Bart 
De Wever

*** This speech was delivered on February 11 in Antwerp. Only the spoken word counts. ***

Madam President, Liebe Ursula,

Minister-President, Beste Matthias,

PM,s, Ministers,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a particular honour to welcome you back to my hometown Antwerp in our magnificent excellent stock exchange

A year ago, I stood here only a few weeks into my mandate as Prime Minister — still wet behind the ears. Today, I may be a little less wet. But I am certainly not less concerned.

In recent weeks, I have had intensive discussions with many leaders from industry — many of them are among us today. And frankly, those conversations were a cold shower. 

So again I felt wet behind the ears, but at least I know I have to keep my powder dry.

Last year, I said that Europe must never become a museum.

The birthplace of the Industrial Revolution cannot turn into a beautiful heritage park where visitors admire the prosperity of the past while the future is built elsewhere.

The follow-up report to the Antwerp Declaration by Deloitte shows that 83% of the pillars meant to strengthen our competitiveness have seen no progress — or even deterioration. When I say this, it is not an attack on the EU and certainly not on the President of the commission who works tirelessly but reality is what it is.

A recent report commissioned by Cefic on the chemical sector — the backbone of European industry — presents a chilling list of closures and declining investments. 

Over the past four years, announced closures in the European chemical industry increased sixfold, representing a loss of almost 10% of the European chemical production capacity.

In countries like ours, Germany, the Netherlands and France, the situation is simply dramatic at the brink of an existential crisis.

The reasons are well known: energy costs, competitiveness, regulation and Chinese dumping. 

We all know we must change course. 

We all know the direction. 

Yet, it sometimes feels as if we are still standing on the bridge of the ship, staring at the horizon, without touching the helm.

So today, this is a call to arms.

Let us take responsibility. No one else will do this for us. The people in this room will determine the future of European prosperity.

In my own country, I made three promises to industry: lower energy costs, more competitive labour costs, and simpler rules.

We reduced structural labour cost handicaps, introduced compensation mechanisms for energy-intensive companies, in which we used the new CISAF instrument, and screened dozens of regulatory requirements.

Flanders has also taken important steps to make permitting faster, more predictable and legally robust, potentially cutting lead times for major projects and increasing legal certainty for investors.

These are not miracle solutions. They are choices. And they show that progress is possible.

But the road ahead remains long.

*

Ladies and gentlemen,

If we want to talk about the future of our industry, we must first believe that our industry is the future.

A year ago, I was not convinced that this belief was widely shared. Today I am less sceptical – but belief must translate into action.

We must start from what is feasible, not from what is desirable. Everyone agrees on what we want. The real question is what is workable in practice to get there.

Pragmatism is not a compromise. It is a precondition for resilience.

Jacques Delors once said that the Single Market should serve a triangle: economy, technology and defence. 

Industry is the thread connecting these three.

Without industry, there is no technological leadership. Without technology, there is no defence capability. And without those two, there is no strategic autonomy.

If Europe neglects its industrial base, it does not only lose growth. It loses influence. And ultimately, it loses sovereignty.

And so we urgently require action on three fronts.

*

First:  We need to give industry room to grow, not rules that hold it back.

Carbon costs continue to rise, regardless of industrial growth. Definitions of what is “green” are sometimes so rigid that they slow down innovation rather than accelerate it. 

We need technological neutrality – including for hydrogen, carbon capture, nuclear energy and other transition technologies. We should judge solutions by results, not by labels.

On administrative simplification, cosmetic surgery will not be enough. We need shock therapy.

That means measurable commitments:  We must urgently accelerate the ambitious goal of reducing the administrative burden on all businesses by 35% within this mandate. With fewer reporting obligations. Faster permitting. One-stop-shops for strategic projects.

In addition, we must review all legislative proposals to assess their impact on competitiveness. Freezing existing legislation or scaling back new regulations should not be taboo in this regard.

Much has been said about the Letta and Draghi reports. Yet after one year, barely one in ten of Draghi’s recommendations has been implemented. 

And precisely in energy and digitalisation — two decisive domains — progress has been the slowest.

Meanwhile, the annual Compendium of Obstacles in the Single Market keeps getting thicker. We seem to be finding or adding barriers faster than we remove them.

Our labour productivity is already 20% lower than that of the United States. 

Today, in the European Union, over twice as many people work on implementing and monitoring rules than on innovative research. 

Let that sink in. 

1,7% of our workforce is busy inventing the technology of the future, to make our world more prosperous and more sustainable. 

But in the meantime, a whopping 3,9% of the workforce is spending its days managing regulations.

That is a horrific structural disadvantage we simply cannot afford.

We need an environment where our industry can move forward, not one where rules hold it back.

*

The second front where action is needed: We need partnerships that make us stronger, not dependencies that make us weaker.

We do not want a “Europe First”. And certainly not a “Europe Alone”. I prefer "made with Europe" as a slogan over "made in Europe". Let us not copy another man's stupidity.

Economic resilience does not mean isolation. It means strength through cooperation.

We live in a world increasingly shaped by power politics. The United States and China both pursue industrial strategies built on scale, speed and state support. They think in terms of winners and losers.

Europe has always believed in win-win. That remains our strength. But we must ensure that we do not turn out to be the losers.

In energy, for instance, we should not replace one dependency with another. In energy supply, critical raw materials, semiconductors, batteries and defence equipment, we must diversify supply chains and secure reliable partners with whom we can trade on a level playing field.

We cannot stand idly by while other countries such as China massively dump goods on our market, to the detriment of our businesses.

We really cannot continue to respond to this by setting up working groups and calmly considering new rules. No. This requires a coherent, flexible and, above all, decisive and assertive approach.

Industry today is also security policy. The war in Ukraine has reminded us that steel, chemicals, chips and energy are not abstract economic variables. They determine our capacity to defend ourselves.

Many partners are eager to work with us – ASEAN countries, India, Canada, Australia, Mercosur. 

We should move faster on trade agreements, strategic partnerships and supply chains. Not out of ideology, but out of necessity.

*

And the third and final front: We want businesses to invest here. Build here. Expand here.

Europe accounts for barely 5% of global venture capital. The United States attracts roughly ten times more. Too many of our scale-ups move abroad when they grow.

We are already behind at the starting line.

A true Savings and Investment Union is essential for the long term. But in the short term, we must urgently accelerate our efforts to bring in and grow new, critical and strategic projects on European soil.

The technological race is not a sprint; it is a hurdles race. New players can catch up, and leaders can stumble. Europe may be lagging, but we are still very much in the game.

We must actively attract and scale strategic projects: clean tech, defence manufacturing, advanced materials, AI, life sciences. Europe can make itself indispensable to build and expand such industries. 

Certainly if we also make a leap forward in integrating our European market. There are still so many barriers for trading services and goods in the EU. 

 

If we want to combine our need for investments with the ambition to create an ecosystem for sustainable technological innovation and economic growth, we need to bring down obstacles and capitalize on every opportunity.

*

Ladies and gentlemen,

Europe remains an attractive market – democratic, rules-based, free market-oriented, stable and respectful. The rest of the world envies us for our hundreds of millions of consumers and rich savings. They are surely watching us — some with goodwill, others with less benign intentions.

If we want economic resilience, strategic strength and sustainable prosperity, a strong industrial base is indispensable.

It is the key to prosperity. The key to power and influence to change the world for the better.

The momentum is now.

With the next Multiannual Financial Framework ahead of us, we must set priorities. Europe must stop trying to do everything, everywhere, all at once. 

There is a clear trinity of top priorities: innovation, productivity and competitiveness. That is where our focus must be. If not, the decarbonisation of Europe will become synonymous with its deindustrialisation, and eventually with its poverty and irrelevance.

It is up to us.

If we want Europe to matter in the world, our industry must matter first to us. Thank you.