Questions that need to be clarified, but the Commission also wants to make a proposal on this. The merger control guidelines are being revised. This is a concern that I have already raised several times in the Council. Because, let me give you an example: a company like Airbus would probably not even be approved today given the current application of the merger control regulation. If we want European champions that are competitive all over the world, then we also need an appropriate legal framework with regard to merger control. We want to further advance the Capital Markets Union, in order to promote private investments in Europe and also to make additional ones possible. There is enough money in Europe. The private households in Germany and in many other countries do not invest this money in innovation, in growth and in companies. We want to change that. Enrico Letta gave very interesting figures on how strongly companies, including young companies, still have to be financed through banks. These are shares of over 70%.
In smaller member states of the European Union this is somewhat different, but for example in Germany, France and Italy there is still a very high dependence on bank financing, and that is why we now want to advance the capital market. The capital market infrastructure in Europe has to change. We will be discussing energy infrastructure in Brussels at the next European Council. You probably know that the internal energy market was not part of the internal market programme of 1993. It was excluded at the time. We now want to make the energy sector part of the European internal market, and the infrastructure has to be expanded for that. The ETS system has played a role. There are colleagues who view it very critically. I do not share that criticism in this form. The ETS system, which has now been in place for 20 years and was also part of our discussion this morning, has ensured that we have implemented an effective instrument in Europe that makes growth possible without simultaneously producing additional CO2 emissions. On the contrary, CO2 emissions have fallen by almost 40%, and industry has grown by about 70% since this system has existed. This shows that we have the right instrument, but it also has to be adjusted again and again. There are major differences within Europe. The Commission has promised to present a report on what these differences are due to and what we may need to adjust so that this system continues to function well. The issue of bureaucracy has played a role. The Commission has promised to comb through the entire European acquis once and to simplify further legal acts and also to withdraw legal acts. The principle of discontinuity played a role in this. The Commission wants to withdraw legal acts in future that have been pending for more than 5 years and have not been processed. I think that is a good idea. Finally, on trade policy. The Commission has announced the provisional application of the Mercosur agreement as soon as the first South American country ratifies the agreement. That is a good and right decision. Further free trade agreements are to follow. The one with India has been concluded. I would like it to be ratified as quickly as possible now. This is an EU-only agreement. That means it does not need the approval of the member states' parliaments, but only the approval of the European institutions. I assume that this can happen quickly because it also does without an agricultural part, so that the contentious parts that have often played a role in other agreements with Canada, with the Mercosur states, should not play a role here. There are further free trade agreements planned with Australia, with the Gulf states, with the United Arab Emirates. I support the European Commission moving forward quickly on this path. We want to be able to react to unfair trade practices. This will, however, have to be examined carefully. We do not want new European protectionism, but we must be able to defend ourselves against unfair trade practices, for example when markets are flooded with overcapacities or when products are artificially made cheaper through high subsidies. These are the topics we have discussed and on which the Commission will also make proposals. We will pour all these elements into a competitiveness agenda in the coming weeks, which is to be signed by the Council, the Commission and the Parliament in the form of this roadmap. We will therefore commit ourselves in a joint document to something that will actually be adopted in 2026. That is a good decision. Perhaps I may also say something about the financing of the projects in the European Union. I made very clear this morning that, even if there are other opinions on this, I cannot agree to financing projects of the European Union through, for example, Eurobonds. I do not want that, but even if I wanted to, I could not do it, because the Federal Constitutional Court has set very clear limits for the German federal government here. We have taken on European debt in exceptional situations, but these were exceptional situations that are also permissible under the treaties. But we live in a time where the exception is becoming the rule. The new time we live in is the new normal, and in this new normal we have to make do with the money we have. This only played a minor role today, as Antonio Costa also confirmed. We will be discussing the financing of the European Union in the coming weeks and months. This will be a very difficult undertaking, but the next multiannual financial framework is up for decision here in the course of the coming months. That is where this topic belongs. As I said, it only played a minor role today. However, I felt compelled to take a clear position from the point of view of the German federal government, so that my colleagues here also know what is possible and what is not. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. We have time for a few questions. Please go ahead. Yes, yes.
Yes, thank you. Jonathan Packro from The Pioneer. Mr Chancellor, you mentioned emissions trading. You also said yesterday in Antwerp that you could imagine a revision or a shift. This is already being criticized by the Greens, and industry would also like clarity. So perhaps you could make it clear what you can imagine. And the second question, where does your sense come from? You described CO2 pricing in climate policy as the royal road.
Yes. So my opinion has not changed on that. ETS is a good instrument that has achieved good effects over 20 years. There are colleagues who see this fundamentally differently. My suspicion is that this is connected to the fact that in these countries energy generation is still partly associated with very high emissions. Then it naturally becomes more expensive. But that is also intended. That was the instrument, that was the means of choice. The Commission itself has announced the revision of the system for April 2026. This is a completely normal process. I pointed out yesterday that this system is not primarily intended to generate large revenues, but that this system is intended to promote innovation through pricing CO2 emissions. This purpose must of course be reviewed regularly. Have we achieved the purpose? Can we do it better? And that is exactly what I said yesterday, and that is exactly what the Commission has also promised for the future.
Mr Delfs, please.
Mr Chancellor, you surprised us all this morning by appearing before the press together with the French president. I am wondering how sustainable this impression of unity is that you gave today. To be very concrete, is there any... you yourself said that you agree on most topics. Now on small topics perhaps not, such as Eurobonds or Buy Europe, or the EFC has become another major point of contention. Can you say whether there is any concrete rapprochement on any topics? What also struck me about the timing is that you announced today the slogan that a concrete decision will be made in four weeks. Macron rather indicated June. Could you briefly clarify when what is supposed to come?
