Now on competitiveness, obviously we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008 the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now that to me is a remarkably big picture, big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the magnificent seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies. Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and of course also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today with the war going on in Europe. We face, and I know that everybody knows that now, we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves, and the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies: COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world. And we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jakob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on, but we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves. So we know exactly what we have to do. And my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting, but this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US you have a US agenda. In China it's no more Chinese preference. It's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time, you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach. And what we are doing on steel for instance is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means reindustrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal. I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why not only for him today the United States, Canada, Brazil is radically more attractive than Europe, and we have to be frank to each other with this. And as you know, we have no time. In the next few, not years but months, it will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structural cost of energy, too high. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. Important is on energy that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources from nuclear to renewable because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors etc. That is already on the table proposed by the Commission. On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe, the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road. The simplification in the defense sector where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level, what the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please. And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and believe in the importance of what we are doing on steel for instance is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness, obviously we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008 the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the magnificent seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies. Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and of course also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face, and I know that everybody knows that now, we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War, hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves. And the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies, COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world, and we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on, but we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves. So we know exactly what we have to do. And my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference. It's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time, you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach. And what we are doing on steel for instance is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means reindustrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal. I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why not only for him today the United States, Canada, Brazil is rather radically more attractive than Europe, and we have to be frank to each other with this. And as you know, we have no time. In the next few, not years but months, it will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structural cost of energy, too high. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. Important is on energy that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources from nuclear to renewable because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors etc. That is already on the table proposed by the Commission. On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level. Of course, in close cooperation with NATO, but because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe, the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road. The simplification in the defense sector where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment because when we look at simplification, we are all agreed we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level, what the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please. And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and believe in the importance of what we are doing on steel for instance is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness, obviously we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008 the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the magnificent seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies. Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and of course also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face, and I know that everybody knows that now, we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War, hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves. And the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies, COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world, and we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on, but we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves. So we know exactly what we have to do. And my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference. It's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time, you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach. And what we are doing on steel for instance is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means reindustrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal. I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why not only for him today the United States, Canada, Brazil is rather radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. And as you know, we have no time. In the next few, not years but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structural cost of energy, too high. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. Important is on energy that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources from nuclear to renewable because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors etc. That is already on the table proposed by the Commission. On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level. Of course, in close cooperation with NATO, but because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe, the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road. The simplification in the defense sector where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level, what the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please. And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and believe in the importance of what we are doing on steel for instance is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness, obviously we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the magnificent seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So, Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies. Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and of course also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face, and I know that everybody knows that now, we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War, hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves. And the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies, COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world, and we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on, but we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves. So we know exactly what we have to do. And my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting, but this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference. It's a Chinese exclusivity. Sometimes in Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time, you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach. And what we are doing on steel for instance is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armaments. Armaments means steel. Steel means reindustrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal. I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why not only for him today the United States, Canada, Brazil is radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. And as you know, we have no time. In the next few, not years but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structural cost of energy, too high. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. Important is on energy that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources from nuclear to renewable because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors etc. That is already on the table proposed by the Commission. On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe, the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road. The simplification in the defense sector where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level, what the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please. And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and believe in the importance of what we are doing on steel for instance is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the magnificent seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies. Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and of course also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face, and I know that everybody knows that now, we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War, hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves. And the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies, COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world, and we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on, but we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves. So we know exactly what we have to do. And my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting, but this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US you have a US agenda. In China it's no more Chinese preference. It's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach. And what we are doing on steel for instance is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today is exactly what we have to do sector by sector because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow I think everybody here will agree is security. And security means armaments. Armament means steel. Steel means reindustrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal. I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why not only for him today the United States, Canada, Brazil is radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. And as you know, we have no time. In the next few, not years but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structural cost of energy, too high. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic.
I could go very long on the energy topic. What is important on energy is that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources, from nuclear to renewable, because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know, our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan, which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors, etc. That is already on the table, proposed by the Commission.
On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe, the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road. The simplification in the defense sector, where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment, because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level where the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please.
And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and belief in the importance of what we are doing on steel, for instance. That is a very important point because this is just protecting our... it's not protectionism, this is part of this re-synchronization.
I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, a big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the Magnificent Seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So, Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies.
Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and, of course, also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face — and I know that everybody knows that — now we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves. And the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies — COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world — and we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient, because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties, and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on. But we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves. So we know exactly what we have to do.
And my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference, it's a Chinese exclusivity. Sometimes in Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach.
And what we are doing on steel, for instance, is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector, because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual, and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power, for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood that by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula, who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you, the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means re-industrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world, and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why, not only for him, today the United States, Canada, Brazil is rather radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. And as you know, we have no time in the next few — not years, but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structurally high costs of energy. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. What is important on energy is that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources, from nuclear to renewable, because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know, our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan, which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors, etc. That is already on the table, proposed by the Commission.
On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe, the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road. The simplification in the defense sector, where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment, because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level where the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please.
And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and belief in the importance of what we are doing on steel, for instance. That is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization.
I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, a big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the Magnificent Seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies.
Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and, of course, also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face — and I know that everybody knows that — now we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves. And the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies — COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world — and we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient, because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties, and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on. But we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves. So we know exactly what we have to do.
And my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference, it's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach.
And what we are doing on steel, for instance, is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector, because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual, and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power, for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula, who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you, the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means re-industrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world, and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why, not only for him, today the United States, Canada, Brazil is rather radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. And as you know, we have no time in the next few — not years, but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structurally high costs of energy. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. What is important on energy is that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources, from nuclear to renewable, because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know, our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan, which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors, etc. That is already on the table, proposed by the Commission.
On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe, the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road. The simplification in the defense sector, where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment, because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level where the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please.
And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and belief in the importance of what we are doing on steel, for instance. That is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization.
I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, a big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the Magnificent Seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies.
Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and, of course, also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face — and I know that everybody knows that — now we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves. And the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies — COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world — and we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient, because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties, and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on. But we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves. So we know exactly what we have to do.
And my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference, it's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach.
And what we are doing on steel, for instance, is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector, because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual, and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power, for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula, who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you, the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means re-industrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world, and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why, not only for him, today the United States, Canada, Brazil is rather radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. And as you know, we have no time in the next few — not years, but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structurally high costs of energy. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. What is important on energy is that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources, from nuclear to renewable, because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know, our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan, which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors, etc. That is already on the table, proposed by the Commission.
On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe, the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road. The simplification in the defense sector, where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment, because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level where the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please.
And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and belief in the importance of what we are doing on steel, for instance. That is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization.
I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, a big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the Magnificent Seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies.
Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and, of course, also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face — and I know that everybody knows that — now we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves. And the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies — COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world — and we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient, because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties, and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on. But we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves. So we know exactly what we have to do.
And my last point is about European preference. It was recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference, it's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach.
And what we are doing on steel, for instance, is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector, because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual, and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power, for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood that by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula, who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you, the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means re-industrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world, and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why, not only for him, today the United States, Canada, Brazil is radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. And as you know, we have no time in the next few — not years, but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structurally high costs of energy. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. What is important on energy is that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources, from nuclear to renewable, because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know, our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan, which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors, etc. That is already on the table, proposed by the Commission.
On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe, the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road. The simplification in the defense sector, where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment, because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level where the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please.
And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and belief in the importance of what we are doing on steel, for instance. That is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization.
I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, a big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the Magnificent Seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies.
Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and, of course, also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face — and I know that everybody knows that — now we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves. And the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies — COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world — and we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient, because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties, and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on. But we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves. So we know exactly what we have to do.
And my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference, it's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach.
And what we are doing on steel, for instance, is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector, because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual, and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power, for sure, nationally and at EU level.
This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means reindustrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world, and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why, not only for him, today the United States, Canada, Brazil is radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. As you know, we have no time in the next few, not years, but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structurally high costs of energy. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. Important is on energy that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources from nuclear to renewable, because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know, our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan, which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors, etc. That is already on the table, proposed by the Commission.
On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe: the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road, the simplification in the defense sector, where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment, because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level, what the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please. And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and your belief in the importance of what we are doing on steel, for instance. It is a very important point because this is just protecting our... it's not protectionism, this is part of this re-synchronization.
I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, a big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the Magnificent Seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies.
Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and, of course, also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face, and I know that everybody knows that now, we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves, and the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies: COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world. And we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient, because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties, and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on, but we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves.
So we know exactly what we have to do, and my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference, it's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach.
And what we are doing on steel, for instance, is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector, because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual, and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means re-industrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world, and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why, not only for him, today the United States, Canada, Brazil is rather radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. As you know, we have no time in the next few, not years, but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structurally high costs of energy. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. Important is on energy that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources from nuclear to renewable, because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know, our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan, which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors, etc. That is already on the table, proposed by the Commission.
On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe: the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road, the simplification in the defense sector, where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment, because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level, what the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please. And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and your belief in the importance of what we are doing on steel, for instance. It is a very important point because this is just protecting our... it's not protectionism, this is part of this re-synchronization.
I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, a big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the Magnificent Seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies.
Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and, of course, also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face, and I know that everybody knows that now, we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves, and the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies: COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world. And we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient, because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties, and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on, but we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves.
So we know exactly what we have to do, and my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference, it's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach.
And what we are doing on steel, for instance, is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector, because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual, and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means re-industrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world, and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why, not only for him, today the United States, Canada, Brazil is radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. As you know, we have no time in the next few, not years, but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structurally high costs of energy. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. Important is on energy that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources from nuclear to renewable, because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know, our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan, which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors, etc. That is already on the table, proposed by the Commission.
On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe: the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road, the simplification in the defense sector, where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment, because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level, what the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please. And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and your belief in the importance of what we are doing on steel, for instance. It is a very important point because this is just protecting our... it's not protectionism, this is part of this re-synchronization.
I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, a big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the Magnificent Seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies.
Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and, of course, also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face, and I know that everybody knows that now, we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves, and the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies: COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world. And we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient, because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties, and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on, but we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves.
So we know exactly what we have to do, and my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference, it's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach.
And what we are doing on steel, for instance, is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector, because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual, and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means reindustrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world, and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why, not only for him, today the United States, Canada, Brazil is rather radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. As you know, we have no time in the next few, not years, but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structurally high costs of energy. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. Important is on energy that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources from nuclear to renewable, because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know, our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan, which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors, etc. That is already on the table, proposed by the Commission.
On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe: the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road, the simplification in the defense sector, where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment, because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level, what the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please. And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and your belief in the importance of what we are doing on steel, for instance. It is a very important point because this is just protecting our... it's not protectionism, this is part of this re-synchronization.
I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, a big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the Magnificent Seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies.
Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and, of course, also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face, and I know that everybody knows that now, we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves, and the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies: COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world. And we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future. In order to deal with that and with these three objectives, we have to innovate much more and we have to be much more efficient, because I think the main figures were mentioned by Jacob about the big gap with the US. A third of this gap in terms of GDP per capita difference is due to the quantity of work, but two-thirds is due to the lack of innovation and efficiency of our own market. So we live in a world of uncertainties, and this is not the purpose today to revert on these uncertainties, tariffs and so on, but we put too many tariffs on our economies ourselves.
So we know exactly what we have to do, and my last point is about European preference. It was still recently an awful word, totally impossible to be pronounced in a business meeting. But this is a necessity because we are the unique crazy place where we don't protect our domestic players. In the US, you have a US agenda. In China, it's no more Chinese preference, it's a Chinese exclusivity sometimes. In Europe, this is the only place where you can finance with the taxpayer money 100% non-European players. This is the only place where you put regulations on your players, but at the same time you negotiate the lifting of barriers with non-European players with a double standard. This is impossible just to pursue such an approach.
And what we are doing on steel, for instance, is a very important point because this is just protecting our players. It's not protectionism. This is part of this re-synchronization. We have to accelerate. We have to innovate. We have to finance much more. We have to clearly be super innovative. But at the same time, if we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field. And what we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with the steel today, is exactly what we have to do sector by sector, because this protection and this European preference are key elements of this competitiveness agenda. I don't want to be longer. I think the agenda is quite clear and the road map is quite consensual, and now the main issue for us is implementation and speed.
The EU has been legislating over the years, adding layer after layer. We in the EU have become a regulatory power for sure, nationally and at EU level. This has to stop. Both the European Council and the Commission have understood it by now. The simplification omnibuses have been an absolute priority of the Polish presidency. Same for the Danish presidency. Thanks to Meta and to Ursula who are bringing this project forward really forcefully. The delivery is painful, but I can assure you that none of us will give up and we will deliver for you the European companies. In a world of geopolitical uncertainties, of new tariffs, of very brutal world competition, we truly need to make life of our companies easier.
Second, ambitions matching reality. And our reality today and tomorrow, I think everybody here will agree, is security. And security means armament. Armament means steel. Steel means re-industrialization. We have to be self-sufficient. We cannot outsource our security. But because of our energy costs, the highest in the world, and of course our climate regulations, companies are leaving Europe. I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
I remember my last discussion with the biggest producer of steel in the world, and very active in Poland also, and he was brutally clear with me: there's no chance to continue his work on our continent with our overregulation, high energy prices. And this is why, not only for him, today the United States, Canada, Brazil is rather radically more attractive than Europe. And we have to be frank to each other with this. As you know, we have no time in the next few, not years, but months. It will be too late if we are not ready to react today.
We have two Achilles heels that you have identified too. One is the structurally high costs of energy. The other one is that for financial services we do not have a single market there. It does not exist. It is too fragmented. Therefore I could go very long on the energy topic. Important is on energy that we reduce our dependency on the volatility of the global market and that we invest more in homegrown, cheaper energy sources from nuclear to renewable, because this is where we define the price on the global markets. You know, our dependencies can easily be weaponized. Of course, I'm aware that gas is a base load that we will need, but the other energy sources have to be boosted even further. We have the affordable energy action plan, which is much broader investment in grids and interconnectors, etc. That is already on the table, proposed by the Commission.
On defense, it's historic what happened in the last month on the European level, of course in close cooperation with NATO. But because the situation is as it is, it is absolutely necessary that we have a massive surge in defense investment. This is why we enabled up to 800 billion of investment till 2030. The buzzwords are safe: the joint procurement and the national escape clause. And there's an omnibus for defense that is on its road, the simplification in the defense sector, where the defense sector is asking to be able to scale up and to produce faster and cheaper. This omnibus has to arrive. I'll come to that in a moment, because when we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification. We need deregulation. We need it on the European level. Actually, we also need it on the national level, what the gold plating is concerned.
Yeah. I hope all of Europe listens to what you have just said, all of you. At least we have from business as well. We want to be your partner in making this happen. Get the job done, please. And I think it is super encouraging to listen to your analysis and your strength and your belief in the importance of what we are doing on steel, for instance. It is a very important point because this is just protecting our... it's not protectionism, this is part of this re-synchronization.
I don't want to spoil the good atmosphere here and the good mood, but I fully understand your argumentation, Emmanuel, and yes, we have to protect our companies, especially our steel companies in Europe, in Poland, everywhere. But the reality is very brutal.
Now on competitiveness. Obviously, we are losing ground. I think it's worthwhile remembering that in 2008, the EU and the United States had roughly the same GDP per capita. In 2023, 15 years later, the United States is 25% larger than the EU and Great Britain together. Now, that to me is a remarkably big picture, a big number. However, one should remember that the key explanation factor are the Magnificent Seven that grew at an extraordinary pace during this period. So Europe has challenges, but I think it is important not to forget that Europe has great strengths, great people and great companies.
Our competitiveness is challenged and we risk falling behind a global race going faster than ever before. As everybody here knows, it's often said that US innovates, China replicates, and we regulate. And unfortunately, part of this line is true. We have to change it. Together we need to lay the foundation for an even stronger and richer and, of course, also more resilient Europe. I am very happy to see that the defense industry is so well represented here today. With the war going on in Europe, we face, and I know that everybody knows that now, we face the greatest security challenge since the end of the Second World War: hybrid warfare and violations of NATO's airspace. So we have to be able to defend ourselves, and the purpose of the informal European Council later on today is actually to assure that we can achieve that.
What is the road map for all of us? We want to be more competitive because this is the only way to have growth, to create jobs, to finance our social model and the future of young people. We want to be more sovereign because we experienced during the past few years the cost of dependencies: COVID time, war in Ukraine, instabilities of this world. And we want to meet our commitments on climate change. We have to decarbonize. It's clear because it's as well about our future.
