Dennis RADTKE

Policy topics Dennis RADTKE is active on

What Dennis RADTKE has said (21)

• 2026-07-16 “(10:48:03 - 10:48:14): Dear minister, thank you very much for being here and giving us this opportunity. Can you hear me okay? Minister, is it working? Yep. Thank you very much for visiting us and giving us the opportunity to have an exchange of views. In your statement, you referred to a number of points which here in the committee of, of particular significance, especially in our legislative agenda. We've been dealing with trying to tick off things that are open issues, Gabby, haven't we? Luckily, the Irish presidency won't have to deal with the stuff we've just concluded, but we need to look to the future and have the European pillar of human of social rights, an issue that is particularly close to our hearts in this committee. Maybe you could just say something about your specific plans in that realm. And, also, the quality jobs road map is something where we have a high level of expectation, but it's a bit of a black box as to what the commission's gonna present and and which form it's going to take. The question the question of the future mandate of the ELA for us and the European People's Party has particular significance, so maybe you could give us a few ideas on your thinking there. Thank you.”
  EU competences on social policies
• 2026-07-15 “(17:56:53 - 17:59:08): I'm not a shadow rapporteur, as you might know, chair, and as mister Danitsyn knows. Romana Tombsk cannot be with us, so she asked me to read out on her behalf, and my personal questions and point of view is for later. Dear colleagues, distinguished guests, today's discussion on the EU Inc. Is about Europe's global competitiveness. The EPP's priority is clear. We must make it easier for our companies in Europe to grow within the single market instead of losing them to The U. S. Or Asia. Of course, we agree that we need safeguards. This new framework must not become a vehicle for letterbox companies or backdoor to bypass national labor standards. However, we must be pragmatic. If we overregulate EU Inc, we will kill it before it even starts. If we overload this initiative with excessive administrative burdens and rigged governance structures, no startup will ever use it. If it is not attractive, it is useless. I have 2 direct questions for our guests to Mr. Olivera. What are the absolute red lines for businesses? Which regulatory or administrative additions would make the EU ink framework completely unattractive for young enterprises? And to miss Schulman and mister Meyer Erdmann, how can we design safeguards in a modern, flexible way that fits the reality of agile tech start ups rather than forcing traditional heavy corporate structures onto companies that need speed to survive. Finally, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We need EU Inc. To remain a light, powerful tool for European growth so far on behalf of Romana Dobbsch.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-07-15 “(17:56:53 - 17:59:08): I'm not a shadow rapporteur, as you might know, chair, and as mister Danitsyn knows. Romana Tombsk cannot be with us, so she asked me to read out on her behalf, and my personal questions and point of view is for later. Dear colleagues, distinguished guests, today's discussion on the EU Inc. Is about Europe's global competitiveness. The EPP's priority is clear. We must make it easier for our companies in Europe to grow within the single market instead of losing them to The U. S. Or Asia. Of course, we agree that we need safeguards. This new framework must not become a vehicle for letterbox companies or backdoor to bypass national labor standards. However, we must be pragmatic. If we overregulate EU Inc, we will kill it before it even starts. If we overload this initiative with excessive administrative burdens and rigged governance structures, no startup will ever use it. If it is not attractive, it is useless. I have 2 direct questions for our guests to Mr. Olivera. What are the absolute red lines for businesses? Which regulatory or administrative additions would make the EU ink framework completely unattractive for young enterprises? And to miss Schulman and mister Meyer Erdmann, how can we design safeguards in a modern, flexible way that fits the reality of agile tech start ups rather than forcing traditional heavy corporate structures onto companies that need speed to survive. Finally, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We need EU Inc. To remain a light, powerful tool for European growth so far on behalf of Romana Dobbsch.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-07-15 “(18:20:21 - 18:22:13): Yeah. Thank you. I'm going to speak in German. I'm now speaking on my own behalf. I have to confess that I am by no means won over. The hearing has not yet shown me the added value of this proposal. We've heard from Business Europe all about what's in existence, what cannot be done, but what will this really deliver at the end of the day? Will we have a game changer? I've not seen any evidence of this. We've had public discussions. There was reference to the petition. There, it was linked to startups and scale ups. That may be the case. So why not restrict the scope to precisely those types of companies, startups, and scale ups? That should be the decision we take. I'd like to hear from Business Europe. What is the true added value for public limited companies and stock quoted companies in Germany to switch to this regime? Otherwise, what we have is some sort of wet dream of the neoliberals that want to destroy codetermination. The insolvency lawyers and other notaries will rub their hands in glee. We'll see money laundering and the like. So I think we should either restrict it to startups and scale ups or put an end to the whole proposal.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-07-15 “(18:20:21 - 18:22:13): Yeah. Thank you. I'm going to speak in German. I'm now speaking on my own behalf. I have to confess that I am by no means won over. The hearing has not yet shown me the added value of this proposal. We've heard from Business Europe all about what's in existence, what cannot be done, but what will this really deliver at the end of the day? Will we have a game changer? I've not seen any evidence of this. We've had public discussions. There was reference to the petition. There, it was linked to startups and scale ups. That may be the case. So why not restrict the scope to precisely those types of companies, startups, and scale ups? That should be the decision we take. I'd like to hear from Business Europe. What is the true added value for public limited companies and stock quoted companies in Germany to switch to this regime? Otherwise, what we have is some sort of wet dream of the neoliberals that want to destroy codetermination. The insolvency lawyers and other notaries will rub their hands in glee. We'll see money laundering and the like. So I think we should either restrict it to startups and scale ups or put an end to the whole proposal.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-07-06 “Thank you, vice president, commissioner, colleagues. 1st of all, congratulations to the reporter and all of the shadow reporters who have worked in a very constructive manner. But since 2017, I've been a member of the European Parliament since 2017. And, of course, there are issues that come up time and time again, you know, talking about how things could be better. But the fact that there is a file here, This has taken so long. It's very unusual. And I don't think we need to repeat this. But I think we can really see the result because it's rare in politics that you can say that a change and a reform can lead to all participants enjoying better rights. Sometimes people can benefit more than others, but here we can say that we've managed to achieve a reform which will ensure that employees' rights will be protected properly and that business interests, when it comes to red tape and better access to the single market, will also be protected. So if we look at the overall result, the it's been a success even though it could have gone a bit more quickly. But tomorrow, we need to vote in favor of this and bring this process to an end.”
  Regulation of teleworking labour conditions
• 2024-11-13 “E-002517/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission supports the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) efforts in developing its knowledge organisation and scientific processes through innovative integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions, in alignment with the latest regulatory standards, first and foremost the Artificial Intelligence Act 1 and the General Data Protection Regulation 2 . The Commission acknowledges the importance of increasing the accessibility and breadth of evidence and of enhancing the trustworthiness of the risk assessment process by applying human-centric AI technologies in close co-existence with human expertise. 2. The evaluation of EFSA’s performance, carried out for the first time by the Commission and due by March 2026, will assess EFSA’s operational framework and procedures, including in terms of timeliness of the risk assessment process. The findings will be used to decide on the potential need to improve the functioning and organisation of EFSA, including opportunities for simplification. 3. Evidence and risk-based approach are already at the core of EFSA's risk assessment processes. The current legal framework 3 requires that risk assessment is based on the available scientific evidence and is undertaken in an independent, objective and transparent manner. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act), OJ L, 2024/1689, 12.7.2024. 2 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88. 3 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 031 1.2.2002, p. 1.”
  GMOs
• “I'm pleased that there are aspects which have already received support from colleagues, for others. For us, it is important to have a strong position that delivers investments where there may, where they matter the most, like having guaranteed investments for young people who are the future of our workforce, like fighting social exclusion and like supporting the child guarantee. In other words, we need to move from the empty shell that the Commission proposed. The ESF has done enormous good in our societies. And I believe we can work together to ensure that it can continue to do so in the next MFF. Thank you.”
  Youth employment & training
• “There's been changes in society two big changes a different view of these gender situations so it's no longer the idea that men earn the money women stay at home and then we have politicians saying that we have this change in society. The second big change that we have is that this structure that we had in the past where families extended families lived close to each other that no longer exists because the labor market is more mobile sometimes across borders. Politicians don't need to comment on that they need to say if society has changed then we need to create a framework so that people can live within that framework and have freedom of choice so that they can live according to their own chosen family model. I think we owe it to ourselves not only with the view to the people and say we want to give these people an opportunity to live according to their own choices but it's also in our economic interest. In Germany at the moment we're having discussions about why so so many female refugees from Ukraine are at work in Germany and of course it's because these women arrive in Germany with their children from Ukraine and we don't have sufficient structures for childcare so those women who've arrived without the menfolk don't have the opportunity to work. So thank you very much for all the points that you have made and all the very best for your continued work on this subject.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “In the last few days I've heard concern from certain associations who say, well, there will be a watering down of national works councils, but that's rubbish. There were in the 2009 directives already in European Works Council as stipulations about them needing to be informed first. So there's no new rules or bureaucracy, but greater clarity, a contribution to things working better. This isn't about more red tape. And further, there's discussion that is being used to use the idea of co-determination as a kind of brake on progress. This is something that's been discussed in Germany, the mother country of the social market economy. And it's quite clear that across political groups. In the two committees that have discussed this, it's absolutely clear that companies that have co decision making structure do better. It's not a disadvantage, it's a competitive advantage. So we need to make sure that we strengthen the role of co decision making in Europe and make Europe more attractive as a place for business. As a result we've seen disruptive phenomena emerging in recent times, and that's not something we'll get a grip on by playing one side off against another. It's only something that will be successfully managed with a social partnership, and this is making a significant contribution to that. And on that note, I'd like to close by thanking all of the shadow rapporteurs and the staff who have been involved in developing this, the political group level, in the Secretariat and in the committee as well for the constructive work over the last two and a half, three years. And I'd also ask for your support tomorrow. Thank you.”
  EU regulation on worker representation in company decisions
• “Um, thank you chair. Thank you. Commissioner. I'm going to speak in German. Thank you very much for visiting us here and for giving us the opportunity to have an exchange. My question is, does the Commission doesn't think itself a little bit remote from the current developments with oil and gas markets, don't you think you've been overtaken a little bit by these events? And how can we react to that with what we're going through at the moment? Now, at the filling stations and oil and gas prices, that's going to have an impact down the line on rents, rents and commuters and groceries. So what the commission wants to push is, is being overtaken by these current events. So what can we do about that? And secondly, looking at what's coming down the road inside this House we're always discussing about ETS two. Now the ETS. Will will actually drive the prices of housing up. And I would be very interested in the EU and the Commission's perspective on this.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Yeah. Thank you. I'm going to speak in German. Um, yeah. I can only underline what my colleague Peter Lisa said. As I see it, it's central. How will the commission measure that? That the, um, tasks have been, uh. Stuck to? And what are the legal consequences if there is an infringement? We know the German domestic policy. We had the arguments at the height of the inflation crisis, when there was the talk about helping people out. Our argument was always people have a who are MEPs, they don't have to be helped out. Um, and the answer was it was €300 for everybody. And then with this climate social fund, that's what we should avoid at all costs, because you can see that in the heated political debate, not just in Germany, in many other places in the European Union. The social acceptance for climate protection policies is on thin ice because people are under pressure. They're worried about their jobs, they can't make ends meet with their income. And and it's it's about, uh, climate protection and migrants. Those are the two main arguments, and we have to work out against that. And so it's very important that you deliver in the way that we've imagined. And there must be freedom in the implementation, but the goals have to be stuck to I'd like to whole, uh, I'd like to hear from the commission as to how they will ensure that that is the case.”
  Social Climate Fund implementation and impact
• “President, vice president, Commissioner, colleagues. Today's debate and tomorrow's vote on the renewal of the directive for European Works Councils is really the closing of a chapter on a discussion that's been underway for 16 years, since the last time we looked at the European Works Council directive, and in recent years, the discussion really delivered the message that there's no need for a complete overhaul. Discussions really focused on the areas that are already working in European Works Council structure, but also identified shortcomings. And I'm happy that in the last parliamentary term, this process of renewal actually got underway. We began with an initiative report. We called on the commission to begin the review, and we've come up with specific proposals, specific proposals, not on all points, but on those points where we saw there were flaws and shortcomings. So I'm delighted to say that the trilogue result, which we'll be voting on tomorrow, and I'd say at the moment 26 member states have voted for Lithuanian abstained. That's the result on the side of council. So the result that we'll be voting on tomorrow will make significant contributions in those areas where in recent years we have identified weak points. We need more legal clarity, not just on these side of the employers, but also employees rather, but also on the side of employers. When it comes to the question of transnational status and confidentiality of information. In the past, these were the clear weak points. There was always debate and discussion between parties on these matters. We've also clarified things that in a number of states are taken for granted are absolutely clear, but in others not, for example, coverage of costs.”
  EU regulation on worker representation in company decisions
• “It's going to need direct political action being taken in the member states. And that's why we're going to have to analyze this very closely indeed, and then make decisions about what we do with it when it comes to an additional round. But if I put my German hat on in this discussion, the first country to implement the national minimum wage directive was Romania. And I went to Romania. Quite quickly after the implementation. And I spoke to trade unions there in Romania. And I wanted to know what that meant for them in their practical work. All of these, um, apparent collective bargaining rounds that were happening. These um employee representatives had been sought out by the employer representatives. It had nothing to do with our ideas about collective bargaining or what should legally feature in collective bargaining rounds. All of that would no longer be possible. And in Romania, everything was implemented very quickly indeed, and the social partners were then put in a position of having to do everything, negotiate everything all over again. And that only didn't lead to new dynamics on the trade union side of things, but also on the employer organization side as well. They have a completely different structure in a country like Romania. So it shows that if you apply this instrument correctly, this instrument that we have designed, then ultimately it can offer prospects of being a game changer if we all have the same political willingness behind it. Thank you.”
  Minimum wages harmonisation at EU level
• “Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. David Casa is is unfortunately ill. So he asked me to read this out on his behalf. Thank you. Chair. Dear colleagues, Mr. Casa would like firstly to thank everyone who tabled amendments to the ECF. They make important contributions to this fund. And we want to thank not only the shadows, but also the rapporteurs of the opinion giving committees and each ample member who made their voice heard. This is a very good basis to start negotiating on some areas. I see that there is a majority for a common approach. I think we all understand the importance of having a strong social fund and this that this regulation is best placed to design its measures on other areas. Mr. Casa is looking forward to working with you to get closer to each other and to find a position that we can defend as one Parliament. And in fact, the rapporteurs will be doing this this Thursday, where they will have more time than we do today to exchange our views in greater detail. It is important to mention that we are guided by the interim report, which sets a budget line for the ESF and calls for a separate and standalone programme. This reflects a consensus from stakeholders at European and national levels. Every organisation we spoke with leading to this moment has stressed how important this is. A strong ESF with clear objectives that provides predictable investments. In our draft report. This is what married. And this is for the conclusion. Do I get the floor a second time? Okay. It's for later.”
  EU expenditure on social policy
• “Oh, okay. Yeah. Dear. Chair. Torsten. Colleagues. Thank you very much firstly for your input. From my point of view, it's extremely important not only in order to be able to answer the question as to where we currently stand in this process. But also to think about where we go from here when it comes to the implementation. I would say that this is always the case with every directive. Some move faster, others move more slowly. If I look at the ruling from the European Court of Justice as well, we've already talked about the content there, but there are some substantial arguments to say before we implement the ECJ before we implement it, let's wait for this ruling to be implemented and maybe some things will sort themselves out. So this is a perhaps a justification as to why we're running after this implementation. But as you've said. On the question of seeking a minimum level of compromise with the action plans. I think that when it comes to the discussions with the Commission that we have as a Parliament, once the first round has been concluded, we have to make some assessments and we have to think about whether this is something that we wanted to see from a political point of view. We've already had a number of concerns expressed this morning about direct in intervention in national systems. That was never the aim, and that shouldn't happen in the future either. This interference. But the question of achieving that 80% minimum level. Ultimately, it. It can't be achieved only with nice statements.”
  Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• “Madam Vice president, Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for a debate, which at times was quite emotional, but extremely interesting. It was interesting for me because at some junctures in this debate, I heard arguments and lines of argument was so incredibly wrong that the opposite wasn't even true. If people are maintaining that existing codecision in member states would be damaged by this, I have to beg the question what's going on? Because the existing co-determination, whether it works well or poorly, is not even being touched by this. We're not talking about national determination. We're talking about European co-determination. If somebody tells me, well, that's member states who should be dealing with this, well, who is meant to be doing the legislation for European Works Council if it's not the European Union. What sort of reasoning is that? It blows my mind hearing this sort of thing. And that's why I said about the assumption of costs in many member states, Angelica in Austria, as well as in Germany, it is underscored through various forms of law that the costs will be assumed. But in some member states, this is still unresolved, and that's why it constitutes an important contribution here. And the cherry on the tape, the cherry on the cake goes to the Patriots once again, Miss Bartoszek, who stated here of the consternation of all the small and medium sized undertakings, which SMEs are you talking about? Where do they have Ittakes? Does she even know what the threshold values are that are required to have a European Works Council? No, she just wants to say her piece. Obviously, she's never understood how the unions work. She's never talked to them. And she's just, uh, left, uh, a wash, I think so. A further example of where we're meant to be making more red tape. In fact, we're clarifying law. We're providing legal certainty for companies for codecision. So I hope you can support me in the vote tomorrow.”
  EU regulation on worker representation in company decisions
• “Thank you very much, chair. Colleagues, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to take part in this exchange of views. I think it's very important because we're coming to the very specific phase of implementation now, and I think it's good to take a little bit of time here to talk about different perspectives. And as someone who was a co-rapporteur for this directive and so bears a share of responsibility, I just want to take on board the arguments that have been put forward. It was never the the goal, never the objective to reduce national systems to rubble. It was clear right from the beginning that we wanted to make sure that we weren't introducing any additional obligations on introducing minimum wages across the European Union. That wasn't the goal, and no one was ever asking for that. To my understanding, this isn't any interference in collective bargaining autonomy. That was the fear that was expressed on a number of occasions, which I'd never understood, because here this all turns around the question of collective bargaining. And luckily now we have some clear targets. We have at least 80%. And even in the Nordic countries now, we're already on the other side of the 80%. And that's a real success story, which those countries can be rightly proud of. That doesn't mean, however, where we had that minimum 80% that had been met, that those member states then didn't have to come forward with an action plan and present it to the committee to show that they'd already done their homework. So I can only say that there's no interference intervention here with national sovereignty. It was really about strengthening social partners. Thank you.”
  Minimum wages harmonisation at EU level
• “Thank you very much. The automotive industry in Europe has caused many disruptions and it is at the moment at a crossroads as politicians. And we also bear responsibility in order to find what path we want to follow for this key industry, it is becoming more and more clear that, um, we that, uh, the, the, the, uh, that the, uh, 2035 objective is, uh, is a mistake. And this is something that, uh, this is why we constantly have to think about what we are, what what we are going to be doing. But we have to let the consumers decide, and we have to make a decision. Um, on the internet in Munich, at the international automotive industry, we had a great, um, conference that was organized and the message was clear the future will be electric and the industry is is okay with that. But, uh, but the, um, 2035, uh, date is far too close. We need to put it back. We need to push it back in order for the industry to be able to keep up. And at the same time, we also need to make efforts in order to focus on mobile, on a structure, on affordability, on leasing and so on. That is something that we need to push forward together. The ideological 2035 date and agenda needs to be pushed back so that we may move forward towards the future properly in the European automotive industry. Thank you.”
  2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers · Road transport environmental policy
• “Vice president, Representatives of the Commission. Dear colleagues. The chemicals package is a good opportunity for the Commission and us all To not only praise the chemicals industry, but to actually have specific support measures for them. That's why I would call upon you to move away from these, um, general statements, bringing the costs down. We're all aware of that, but we need to have concrete measures also when it comes both when it comes to the reach regulation and PFAS. And it's not about deciding between protecting people and the environment or everything else. It's about bringing the two together. The situation is in dire straits. If you look at what's happening in eastern Germany with Dow Chemicals, it's about overarching structures. It's not about individual jobs, it's about generating. It's about the value chain And avoiding a domino effect. That's the situation the chemical industry is facing in Europe, and especially in Germany, one of the most important locations and sites in the world. So let's move away from general statements. We need clear commitments regarding PFAS because without the chemicals industry, the farmer industry and the green transition and other key sectors won't be able to survive. And just one last thing because you're talking about the rights of labor unions. Where in Europe can you get great jobs without necessarily being a graduate of the chemicals industry? So we will do everything to continue support.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, the Steel and Metals Action Plan has arrived late. Hopefully not too late. We, as the EPP have been fighting for this for a year and a half. The European and German steel industry are affected by overcapacity and extremely high energy prices. They've really been under pressure. We can't just get on our soapbox and talk about resilience and independence from autocratic regimes, while at the same time looking on helpless, painting ourselves in a corner while the Chinese decide whether we have a rearmament and an energy transition and them deciding on the price. So this comes and it's overdue. We get this from the commission now. So it's not just enough to have this action plan on the table. It's about actually implementing what's written in that plan. So we need to look at Trump. We need to look at China. Given that background we need to have instruments that will protect our trade. So we cannot just delay cbam. We need to use these two years to look at the problems with Cbam and to remedy them. Because we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot. We need to have access to affordable energy that is pivotal. And that's why we look to the member states, but we also look to the commission to do its bit. We need modern subsidy rules and state aid rules. The state aid rules we have are from the 20th century, when we were talking about preventing protectionism within the EU. Now, however, we're talking about US and other blocs in the world. As a result, we need to have subsidy rules that are fit for today. We need to have green steel and that is another issue that needs to be looked at. Green steel needs to be competitive. At the same time, there needs to be a market for it. So now we've got this plan. Now it's all about implementation. Implementation. We want resilience and we want to maintain well-paid jobs in Europe. Thank you very much for listening.”
  State Aid · Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)