Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis participated in a conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron, in the context of an event organized by the newspaper “Kathimerini” on the theme “Challenges for Europe – The Way Ahead,” at the Roman Agora in Athens. The discussion was moderated by the Executive Editor of “Kathimerini” Alexis Papachelas. The Prime Minister’s remarks follow:
In his opening remarks, referring to the role Europe can play on the world stage, the Prime Minister noted:
First of all, thank you for this invitation, Mr. Papachelas, and thank you, Emmanuel, for accepting to have this debate in this very unique location. And I think this debate and your question is particularly relevant at a time when indeed there is concern about the ability of the European Union to react to the changing geopolitical tectonic plates.
But I would agree with the President that this challenge also presents a unique opportunity for Europe, and we should not forget that Europe was forged through a series of crises. The progress of the European Union was never linear. You had periods of rapid change, and then you had periods where not much happened.
And I do believe that this is a time where it is really an opportunity for us to step up on two fronts. The first one is put more substance to this concept of strategic autonomy. I would argue that France and Greece have been at the forefront of this discussion. And when you look at the defence agreement that was signed in 2021, it was essentially the first clear demonstration of what we mean by “cooperating at scale”. It was just the two of us at the time. And of course, we will renew this agreement tomorrow.
But I think there’s a greater understanding that we need to take more ownership when it comes to defence. That means spending more, but also being smarter in terms of how we spend, achieving scale, while at the same time also encouraging our defence startup ecosystem to really flourish at a time when the theatre of war is completely changing.
And, of course, the second challenge is to strengthen our competitiveness. The Draghi report, which was read by all of us and applauded by all of us, I think presents a pretty accurate diagnosis of the problems but also the opportunities that we have as a united continent.
We’re a big market, we’re a big trade power, we can do much more at scale, but we need to address issues related to the single market, we need to address issues related to energy. We have a completely fragmented energy market. We need to be much more competitive when it comes to energy. We need to move from words to actions when it comes to the Savings and Investments Union, mobilise private capital in order to invest in our economy.
I would argue that at the European Council there is a general understanding that these are accepted principles, so now we need to move from agreeing to what we need to do, to actually implementing these policies.
And I think that the next years are really going to be make or break for Europe. And we had a discussion already today regarding the new budget, how much money can we actually commit to these ambitious goals. I think we will have a difficult discussion to convince our fiscally conservative friends in the European Union that we need to also mobilise European resources, not just national resources, to implement these goals.
But let me conclude my first remarks by saying that we had a similar discussion in 2020 when many countries, I remember Angela Merkel was against the NextGenerationEU until she changed her mind and she realised that this is really the time to mobilise European resources to address these challenges.
So I think we have our work cut out for us over the next months, but I remain quite optimistic that at this inflexion point, Europe has a much more important role to play, and this is something which is understood both by the European Council, I think it’s also understood by the European Parliament. It is understood by the Commission. But, of course, Europe does not always move at the speeds that many people expect, but when it does move, it can move big.
When asked about the issue of excessive regulation in Europe, whether it could hinder competitiveness, and whether politicians can communicate with citizens to address their problems, Kyriakos Mitsotakis stated:
Well, first of all, let me just build upon what Emmanuel said in terms of regulation, because it’s also an indirect answer to what you just asked me. The “28th regime”, the idea that you can have one legal construct applicable to startups through which they can operate in the entire European Union was a recommendation by Enrico Letta, something which was enthusiastically supported by us and will become a reality very soon. This is an example, I would say, of smart deregulation, but also regulation at the European level.
I have been a big proponent of picking our regulatory battles smartly vis-à-vis the U.S. And I absolutely agree with Emmanuel, two areas of great focus: the first is the protection of children and teenagers from social media and from addictive scrolling.
I expect that the momentum that has been built at the national level will also be transposed to the European level very soon. I think we need to send a very clear signal also to the big tech companies that there are certain things which are off limits, that they cannot make money from capturing our children’s attention, because we know this is detrimental to their mental health.
And the second battle which we will fight is preserving the public space. When people debated in ancient Athens, even then you had fake news, you had rumours, you had to manage the challenges of populism. But what is happening now is clearly getting out of control.
So, having proper rules in terms of the public sphere, even in terms of anonymity, addressing the problem of artificial intelligence and the deepfakes which are already present in our debate, this is going to be a big challenge for all of us, especially those of us who will have elections in the future.
Now, coming to your question, I think that we need to be aware and lucid in terms of what the people are telling us is their main concern. If their main concern is affordability, which it is, the high level of prices, we need to frame our debate through that lens. And we need to explain to people that by improving competitiveness, this means better-paying jobs; that free trade means lower prices; that having a functioning market will promote European well-being to the point where we can continue to finance our unique European welfare state.
So, I think you’re right in terms of not making these debates very technical and not using the traditional Brussels language. And to explain to people why, for example, a free trade agreement can be good for our olive oil producers, because we are opening up the markets -in India, for example, and it will promote exports this way. Why supporting the startup ecosystem will mean bringing back French people or Greek, young Greeks from the US to actually work and build foundational AI models in Europe, because this means better wages, more productivity.
So, making this connection about what improving productivity means between the macro performance and what this means for everyday people, it’s critical. We’ve discussed this at the Council. When we talk about productivity, it doesn’t mean anything. People are struggling today with prices, and the answer to that is better wages, lower taxes. But you can only do that if you improve the productivity.
When asked about the disagreement between France and Germany regarding the development of a new generation European fighter aircraft (FCAS) and the broader delays and reservations within the EU, the Prime Minister stated:
We’re not building any fighters. We’re just buying them. We’d just like to participate more in this project.
But this is a pretty good example of streamlining our purchases, getting better prices. Having Greek shipyards contribute, and they can contribute more. I think it is a very good example of what we mean by streamlining standards and by obtaining economies of scale.
You mentioned the example of Airbus, and I think it’s a correct one. The problem is that our merger rules were simply looking at the single market. So we tried to prevent companies from becoming too big to take an advantage vis-à-vis other European players. This logic is completely outdated these days, in certain sectors at least. You remember there was a famous train merger that never happened because the European Commission at the time felt that it was a threat to the single market.
But now we’re competing with powerhouses – China, which is, as the President said, heavily subsidising a series of sectors and is expanding in high-end manufacturing. And we should be perfectly lucid that the combination of AI and robotics at the scale at which it’s happening in China is a colossal threat to our entire manufacturing sector, not just the sectors where the Chinese are competing now. So we need to be aware of that.
So change the merger rules and be more generous with European champions. For example, I mean, we are a medium-sized country. When Euronext came and wanted to buy our stock market, you know, the opinion of the government was positive because we understand that we need to be part of bigger companies in order to achieve scale.
And when it comes to the next generation fighter, I really do hope that you will find a way to sort it out with the Germans, because it seems inconceivable to me, because we want to be part of this project, that we will be faced with a choice of choosing between two 6th generation fighters. We don’t have the luxury in Europe to do that. So I have full confidence in Emmanuel (Macron) and Friedrich (Merz), because Ι know they take this very seriously. You know, there are companies, of course, there’s Airbus, there’s Dassault, not always very easy to deal with, but I really think we need to twist their arm. We have to have one 6th generation fighter.
Referring to defence spending and the mutual assistance clause in the EU, Kyriakos Mitsotakis stressed:
And if I may add, there’s also a political, a deep political dimension to this. I think President Trump, in his own way, was right back in 2017 when he said that Europe is not doing enough when it comes to defence. Greece was probably an exception in terms of our spending as a percentage of GDP for our own national reasons. But the truth is that we are spending much more now.
But there is an additional dimension that goes beyond the industrial cooperation, and this has to do with our commitment to support European allies in case of a possible threat. What we did in Cyprus was a game changer, because essentially we responded to a request by a member state which was attacked, and essentially we operationalised Article 42, Paragraph 7 of the treaties, which is an article no one spoke about until a few years ago.
We have a mutual assistance clause in our treaties, and this is our European responsibility. We never spoke about it because we thought that NATO would always do the job. And of course, NATO is there, and Article 5 is a credible deterrent. But what about those countries that are not members of NATO, such as Cyprus?
So this is an opportunity to also send a signal that we need to take this Article much more seriously. We need to look at the Cypriot lesson, think about what could happen in another case, have exercises in terms of what it would mean if we were again to offer support to a European country under threat.
So this is a political statement that we don’t just rely on NATO. We’re both of us NATO members, but we don’t just rely on NATO, but there is also a stronger European dimension. And by the way, I think this is also good for NATO. I think rebalancing the relationship with the US inevitably will be the result of a stronger Europe. Otherwise, the relationship is going to be lopsided and we will be eventually pushed around without being able to assert and defend our own positions.
When asked about Europe’s relations with the U.S. and China, and whether Europe can deal with China without the U.S., the Prime Minister said:
I’ll take a slightly different approach. We’ve had this debate at the European Council numerous times, whether the current US administration is essentially a continuation of previous administrations which had already sent us clear signals that they were putting American interests as the absolute first priority, or whether it is something rather unique that could possibly change in the future. Ι happen to believe that at the end of the day, values, historical bonds do matter and history is important. And the fact that the transatlantic relationship has endured and has created essentially the post-World War II order, which has been to the benefit of both the US and Europe, has left is certainly something that we cannot easily discard.
And I also do believe that the threat from China in terms of its ability to take over at a very fast speed sectors and put our own industrial base under pressure is a very real threat. So I do see potential for further win-win cooperation with the US, even if this seems difficult and complicated under the current administration.
But I also absolutely agree that we need to decide which are the key sectors where we need to commit serious public and private capital if we want to preserve our competitiveness and our strategic autonomy.
We have not spoken about energy, but I do think that energy is absolutely critical for the well-being of our industry. You just look at the energy prices now. It is impossible for Europe and European industry to be competitive with these prices. Of course, we know the story. We were dependent on Russian gas. It was convenient, especially for some countries, but this is no longer the case. So we have to be quite realistic and ruthlessly pragmatic in terms of where we need to invest.
I participated in a conference organised by Emmanuel on nuclear. It is inconceivable -and we are not a country that has civilian nuclear capabilities- but when I look at Europe and I look at our ability to produce electricity cheaply, I see a combination of renewables and baseload power. And if we want to de-risk from natural gas, which we cannot produce at scale in Europe, and of course we want to move away from coal -which we have already done, by the way, in Greece- the only solution is to invest in nuclear. And we had nuclear. France built, you know, tens of nuclear reactors, but we stopped at some point.
So these are the sort of choices that we need to make, and we need to place some big bets. We cannot be all over the place. And this is just one example of those sectors: quantum space, a certain dimension of AI, because it’s difficult maybe to compete with the foundational models.
When asked whether EU-U.S. relations would return to “business as usual” if a more “predictable” U.S. President were elected in the upcoming elections, Kyriakos Mitsotakis pointed out:
Yes, I do agree and I think we need to also be aware that the world is not just Europe, the US, and China. Look at the opportunities we have in terms of establishing a partnership with India. Look at the role we can play -Emmanuel alluded to this in his introductory comments- in the Gulf, where we are seen now as credible partners at a time when these countries cannot trust the US in the same way that they did maybe two months ago.
Potential to team up with countries such as Canada, Australia, the democracies of Southeast Asia. So there is a story there which does not leave us alone, “it’s just Europe, the US, and China”, but forge these sorts of partnerships which are based on principles and interests, of course. It’s based on free trade, on rule of law, on freedom of navigation, what a critical topic now, and so important for us as a leading maritime nation.
So I think we have the opportunity to also look beyond what is happening within Europe and to establish new strong alliances, which will create a de facto more multipolar world with different poles of different strength. But this is an important dimension that we need to work on.
When asked what he would change about the European Union if he could make just one change, the Prime Minister replied:
It may seem trivial and mundane to come back to topics that we have discussed, the answers are all in the Draghi report.
One thing? Energy. Making sure that we have a true energy union with low prices for energy across the Union, invest in grids, invest in renewables, invest in nuclear, and make sure that we have competitive energy for industry.
When asked to name one reason why we can be optimistic about the future of Europe, Kyriakos Mitsotakis noted:
Ιf I were to put you on a plane and you would not know the destination, you would land in any European capital. You would immediately understand that you’re in Europe. And there’s something about our way of life that makes us attractive. Why do people want to come to Europe? Of course, there are issues of ensuring that our way of life is sustainable. We have a generous social model. We have free healthcare. We have less inequality. We still have more than we should, but we have less inequality than the US or even possibly China. So we like what we have. We’re happy in Europe with the European way of life. It’s just a question of making sure that this European way of life is sustainable.
I’ve been at the Council, Emmanuel has been there for nine years, I’ve been there for seven years. We’ve taken massive decisions: Covid, NextGenerationEU, Ukraine. Ukraine would not have been in a position it is now, if it were not for European support. It would have lost the war if it were not for Europe. The same may be true for the US, but it is certainly true for Europe.
So we have taken very important decisions and we just need to learn from the major historical figures. And when the time comes and when the crisis hits and when we understand that we don’t have time, we take the right decisions.
And I’m sure this will happen again at the negotiations regarding the next Multiannual Financial Framework and the financial capabilities. We have to implement all the ambitious agenda we spoke about today.
