Pieter Cleppe

Over in Brussels, a scandal has erupted over the role of ‘non-governmental organisations’, or NGOs, in European Union decision making. In a new report, the European Court of Auditors, the EU’s in-house financial watchdog, has criticised the European Commission's ‘opaque’ monitoring of how EU funds are distributed to these organisations. Between 2021 and 2023, the EU dished out €7 billion to 90 NGOs through various funds, focused on environmental policy, migration or science. According to the Court of Auditors,  30 of these NGOs received more than 40 per cent of EU funds between 2014 and 2023 – some €3.3 billion. That may only be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to NGO funding.

At last week’s G7 summit, Boris Johnson pushed his fellow leaders to back his climate finance plan to support large-scale renewable energy projects across Africa and parts of Asia. The PM received a decidedly lukewarm response to his new Marshall plan, only netting pledges from Canada and Germany – and for good reason. As Rishi Sunak highlighted this week, when he declined to put a ‘specific figure’ on the cost of Net Zero in an interview on GB News, the cost of these climate plans are anything but clear. Fundamentally, Boris’s plan to boost renewables around the world misses the fact that renewables are actually struggling to catch up with traditional energy sources.

Today the United Kingdom became the first country in the West to clinically authorise a vaccine protecting against Covid-19, after the medicines regulator, the MHRA, said the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was safe to use. The announcement puts Britain ahead of Europe when it comes to rolling out the vaccine, as the EU’s own regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), has not yet approved the vaccine. While Britain will begin administering Pfizer’s vaccine next week, countries like Belgium have announced that they will start their vaccination campaigns in January, subject to EMA approval. When it comes to vaccines, a few weeks of delay can make a big difference, given the economic and health costs of the pandemic.

The UK government has given the EU a Brexit deadline of four months. No. 10 is threatening to walk away from the negotiating table if a broad outline for a Canada-style trade agreement cannot be reached by the summer.  But the UK isn’t really being as radical as it might first appear. For a start, the withdrawal agreement already commits the parties to a July deadline by which point the EU must decide whether to extend the transition period.  Some might argue that the UK is ripping up the political declaration by imposing such a deadline.

For the second time, Ireland's Phil Hogan will serve as an EU Commissioner in Brussels, after his appointment was announced on Tuesday by the next President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. Whereas Hogan didn't receive a lot of attention in his previous post – even though he was responsible for the biggest spending role in the EU budget, agriculture – that is certainly about to change. Hogan is about to become responsible for the EU's trade portfolio, which includes supervising future trade talks between the UK and the EU. What can we expect from him? In his job as Agriculture Commissioner, Hogan didn't upset the status quo very much at all.

German defence minister Ursula von der Leyen has been put forward by European leaders as the candidate to succeed Jean-Claude Juncker as the President of the EU Commission, a powerful position. If she is approved by the EU Parliament (which is not yet certain) it would be a victory for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and a bad thing for Europe. Von der Leyen attended the European School in Brussels, just like Boris Johnson. Like Boris, she’s the child of a European Commission official, but that's where her similarities with the potential prime minister end. She wants a 'United States of Europe', a political union for the Eurozone and a 'European army', even if her own track record as defence minister 'is regarded as a failure among friends and foes alike'.

In the analysis of last week’s European Parliament elections, a number of claims which should be categorised as 'myths' have emerged. Here, I’ve singled out five of them that should be challenged:   1. The 'major development' that the centre-right EPP and centre-left S&D lost their majority isn't a major development For the first time since 1979, the centre-right European People’s Party (which included the UK Conservatives until 2009) and the centre-left S&D group (to which Labour belongs) do not command a majority of seats in the European Parliament.

As 29 March gets nearer and Theresa May tries to get a Brexit deal through parliament, preparations for no deal continue in both London and mainland Europe. It’s been well-documented that the UK government’s preparations haven’t been optimal, and many British companies aren’t really prepared for no deal. However, on the other side of the Channel, things aren’t going all that well either. Here is an overview of the EU27's no-deal plans: Germany In Germany, the government decided to hire an extra 900 customs officials (trade unions claim that 1300 are needed) to prepare for no deal, but at the end of January, none of these had been employed yet.

It’s no coincidence that the EU had already prepared a statement on Monday that ruled out any Brexit renegotiation, even before the 'Brady amendment', which requested the replacement of the backstop within the withdrawal agreement had been voted on. One of the reasons why, is that a certain Martin Selmayr is now very much sitting in the EU’s driving seat. A lot of media attention in the UK is often spent on whatever the EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier and his team are saying, but I am hearing in Brussels that when Theresa May’s top Brexit advisor Olly Robbins visits EU institutions, he now meets Martin Selmayr, the controversial Secretary-General of the European Commission.