A Strong Voice for a Sovereign and Democratic Europe | 2026 EUF Europa Prize

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, 

ich danke Ihnen von Herzen. Tusind, tusind tack. Thank you. Truly, thank you.

Thank you for this. You know, it's very strange to hear your work presented like this. Because it's not about courage. Because if you ask somebody, do you have the courage? Most of us would just say no. You know, we have this idea that if history called us, we would do amazing things. But most of us would stay at home. So don't ever ask for courage. Ask for somebody to do their job. Because this is what it is. 

And this is why it's such a profound honor to receive this prize. Especially as only the third recipient of the EUF Europa Prize. It's so new.  It's so full of promise. And I think it carries the weight of a question. What kind of Europe are we building? 

And to receive it here, at the Europa Universität Flensburg, make that question so much urgent. Because this is not just any university.  This is a place that doesn't just study Europe, but actually lives it, every day. In the border region where integration is not some abstract ideal, it's something that you do in everyday practical life. Here in the German-Danish borderland, integration is not a political slogan. It's the air that you breathe every day. The shared compass, the joint degrees with the University of Southern Denmark, the students who cross the border as they cross the street, at least when there's not too much border control from the Danish side. Well, this is integration in everyday life. And when the winds of history turn cold, and they have, then places like this remind us what this is all about. Europe works when we do the work.

I'm also moved, deeply moved, by the dedication of the faculty of the university. That you, teachers, researchers, staff, choose to fund this prize yourself. From your own expense allowance, that speaks volumes. It tells me that this university don't just talk about European values. You actually literally invest yourself in it. And that's the kind of commitment that builds the future. A future that we desperately need. 

I think it's important to be open about it. Europe was asleep. We had cozied up, we were so rich. We could model through everything. But now we have woken up. For years, we just hit the snooze button. Crisis after crisis, financial collapse, immigration, global pandemic. We muddled through, assuming that the old certainties would hold. Next generation will have to take care of this. Kicking the can down the road. That the world would remain as it was at least our time out. Our prosperity, our security, our very way of life was granted and guaranteed. 

And then the alarm clock went off again. And it was as if the snooze button has come off entirely. No, didn't work. Some might say that it had a certain orange hue. But the thing is, the wake-up call was louder than any one person in the White House. It was the realization that our dependencies, the fuel from Russia, the minerals production capacity and markets from China. The technology and the security from the US were not just conveniences that made our economy work and that made us rich, they were vulnerabilities. 

And when the world changed, we saw in pain, how these dependencies could be turned against us, could be weaponized, literally weaponized. Look at Ukraine. Russia did not invade because it hated what Ukraine was. It invaded because of what Ukraine wants, what we have:  rule of law, open societies, welfare states, a single market, the freedom to choose our own path. Because of that, we have war back in Europe.

For too long, we were seen as weak because of our dependencies, as something that nobody really had to care about, because we outsourced our energy, our supply chain, our digital sovereignty, and we supposed that they would always be there. 

And now we see the signs everywhere. The US administration is denying access to the latest AI model to non-US nationals. That's not a market decision. That's a geopolitical decision. And things that happen once, they can happen again. It tells us, in the clearest possible terms, that we cannot assume that the rules will always work in our favor. That our allies, and even, yes, our closest allies, that they will always think that we have shared common interests. Not anymore.

But here's the thing. Russia is not the only one who sees our strength. Look at the way that the Trump administration tried to persuade the Hungarians to keep Orbán at power. Vice President Vance flew over, participated in the rallies. President Trump called to say, I will put all the economic might of the U.S. behind you if you choose Orbán again, because he will destroy Europe from within. That's his mission.

And look what happened. The Hungarians, they choose otherwise. So Russia is trying their best. Some in the U.S. are trying their best. China is trying to destroy European businesses by unfair competition. We're not perfect, but we should appreciate that some of the strong global powers, they see us so strong that they really invest in our destruction. So probably, we're stronger than we think. What we have, the everyday strive for democracy, for openness, for fair markets, for cooperation that can deliver not only prosperity but also welfare and a real sense of belonging.

Look at our excellent educational systems. Look at the world-class cutting-edge research. Look at the innovative ecosystems. Look at the amazing businesses that are part of shaping Europe and global market. And yes, we do not have one champion, we have many. Because they're not all allowed to merge.

Our model works. It could work better, yes. But only if we believe in it, if we protect it, if we develop it. So, what do we do?

Well, first, we need to rely more on ourselves. And that means our own technology, our own data infrastructure stored by European providers under European law. That means building European alternatives, not out of nationalism, but out of necessity for Europeans to have the social platforms that really support community and not steal their attention span and make them addicted and vulnerable to extortion and all that other that comes from out there.

We cannot enforce our values if we do not control what shapes our society. And we cannot regulate artificial intelligence if we do not have artificial intelligence ourselves. We cannot protect our citizens' data if we do not have the servers, the companies, and the expertise to do it ourselves.  This is not a call to decouple. This is a call to de-risk. So that we can control what is important to us. It's about ensuring that when the next crisis comes, and it will come, we cannot be taken hostage. 

The second thing to do is to find new partners. Look at the trade agreements that are now coming in with India, with Canada, Mercosur, Indonesia. It's not that the world is waiting for Europe, but neither should we wait for the world. We need to connect to the growth that happens outside of our borders, and we need to be an attractive partner in doing so. And that means being open, but also being strong. Being cooperative, but also being clear about what we actually stand for. And because of that, also recognizing that a new world order will not be shaped in the same way as we did.  

What we call the Global South, is rising. And they have legitimate criticism of the global order that we built after the Second World War, for good reasons. And they have proper claims on us as to how to enable a fair and just global fight against climate change. It's not just us, it's also them. And if we want a seat at the table, we cannot just demand it.  We need to earn it.

And the third thing is reform from within. How can we expect to have a say, maybe even a lead on the global stage, if we cannot decide together at home? If we let fragmentation rule, we have no rule. And one example would be to do away with unanimity in our foreign policy in order to have a foreign policy. Because with unanimity, there is never a decision. And unanimity is a weakness that we can no longer afford. It's a relic from a time where we were afraid of a strong center, so we built it weak. We sold it as strength that everybody can say now, but it's a weakness because we can take no decision. But now, we're surrounded by strong centers, one in Washington, one in Beijing. And if we want to shape the world rather than to be shaped by it, then we need to move faster. We need to be able to take decisions. We need to speak with one voice. And qualified majority voting is not to outvote somebody. It's not a surrender of sovereignty by some. It's the only way to exercise sovereignty effectively. It's the way to make every member state lean in, because they want to be part of the decision instead of just being the one blocking the decision. And this is the way to ensure that Europe is so much more than the sum of its parts.

But let me step back for a second, because the greatest strength of Europe is not just what we do, it's who we are. We are a continent that turned centuries of wars into decades of peace. We are a union where a student in Flensburg can study in Copenhagen, work in Berlin, and retire in Lisbon without ever having a visa. We are a place where small countries have a voice and where big countries learn to listen, some days of the week. But also, where we actually do think and live by the fact that diversity is not a weakness, it's a strength.

And that is why this prize, this new prize, this bold prize, matters so much. Because it's not just about honoring an individual, because you know that I'm just a spearhead of the most amazing teams, of the most amazing institution, because you're only achieving something for real when leadership and team and institution come together. This prize is also reaffirming an idea. The idea that Europe is not just a place on a map, that it's a choice, a choice to cooperate, a choice to share, a choice to believe that we're stronger together than we are alone.

So let me end where I began, with gratitude. To the Europa-Universität Flensburg, thank you for this honor. Thank you for your belief, your faith in the European project and for living it every day. Because borders might not be something that keeps us apart. It may be the bridges that we choose to build.

Thank you to the faculty who make this prize possible. Thank you for your commitment, for being sincere, for showing that Europe is not just something that we study. It's something that we live, that we fight for, that we believe in. And to all of you here today, thank you for being part of this.

The road ahead will not be easy.  It will be bumpy. It will be slower. But you know, a slow travel enables you to enjoy the view. And Europe is beautiful. If we remember what we stand for, and if we stand together, I have no doubts that we can further develop what we all have achieved, that Europe is the best place to live ever in human history, especially if you are a woman. 

Thank you very much.

Dear Professor Hipp,

Dear Mr. Dethleffsen,

Dear Mr. Henriksen,

Dear Ms. Herrmann,

Dear Ms. Vestager,

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great honour to be here today.

The “EUF Europe Prize – endowed by the University Council” honours people who advocate for a sustainable and democratic Europe.

It was first awarded in 2018 and is endowed with prize money of 10,000 euros.

With this prize, the University Council explicitly supports the European orientation of the University of Flensburg.

As a central forum for education, democracy, and societal transformation, the European University of Flensburg is a key actor in assuming responsibility for a diverse and future-oriented society.

Awarding the EUF Europe Prize 2026 to Ms. Vestager underlines this profile.

Margrethe Vestager was Commissioner for Competition and Vice-President of the EU Commission for ten years – from 2014 to 2024.

During her term in office, she campaigned for a democratic and value-oriented Europe that is economically and digitally sovereign.

In doing so, she committed herself in particular to the implementation of a fair, rule-based order for the benefit of the European common good.

She knows how to communicate complex political issues in an understandable way and at the same time with respect for different perspectives.

Her work always reflects our fundamental European values of justice, democracy, and social cohesion.

They are fundamental – but they are not self-evident everywhere. So, we all need to stand up for them whenever we can.

Awarding the EUF Europe Prize to a Danish politician once again underlines the strong bond between Denmark and Northern Schleswig-Holstein as well as the University of Flensburg located in the border region.

The university offers German-Danish degree programmes.

There is also a long-standing partnership with the University of Southern Denmark in Sønderborg.

This provides a unique opportunity to earn a dual degree in the programmes International Management – Business Administration (Bachelor) and International Management Studies – Business Administration (Master).

Research on Europe is primarily concentrated at the Interdisciplinary Centre for European Studies (ICES). The centre aims to analyse European integration as it continuously transforms society, politics, and culture.

The new CREST, the EUF’s Centre for Research on Sustainability and Transformation [founded 2023, opened 10/2025], combines scientific expertise in climate change, biodiversity loss, social inequality, and resource conflicts.

The state has been providing financial support to the EUF in this area since 2023:

In 2023, approximately 210,000 euros from the former Excellence and Structural Budget (ESB),

and from 2024 onwards, about 350,000 euros within the (supplementary) agreements.

These research centres define the university’s profile.

In addition, the Centre for Education, Teaching, School, and Socialisation Research (ZeBUSS) conducts research using a variety of theories and methods while focussing on educational and socialisation processes in both school and non-school settings. The centre’s interdisciplinary approach supports researchers in developing answers to questions regarding the social, political, and media-related embedding of education and socialisation.

Another focus is teacher’s education, as it shapes the future appreciation of European values as well.

From 2022 to 2027, all institutions of higher education that train teachers are receiving a total of 16 million euros to fund initiatives under the Alliance for Teacher Education; 7.5 million euros are allocated to the EUF.

I am thankful and proud that the university is using this financial support in a very productive way, offering students excellent training opportunities.

So, this evening symbolises not only the outstanding commitment of the award winner Ms. Vestager but also the imprint the University of Flensburg is having on its surrounding people, countries, and culture.

We must value this effort, as it strengthens our neighbourhood with Denmark – our friendship, as I call it.

Regarding the Ukraine war in Europe and the other crises in the world, democrats must stick together.

In the baltic sea region, we must stay closely connected and strengthen cooperation to secure our liberal way of life, our European values.

Thank you, dear Ms. Vestager, for being here today, and thank you to everyone at the university who made all of this possible.

I am greatly honoured that I was asked to deliver the laudatory address for Margrethe Vestager.

As an economic journalist I have always been deeply impressed by her clarity, her power, her resilience – and her courage.

Most EU-commissioners are not known by the public or immediately forgotten once they leave office.

If I asked you here and now how the present EU-commissioner for competition was called – I guess that most or even all in the audience were at a loss.

Margrethe Vestager was different. She immediately left a deep and lasting impact, almost from day one in office.

An EU-commissioner for competition has to deal with several different issues.

One important area is the control of mergers.

Companies want and need to grow in order to survive – and the fastest track is to simply buy a competitor or to merge with another company.

Margrethe Vestager served from 2014 to 2024 and in those ten years she oversaw more than 3.500 mergers and transactions.

By far, the most prominent case was the planned merger of the two train builders Alstom in France and Siemens in Germany.

It was supposed to be a merger of champions and was energetically supported by the French and German government.

Nonetheless, Verstager blocked this merger in 2019 because the new company would have controlled a market share of around 80 per cent.

It needed a lot of courage to oppose the mighty governments of France and Germany but Vestager believed that her argument was unrefutable: With their combined market share of 80 per cent Alstom and Siemens would have been able to charge higher prices for their trains – driving up the ticket fares for the passengers.

Vestager´s decision was very controversial – and especially the French president Emanuel Macron fumed. He was convinced that the merger was necessary to enable the European companies to compete on the world markets against the Chinese.

But so far, Vestager was proved right. Both Alstom and Siemens continue to be successful although they were not allowed to merge.

An Eu-commissioner for competition is necessary because capitalism as an economic system has paradoxical consequences.

Competition is vital for technological progress – but this very competition is destroyed by competition itself.

The reason for this paradox was first described by none other than Karl Marx.

Today this phenomenon is called „Economics of Scale“. The mechanism is very simple: Each piece gets cheaper the more pieces are produced.

The result is brutal: It´s always the biggest company that´s the cheapest and thus wins the competition.

As a result, every market evolves into an oligopol or even a monopoly.

Or, as the Swedish band ABBA sang: „The Winner Takes It All“.

You cannot leave the market to its own devices. It must be controlled politically.

Margarethe Vestager was perfectly suited for this task. She is an economist by training and had served several years as a minister in Danish governments.

In the Eu-commission her approach was very different from the stance taken by her predecessors.

Vestager favoured a clear, open and transparent style of communication. The media and the public were immediatly informed whenever she initiated proceedings against a company.

By contrast, her predecessors had preferred secret deals with the accused firms and had shyed away from informing the public.

For Vestager it was not about seeking the media spotlight or putting herself in the limelight.

She strove for transparency in order to establish and enforce rules. All companies were to know what the „level playing field“ looked like.

When it came to attacking monopolies, her most prominent case was Google. In the end, Google had to pay more than 8 billion Euros because it had manipulated its search engines in order to distort the market and rake in additional profits.

Vestager penalized many US-tech firms but it would be unfair to claim that she waged a war or a lawfare against America. She was impartial: The German car makers, for example, were fined 300 million Euros because they had colluded and formed the so-called „Diesel-Kartell“.

Vestager´s most spectacular case, ever, was Apple. This time, it was not about monopolies or mergers but a question of state subsidies.

She sentenced the company to reimburse 13 billion Euros because Apple´s European headquarter in Ireland hat hardly paid any taxes at all. The effective corporate tax rate had amounted to just 0,005 per cent.

Just for comparison´s sake: An ordinary worker in Germany pays around 45 per cent of taxes and levies.

The same is true of small businesses.

Apple´s tax privileges were deeply unfair and distorted competition even further.

It took courage to confront Apple because the tech giant had powerful political backers. US-president Donald Trump, then in his first term, was furious and called Vestager a „tax lady“ that hated America.

In a way, that was an honour. Vestager is one of the few EU-commissioners, of not the only one, that Trump knew by name and took seriously.

When Vestager left office, she posted a short departing video on Facebook: one item shown was a baseball cap like the ones Trump enjoys wearing with the inscription „tax lady“ on top.

Anyhow, the political backlash was enormous when Vestager fined Apple. Both Apple and the Irish government sued the EU-commission.

It took 8 years until the final verdict was handed down – and Vestager won.

That had an impact far beyond Apple because this court ruling made crystal clear that it was not to be tolerated that quite a few European countries had styled themselves as tax havens in order to attract foreign capital and companies.

The result of this race to the bottom is catastrophic: Europe loses billions and billions of tax money that is dearly needed to fund education or health care services.

One way to measure Vestager´s impact as an EU-commissioner is to look at how many law suits were filed against her rulings.

A small statistic is enlightening. During her time in office, from 2014 to 2023 to be precise, there were 516 law suits concerning mergers and transactions. 456 were won by Vestager.

Another 876 complaints regarded govermental subsidies that Vestager had cancelled. She won 706 of these court cases.

All in all, this translates into a success ratio of around 80 per cent – which is very impressive.

Of course, it is cumbersome to establish rules by fining single companies.

It´s far more efficient to set the rules beforehand. That´s what the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Service Act did. They were passed in 2021 and in 2022 when Vestager was not only Commissioner for Competition but also for Digital Technologies.

Vestager is missed and remembered as an outstanding EU-commissioner.

The Europa Prize symbolizes and reflects this great appreciation and esteem.

Congratulations, Mrs Vestager.

Kære Margrethe, kære alle, 

eller som man ville sige på tysk: sehr geehrte Frau Vestager, sehr geehrte Frau Ministerin, sehr geehrte Frau Universitätspräsidentin und alle Freunde von Europa-Universität.

Ja, der er små forskelle på den måde, man holder taler på i Danmark og i Tyskland – de danske er som regel kortere, det gælder også denne, men de små forskelle er små i forhold til de store ligheder, der er mellem Danmark og Tyskland, for vi har så meget til fælles og er enige om det meste og med en fælles baggrund, både værdimæssigt, historisk og kulturelt.

Jeg er blevet bedt om at holde denne tale på dansk, måske fordi nogle på universitetet har hørt mig tale tysk, men mest som en anerkendelse af, at vi her i denne del af Slesvig-Holsten har en stor befolkningsgruppe, der føler en tilknytning til det danske og som tilhører det danske mindretal.

Det er omkring 50.000 borgere, som er med i forskellige fællesskaber: det kan være vuggestuer, børnehaver, skoler, gymnasier, alle som følger med i mindretallets avis, Flensborg Avis, benytter biblioteket eller går i de danske kirker, dyrker sport i ungdomsforeningen eller til koncerter, teater eller foreningsliv i vores kulturforening SSF, der er danske sundhedstilbud og ikke mindst et parti, SSW med et skandinavisk blik på løsninger forankret i mindretallet.

Så på vegne af dels Danmarks Generalkonsul i Flensborg, Annette Lind, der i aften er med en delegation fra Folketinget, og det danske mindretal, er vi alle stolte af, at en så fremtrædende dansker kan få denne Europa-Pris her i Flensborg – en gammel dansk by, men i størstedelen af historien med en vej åben fra Tyskland til Danmark og omvendt – og nu skal jeg ikke gå i detaljer med pendlerstatistik, men med vores fælles fortid i Finansministeriet skal det da nævnes at der er et vist provenu, en sidegevinst af dette samliv i gensidig respekt. Det er godt for økonomien med en sådan udveksling af kompetencer på tværs af grænserne med færrest mulige hindringer.

Og hindringer er naturligvis noget, som har beskæftiget en konkurrencekommissær, og et emne, der bør interessere alle i Europa, også efter Draghi-rapporten fra 2024, der kom ind på en række udfordringer i Europa, nu hvor vi for alvor ved, at vi selv skal finde vejen frem, både med innovation, klimateknologi i verdensklasse og reformer af al vor vores lovgivning – og den var vi meget af, med respekt for at det legitime beskyttelsesbehov, der hele tiden begrunder nye love.

Med din særlige indsigt i alt det digitale, kan jeg f.eks. fremhæve den nødvendige regulering af disse nye teknologier. Det gælder i forhold til sociale medier, hvilket også kunne inkludere et forbud til de helt unge – så de i stedet får tid til at forme fællesskaber og opleve forskellige værdier i et mangfoldigt samfund i modsætning til risikoen for at blive udsat for et ensidigt, ekstremistisk feed på sociale medier. Her synes jeg der er en god udvikling henset til Ministerpræsidenten i Slesvig-Holsten på linje med Statsministeren i Danmark påpeger et vist beskyttelsesbehov, hvor sociale medier kan sammenlignes med afhængighedsskabende stoffer.

Et andet område, som i den grad fortjener regulering er naturligvis kunstig intelligens, der kan underminere samfundet og vores evne til at tænke selvstændigt, og ikke mindst tage ansvar. Denne tale er udarbejdet uden brugen af kunstig intelligens, og derfor i mit perspektiv en tale, jeg tager ansvaret for og selv har tænkt over - selvom det muligvis ikke virker sådan.

Men med behovet for regulering af nye områder vil jeg også spørge til muligheden for at deregulere på andre områder, hvor man måske kan give ansvaret tilbage til de enkelte virksomheder og institutioner. Argumentet for afbureaukratisering er typisk, at det vil forbedre virksomhedernes konkurrenceevne, men jeg har et yderligere argument: det vil give alle os – biblioteker og universiteter, museer og skoler, meget bedre mulighed for at fokusere på det, vi kan bidrage med: fællesskab, dannelse, vidensformidling. Det gælder også foreninger, hvor civilsamfundet samles, men mødes af mange beskyttende foranstaltninger – måske for mange? 

For at nævne et konkret eksempel kan jeg henvise til, at vi på Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig er omfattet af ”Whistleblowerordningen”, omfattende regler og udgifter til, at man kan melde sig anonymt – hvor jeg ville mene, at det burde være relevant for firmaer med kapitalsvindel, og klimasyndere. Men skal et bibliotek virkelig være omfattet af denne ordning, blot fordi vi har lige præcis over 50 medarbejdere? 

Et andet perspektiv på fremtiden er ønsket om handlingsorienterede politikere. Personligt vil jeg mene, at anerkendelsen af Margrethe Vestager er anerkendelsen af en politiker – udpeget som kommissær – som gjorde noget, som handlede. Det er jeg sikker på, at alle kommissærer gør, men måske pga. emnerne eller bødernes størrelse, var det meget omtalt, den måde du tog initiativer og opgør og var med til at give EU en selvstændig profil på det digitale område.

Handlekraften er stadig nødvendig – som det er påpeget i en rapport fremmet af Tysklands præsident Steinmeier med titlen ”Initiative für einen handlungsfähigen Staat”. Her påpeges, at for mange processer forhindrer politikere i at omsætte politisk handling. Det kan naturligvis skyldes det legitime hensyn til høringer, beskyttelse af alle involverede i processerne, men kan også risikere at betyde større utilfredshed med politikere, og ja mest farligt, med demokratiet. 

Vi står i en situation, hvor der er behov for en øget kompromisvillighed i en tid med øget konfliktparathed, og en åben diskussion af, hvor meget vi vil regulere, og hvad vi tør give fri.

Der er brug for handlekraft i dine dimensioner – det er ikke uden grund, at hvor Google har ført til udtrykket ”at google”, har du ført til udtrykket ”en Vestager”.

Som bibliotekschef vil jeg også gerne lige nå at nævne en bog – tænk, hvis vi alle læste mere? – og i biografien ”Vestagers verden” kan man læse dine ord: ”vi undervurderer betydningen af at være engagerede og positive i vores tilgang til verden. Forandringerne kommer, når vi rejser os og handler i fællesskab med andre”. Tak for at fremhæve fællesskabet og for at vi med din indsats in mente kan se, at det kan give mening at tro på sin sag.

Denne tale har været med mange spørgsmål til fremtiden, mere regulering, mindre regulering, behovet for at fremme fællesskaber og frihed til kultur- og uddannelsesinstitutioner til at fokusere på dannelse, ansvar, selvstændig viden, men jeg tør stille disse spørgsmål i dag, for som det hedder i sangen ”Solhverv” [1]:
 

Det er den dristigste dåd af alle 

At turde spørge med udstrakt hånd 

Men tør du spørge med åbent sind 

Da svinder sorger og mørke ind.

[1] Sang i Højskolesangbogen, 19. udgave, tekst: Margrethe Vestager

Jens Henriksen vermutet, dass er gebeten wurde, diese Rede auf Dänisch zu halten, weil einige ihn vielleicht schon haben Deutsch sprechen hören.

Er hat darauf hingewiesen, dass es Unterschiede zwischen Deutschen und Dänen, auch bezogen auf die Art und Weise wie man Reden hält – aber diese kleinen Unterschiede sind gering im Vergleich zu den großen Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen Dänemark und Deutschland, denn wir haben so viel gemeinsam und sind uns in den meisten wichtigen Fragen einig, und das vor dem Hintergrund gemeinsamer Werte, Geschichte und Kultur.

Wir haben hier in diesem Teil von Schleswig-Holstein die dänische Minderheit, etwa 50.000 Menschen, die sich mit dem Dänischen verbunden fühlen und sich in verschiedenen Minderheitengemeinschaften engagieren, z.B. in den Kindergärten und Schulen, sie lesen die Flensborg Avis, nutzen die dänischen Büchereien, treiben Sport in den dänischen Vereinen oder besuchen Konzerte und Theater ausgerichtet von Sydslesvigs Forening. Der SSW macht Politik mit einem skandinavischen Blick auf Lösungen, die in der Minderheit verankert sind.

Jens Henriksen richtet im Namen der dänischen Generalkonsulin in Flensburg, Annette Lind, die heute Abend eine Delegation des dänischen Parlaments zu Gast hat, und der dänischen Minderheit aus, dass beide stolz darauf sind, dass eine Dänin den Europa-Preis erhält und auch Flensburg besucht – eine ehemals dänische Stadt, die aber meistens eine offene Verbindung zwischen Deutschland nach Dänemark dargestellt hat.

Jens Henriksen hat uns eine detaillierte Auslegung der Pendlerstatistik erspart, aber es ist doch wunderbar, dass täglich so viele Menschen die Grenze in beiden Richtungen überqueren. 

Margrete Vestager und Jens Henriksen kennen sich tatsächlich aus einer gemeinsamen Arbeitsvergangenheit im dänischen Finanzministerium – und mit Blick darauf gibt er uns heute mit, dass solch ein Zusammenleben in gegenseitigem Respekt konkrete Vorteile mit sich bringt. Ein möglichst hindernisloser grenzüberschreitenden Austausch von Kompetenzen ist einfach gut für die Wirtschaft. Und mit Hindernissen kennt sich eine EU-Kommissarin für Wettbewerb ja zur Genüge aus.

Auch mit dem Regulieren kennt sich Margrethe Vestager aus, insbesondere im digitalen Bereich. Jens Henriksen hat die Chancen hervorgehoben, die eine Regulierung von sozialen Medien für Kinder und Jugendliche haben kann – sie hätten mehr Zeit für Gemeinschaft und das Erleben verschiedener Werte in einer vielfältigen Gesellschaft. Sowohl der schleswig-holsteinische Ministerpräsident als auch die dänische Ministerpräsidentin haben auf einen notwendigen Schutz von Kindern und Jugendlichen hingewiesen, vor dem Suchtpotential der sozialen Medien.

KI ist ein weiterer Bereich, der einer Regulierung bedarf, da KI unsere Gesellschaft und unsere Fähigkeit, selbstständig zu denken und nicht zuletzt Verantwortung zu übernehmen, untergraben kann. Diese Rede wurde ohne den Einsatz von KI verfasst. Daher ist es eine Rede, für die er die Verantwortung übernimmt und über die er tatsächlich selbst nachgedacht hat – auch wenn es, ich zitiere hier Jens Henriksen, vielleicht nicht so wirkt.

Er hat aber auch nach der Möglichkeit gefragt, Bereiche zu deregulieren, indem man Verantwortung wieder an Einrichtungen und Unternehmen zurückgibt. Das Argument für die Entbürokratisierung lautet typischerweise, dass dies die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Unternehmen verbessere. 

Jens Henriksen hat aber darauf hingewiesen, dass weniger Regulierungen uns allen – Bibliotheken und Universitäten, Museen und Schulen – die Chance gibt, uns auf das zu konzentrieren, was wir beitragen können: Gemeinschaft, Bildung, Wissensvermittlung. 

Er hat den Wunsch nach Handlungsorientierung geäußert. Die Anerkennung von Margrethe Vestager durch den Europa-Preise sieht er die Anerkennung einer Politikerin – und Kommissarin –, die etwas unternommen hat, die gehandelt hat. Margrethe Vestagers Handlungen – vielleicht aufgrund der Themen, der Höhen der Geldstrafen – haben für Gesprächsstoff gesorgt. Ihre Handlungen haben dazu beigetragen, der EU im digitalen Bereich ein eigenständiges Profil zu verleihen.

Handlungsfähigkeit ist notwendig. Der deutsche Bundespräsident, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, die „Initiative für einen handlungsfähigen Staat“ mitinitiiert. Hier wird darauf hingewiesen, dass viel Regulierung Politiker daran hindern, politische Maßnahmen umzusetzen. Die Regulierung ist auf die berechtigte Berücksichtigung von Anhörungen und den Schutz der an den Prozessen Beteiligten zurückzuführen, birgt aber auch die Gefahr einer größeren Unzufriedenheit mit den Politikern und – was am gefährlichsten ist – mit der Demokratie. 

Wir leben also in einer Zeit, in der eine größere Kompromissbereitschaft und eine offene Diskussion darüber erforderlich sind, wie viel wir regulieren wollen und was wir zu liberalisieren wagen. Es bedarf Tatkraft in im Vestager-Maßstab.

Als Chef einer Bibliothek möchte Jens Henriksen immer gerne ein Buch erwähnen – stellen Sie sich vor, wir würden alle mehr lesen? – und zwar das Buch Vestagers verden/Vestagers Welt über Margrethe Vestager. Hier sagt sie „Wir unterschätzen, wie wichtig es ist, engagiert und positiv an die Welt heranzugehen. Veränderungen kommen, wenn wir uns erheben und gemeinsam mit anderen handeln“. 

Jens Henriksen spricht Margrete Vestager seinen Dank dafür ausgesprochen, dass sie die Gemeinschaft hervorhebt und dafür, dass wir an ihrem Engagement erkennen können, dass es Sinn macht, an seine Sache zu glauben.