EU MP Gaby Bischoff (SPD) | "We cannot open a gun-or-butter debate"

On Wednesday, Ursula von der Leyen delivered her annual State of the EU address to the European Parliament. How satisfied are you with the Commission President's messages?

Overall, I'm disappointed. A lot of rhetoric about security and competitiveness, but the area of ​​labor and social affairs remains empty: no new concrete initiatives, and the "Quality Jobs Act" she mentioned remains a slogan without substance. Everyday issues like fair wages, secure work, and the high cost of living have not been adequately addressed. Housing has been addressed with some concrete steps – this is welcome, but it is not enough as an overall social strategy. What is needed now are tangible proposals for urgently needed legislation and funding for a strong social Europe, not empty promises.

In general: What do you criticize about the EU Commission’s policies?

My main criticism is that the Commission is currently acting too weakly, both within the EU and internationally. The proposals for the new EU budget—and thus for the political priorities—are not moving in the right direction. For example, the dismantling of the European Social Fund Plus is planned. This fund, however, is the EU's most important labor market and social policy instrument. At the same time, the Commission is weakening the European Parliament by increasingly choosing decision-making procedures in which we, as Members of Parliament, are not properly involved. This, in turn, weakens democratic oversight of European policy.

You speak of a weakening of Europe. What exactly do you mean by that?

Look at the position we were in when we negotiated with the US on the tariffs, this so-called deal. We gave in on many points. We are equally vulnerable to blackmail on the security policy side, having failed to establish a strong European security and defense policy. We continue to muddle through. And that weakens us. Yet we are a powerful region, with more than 450 million people. We can truly act more strongly than we are at the moment. But that would require institutional reforms.

The keyword here is common security policy. It's very focused on the military level. The entire diplomatic aspect is missing. But that's also part of a sensible security policy.

Well, as Parliament, we have defined security policy much more broadly than just military. We have also made this very clear to the Commission and the Member States. But as Parliament, we have also proposed, as a first step, establishing a common European procurement system for the defense sector. This would also mean that we could save a lot of money that we could invest in other areas, such as cybersecurity. Perhaps then we would also have military systems that are compatible across Europe, which is not the case in many areas today. As things are currently going, we are only fattening up the respective national defense industries.

One of your core areas of work is social policy. The sums flowing into the defense budget must surely hurt your soul.

We need to invest more wisely in defense. I think it's clear that Europe itself must spend more on security and defense. But what we can't do is start a gun-or-butter debate. We need fresh money for security and defense. But that can't come at the expense of social welfare—that would be explosive.

Isn’t social policy in the EU already a wallflower?

That's a leading question! We as Members of Parliament have strongly advocated for a social dimension in European politics. In the last legislative period, we were able to add truly substantial building blocks to a social Europe. Especially with regard to poverty-proof minimum wages, but also fair working conditions in the platform economy. And that shows me: It's possible. But we still face major challenges. We must stop the enormous labor exploitation, particularly in subcontracting chains, and make labor mobility fairer. We do not have sufficient controls on working conditions in sectors such as construction or transport, where brutal exploitation sometimes exists. Last but not least, we need clear guardrails for the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace and a "right to switch off." However, all of this can no longer be regulated at national level; it must apply across Europe.

Minimum wages, regulations for platform work – all of these initiatives originate from the European Parliament. Many of these initiatives fail in the Council, the body of governments. The directive on social coordination has also been blocked. Does that frustrate you?

You have to take it in good spirits. That's what happens when you rely on majorities. Then you just have to make another attempt. We had political proposals that took 16 years to implement. And the Minimum Wage Directive and the Platform Directive show that we were successful in the end. And yes, the coordination of social security systems you mentioned remains an enormous challenge. Because mobility within Europe is growing. We want to find a solution for this with the Council. We can't send the many people who work across borders the message: Sorry, we can't do anything more for you because the Council and Parliament can't agree. But of course, when a lot of money is at stake - and that's the case with unemployment benefits, maternity allowance and much more - then negotiations are indeed difficult.

Housing in Europe is also expensive. There's been a special committee on this in the EU Parliament for several months now, and you're very active there. How important is this issue?

The housing crisis is one of the central social issues across Europe right now. Ensuring that people can find truly affordable housing, and that they can find it where they work and live, is crucial. That was also the reason why we, the S&D group, pushed so hard to establish this special committee and to appoint a responsible member of the EU Commission for it. We need to look at where the levers are, where we can make a difference. We already have a policy against homelessness, but we need to significantly intensify our efforts here.

What exactly does that mean?

For example, when it comes to state aid for affordable housing, we give municipalities more leeway to support the construction of affordable housing. We have also examined the various funding programs. These are very scattered and sometimes opaque. This needs to be consolidated, and additional resources must be made available at the European level.

That sounds like a lot of money. Do you think the member states will play along?

I think everyone understands the social dynamism that lies in this if we fail to solve the problem.