared by the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, currently held by Cyprus, and serves as a basis for national governments to negotiate a joint position on the privacy reforms. The Cypriots took aim at a core change to the data protection rulebook: how the law defines personal data. If approved, the change would move troves of data out of the scope of privacy protections. The revision sought to adapt the GDPR to a recent ruling by the EU’s top court (SRB v EDPS), which found that sometimes “pseudonymized” data, where a person’s details are obscured so they can’t be easily identified, could move it outside the strict privacy guardrails of the GDPR. That would particularly benefit companies, including AI developers, which would be able to use pseudonymized data more freely as long as they can’t reasonably re-identify data subjects. The changes have already triggered a backlash from European privacy regulators, which this month warned against amending the definition, and have split EU countries, which pushed back against the reform in early position papers. But European tech and business lobby groups welcomed the Commission’s proposed reforms, applauding the EU executive for its efforts to unlock more data to fuel AI innovation. EU countries will consider the text on Feb. 27 at a meeting of diplomats focused on the EU’s simplification efforts. In the European Parliament, lawmakers are working on a first position on the GDPR reforms.

BRUSSELS — The EU must start drawing up concrete plans to cope with life on a continent made 4 degrees Celsius hotter by climate change, the bloc’s scientific advisers said Tuesday.  That would mean accepting that the world is on track for a catastrophic temperature increase that will far exceed the targets agreed under the Paris climate accord and will massively disrupt life for Europeans. “Europe’s climate is rapidly changing. It is not a distant or an abstract risk,” said Ottmar Edenhofer, the chair of the European scientific advisory board on climate change. As the planet warms, weather extremes such as floods and droughts are posing a growing threat to Europe’s society, economy and ecosystems. In recent years, tens of thousands of Europeans have died in heat waves and hundreds more when rivers burst their banks; the annual repair bill for climate disasters has reached an average of €45 billion.  But the EU’s efforts to prepare for both current and future impacts of global warming are insufficient and fragmented, lacking a coherent vision, Edenhofer warned. “The EU lacks a shared understanding of what it should collectively prepare for, leading to inconsistent climate risk assessments that often undermine risk management,” he said.  In the board’s view, the bloc should protect itself on the assumption that the continent will be 4 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100 than in the pre-industrial era. The advice echoes a recent French government plan to prepare for a 4C hotter France.  Aside from establishing a common baseline of preparations, the board recommends four other measures to climate-proof Europe — from setting binding preparation targets to suggesting the EU plan its budget around climate risks.  With their requests for more targets and assessments, many of the board’s recommendations run counter to the deregulation fever gripping Brussels. In the report, the researchers even reprimand the EU executive for weakening green reporting requirements. Yet the board’s advice, an independent consortium of senior scientists tasked by EU law with issuing climate policy guidance, often proves influential. Its 2023 report recommending an emissions-slashing target of at least 90 percent by 2040 played a major role in pushing the bloc’s institutions to adopt that figure as their goal.  The report on preparing for climate risks — called adaptation in policy-speak — is also timely: The Commission is working on a new “framework” for climate-proofing Europe, expected toward the end of the year. “Our recommendations are aimed at the upcoming legislation,” Edenhofer said.  ADAPT TO SURVIVE While the EU has extensive legislation in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, no targets or policies exist for adaptation.  That’s in part because it’s tricky to draft continent-level policies for climate impacts, which differ in severity and classification not only across the bloc’s 27 countries but also within their borders. Southern Europe faces greater threats from heat than northern countries, and a nation’s coastal towns will need to cope with different risks than mountainous hinterlands.  But emissions-slashing efforts, known in policy jargon as mitigation, have also generally received more attention and investment, as they seek to tackle the root cause of climate change, while adaptation addresses its symptoms.  Scientists insist both are needed. “The success of global mitigation efforts is … critical to determine future temperature increases and the magnitude of the global risks,” said Edenhofer. “Adaptation can reduce climate risk and associated harms.”  For example, southern Europe’s droughts will become more frequent and intense the higher global temperatures rise — according to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), more than a third of the region’s population will face water scarcity at 2C of global warming, while 3C doubles this share. Curbing warming limits this risk.  To address the remaining risk, countries can introduce adaptation measures — such as having farmers switch to more drought-resistant crops or managing water use. The worse the warming gets, the greater the danger that regions and economic sectors will no longer be able to adapt.  All the EU has for now is a vague adaptation strategy from 2021. Most EU countries have national adaptation plans or laws with relevant elements, but both the European Environment Agency and the European Court of Auditors have warned that legislation varies wildly across the bloc and that some strategies are based on outdated scientific findings.  WORST-CASE SCENARIO That’s not good enough, the advisory board says. Among the five recommendations, the scientists want the EU to develop a coherent vision with “sector-specific adaptation targets, for example for 2030 and 2040,” and to find ways to manage the rising economic costs of climate disasters, for example, through budgetary and insurance mechanisms. This must be based on a common reference scenario, the scientists say, recommending the EU prepare for a global warming of between 2.8 C and 3.3 C above pre-industrial levels — consistent with projections that “imply around 4C warming for Europe,” Edenhofer said. The “precautionary principle” requires the EU to prepare for that scenario and it should also “stress-test” its planning against even higher warming scenarios, Edenhofer said, given the uncertainties around global efforts to cut emissions. The United States is notably currently reversing course on its emissions-slashing plans.  The report also criticized the Commission for its deregulation drive. The Commission’s first omnibus package aimed at simplifying environmental legislation exempted the majority of EU companies from having to report on the threat climate change poses to their business models, for example. This, the researchers say, “may weaken the oversight and management of climate risks in the wider EU economy.”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music European leaders have spent the week talking about how to make the EU more competitive — first with industry heavyweights in Antwerp, then behind closed doors at a leaders’ retreat in Belgium. On this episode of EU Confidential, host Sarah Wheaton digs into what’s really behind the latest push to revive Europe’s economy. Are calls for deregulation and lower energy costs a genuine course correction — or another round of diagnosis without delivery? POLITICO’s Zia Weise, fresh from the industry summit in Antwerp, joins the discussion on how chemical giants and other industrial players are pressing for relief from climate and energy rules. Marianne Gros examines the backlash over Brussels’ simplification drive and growing concerns about transparency and democratic safeguards. And Carlo Martuscelli breaks down the political fault lines exposed at the Alden Biesen retreat — and why so much of Mario Draghi’s reform agenda remains stalled. Plus, Aitor Hernández-Morales joins us with the latest on political developments in Portugal.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music EU leaders gather at Alden Biesen castle to debate how to revive Europe’s economy — and whether “strategic autonomy” can survive internal divisions. POLITICO’s Chief EU Correspondent Zoya Sheftalovich is joined by policy editor Sarah Wheaton to unpack the competitiveness retreat. Plus: The Hungary funds case nears a turning point in Luxembourg, as the Court of Justice of the European Union issues a key opinion in the Parliament’s lawsuit against the Commission — with political stakes ahead of Hungary’s April parliamentary election. And finally: Why are EU leaders so fond of castles? Zoya and Sarah also share listeners’ karaoke picks sent to our WhatsApp number: +32 491 05 06 29 With Valentine’s Day approaching, send us a shoutout to your loved one — or maybe a missed connection. That person you exchanged a glance with in the Berlaymont lift. The policy wonk you queued behind for coffee at Schuman. The brunette who walked into the Commission building before you could say hello. Send us a voice note — we might help Brussels’ most bureaucratic love stories find a happy landing. **A message from Amazon: Across Europe, businesses are growing with the AWS Cloud to build innovative, scalable products. From Europe’s largest enterprises and government agencies to the continent’s fastest growing startups, learn more about how AWS Cloud is helping businesses across Europe grow at AWS.eu.**

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music It’s another day of high-level talks across Belgium. First, the EU’s defense ministers meet in Brussels. Zoya Sheftalovich and Ian Wishart dive into the Foreign Affairs Council hosted by the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas — with Ukraine’s new defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, also at the table. On the agenda: signing off on eight national plans under the EU’s flagship defense program, SAFE, and discussions around the €90 billion loan for Ukraine. Then we head to Antwerp for the European Industry Summit, where Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever meet industrial heavyweights to talk ideas for boosting Europe’s competitiveness. Plus, De Wever casts himself as a miracle-maker for the Brussels region as long-stalled coalition talks shift into a higher gear. And finally, Ian and Zoya share listeners’ tips on where to go for a drink as Irish pubs disappear from Brussels. Send us your go-to karaoke song for a night out — and sing it for us in a voice note. We might play some in a future episode. Messages can be anonymous. Our WhatsApp number is: +32 491 05 06 29 **A message from Amazon: Across Europe, businesses are growing with the AWS Cloud to build innovative, scalable products. From Europe’s largest enterprises and government agencies to the continent’s fastest growing startups, learn more about how AWS Cloud is helping businesses across Europe grow at AWS.eu.**

Lucas Guttenberg is the director of the Europe program at Bertelsmann Stiftung. Nils Redeker is acting co-director of the Jacques Delors Centre. Sander Tordoir is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform. Europe’s economy needs more growth — and fast. Without it, the continent risks eroding its economic foundations, destabilizing its political systems and being left without the strength to resist foreign coercion. And yet, despite inviting former Italian prime ministers Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta to discuss their blueprints to revive the bloc’s dynamism, member countries have cherry-picked from the pair’s recommendations and remain firmly focused on the wrong diagnosis. Europe, the current consensus goes, has smothered itself in unnecessary regulation, and growth will return once red tape is cut. The policy response that naturally follows is deregulation rebranded as “simplification,” with a rollback of the Green Deal at its core. This is then combined with promises that new trade agreements will lift growth, and ritual invocations of the need to deepen the internal market. But this agenda is bound to disappoint. Of course, cutting unnecessary red tape is always sensible. However, this truism does little to solve Europe’s current malaise. According to the latest Economic Outlook from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the regulatory burden on European business has risen only modestly over the past 15 years. There has been no explosion of red tape that could plausibly account for the widening growth gap with the U.S. And even the European Commission estimates that the cost savings from its regulatory simplifications — the so-called omnibuses — will amount to just €12 billion per year, or around 0.07 percent of EU GDP. That isn’t a growth strategy, it’s a rounding error. New free trade agreements (FTAs) won’t provide a quick fix either. The EU already has FTAs with 76 countries — far more than either the U.S. or China. Moreover, a recent Bertelsmann Stiftung study showed that even concluding pending deals and simultaneously deepening all existing ones would lift EU’s GDP by only 0.6 percent over five years. From Mercosur to India, there’s a strong geopolitical imperative to pursue agreements, and in the long run they can, indeed, help secure access to both supply and future growth markets. But as a short-term growth strategy, the numbers simply don’t add up. The same illusion shapes the debate on deepening the single market. Listening to national politicians, one might think it’s an orchard of low-hanging fruit just waiting to be turned into jars of growth marmalade, which past generations simply missed. But the remaining gaps — in services, capital markets, company law and energy — are all politically sensitive, technically complex and protected by powerful vested interests. The push for a Europe-wide corporate structure — a “28th regime” — is a telling admission: Rather than pursue genuine cross-border regulatory harmonization, policymakers are trying to sidestep national rules and hope no one notices. But while this might help some young firms scale up, a market integration agenda at this level of ambition won’t move the macroeconomic needle. From Mercosur to India, there’s a strong geopolitical imperative to pursue agreements, and in the long run they can, indeed, help secure access to both supply and future growth markets. | Sajjad Hussain/AFP via Getty Images A credible growth strategy must start with a more honest evaluation: Europe’s economic weakness doesn’t originate in Brussels, it reflects a fundamental shift in the global economy. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine delivered a massive energy price shock to our fossil-fuel-dependent continent. At the same time, China’s state-driven overcapacity is striking at the core of Europe’s industrial base, with Chinese firms now outcompeting European companies in sectors that were once crown jewels. Meanwhile, the U.S. — long Europe’s most important economic partner — is retreating behind protectionism while wielding coercive threats. With no large market willing to absorb Europe’s output, cutting EU reporting requirements won’t fix the underlying problem. The continent’s old growth model, built on external demand, no longer works in this new world. And the question EU leaders should be asking is whether they have a plan that matches the scale of this shift. Here is what that could look like: First, as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney argued at Davos, economic strength starts at home — and “home” means national capitals. Poland, Spain and the Netherlands are growing solidly, while Germany is stagnating, and France and Italy are continuing to underperform. What is seen as a European failure is actually a national one, as many of the most binding growth constraints — rigid labor markets, demographic pressure on welfare systems and fossilized bureaucracies — firmly remain in national hands. And that is where they must be fixed. It’s time to stop hiding behind Brussels. Next, Europe needs a trade policy that meets the moment. Product-by-product trade defense can’t keep pace with the scale and speed of China’s export surge, which is threatening to kill some of Europe’s most profitable and innovative sectors. The EU must move beyond microscopic remedies toward broader horizontal instruments that protect its industrial base without triggering blunt retaliation. First, as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney argued at Davos, economic strength starts at home — and “home” means national capitals. | Harun Ozalp/Anadolu via Getty Images This is difficult, and it will come with costs that capitals will have to be ready to bear. But without it, Europe’s core industries will remain under acute threat of disappearing. Moreover, trade defense must be paired with a rigorous industrial policy. The Green Deal remains the most plausible growth strategy for a hydrocarbon-poor continent with a highly educated workforce. But it needs clarity, prioritization and sufficient funding in the next EU budget at the expense of traditional spending. “Made in Europe” preferences can make sense — but only if they’re applied with discipline. Europe must be ruthless in defining the industries it can compete in and be prepared to abandon the rest. That was the Draghi report’s core argument. And it boggles the mind that the continent is still debating European preferences in areas like solar panels, which were lost a decade ago. Finally, deepening the single market in earnest isn’t a technocratic tweak but a federalizing choice. It means going for full harmonization in areas that are crucial for growth. It means taking power away from national regimes that serve domestic interests. Any serious reform will create losers, and they will scream. That isn’t a bug — it’s how you know the reform matters. In areas like capital markets supervision or the regulation of services, leaders now have to show they’re willing to act regardless. And unanimity is no alibi: The rules allow for qualified majorities. EU leaders must learn to build them — and to live with losing votes. EU leaders face a clear choice tomorrow: They can pursue a growth agenda that won’t deliver, reinforcing the false narrative that the EU shackles national economies and giving the Euroskeptic extreme right a free electoral boost. Or they can confront reality and make the hard choices a bold agenda calls for. The answer should be obvious.

EINDHOVEN, Netherlands — Europe needs to be “realistic” about its reliance on the rest of the world for technology, the chief executive of Europe’s largest technology company told POLITICO. Christophe Fouquet, CEO of Dutch chips giant ASML, tempered expectations about Europe’s drive to become technologically sovereign in an interview Wednesday following the release of the company’s annual results. “Everyone would have to find a balance between this huge claim for sovereignty … ‘we want everything to be done in our country’ … and the reality, which is: this is a fairly spread ecosystem, with key elements in different places,” Fouquet said.  “Everyone should be realistic on what it takes and how long it may take,” he said, adding that there will always be a “need” to import key parts of technology supply chains from abroad.  As the company that designs and builds the world’s most advanced machines for making semiconductors, ASML is not only a major economic asset but also gives Europe a rare point of leverage and resilience in the geopolitically sensitive chips industry. While Wednesday’s better-than-expected financial results sent the company’s stock soaring, ASML also said it would cut 1,700 jobs to “streamline” its organization.  Fouquet’s remarks follow growing calls in Brussels to reduce Europe’s heavy reliance on foreign technology, amid strained EU-U.S. ties and concerns about China.  On Monday, the European Commission’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen told POLITICO in an interview that Europe’s dependencies “can be weaponized against us” and urged the continent not to be dependent on “one country or one company.” She pointed to chips as the area where she saw the biggest need for Europe to break away from foreign reliance. Asked about the ongoing U.S.-EU tensions and the continuous threat of tariffs, Fouquet on Wednesday labeled those as “a lot of noise.”  He cited Nexperia, a Dutch-based yet Chinese-owned chipmaker that has been the subject of a recent geopolitical fight, as the latest example of “the interdependencies between the different blocs.” The ASML boss had another warning for Brussels’ ambitions to boost homegrown technology, arguing the EU needs to dial back its regulatory environment further than it has to date. Europe needs to make deeper regulatory cuts to get more promising companies, Fouquet said — citing the example of French artificial intelligence frontrunner Mistral, in which ASML last year invested €1.3 billion. Both ASML and Mistral signed a letter in July last year advocating for a pause to key parts of the bloc’s artificial intelligence law, a suggestion that the EU’s executive picked up in its first digital simplification package, presented in November.  That simplification package is already an “improvement” but more is needed, Fouquet said.  “You cannot make things very complicated, and then simplify it a bit and be proud of it,” he said.  Europe needs to create the conditions for companies “to grow without being annoyed by regulations,” he said. 

BRUSSELS — When cocoa farmer Leticia Yankey came to Brussels last October, she had a simple message for the EU: Think about the mess your simplification agenda is creating for companies and communities. It was just weeks after the European Commission said it might delay the EU’s anti-deforestation law, which requires companies to prove the goods they import into the region are not produced on deforested land, for the second time. But in Yankey’s Ghana, cocoa farmers were ready for the rules, known as the EU Deforestation Regulation or EUDR, to kick in. “How are we going to be taken serious the next time we move to our communities, our farmers, and even the [Licensed Buying Companies] to tell them that EUDR is … coming back?” Yankey asked.  Since then, the Commission has kept making changes to the plan. First by floating the delay, then backtracking but proposing tweaks to the law — only for EU governments and lawmakers to reinstate the postponement, pile on additional carve-outs and then leave open the door for further changes in the spring. All within three months. It’s not just smaller companies and remote communities that are rankled by the EU’s will-they-won’t-they approach to lawmaking. Bart Vandewaetere, a VP for government relations and ESG engagement at Nestlé, says that when he reports on European legislative developments to the company board, they “[look] a little bit at me like: ‘Okay, what’s next? Will you come next week with something else, or do we need to implement it this way, or we wait?’” Since the start of Ursula von der Leyen’s second term as European Commission President, the EU has been rolling back dozens of rules in a bid to make it easier for businesses to make money and create jobs.   Encouraged by EU leaders to hack back regulations quickly and without fuss, the Commission presented 10 simplification packages last year — on top of its plan to loosen the anti-deforestation law — to water down rules in the agricultural, environment, tech, defense and automotive sectors as well as on access to EU funding. COMPLICATION AGENDA Brussels says it is answering the wishes of business for less paperwork and fewer legislative constraints, which companies claim prevent them from competing with their U.S. and Chinese rivals. It also promises billions in savings as a result. “We will accelerate the work, as a matter of utmost priority, on all proposals with a simplification and competitiveness dimension,” the EU institutions wrote this month in a joint declaration of priorities for the year ahead. The ones who got ready to implement the laws already even go as far as to say the EU is losing one of its key appeals: being a regulatory powerhouse with policies that encourage companies to transition towards more sustainable business models. | Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images But for many businesses, the frequent introduction, pausing and rewriting of EU rules is, just making life more complicated. “What we constantly hear from clients is that regulatory uncertainty makes it difficult to plan ahead,” said Thomas Delille, a partner at global law firm Squire Patton Boggs, even though they generally support the simplification agenda. The ones who got ready to implement the laws already even go as far as to say the EU is losing one of its key appeals: being a regulatory powerhouse with policies that encourage companies to transition towards more sustainable business models. “The European Union unfortunately has lost some trust in the boardrooms by making simplifications that are maybe undermining predictability,” said Nestlé’s Vandewaetere. The risk is that the EU will shoot itself in the foot by making it harder for companies to invest in the region, which is essential for competitiveness.  “This approach rewards the laggards,” said Tsvetelina Kuzmanova, senior project manager as the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, adding that it “lowers expectations at the very moment when companies need clarity and policy stability to invest.” INEVITABLE TURBULENCE Many of Europe’s decision-makers are convinced that undoing business rules is a necessary step in boosting economic growth.  The simplification measures “were needed and they are needed,” said Danish Environment Minister Magnus Heunicke, confirming that he believes the EU regulatory environment is clearer now for businesses than it was a year ago. Denmark, which held the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU for the last six months, had led much of the negotiations on the simplification packages, or “omnibuses” in Brussels parlance. Brussels is also receiving as many calls from businesses to speed up its deregulation drive as those urging caution. For example, European agriculture and food chain lobbies like Copa-Cogeca and FoodDrink Europe said in a joint appeal that the EU should “address the regulatory, administrative, legal, practical and reporting burdens that agri-food operators are facing.” These, they added, are major obstacles to investing in sustainability and productivity. Successive omnibus packages should, meanwhile, be “proposed whenever necessary.” But undoing laws requires as much work and time as drafting them. Over the past year, lawmakers and EU governments have been enthralled in deeply political negotiations over these packages. Entire teams of diplomats, elected officials, assistants, translators and legal experts have been mobilized to argue over technical detail that many were engaged in drafting just a couple of years earlier.   Of the 10 omnibus proposals, three have already been finalized. The EU has also paused the implementation of the rules it’s currently reviewing so that companies don’t have to comply while the process is ongoing. “If you look at this from an industry perspective, there will be some turbulence before there is simplification, it’s inevitable,” said Gerard McElwee, another partner at Squire Patton Boggs.  Ironically, the EU has also faced criticism for making cuts too quickly — particularly to rules on environmental protection — and without properly studying the effect they would have on Europe’s economy and communities. Yankey, the cocoa farmer, said she understands the Commission’s quandary. “They just want to listen to both sides,” she said. “Somebody is ready, somebody is not ready.” But her community will need more EU support to help understand and adapt to legislative tweaks that impact them. The constant changes do not “help us to build confidence in the rules or the game that we are playing,” she said.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is “buying into [Donald] Trump’s agenda” by slashing regulations on businesses, according to the head of the Socialists & Democrats group in the European Parliament. Iratxe García slammed the “absolute deregulation zeal” being shown by the Commission as it pushes through omnibus simplification packages — revising laws spanning green, agriculture, digital and defense rules — saying it was straight out of the Trump playbook. García argued that von der Leyen and her European People’s Party are pushing for a major backtracking on EU laws, disguised as simplification. “Until now, there has been a dynamic of presenting [an] omnibus every 15 days … suddenly they appear on the table, like mushrooms.” Many top Socialist lawmakers asked García during an S&D retreat in Antwerp on Monday to demand that the Commission stop putting forward any more omnibuses, according to two people present, granted anonymity to speak freely. But the group is not united on the issue — some factions want simplification to keep rolling on. Instead, the retreat’s draft conclusions, seen by POLITICO, ask the Commission to consult with political groups before proposing further omnibus packages, and to conduct impact assessments for every omnibus, past and future. The EU Ombudsman said two weeks ago the Commission’s handling of omnibuses has had “procedural shortcomings” amounting to “maladministration,” opening the door for a court case. Asked about such a possibility, García said that “if the Commission does not respond as we expect, then we will have to take measures, but right now I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and see if the Commission understands the message we are sending them.” PRECOOKING DEALS García added that the basics of any future omnibuses, and other legislative files, should be “shared and worked on” in advance with von der Leyen’s centrist majority — EPP, S&D, and Renew — which could stop the EPP allying with the far-right, as happened with the first omnibus on slashing green rules. “This group has been the one that has guaranteed political and institutional stability in Europe in recent months, but what we are not prepared to do is to be the ones who guarantee stability while policies are negotiated with others,” she said. “Today’s message to the European Commission is clear: if you want the Group of Socialists and Democrats to continue to guarantee Europe’s political and institutional stability, you must involve us from the outset of the process,” said García.  On the looming battle over Parliament President Roberta Metsola’s potential third term, García reiterated that there is a written agreement covering the distribution of top posts, but declined to show the document or discuss its exact terms. “There is an agreement at the beginning of the legislative term on the distribution of responsibilities at the beginning [of the term] and at the mid-term,” repeated García. Asked if she will step down as S&D leader and hand the leadership to an Italian or German lawmaker for the second half of the mandate, as some lawmakers claim she promised to do, García refused to comment. Socialist MEPs expect her to push to remain in the job. “Obviously, there were discussions at the beginning of the legislative session, but I also want to emphasize that whatever is decided in this group will be a discussion shared with the entire group.”

BRUSSELS — More than 80 percent of Europe’s companies will be freed from environmental-reporting obligations after EU institutions reached a deal on a proposal to cut green rules on Monday.   The deal is a major legislative victory for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her push cut red tape for business, one of the defining missions of her second term in office. However, that victory came at a political cost: The file pushed the coalition that got her re-elected to the brink of collapse and led her own political family, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), to team up with the far right to get the deal over the line. The new law, the first of many so-called omnibus simplification bills, will massively reduce the scope of corporate sustainability disclosure rules introduced in the last political term. The aim of the red tape cuts is to boost the competitiveness of European businesses and drive economic growth. The deal concludes a year of intense negotiations between EU decision-makers, investors, businesses and civil society, who argued over how much to reduce reporting obligations for companies on the environmental impacts of their business and supply chains — all while the effects of climate change in Europe were getting worse. “This is an important step towards our common goal to create a more favourable business environment to help our companies grow and innovate,” said Marie Bjerre, Danish minister for European affairs. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU until the end of the year, led the negotiations on behalf of EU governments. Marie Bjerre, Den|mark’s Minister for European affairs, who said the agreement was an important step for a more favourable business environment. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images Proposed by the Commission last February, the omnibus is designed to address businesses’ concerns that the paperwork needed to comply with EU laws is costly and unfair. Many companies have been blaming Europe’s overzealous green lawmaking and the restrictions it places on doing business in the region for low economic growth and job losses, preventing them from competing with U.S. and Chinese rivals.   But Green and civil society groups — and some businesses too — argued this backtracking would put environmental and human health at risk. That disagreement reverberated through Brussels, disturbing the balance of power in Parliament as the EPP broke the so-called cordon sanitaire — an unwritten rule that forbids mainstream parties from collaborating with the far right — to pass major cuts to green rules. It set a precedent for future lawmaking in Europe as the bloc grapples with the at-times conflicting priorities of boosting economic growth and advancing on its green transition. The word “omnibus” has since become a mainstay of the Brussels bubble vernacular with the Commission putting forward at least 10 more simplification bills on topics like data protection, finance, chemical use, agriculture and defense. LESS PAPERWORK   The deal struck by negotiators from the European Parliament, EU Council and the Commission includes changes to two key pieces of legislation in the EU’s arsenal of green rules: The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).  The rules originally required businesses large and small to collect and publish data on their greenhouse gas emissions, how much water they use, the impact of rising temperatures on working conditions, chemical leakages and whether their suppliers — which are often spread across the globe — respect human rights and labor laws.    Now the reporting rules will only apply to companies with more than 1,000 employees and €450 million in net turnover, while only the largest companies — with 5,000 employees and at least €1.5 billion in net turnover — are covered by supply chain due diligence obligations. They also don’t have to adopt transition plans, with details on how they intend to adapt their business model to reach targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.   Importantly the decision-makers got rid of an EU-level legal framework that allowed civilians to hold businesses accountable for the impact of their supply chains on human rights or local ecosystems. MEPs have another say on whether the deal goes through or not, with a final vote on the file slated for Dec. 16. It means that lawmakers have a chance to reject what the co-legislators have agreed to if they consider it to be too far from their original position.