Debate contributions by Kris VAN DIJCK

Mr President, Commissioner, at this very late hour, I would like to bring one more thing to your attention. The Draghi report is very clear: Europe needs to make informed strategic choices in the sectors and value chains that determine our competitiveness and autonomy. Semiconductors and biotechnology are very important, but not enough. Circularity and real energy autonomy, including nuclear energy, electrification and clean heat and energy molecules should become the pillars of Europe's industrial future. These areas need to be continuously strengthened through research. I would therefore like to make a very clear call: the 10th Framework Programme for Research and Innovation should be substantial. It's more than worth his money. I would like to call for at least EUR 200 billion to be made available for this purpose, and at least EUR 15 billion for technological infrastructures. It is time to make the right budgetary choices.

Let China sleep, because when China wakes up, the whole world will tremble. Commissioner, Napoleon Bonaparte taught us this more than 200 years ago, but with the help of the West, China has become a giant that is now using its dominant position to put pressure on our economy and our industry through export restrictions on critical raw materials and technologies. I am not calling for the decoupling of trade relations, but for much stronger action by the EU. The tools at our disposal today, both internally and externally, are too slow and reluctant. New trade agreements with new countries and unity in our policies are essential to reduce China's looming influence on other continents. A more assertive and consistent trade and industrial policy to secure its own strategic autonomy is the only answer to China's power-thinking. In this way, we can remain reliable partners and become a powerful opponent.

Mr President, the completion of our European single market is absolutely crucial for growth and strategic resilience. Due to insufficient integration in areas such as digital services, energy and capital, the EU remains overly dependent on external actors. The cost of the fragmented internal market is also too high. We are talking about the trade deal with the United States, but the IMF calculated that the cost of the barriers within the internal market corresponds to a trade rate of 45 % for goods and 110 % for services. We need to unleash our own economic potential, with ambition, structural reforms and cooperation between Member States to overcome the obstacles. Nevertheless, I would also like to warn, Minister, Commissioner, that these reforms could be hijacked by national interests and tailored to the big Member States with the deepest pockets. We should avoid that. Completion should benefit everyone, businesses and consumers.

Mr President, several large petrochemical companies have recently announced closures, investment breaks and layoffs in Europe. I've been hearing big words and combative speeches for quite some time now. Words, words, words, but concrete European actions are not forthcoming. Or worse: EU rules frustrate the business case of new investments. Take the example of chemical recycling where plastic waste is processed into raw materials for the chemical industry. It is a fine example of circular technology, but some technologies are apparently not green enough for the EU. So what is the conclusion? Going back to landfilling, burning or investing in the circular economy outside the EU? That's too crazy for words, isn't it? So here is a strong call to the Commission: Take action, embrace technology neutrality and stop discouraging investment. Please let go of your dogmas.

Mr President, Commissioner, today our policy is still going too far wrong. I regret that. Firstly, we need to realise that a transition that is necessary is not going to happen from today to tomorrow. Copenhagen was not built in one day. But don’t let ‘best’ stand in the way of ‘better’. Fnuik, for example, the business case for blue hydrogen not through restrictive regulation that only embraces green hydrogen. Second, embrace technology neutrality. The industry is begging for it. I would also like to reiterate my call for a stable policy framework for nuclear energy. Investors want clarity on this. Thirdly, safeguard the level playing field in the internal market. The relaxation of state aid rules is detrimental to small Member States. Finally, many investments in decarbonisation are now delayed by the strict regulatory framework. I hear it every day and it costs nothing. Meeting these four points, Commissioner, will support an investment in clean technology.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am pleased that there is a realisation that investment in research and innovation is an absolute necessity for our competitiveness. I am also proud that Flanders is a frontrunner in this and even expresses the ambition to evolve from 3.5% to 5% of GDP. The average in the European Union is now around 2.2%, which is far from sufficient. Our productivity suffers. In this way, we cannot compete globally and we risk losing prosperity. So it is good that the Commission is taking action. But allow me, Commissioner, to make three important points: 1) Don't let go of basic research. This puts European competitiveness at risk in the long term; 2) maintain the very valuable bottom-up approach in the Marie Curie programme. Political guidance is not desirable; 3) pay attention to regulating academic freedom, because the only framework for protecting academic freedom is that there is no framework. Conclusion: Choosing research and innovation is choosing the future.

Mr President, the announcement by the US President about the new trade tariffs has undeniably caused a major shockwave worldwide, including here in the EU. In a short period of time, we have moved from a rules-based trade policy to a trade policy based on power and shamelessly used as a means of pressure. I call on the Commission, above all, to keep a cool head and to negotiate constructively and confidently. As mentioned above, a zero-for-zero tariff on industrial goods and rapid customs clearance are a win-win for both parties. Above all, as an EU, we must not allow ourselves to be dismantled or ourselves to erect walls that are too high without thought. Let's not forget one thing: From both a historical and an economic point of view, high trade tariffs always return to the sender as a boomerang. Let's prevent that.

Mr President, our industry is losing the competitive battle. The text before us is therefore not sufficient. Too little, but hopefully not too late. We have to keep going and be realistic. The phasing out of the free CO2Emissions allowances for European industry are currently too high a risk that we cannot afford without a well-functioning system for taxing what comes from outside the EU. Furthermore, the principle of technology neutrality must be upheld not only in words but also in deeds. We need to move away from ideology and give market-driven innovation every opportunity. In addition, protective measures are needed, but no mandatory ‘buy European’ clause should be added. After all, this would lead to skyrocketing costs for consumers and businesses. Finally, the level playing field in the internal market needs to be ensured. If we do not do this, it will be disastrous for the small Member States. Let's put all our sails together for our industry.

Mr President, Commissioner, the cost of energy in the EU is too high, and that is why citizens and our businesses are suffering. So the question is: "how do we make this energy cheaper, while we also need more and more electricity?" I follow the Commission when it comes to realising the Energy Union and, among other things, better connecting the European grid. What am I missing in this note? That is the place of nuclear energy, even in the short term, which is certainly affordable, efficient and clean. The price of electricity is determined by the most expensive production. It needs to be replaced and that is not done by shutting down nuclear power plants. Let me give you an example: in February, a Belgian family and a Belgian SME paid 50% more for electricity than a French family or a French SME. And yes, where's the difference, do you think? I therefore urge you, Commissioner, to stop the ideological bias that is costing Europeans a lot of money and to look at the full system cost of every technology.

Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the agreement with Mercosur with open arms, because it is not only the largest trade agreement the EU has ever concluded, but it is also important for three reasons. At a time when US President Trump is imposing tariffs on our steel and aluminium, it is high time to tap into new markets and not leave that area to China alone. Secondly, it confirms our belief in free, rules-based trade and gives oxygen to our businesses. Finally, the agreement does offer opportunities to improve working conditions and the fight against climate change. But I also understand the concerns of our farmers when it comes to possible increased competition. It is therefore clear to us that there must be agreements for this, that there must be continuous monitoring, that European safety and health standards must also count for their products and, ultimately, that there can be a support package if necessary. In this way, we believe in this agreement with Mercosur.

Mr President, Commissioner, it has taken us a pandemic to realise how crucial the continuity of the chip supply is. With the European Chips Act, we have focused on research and development, something that is crucial for a knowledge region and open economy like Flanders, where I come from. But after the measures taken by the Americans, we must first make it clear to them that our internal market is one and indivisible, like theirs, and that we are presenting ours as a common force. Therefore, let's use the Trade and Technology Council, which we co-founded in 2021, as a forum to strengthen our transatlantic partnership and jointly define AI standards. On the other hand, this is another wake-up call for us to continue investing in technological leadership. This means strengthening the capital market and taking on an indispensable role in the value chain. Examples such as Imec in Flanders and ASML in the Netherlands prove that we can.

Mr President, Commissioner, the EU urgently needs a merger policy based on facts and science rather than dogmas, which is now often affecting our policy. A realistic policy adapted to today's geopolitical context, with key drivers such as energy security, security and affordability. Let's be clear: Nuclear fusion is of a completely different order than nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion requires less fuel and produces less waste. That is why I call on the Commission, firstly, to stop the dismantling of the JET tokamak in Culham. It is the most efficient reactor and it is located on the European continent. He is the key to the success of the ITER in Cadarache. Secondly, I call on the Commission to encourage and fund fusion research, even wider than ITER, and to ensure a stable framework that attracts private investment. The EU must not miss the fusion train, of which we are the locomotive. I therefore call for our scientists to be able to carry out research and development on European soil. We must not let years of investment go to waste and we must no longer hold on to outdated views. Finally, let go of naivety. A robust fusion policy in addition to a repositioning of nuclear fuel for electricity production in the short term is not a choice, but a necessity.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner. Climate change alone is not the culprit. However, the lack of attention to its impact on competitiveness, industry and transport. The cost of overregulation is enormous. Graydon calculated that 30% of our companies are threatened by the reporting obligations of the ESG criteria. European legislation is too detailed, too coercive and often incoherent. Today we are discussing the impact of the Green Deal. But wouldn't we have done it more thoroughly and in a more balanced way at first? At least let it be a lesson for the future. And that is why, Commissioner, this committee must make much better impact assessments before a legislative proposal is launched, which also carry out assessments at Member State and state level, and thirdly, take into account the cumulative impact of all that legislation. Finally, I call for policy to be based on scientific knowledge, not ideology, as in the case of nuclear energy, for example. Then you have an ally in us.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all have a crushing responsibility to increase our competitiveness. The problems are known. And let's be honest: the solutions as well. We urgently need to reduce the regulatory burden with excessive reporting obligations. We have to make haste with an Industrial Deal that should already have been there together with the Green Deal. We need to invest more and better in research and development, so we need to be smarter about the EU budget. We need to complete the single market with a single capital market – which offers huge opportunities. But I also want to warn, because for me, more investment does not equate to European taxes. After all, I come from a country with no less than fifty percent government seizures. And enough is enough. Activate the money of the European saver. Let those euros pay off here in Europe. The EU should not only braindrain against it, but also the money drain, to the United States, among others. This is how we build a prosperous Europe on our own.

Mr President, Commissioner, I come from a country that does not have raw materials, but does have a brain. This is the best human capital. What applies to Flanders applies to a large extent to the whole of Europe. However, PISA results show us time and time again that the study results of our young people do not improve. On the contrary. We must therefore call on our Member States – not to replace them, but to call on and support them – to fundamentally improve the quality of our education and bring it to excellence. To achieve this, we must strive for excellence, with a focus on knowledge transfer among children and schoolchildren. We need to give teachers and educators the space to do their work: teaching. We need to use modern digital technologies in all training. We need universities to cooperate and exchange, for example with the Erasmus+ programme, across borders. We have to make technical education and art education fertilize each other. We must provide researchers and scientists in the EU with the necessary framework and infrastructure so that they do not leave. We must not allow projects in which we have invested a lot of money to bleed to death as long as there are results, as is now the case with the JET fusion reactor. Good education is the foundation for a strong Europe.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, our industry is not doing well: redundancies, company closures and large companies announcing that they are no longer investing in Europe. The energy cost and the multiplicity of rules are the well-known culprits. The legs of prosperity are being sawn away under our chair. I heard a call for action here. Well, here is an appeal to our European Council with a handful of concrete actions: One: reduce the regulatory burden and the reporting obligation associated with it. That doesn't cost anything. On the contrary, it relieves our companies and gives them breathing space to innovate and invest. Adopt the standard of feasibility and affordability in legislation for citizens and businesses. Strengthen our internal market, including in transport, energy and services. Ensure a level playing field within the internal market and stop easing state aid, which is detrimental to small countries. Finally: rediscover the nuclear possibilities. In addition to the existing nuclear park, new developments also offer prospects for sustainability, affordability and security. It's five to twelve.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am addressing the Commission in particular. Finding an inexhaustible, nature-friendly energy source is, in my opinion, the great challenge for humanity. The JET reactor, the Joint European Torus in Culham, UK, started as a European project, is of great importance for the development of nuclear fusion. This experiment is hopeful. It is true, however, that the United Kingdom became the owner of the JET reactor after Brexit and recently decided to stop it. In this way, a lot of know-how and a lot of investments are at risk of being lost. Moreover, we risk losing essential knowledge needed for the new project we know within Europe as the ITER project in Cadarache. I would like to expressly call on the Commission to enter into urgent consultations with the United Kingdom to ensure that the JET project is not abandoned.