Tag: EU

Posted on

Dutch Inflation Outpaces the Eurozone: Structural Weakness or Temporary Spike?

September 2025 inflation in the Netherlands came in at 3.3%, significantly higher than the eurozone average of 2.2%. While many households experience this simply as “prices rising again,” the underlying dynamics are more structural than temporary — and that matters for wages, pensions, and policy.

Why Dutch Inflation Is Consistently Higher

Economists have long noted that Dutch prices rise faster than those of their neighbors. Since the introduction of the euro in 2002, inflation in the Netherlands has run systematically above the eurozone average. Several factors explain this:

Tight labor market – The Netherlands has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. With labor scarce, wages rise faster, and businesses pass on those costs.

Service-heavy economy – A large share of the Dutch economy is service-based, where labor costs are the dominant factor. Wage increases feed more directly into consumer prices than in Germany’s industry-heavy economy.

Tax and regulatory effects – Changes in VAT, energy taxes, and housing policies have historically added volatility and upward pressure compared to countries with more stable regimes.

The result: a structural inflation premium compared to their European peers.

September 2025: A Perfect Storm

The September figures highlight three simultaneous drivers:

Fuel & energy – About half of the increase stems from higher oil and energy prices. This is highly volatile but immediately visible to consumers at the pump and on utility bills.

Wages – Dutch wages have risen sharply in 2024–2025 as unions fought to protect purchasing power. This creates a feedback loop: higher prices → higher wage demands → higher prices.

Eurozone effect – While inflation rose in Europe overall (from 2.0% to 2.2%), the Dutch figure of 3.3% underscores the widening gap: 0.8 percentage points above the average, double the divergence of a month earlier.

Implications for Policy and Consumers

European Central Bank (ECB) – With inflation ticking up across the eurozone, rate cuts are off the table. For the Netherlands, this means tighter credit conditions even though our inflation problem is wage- and structure-driven, not monetary.

Purchasing power – For households, the outlook is grim. Real wage gains are limited because wage hikes feed inflation themselves. Pensioners, tied to indexation rules, also risk losing ground if inflation stays above assumptions.

Competitiveness – Dutch goods and services risk becoming more expensive relative to neighboring markets. This could push consumers to shop across borders (as seen in supermarket price comparisons) and pressure export margins.

Outlook: Here to Stay

Projections from Rabobank and the CPB (Dutch Central Planning Bureau) suggest inflation will average 3.2–3.3% in 2025 and only decline to around 2.4% in 2026. That remains well above the ECB’s 2% target.

The concern is not just the short-term squeeze at the gas pump, but a long-term erosion of purchasing power. Over 25 years, consistently higher inflation means Dutch consumers lose significantly more ground than their German, Belgian, or French counterparts — with ripple effects on pensions, savings, and confidence in economic policy.

Key Takeaway

Dutch inflation is not just about temporary oil shocks. It is structural, linked to the Dutch labor market and service-based economy. As long as wage growth translates directly into price growth, the Netherlands will continue to outpace the eurozone in inflation — and consumers will feel it in their wallets.

Parliamentary elections will be held in the Netherlands on October 29. A key question is how much influence the inflation figures will have on the outcome.

Posted on

Study: €43 Billion in Economic Damage from Extreme Weather in Europe This Summer

Heatwaves, droughts, and floods that struck Europe over the past summer caused an estimated €43 billion in immediate economic losses, according to a new study by the University of Mannheim in collaboration with economists from the European Central Bank.

The researchers looked at the true cost of climate change in a broad sense: not only the direct and tangible destruction of homes and crops, but also indirect effects such as disruptions to rail transport and reduced labor productivity during extreme heat. Using meteorological data and economic modeling, they calculated that the macro-economic costs could rise to €126 billion by 2029.

The authors stress that their estimates are “conservative,” since several major events—such as the record-breaking wildfires in Southern Europe last month—were not included in the analysis.

Unequal Impact Across Europe

The damage is not evenly distributed. Low-income regions and those with higher temperatures are hit the hardest. Spain, France, and Italy, which faced prolonged heatwaves and drought, each recorded losses exceeding €10 billion this year alone. In the medium term, these costs could rise beyond €30 billion per country.

Central and Northern Europe saw less immediate damage, but floods are becoming increasingly common there as well, suggesting that the costs of climate change will continue to mount across the continent.

Long-Term Consequences

The study also highlights the long-term drag on productivity. Four years after a drought, a region’s GDP is on average 3 percentage points lower than before. In the case of flooding, GDP remains 2.8 percentage points lower.

These findings underscore how climate extremes are not only an environmental challenge but also a profound economic threat—one that will shape Europe’s future growth and resilience in the years to come.

Posted on

The EU views Trump’s trade deal quite differently. Here’s how.

Based on President Trump’s public statements about the EU-US trade deal announced on 27 July 2025, here’s how they align or potentially contradict the European Commission’s framing:

Points of Agreement

Both sides emphasize:

  • The 15% tariff ceiling: Trump confirmed that the U.S. will impose a flat 15% tariff on most EU goods, including cars, which is consistent with the EU’s statement.
  • Energy and investment commitments: Trump highlighted the EU’s agreement to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and invest $600 billion in the U.S., which matches the EU’s announcement.
  • Strategic product exemptions: Both sides noted that certain products like aircraft parts, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals will receive special treatment or exemptions.
  • Section 232 investigations: Trump acknowledged that pharmaceuticals and semiconductors will temporarily face 0% tariffs pending national security reviews, aligning with the EU’s description.

Here’s where Trump’s tone or framing may differ from the EU’s:

  1. Tariff Framing:
    • Trump described the deal as a “very powerful” and “biggest of all the deals”, emphasizing tough negotiations and portraying the 15% tariff as a win for the U.S.
    • EU framing presents the 15% as a ceiling that reduces existing tariffs (e.g., on cars from 25% + 2.5% MFN), suggesting relief rather than escalation.
  2. EU Expectations:
    • Reports indicate that Europe had hoped for lower tariffs, around 10%, and some EU officials expressed relief mixed with concern over the final deal.
    • Trump’s tone suggests the EU market was “essentially closed” and now “opened up,” which may not reflect the EU’s view of its own openness.
  3. Military Purchases:
    • Trump mentioned that the EU would be “purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment”, a claim not mentioned in the EU’s official statement.
  4. Steel and Aluminum Tariffs:
    • Trump indicated that 50% tariffs remain for now, with a quota system to be negotiated. The EU emphasized cutting tariffs and protecting against global overcapacity, suggesting a more cooperative tone.

Moreover: the EU-US trade deal announced on 27 July 2025 is a political agreement and not legally binding until it is formally ratified through the EU’s internal procedures, which may require approval from all 27 member states.

Download the official EU Commission’s statement

Posted on

How Americans Have Been ‘Borrowing’ Money from the Rest of the World for Decades Without Consequences

It’s a strange phenomenon. Americans keep buying Mercedes cars and other expensive items—even though they can’t actually afford them. Normally, a country that does that would be in serious trouble. But we lend them the money to buy those things. What’s going on here?

US Dollar and other currencies

Trade Deficit
America has been living beyond its means for decades. They buy far more than they produce, and that gap is filled with imports. Last year, Americans bought over $1.2 trillion more from abroad than they sold abroad. That’s more than the Netherlands produces and consumes in a whole year. And they’re buying on credit—Europe or China lends them the money for those Mercedes cars and other goods.

Budget Deficit
It’s not just trade that shows a big deficit; government spending is also way out of balance. Last year, the budget deficit was $1.8 trillion, or 6 percent of GDP. The government structurally spends more than it takes in. Many developing countries are doing better financially than the U.S.

Normally, a country with such deficits would face a huge problem. Financiers would demand high interest rates for loans—if they’re willing to lend at all. That forces a country to make painful choices to fix its deficits.

Many developing countries are doing better financially than the U.S.

Greece
Take Greece ten years ago. The country had major deficits. To fix them, they had to slash government spending, which mostly hurt the public. Thousands of civil servants lost their jobs, and wages dropped sharply so they could become competitive with foreign countries again. For Greeks, no more new Mercedes—only second-hand Dacias.

But the U.S. has no problem financing its deficits. In fact, we’re lining up to lend them money. While Greece saw interest rates on new government bonds spike to 35 percent, the U.S. borrows at just 2 to 4 percent.

The Secret
There’s no talk of painful measures in the U.S. On the contrary, the government—recently with Congress’s approval—raised the debt ceiling again. So the state can borrow even more. Elon Musk might be laying off millions of civil servants, but not as a government spending cut. That money is meant for tax cuts, which means less income for the government.

So what’s America’s secret? How can they rack up debt for decades without serious consequences? The answer: the dollar.

This requires some explanation. The U.S. dollar is the world’s dominant currency. The vast majority of international trade transactions are settled in dollars—just think of the oil trade. As global trade grows, so does the demand for dollars. That demand helps the dollar maintain its value. This is a major reason why investors and countries keep investing in the U.S.

That’s why the U.S. can borrow at low interest rates despite its large deficit—unlike Greece, which had to offer sky-high rates.

Mountains of Dollars
Because many countries have trade surpluses with the U.S., they end up with large reserves of dollars. They reinvest those dollars in the U.S., buying U.S. government bonds—called treasuries. These treasuries are considered the safest government bonds in the world. And the market is enormous.

So you can always sell those bonds if you need dollars, or buy them if you have dollars to spare. The euro or the Chinese yuan offer nothing similar and thus can’t compete with the dollar.

There’s something ironic about it. The fact that Americans have such a massive and growing mountain of debt actually makes the dollar strong. And the dollar’s dominant position seems untouchable—there are no credible alternatives to the American currency.

A Drawback
But the dollar isn’t only beneficial to Americans. Because there’s always demand for dollars, the exchange rate stays high compared to other currencies. And that expensive dollar is a disadvantage for U.S. companies that export. It’s one reason much of U.S. industry has disappeared. Countries with weaker currencies can produce more cheaply.

That’s why Trump is trying to improve the competitive position of American companies by imposing tariffs on imports. That makes imports more expensive compared to domestic production.

Posted on

SAP Dethrones Novo Nordisk as Europe’s Most Valuable Company

There’s a new frontrunner on the list of Europe’s most valuable companies. The Danish pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk no longer tops the ranking — that position now belongs to German business software maker SAP.

With a market value of €313 billion, SAP is now worth more than the entire German automotive industry combined.

The company, founded in the 1970s (Systeme, Anwendungen und Produkte in der Datenverarbeitung), doubled its market value in 2024. It was solely responsible for half of the gains in Germany’s DAX index — all thanks to the rise of AI.

SAP Joule
AI assistants are already showing their first returns when it comes to managing business processes. That’s exactly why they developed SAP Joule, which customers can integrate.

And when you have a lot of customers, things move fast. And SAP has a lot of customers. According to the company, 80% of German SMEs use SAP business software.

SAP has long been one of the most valuable companies on European stock exchanges — but it had never claimed the number one spot. That honor previously went to Novo Nordisk, best known for Ozempic, a diabetes drug that skyrocketed in popularity as a miraculous weight-loss treatment, sending the company’s valuation soaring last year.

That surge may have been a bit too steep. Ozempic may have outpaced what the company could deliver. They couldn’t meet demand, and investors began to think the stock price had gone a bit too far. As a result, the share price has dropped by 40%. It’s a game of musical chairs.

Posted on

What New Steps Will NATO Take for Ukraine?

The official agenda for the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting doesn’t mention it anywhere. However, as they convene in Brussels today and tomorrow, discussions behind the scenes are very much focused on the next steps NATO countries might take in the war in Ukraine. Among these considerations is the potential deployment of European troops to Ukraine—so-called “boots on the ground”—which is not being ruled out.

NATO logo

This has been confirmed by insiders within the military alliance involved in the meeting at NATO headquarters. This summit is the last before Donald Trump potentially resumes his position in the White House, making the discussions even more pressing.

Uncertain Times

Trump has previously claimed he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine “in a day” and has expressed intentions to drastically reduce U.S. aid to Ukraine. How he plans to achieve this remains unclear. Within NATO, there is considerable apprehension about these uncertain times.

President Zelensky seems unwilling to wait for Trump’s plans to unfold and has taken proactive steps. In recent weeks, he has openly discussed the possibility of a ceasefire with Russia. Just days ago, the Ukrainian president also expressed, for the first time, a willingness to temporarily relinquish territories annexed by Russia. However, he demands something in return: strong security guarantees for Ukraine if such an agreement is violated.

Membership Debate

For Zelensky, NATO membership remains the ultimate security guarantee. He believes such membership should apply to parts of Ukraine not under Russian control. However, despite Ukraine’s long-standing aspiration for membership, NATO is unlikely to extend an invitation anytime soon.

The alliance is divided on this issue, and since NATO decisions require consensus, Ukraine’s desire for membership will not be fulfilled in the near term. However, a potential ceasefire compels NATO countries to consider what security guarantees they could provide to Ukraine in the interim. Deploying troops to oversee such an agreement is one option being discussed.

The Estonian Foreign Minister recently advocated for sending troops, and French President Emmanuel Macron mentioned this idea back in February. Germany, among others, strongly opposed the proposal.

No Options Off the Table

According to the French newspaper Le Monde, discussions about “boots on the ground” have recently gained momentum. The French Foreign Minister previously urged that no red lines should be drawn in supporting Ukraine. When asked whether this included sending French troops to Ukraine, he replied that no option should be excluded.

This stance reflects a deliberate strategy of “strategic ambiguity,” leaving adversaries uncertain about future actions to avoid revealing NATO’s hand. Similarly, the EU’s new foreign policy chief has stated that no options are off the table when it comes to supporting Kyiv. Over the weekend, former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas visited Ukraine.

The deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine remains an extremely sensitive topic. Russian President Putin already claims that the West is waging war against Russia, a narrative frequently repeated on state television. In his view, “boots on the ground” would signify further escalation, as NATO forces would be physically present on Ukrainian soil.

This doesn’t necessarily mean NATO troops would engage in direct combat with Russia. Previous discussions have considered training Ukrainian soldiers within Ukraine itself rather than abroad.

As a potential ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine draws nearer, all options are once again being reviewed in NATO capitals and behind the scenes at NATO headquarters in Brussels. Only when a ceasefire appears genuinely imminent will it officially make the agenda.

Posted on

Economists Warn: The European Union Must Act

Dark clouds are looming over European industry. More experts are sounding alarms about the EU’s economic transition. A worrying signal came this week with the quarterly figures of Germany’s biggest carmaker, Volkswagen.

@roelthijssen

“If we do nothing, in fifty years, Europe will be just an open-air museum for American tourists,” warned former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi in a recent report on the EU’s economic future.

Most countries agree that action is needed. But what should Europe do to remain a global financial power alongside China and the United States? Economists say clear goals must be set and significant investment made over the coming years.

In Europe, much thought is being given to this. The EU remains a global player but risks being overtaken by emerging economies in the coming years. China has invested heavily in the green industry for years. Over the past ten to fifteen years, the country has become a major producer of solar panels, everyday semiconductors, and batteries.

Now, China is also making significant strides in the production of electric cars, putting pressure on European automakers from their East Asian competitors.

Europe is also increasingly struggling to keep pace with the United States. Of the fifty largest tech companies, only four are from the EU. Over the past decades, numerous startups in the U.S. have grown into major companies with trillion-dollar valuations.

Everyone in Europe agrees that something must be done, but what? “If we Europeans think we can build major companies from the ground up in just a few years, we are mistaken,” says Samuele Murtinu, professor of economics at Utrecht University. Competing with other global economies will require a lot of time and money.

Should European industrial companies collaborate more closely?

This happened with General Motors in the United States, now one of the world’s largest car companies. A successful European example is Airbus, which began in the 1960s as a collaboration between British, French, and German aircraft manufacturers.

However, economists see little support for this idea. Market competition leads to lower prices. “There was an idea to merge large European companies, but this was ultimately prohibited due to monopoly concerns,” says Niclas Poitiers, an economist at the EU think tank Breugel. “It would be a death knell for other existing European companies.”

Alarm

What everyone does agree on is that significantly more money needs to be invested in the European economy soon. The United States is investing $700 billion in the green transition. Estimates suggest China is doing the same, but Europe does not yet have a unified plan.

Former ECB chief Draghi also proposed such an amount for the EU. Some may be alarmed by this, but economists warn that if Europe is not willing to invest in the new economy, the price could become even higher. Without a long-term view, it may soon be too late to catch up.

Five Tips for the EU from Economists

Be bold in investing heavily in sustainability over the coming years.

Collaborate, even with companies outside the EU.

Gain control over the supply of essential raw materials.

Set clear political objectives.

Countries must come together for more unified policies.

Besides funding, having a clear plan is crucial for Europe. Although the 27 EU member states form a union, they often do not align their national policies. The member states also seem divided on their priorities.

What is more important: accelerating sustainability or maintaining major European companies and thus preserving jobs? Opinions on this choice currently differ significantly.

Nevertheless, it is not an impossible task. Europe has faced bigger challenges in the past. “The closure of coal mines was actually the last major transition,” says Poitiers. “A huge number of jobs were lost back then. I estimate this green transition to be smaller. I don’t expect as many jobs to be at risk.”

European tech sector lags behind the U.S. Market value of companies in billions of euros:

European Union:

NXP Semiconductors: 59, Spotify: 72, ASML: 255.

US:

Amazon: 1,870, Alphabet (Google): 2,040, Microsoft: 2,980, Apple: 3,250.

Posted on

Draghi: Hundreds of billions extra needed to save the European economy

It is high time for a drastic overhaul of European economic policy. The survival of the European Union is at stake, facing an “existential challenge.” These strong words come from a report on the future of European competitiveness presented this morning by former European Central Bank head Mario Draghi. According to him, hundreds of billions of euros are needed annually.

@roelthijssen

Last year, Draghi was asked for advice by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. The European economy lags behind the US and China. Disposable income growth in the US has been nearly double that of Europe since the early 2000s, Draghi writes.

The struggles of European industry were highlighted again last week when Volkswagen considered closing factories in Germany due to increasing pressure from Chinese competitors.

At a press conference this morning, Von der Leyen stressed that improving the economic position is “top of the agenda,” with Draghi’s report serving as guidance for the new European Commission.

Investing in innovation
Draghi points out that all three factors driving European economic growth—thriving international trade, cheap Russian energy, and America’s defense of Europe—have become uncertain or have disappeared. Significant changes are needed in the EU, according to Draghi.

Investing more in knowledge and innovation is crucial for the EU to compete with economic giants like China and the US. Currently, the EU is “punching below its weight,” writes Draghi. He calls for removing strict regulations and barriers hindering innovative entrepreneurs in Europe.

Expensive energy
Energy policy is another challenge. Since Russia stopped supplying cheap energy following the invasion of Ukraine, gas prices for European industry have risen to over three times those in the US. The EU needs to accelerate its clean energy plans, Draghi urges.

The report includes over 170 concrete proposals to bring about the “radical change” needed, according to Draghi.

The EU must also become more self-reliant in security matters, investing and collaborating more in defense. Additionally, the EU should ensure the supply of crucial raw materials, forming partnerships with resource-rich countries and increasing domestic production, such as opening new lithium mines.

Various EU processes must also change. For example, the report suggests better coordination of competitiveness and quicker decision-making in the European Council by reducing veto powers.

Download the report here -> https://www.roelthijssen.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/The-Future-of-European-Competitiveness-2024.pdf

Posted on

Europe must protect its own green industry against Chinese overcapacity

Something remarkable is happening in China. With potentially significant consequences for Europe. Last week, The Economist reported that the fall in profitability of Chinese companies has never been as severe as it is now.

Well, you might think they would go bankrupt. But that doesn’t happen. The influx of the Chinese government continues, and these companies keep producing. China is creating ‘overproduction’ to keep its own economy going. The country produces large quantities of electric cars, solar panels, and wind turbines. This drives prices down significantly. Good for the consumer, good for the sustainable energy transition.

What exactly is wrong with this? A lot.

Because it’s more than just the consumer and the energy transition. Every society needs an industrial base to provide everyone with decent work: whether local or migrant, man or woman, theoretically or practically educated. Not only to give everyone an income safely, but especially to give everyone a decent place in a community: meaningful work, self-confidence, a social network. This fact often remains underexposed in the industrialized rich Western economies. China has realized this and has industrialized at breakneck speed. It is not just about increasing consumption; it directly involves the core of society. This affected millions of people and gave rise to a middle class. It became the vital breeding ground for discontent in industrial states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. It was precisely from these areas that the victory of Trump in 2016 emerged.

The new wave of overcapacity that China is creating will hit Europe especially hard.

America has since better shielded its own industry with its industrial policy, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which includes higher energy prices. The blow will be even greater here. Chinese overproduction is much larger, and Europe has already lost twice as much production. Moreover, the social fabric in large European countries has been showing deep cracks. The rise of extremist rights in France and Germany and the shocking results in England illustrate this. And this process threatens to accelerate further.

Europe must come out of this. It is precisely here that the consensus was based on globalization for a long time. The idea was always that purchasing power would increase and that as a result, everyone would have better things: things that are made elsewhere that are the best (read: cheapest). Yes, but that only works if you have your own industry for everything that is needed.

Yet in 2019, when the European Commission laid the foundation for its Green Deal, it was written that what was needed was a massive scaling up of the production of wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars in the European Union. Not to mention the question of where all those things would come from. Europe didn’t realize that at the time, but that should have been the purpose of the new green industry.

Five years later, three times the amount of production has been outsourced worldwide. Then Russia invaded Ukraine, and it became clear that raw materials for our prosperity were not subject to the laws of Friedman but rather to the laws of Putin and Xi. In response, China is accelerating its own industry.

The European Commission has now realized that and has come up with the ‘Net Zero Industry Act.’ A European answer to the American IRA. But where the IRA is well-funded with an estimated $2 billion annually, the money and ambition in the European Industry Act is completely lacking.

The coming months must bring about change.

Europe must allow the green industrial revolution to take place here and show China where to go. Not because of the climate. But primarily because society demands it. An agreement must be made between the ECB president and the European heads of government to direct their policy towards prosperity in their own countries. How much industry is needed for that? How much prosperity must come from that? Europe must now take that step. Otherwise, the Chinese will keep shouting that there’s no alternative. But that can’t last much longer.

This piece was published by Diederik Samsom in Dutch. See the original here: https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/europa-moet-de-eigen-groene-industrie-beschermen-tegen-chinese-overcapaciteit~bda61e7d/

Diederik Samson is a Dutch physicist, former politician, and columnist for de Volkskrant

Posted on

EU leaders at the table: who gets which top job and will determine the course?

Who will secure top European positions? One week after the European elections, 27 heads of state and government leaders will meet tonight in Brussels to discuss this question.

Over dinner, they will decide who will fill the key positions and thus have the most influence on the EU’s direction for the next five years. Decisions on these positions are expected to be made in about ten days at the next summit.

Brussels rumor mill

For months, various names have been speculated behind the scenes about potential candidates. This opaque backstage process resembles a Brussels rumor mill, where names are dropped to gauge reactions.

EU leaders are deciding on four positions: President of the European Commission, President of the European Council (who leads the summits of government leaders), the new EU foreign affairs chief, and the President of the European Parliament. Political preferences play a crucial role in these appointments, but geographic distribution and gender balance are also important.

The Christian Democrats strengthened their position as the largest faction in last week’s European Parliament elections. This increases the chances that Ursula von der Leyen, the German President of the European Commission, will secure a second term.

The Christian Democrats are also likely to initially provide the President of the European Parliament. Currently, Roberta Metsola from Malta holds this position, and she is expected to remain.

The Social Democrats, the second-largest party in Parliament, will provide the President of the European Council. Antonio Costa, the former Prime Minister of Portugal, is a long-rumored candidate for this role. Costa resigned last year due to a corruption scandal, but was later cleared by an investigation, and Portugal is now putting him forward as their candidate.

Candidates in the running

Ursula von der Leyen from Germany: current and potential future President of the European Commission.

Roberta Metsola from Malta: current President of the European Parliament.

Kaja Kallas, the Estonian Prime Minister: in the running to become the EU foreign affairs chief.

Antonio Costa, former Prime Minister of Portugal: potential President of the European Council.

Estonian liberal Prime Minister Kaja Kallas is a contender to become the new “high representative,” responsible for EU foreign policy. Kallas, a hardliner on Russia, has strong support from Eastern EU countries warning against naivety towards Putin. Kallas was also previously mentioned as a candidate for NATO chief.

Mark Rutte’s potential last summit?

Mark Rutte, a strong candidate for the NATO chief position, may be attending his last EU summit for the Netherlands. This depends on whether the new Dutch cabinet is sworn in before the next EU summit on June 27. If so, Rutte’s successor, Schoof, will attend.

Discussions tonight will also likely address Rutte’s NATO candidacy, which is not yet approved by Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia.

“Total package” approach

EU leaders aim to finalize a comprehensive package for all these roles due to the current geopolitical situation. With the war in Ukraine and the upcoming US presidential elections, timely decisions are crucial.

The goal is to have everything settled by the next summit on June 27-28, though it could be finalized sooner. French President Macron mentioned that this might be possible in the coming days.

The European formation process

Heads of state and government leaders will nominate a new President for the European Commission, who must be approved by a majority of the new European Parliament through a secret vote, expected in July or September.

Once the new President is appointed, they will form a new European Commission with 27 members, one from each member state. Governments nominate candidates for the position of European Commissioner. For the Netherlands, this is currently Wopke Hoekstra (CDA) for climate action, but his future depends on the new government’s support, as the CDA is now in opposition.

All nominated Commissioners will face hearings before the European Parliament. By mid-December, a new European Commission will be ready to address key issues for the coming years, such as defense, security, and strengthening the EU’s competitiveness.