Debate contributions by Christian EHLER

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, I think the privilege of the EPP is that Siegfried Mureşan has been laying down the policies of a united EPP. We're not advocating our little things; we're looking for a balanced budget, indeed looking for the clarity of the budget. We're granting, and we do think, that more of the same might not be the future. We have to grant flexibility, but we will ask the Commission to resist – while having that flexibility – that a common debt fund is refurbishing the old dreams of top-down steering, the 'super-bazooka', the top-down industry policy. This is not the way to go – neither in industry policy nor on the other funds. What we need is flexibility, but we need also the courage of the Commission that innovation needs to be designed by stakeholders. We have to have that openness and not this kind of top-down centralised theory. 'Yes' to efficiency, but 'no' to this dream of centralised steering of the European economy.

Madam President, Commissioners – and I use the gender neutral plural and very much welcome that we are talking to two Commissioners because the exercise we're going to undertake needs a collaborative effort from the Commission. I could also address DG ENER, where these days we are negotiating a low carbon hydrogen act, which will also be decisive for the chemical industry, and I hope it will help the ramp up for that. But let me briefly show you the broader picture. 23 February: BASF plans to close plants in Ludwigshafen. 23 February: Dyneon plans to close the whole plant in Gendorf. 23 August: Lanxess plans to fully close in Krefeld-Uerdingen. 24 July: BASF plans to close plants in Knapsack and Frankfurt. 24 October: Evonik plans to cut down plants in Hanau. 25 May: Bayer plans to close plants in Höchst. 21 July: Dow plans the complete shutting down of the Mitteldeutsches Chemiedreieck in Schkopau and Böhlen. And this is just Germany. Its dramatic and abstract figures don't help. We are in a process of dramatic deindustrialisation. That doesn't mean that we just talk about individual plans. These are a complete value change. These are the starting points, the trickle-down effect of a lot. I mean, France and French companies have been bravely investing in eastern Germany, but without basic chemical industry, this is not going to work, and we should understand that. That's not an excuse for not doing something for our climate ambition. That's not an excuse for this industry not needing to transform. But we should realise we're at the brink – or it might even be 12:05 – and that we are simply ruling out the industrial base of the chemical industry in Europe. And so, we highly appreciate what the two Commissioners – I would suppose it will be a more joint exercise in the future – have been announcing today. We welcome that. We think it's a coherent package. We think it's not easy for Commissioners to join in because there are environmental concerns and other issues. But, it is just a starting point. We have to keep a business case for the chemical industry in Europe right now, and this is massively questioned by the industry itself.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think Choose Europe for Science, the initiative announced by President von der Leyen, is an important signal for Europe and the world, but luckily it had been accompanied also by a press conference where the President had been announcing that there will be a stand‑alone research programme, which necessarily is the base for that ambition. I think we should also emphasise that this is not that we want to attract the most talented in the world, it is that we stand in also for the freedom of science. Much smaller programmes, like the programme for researchers at risk, are an expression for that stand-in. Yes, we want to be attractive for the world, but we also are the safe haven for researchers, women researchers in Afghanistan, researchers under pressure in other parts of the world – we are the safe haven for them. So it's both: our expression for excellence or ambition for excellence, but also our expression for standing in for the freedom of science. Basically, we all know that it's just going to work if we have a strong research programme. We can appeal to the world, but if we do not have a higher ambition in terms of research, it's not going to be attractive. What we need is, simply put, more money. The last programme had been designed for a budget of EUR 120 billion and we ended up with EUR 80 billion. So, research budgets are in constraints and that is in complete opposition to what our formulated ambition had been – that at least 3 % of the GDP of Europe should be allocated to research and innovation. So in a way, ambitions should follow also with the political courage to prioritise research and innovation in Europe. If I may conclude: now that the Commission and even the President have fully recognised the importance of science for the future of Europe, we also expect the Commission's proposal for FP10 to be a Commission which also chooses science for Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! Allow me to speak in German. Russia continues to finance its war machine through energy exports in the third year of the terrible war of aggression against Ukraine. Even though the Russian aGents of interest In this debate, too, we will try to argue differently. That is why it is important for Ukraine, and thus for the entire European Union, to drain this source of funding for Russia. I therefore also expressly welcome, on behalf of the EPP, the Commission's proposal to phase out Russian fossil energy in an orderly manner by 2028 at the latest. Point. However, as a long-standing member of this House, allow me to make a side note: Interestingly, the European Commission has always prevented us from terminating these imports by means other than sanctions, for example through trade defence instruments. Suddenly, this can also be done with the EU Parliament as the legitimate representative of EU voters – we, who have long been calling for the phasing out of Russian energy. And we know it has a price, and I say it as a German Member of Parliament. It has a price, as freedom always has a price. But one thing I would like to emphasize here: It will not be easy for all Member States to get rid of Russian imports within a very short time. While – and we will hear this again today – some countries here put forward certain reasons for political sympathy with Russia. It must be about this in the coming months, and you have also pointed out how to strike the best possible balance between the interests of individual Member States and the EU as a whole, without strengthening Russia and its President Putin in the war against Ukraine.

Perhaps an objectification after the apologists of doom will help. Mr President, Commissioner! We must... the proposals now on the table from the Commission are, I believe, an enrichment of CBAM, which is necessary, which is also good, and the de minimis rule will help many. But we still have to think a bit about the design of CBAM. So, of course, there is the question of what defines the extent to which CBAM offers protection for our industries in transformation? So we have to KPIs They also verify it a little bit. How do we measure and how do we measure the effect of CBAM? That, I think, is also a terminology that we need to think about. We have to think about it, that's the open question – of course we're looking at the Commission, I know you're working on it: We need to develop an export strategy. How do we deal with export products? That's how it is missing link throughout the whole story. And, of course, we have to ask ourselves at some point, and that, in my opinion, will also be a CBAM 2: How do we deal with downstream sectors, i.e. CBAM substances that are processed? So steel is steel, but how do we deal with white goods, with washing machines, etc. I believe that if we KPIs It is also plausible to have an automatism that is simply coupled to the functionality of the instrument. If the instrument works, let's take the allowances out. But we must also have a mechanism, so to speak, which proves that if we allowances In other words, the functionality of the instrument. And we could do that over KPIs do. And in this respect, we offer you cooperation and see this as the first important and good step in the right direction.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the next MFF must be a game changer for European industrial competitiveness. This begins with the understanding that competitiveness is the ability to compete in markets based on a combination of price and quality, so not picking winners and losers by state-driven industrial policy. To compete on price, Europe must level the global playing field where our industries face higher costs, such as from stricter environmental standards, or compete against state-subsidised rivals. However, even with a more level playing field, success requires higher productivity than elsewhere to further reduce costs. And Europe's only viable path to productivity gains and reducing costs is innovation and deepening the internal market. Innovation also drives quality improvement, which is the second leg of competitiveness. Therefore, for the next MFF, the priorities of ITRE are a standalone 10th framework programme for innovation with at least EUR 200 billion, a competitiveness fund to offset structural cost disadvantages, and thirdly, an internal market facility to deepen the internal market, building on the Connecting Europe Facility and the Single Market Programme.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let's end the discussion a little bit on a positive tone. I think there is some air of realism, and the energy-intensive industries are the core and the backbone of the European industries. On the other hand, decarbonisation is a generational task and it is also leading to new investments and it's also based on new technologies, and Europe needs that. On the other hand, we have to tackle the conflict of ambitions. Not all sustainability goals will be reached and that will be a painful discussion. So let's get much more practical from my point of view: we need more and faster permitting. We need affordable energy through market-based and smarter use of the mechanisms and in terms of infrastructure investments. We need more investments in decarbonisation. We have to care about the capital market in the Union. We have to care about additional proposals which we have been avoiding so far. We need CO2 storage. We need a realistic system to make it market based. We need to end the ideological discussion about hydrogen. We need practically all the hydrogen we can get. And I think the positive note that with the steel pact we got a realistic proposal on green hydrogen on the table will help the industries. So let's go back to business. Let's go back to reality. Let's understand that this is the core of our industry, and not get under another impression. America is not the best example for these industries.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. I believe that in difficult times today the Steel Act A good sign. However, when I see our friends from the AfD, whose populist friends in America are leading the world into a protectionist war, then you see what the industrial policy promises of the right mean internationally. When populists rule America, we plunge the world into a world trade war. I wonder what their politics looked like in reality. I don't want to imagine them. Last week, the Commission announced further measures. The Steel Safeguard will be further strengthened for the period up to the summer of 2026. The Commission’s commitment – and now it is becoming practical – to present low-carbon hydrogen rules in a practical and technology-neutral way is also indispensable as a signal for the steel industry and the metals location in Europe. I'm also pushing towards Mr. Eickhout. We hope that the support of all parties in Parliament will ensure that we are realistic. Delegated Acts Get it. The long-promised export solution for CBAM must be presented quickly and cast into law. The lead markets for green steel, which have been announced since 2020, must no longer remain political buzzwords. Here, too, we need concrete proposals, but we will also present them ourselves. Finally, we also need to work on the competitiveness of metalworking sectors. It does not help if steel jobs are maintained at the expense of the manufacturing industry. But that means a new realism. I think that's the starting point today.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! After 100 days of the new Commission, it is clear: The Commission is delivering – under the heading of competitiveness – what the Commissioner is addressing today is what we have been cautiously addressing here for five years: business case for the Green Deal?" 14 000 pages of regulation, 900 delegated acts still ahead of us. And now we are discussing: ‘What is the business case for the European economy?” And we will also have to deal with difficult trade-offs across parties in unpleasant discussions – and without those who make themselves comfortable in the ideological trenches. So how do we deal with the trilemma of competitiveness, climate protection, environment, sustainability? What do we address? The interests of European citizens, our economic foundations? We will have to get out of the ideological trenches. We need to discuss standards. We must now translate these 14 000 pages into 900 delegated acts in such a way that we do not stifle the European economy, but do not lose sight of the generational goal of climate change. We will have to give up rhetorical positions, we will have to move towards each other, otherwise the competitiveness of the European economy and the lack of competitiveness of the European economy will achieve all the objectives that we have differently for citizens, for the environment, for climate protection, for the economy, for small and medium-sized enterprises – we will not achieve them all together, because the economic performance of the European economy is the basis for the sovereignty of Europe, for our civil societies, for the question of our geopolitical role and also the question of our security. That is why I call on the Commissioner to implement it now. There is no one fits all. We need sectoral talks. We do not have to talk about the European economy, but about the economy – this is permanent. We need to find other forms of regulation, of implementation, as we have done so far. If the Clean industrial deal is a first step in this direction, it is a right step – but it is also only a first step.

Madam President, this is not the usual comment of a rapporteur highlighting his sunny personality. This is a decisive vote of this Parliament. This is about whether we are going to have a framework programme, an independent research framework programme, in the future or not. Whether it's squeezed into an absurd idea of an all-in-all competitiveness programme, which is squeezing together 35 years of independent research policies. The committee had been clearly committing to that, and that's the second shot for the Commission today, because the Warsaw Declaration – the unanimous declaration of all research ministers in Warsaw – had been saying no to that endeavour. We need an independent program. It has a mid-term, a long-term perspective. It must be open, it must be blue sky. It's not an instrument to have a seamless possibility to shift money from A to B. So vote for that and we will have a vivid discussion with the Commission on that.

Mr President! Ladies and Gentlemen! With the compass for a competitive EU, I believe we have, for the first time, an instrument that gives us a direction to navigate through the storm we are in. The poster boy of the right plunges the world into a new protectionism. With massive subsidies, China is leading to distortions of competition in global markets that threaten our economy. We have a dilemma that we have a Green Deal have begun, whose climate protection goals and sustainability goals are correct, but for which we are currently business case Missing. I believe that the announcements of the compass on simplification and cutting red tape are all promises that we must deliver on to the European economy. They also have a psychological aspect because our societies feel that they are over-descriptively regulated and that this is a burden beyond the pecuniary burden for entrepreneurs. I believe we must also ensure that this course is followed in the implementation of existing legislation. If we look vertically, what is in a Battery Delegated Act? What is in Low Carbon Delegated Act? Then we see that these are non-economic, ideological implementing provisions. We need to be careful that it really leads us in the direction of our common goals. When it comes to competitiveness, we urgently need to answer the question: Are we talking about competitiveness or are we talking about sovereignty? We have to ask ourselves: We must capacities hold up? That's what we did with the Chips Act We did that with him. Raw Materials Act made. But we also have to ask ourselves: What is really competitiveness? Competitiveness is literally the competitiveness of industries, that is productivity. We have also taken the first steps in this direction. Indeed, we have now finally started to create framework conditions in the internal market, to reduce transaction costs, to remove barriers to market access – what we are good at: market. But I want to give a warning. This dream of a super instrument, a super compact fund, this centrally managed super-tool to structure European industry is something that we as the EPP will not support.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! After all, I admire the intellectual frugality that is needed, so to speak, to read to us. I don’t think we have heard the gunshot – and not all of them. Yes, we are talking about the erosion of the industrial base of one of the key industries in Europe, and we are talking about the fact that we are not meeting the 55% targets, so to speak – and that should make us concerned together. We don't have any at the moment, so to speak. Business case for the steel industry in the market, which is constantly flooded with unfair subsidy practices, which is steadily losing competitiveness in global competition due to ever-increasing costs and which is not supported in the implementation of the Green Deal. Yes, IPCEI approvals sometimes take two years. I think we are not even so different in our views – we have to do something about it. And the Steel action plan etc. – I mean, dear God! We need to take immediate action now. We need to take a close look at the tariff quota for imported steel; it needs to be reduced, and we need to think about how we canafeguard clauses apply. More country-specific import quotas are needed to cope with global import pressure. We need an anti-dumping and anti-subsidy process that is being vigorously pursued, so to speak. These are also not easy solutions within the WTO. It is also not only done with immediate measures. In the next few months and years, we will finally have a Business case for the European steel industry. This means that we have to take care of access to sufficient and cheap energy, for example through the expansion of the electricity grid, but also, for example, through the question ‘What constitutes, so to speak, cheap energy in the future?’. We have to deal with the question of how to get a scaled hydrogen ramp-up faster. We have to end this color discussion, because the goal is a common one. But we simply do not have a single steel company in Europe that has a contract It has hydrogen. We need green lead markets – we need to think about, so to speak, how we can create green lead markets. And in this respect, this is not a marginal task, but a task that we tackle together, but which cannot be solved with these HContent papers.