tv European Union Commissioner on Relations With U.S. CSPAN February 3, 2023 6:23am-7:28am EST
>> up next, we hear from the european union and working together to sending aid to ukraine in its fight against russia. >> good morning, everyone, and welcome to the center for strategic and national studies. i'm max. the europe-russia and eurasia program. and thank you so much for joining us on a friday morning. i know it's rare to have so many people in downtown d.c. on a friday in this post-covid era or
relatively post-covid era. i thank you for attending in person. we're so honored to have e.u. commissioner for the internal market, perry, here with us today. and the topic of today's discussion is trans-atlantic cooperation on security. this is a pivotal moment both for the united states and europe. the war in ukraine and geopolitical competition with china has highlighted the need for robust cooperation between washington and brussels and cooperation between our two unions is never easy but it has greatly intensified over the last few years, particularly in the wake of russia's invasion. with the e.u. taking an impressive leadership role in welcoming millions of ukrainian refugees, providing lethal aid to ukraine for the first time in its history, leftying an unprecedented sanctions regime against the russian economy. however, significant challenges lie ahead for the united states and the e.u., particularly on
trade, climate change, technology regulation and europe's future in the global security order. that is why we are so excited to have the commissioner with us today. he's one of the most powerful political leaders in europe with an incredibly broad and important portfolio. he's responsible for the smooth functioning of the e.u.'s internal market, guiding european industry through both the green and digital transitions, implementing the e.u.'s digital, strengthen cybersecurity and e.u.'s intellectual property regime. and if that wasn't enough, he also has a critical defense role in implementing the e.u. defense fund and e.u. space policy. in short, the only thing he doesn't do i think is sleep. so if there's a hard problem facing the e.u. i think he's working on it. and so fortunately for the -- i think for the european union and for the trans-atlantic alliance, there are few political leaders with the depth of public and private experience to deal with such a portfolio.
in the private sector, he's served as c.e.o. of thompson multimedia and france telecom. and from 2005 to 2007, he served as the french minister for economy, finance, and industry. in 2008, he went back to the private sector to become c.e.o. of atos, a european i.t. headquartered in france. and then in 2019 he was tapped on the shoulder to go to the european union to serve as european commissioner for internal market. so i can't not think of a better guest with whom to discuss the state and direction of trans-atlantic relations, technology, and security cooperation and every other issue that is dominating i think the news today in the trans-atlantic space. without further ado, it's my pleasure to introduce mr. terry, e.u. commissioner for the internal market. please join me. [applause]
>> thank you very much. i should tell you i'm extremely happy to be here today. i spent so many years of my life in the u.s. i feel like home here. but it's true. it's very good to be back here. thank you for having me today. you're absolutely right. we are living in times of major, major geopolitical challenges. it's probably a good time to success about it. obviously, and we all know that the situation, the covid-19 crisis. now putin's war against ukraine. of course, the consequence, even if it started before, the energy crisis. and, of course, this should shed
light on what some starting to say the end of globalization. at least the way we knew it. dependencies -- i used -- as weapons against us. and we know this because this is what putin is doing, not only since the beginning of the war, but before that. so we know that extremely, extremely well. believe me. but also, i should say supply chains become geopolitical instruments. and -- we risk to become a net importers and are so being exposed to shortages. and then exporting our jobs. but why some have tried to
weaken the opinion? it's fair to say that the effect has been the opposite. and as the world was in lockdown and even our u.s. partners applied a policy on vaccines, europe rose to the challenge and became the global's top vaccine producer and exporter. our defense and space industries to ensure our critical securities are yielding significant results. and our -- from russia is not greater than ever. even if our companies and households face much [indiscernible] the rest of the world and of course it's an issue for europe. so 2023 will remain definitely a challenging year for all of us. and in this so-called testing
time. it is important to work on all well-established and well- -- let's say relations, as well as new partnerships. and clearly, of course, the united states will remain europe's most important ally. we need definitely the strong trans-atlantic partnership that builds on what we have achieved together and also evolve in light of today's new realities. firstly, let's speak about the security front. europe and the u.s.'s partnership has shown value and efficiency in the joint reaction to the war in ukraine and our -- since day one and so arms
transfer. of course, the european continent has been a wake-up call for all of us. all of our member states realize the need to invest more and better in our common defense and to take more responsibility in meeting europe's security needs. and our strategy compass -- our, let's say, new e.u. defense doctrine. what we do at the european level to ship out ukraine i think deserves probably more attention. i should say definitely unprecedented. the total of more than $50 billion of aid already sent out
of which $11 billion are weapons. an additional now $19 billion approved for this year 2023. europe is definitely a key player for ukraine and we'll continue to do this, of course. but let me reassure you. a stronger defense means a stronger nato which will remain, as you heard, of europe's security. so moving forward and becoming a security provider for the continent. it is shaping how we approach new contested areas. and, of course, we always think of cyber. so europe has developed the capabilities, the regulatory framework or so, and the political willingness to increase our joint
cybersecurity. we are ready to bring these to the table, to build a strong partnership with the u.s. which is one of the main objectives, by the way, of my visit here in washington yesterday and today. i met with secretary mayorkas. we ate lunch together. at a political level, the u.s. cyber dialogue. it will have very concrete deliverables. on one common situation and structured a -- exchange of information. second, hardware and software and cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. so i am happy to see that it is not -- strengthening regulatory approach with the upcoming cyber
strategy to be anoind. -- announced. we need to develop stronger common ground on technology security. we cannot allow china to access the most advanced technologies be it in semi conductors, quantum, cloud, a.i., and so on. i see a very strong alignment on this agenda between e.u. and the u.s., even if we may sometimes differ on it which is normal. we walk towards 5-g cybersecurity challenges, to remove -- from our networks and we are following closely the ongoing chinese investment into european critical infrastructure. on semi-conductors, both the e.u. and the u.s. have put
forward the chip act. they did a fantastic job here. it was so important for the u.s. but also for us as a partner. this is extremely important to attract manufacturers on our shores, both in europe and in the u.s., of course. because as you know, we did our own chip act. it will secure our supply chains, reducing, therefore, our collective dependence from asia. by the way, our goal is to be able to produce, both the u.s. and e.u., 50% of the -- 30% in the u.s. and 20% in europe. on the u.s. bold decision on
export control of semi-conductors, in europe, we fully agree with the objective of depriving china from the most advanced chips. and the same goes for quantum technologies. you will always find europe by your side when it comes to ensuring our common security in technology. but actions should be limited to what is necessary, from a security point of view and then, of course, in full transparent and open partnership and, of course, in discussion with europe. investment in critical infrastructure is another case in point. take, for example, reliant on a single -- so we are now discussing the idea connecting europe to japan. but why couldn't we make this
capable, quote-unquote, g-7 cable connecting all allies, u.s., canada, u.k., europe, and japan? so i would like to highlight here is -- our renewed partnership which relied with our respective approach to fighting climate change. of course, the green transition is a massive transformation for our societies and also our economies. and above all, for our industrial fabric. one that requires securing supply chains as well as -- for both of us. u.s. and the e.u. and with our green deal, europe wants to be the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. this means largely electrified continent, relying on nuclear
and renewable energies, solar and wind. which means also new ways to store electricity, batteries. and what do all these technologies have in common? raw materials. lots of raw materials. such as cobalt, rare earths. also important for semi-conductors. we need in europe to invest 250 billion euros per year to drive this transformation. if this is used to buy chinese solar panels, batteries, or -- we will have only achieved replacing a dependency with new dependencies. so it is time to reconcile
climate neutrality policy with industrial competitiveness policy. of course, the u.s. has defined their approach in the act and, yes, we know some have been vocal. there are some elements of the i.r.a. that are still an issue for europe when it comes to discriminatory provision with regards to european companies but we are working with the u.s. and, of course, i'm confident that we will have quick results here. overall, the i.r.a. will not only fight compliement change. it -- climate change. it will also attract and secure key -- within the tech industries. and the u.s., of course, and it will impact -- european
investment towards the u.s. so europe must now also develop and quickly its own policy approach to secure its industry. and we are doing just that. in march, we will adopt a new net zero industry act as announced by our president. we are looking, of course, carefully at u.s. policies for inspiration. without eliminating all of the elements. and what are we aiming at? europe needs more regulatory framework in areas like permitting and make sure that public money is spent smartly and efficiently. as the former minister of finance, as you reminded, it's
extremely important. don't forget it's from taxpayer money. we need to speed predictability and fostering prediction in strategic chains. as far as a leading exporter, we want to remain a top destination, of course, for investment. but, of course, on our terms and with a value for europeans. so needless to be say, there will be no clean tech industry without clear -- secure and sustainable access to raw materials. i know this is an area of shared concern with the u.s. and europe as global demand for raw materials is not matched by supply. i just arrived from in a bibia
where -- nabibia where i went to the largest -- namibia where i visited the largest mine and where lies the potential biggest rare earth reserve on the planet. totally underexplored. but as many african countries, chinese activism is extremely important. they are fast -- sending raw materials to be refined in china. so we must develop another model. a new type of partnership to secure our supply chains and countries benefitting, including up rarpg up refining, and -- capacities. last but not least. a strong trans-atlantic
partnership for years these platforms benefited from a free pass. and this has changed now in europe where we just adopted the digital services act and the digital market act to reorganize our digital space, both for societial and economic regions. we protect our citizens in from disinformation or cyber bullying of our children. so d.m.a. will have fair competition in access to the virtual space so that platforms cannot abuse their political position. i am, of course, contacted myself with platforms in europe and of the world so they get ready to comply with our new legislation which will be enforceable rig lussly, believe
me. including by applying sanctions where there will be necessary. and we are talking of things very serious here. so in europe, which is by the way the largest digital market of the free world with the 450 million population, online platforms will no longer be able to act like if they were too big to care. as it was the case for the protection of personal data, europe is a pioneer here. i understand the debate is going on in the u.s. around section 230. with a clear position of the president of the united states in a recent opinion. of course we are open and willing to share our experience and solution with the u.s. law makesers. so as a conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, i'd like to say that the e.u. and u.s. have been, of
course, allies for decades and we'll continue to be probably for centuries. and as the world and geopolitical order is being reshaped now, this alliance must continue, evolve, and adapt. we have shown great collective result and unity in face of putin's war. by the way, it makes us even closer than ever. and this is central. but our alliance on security must also grow into an alliance on technology, of raw materials, and big tech. and these are the pillars of renewed trans-atlantic partnership which i am glad to be able to discuss with my counterpart in the u.s., especially during this trip. thank you very much. [applause]
max: well, thank you, commissioner bretton -- breton, for those wide-ranging remarks and hopefully to understand everything that's on your portfolio and in the e.u.'s perspective. i want to maybe start broadly. we're approaching one year since the war in ukraine. and i'm curious for your take on how europe has changed in response to the war and then maybe if you could look forward on where hasn't europe maybe changed enough in response to the war? are there more things that you are hoping that europe reacts to the european union initiatives that european union takes in the coming years, maybe not just in the next few months but in the coming years, where does europe need to go in response to this
war? mr. breton: well, it's true that europe react and move forward on crisis. and by the way, we have seen a lot of crisis these days. and every time we have been able to progress. i said it, we are a big democracy. 450 million inhabitants. sharing the same value. it's not easy to be a big democracy. and you know that. we have 27 member state. but we are -- we are driving our policies with its values. and, of course, in our democracy, which is by the way not too far from the democracy i know here from years in washington, d.c.
the commission is proposing bills and then i spend my time, like my counterpart, to move from the senate. our senate by the way is -- except you have two senators by state. we have one. and then our parliament. which is the house. so let's -- it's so similar. you know that democracy is not the most rapid way to change things but we're happy to be in a democracy, not in an autocracy, where things could be a bit faster but not the same result. so for us it's true that when there is a shock we can act a little bit faster and we did it by the way for covid-19. you know that -- hands in the -- and we've been able to mutualize our resources capacity of
producing research and we improved. same thing with the war. energy is still in the hands of member states. but because of the war and because of our willingness immediately and successfully, by the way, to get rid of the russian dependencies and especially on gas, we didn't put sanctions on gas, but we worked immediately and we made sure with every single member states to make sure we had a plan to to be able to get rid of the dependency and really successfully. and by the way, with a lot of l.n.g. coming from this side of the ocean, but not only. so we have been able to do this. and now we are mutualizing our capacity to buy together, to have a cap together, to be smarter and stronger together. and it was something that you
could not even imagine before. you spoke about -- when we speak about the world, we speak about our capacity to react also for the first time by sending arms together to ukraine. it was the first time the commission was involved because by treaty we cannot be directly involved. but we find ways and we did it successfully and we continue to do it. so in a nutshell, i think with the crisis and especially this one, the feeling in europe so we are stronger together, that in order to cope now with a new geopolitical evolution of the world within more than ever leadership solidity and united and you will see all our
policies this triptych to being a part of our hopefully new d.n.a. final point, what we need to do, so you mentioned it, i mean, defense industry and space. i keep repeating it, we need to spend more in defense. and my goal -- my goal is the goal of some 25 countries now, a member of nato now, or soon to be, which is very good news, but we need to spend at least 20% of our g.d.p. in defense. and we are not yet here. so every time i meet a member state, i keep saying, we need to have a plan for that. that's extremely important. and by the way, as i said to nato some time, i mean, we want to have a strong nato because we are nato. i mean, we are important pillar of nato.
so the stronger we will be. the better it will be for nato, of course. but it's true that within our member states, we need to have the visibility for the defense industry to give the visibility to increase our production. we are not yet here. this is a subject, by the way, also for the u.s. so we need to increase our capacity to produce more resources, ammunitions, and everything. so that's something that i'm behind and we're still lacking this capacity so that's something we need to increase. final point, a consequence of this war and our willingness to get freed of dependencies and especially in the fossil fuels is that it has accelerated our willingness to achieve our goal
of being -- zero -- by 2050. and in other words, to increase the deployment which is mandatory, necessary to deploy clean energy production in europe. and this is where we need to have more industry so we have now our net zero industry act which we are working which is maybe a -- a mirror of what happened with the i.r.a. it doesn't -- it's not very clearly to my fellow citizens. let's work. let's do the same thing. by the way, we did it for the act. we have two major transitions going on. the digital transition and the green transition. for the digital transition, we decided it is absolutely critical to enhance our capacity to produce more chips which is key for the digital on our territory. both the u.s. and europe. and we did it wonderfully, well
coordinated. i mentioned the very smooth relation that we have -- we need to do the same thing for clean tech. so u.s. dollars with the i.r.a., we need. our new chip act like we did for the other one. and i am convinced that it will work in cooperation, not in competition. max: one of the u.s.-e.u. cooperation is that we have two very complex unions, two complex democracies as you jount lined. you know for the united states, the passage of the i.r.a. was incredibly complicated. you know, negotiations behind closed doors. and then we we -- when the e.u. or the u.s. comes out with a new law or new regulation, it's been very hard for us to change it or really to adapt to the concerns of the united states or the european union. and i'm curious, the training technology council that has been set up between the u.s. and e.u. has been really highlighted by
this administration as an example of trans-atlantic cooperation. it was mentioned in the national security strategy. how do you see the role of the t.t.c. in sort of trying to iron out the differences that emerged in our perspective approaches? all the while, it seems as if we're actually quite aligned and on the big picture, on the need for protecting supply chains, on the need to be concerned about climate and china. so i'm curious, how do you see the role of the. it t.c. here playing as trying -- t.t.c. here playing trying to improve trans-atlantic relations? mr. breton: i mean, first, it's good we have a rendezvous when we sit together and we speak. we can talk frankly because we are the strongest ally for decades and more. so when something is going well,
it's good to share. when something has to be improved, it's like in the family. so it's always good to have this rendezvous, meetings where we can speak openly and also to measure our progresses and share what we do. but to be honest, we didn't wait the t.t.c. to have these relations and unfortunately enough because t.t.c. is only key for tech and t for trade. and by the way, only tech and trade in our nations. for example, i have launched the e.u.-u.s. cyber dialogue to have many other die logs on many strategic issues so the t.t.c. is not for everything between us. but it's true that it's important to have this rendezvous. my message is very simple, always. and i said it, i think what we did for the chip act, before the
t.t.c., so the chip act, to have a smooth and close discussions. even as you mentioned, we are democracies. so even before having this act being approved in the u.s. and it has been quite a challenge and quite a success and we are for us in the process to finalize our final approval. but we are exchanging before that. i don't say we have been strongly influenced by the u.s. or that you have been strongly influenced by us. through that discussing together as to design what i believe what's good for the u.s. is good for the europe and good for our partnership. we worked closely before. it's important to speak maybe -- than ever so that's the only
point. and for the rest, of course, i really change the fact that we have this gathering together. it's important to spend some time. but here i am. and it is only five more months but it will be in sweden, by the way. and i will probably come back before. max: well, you're always welcome back here as well. let me maybe dive into some of the topics that you mentioned in your opening remarks and some of the topics that you're responsible for. maybe we'll start with defense. many in washington if you ask them what role the e.u. plays in defense they say no. one of the things you have pushed is that the european union, now that european countries are spending more on defense. we're seeing a significant investment. it's much better if that he spending and coordinating and
integrated not just 27 countries going but going in different places and try to set up a fund. are you hopeful that will lead to kind of a sea change are you hopeful that that will lead to a sea change in how they approach defense? that the eu can integrate european defense more? cooperation between european countries on defense has not increased over the last decade especially when it comes to big procurement, what is the role the eu can play? do you think the 5 million fund will be enough to incentivize cooperation? >> of course not. three remarks. the first one. we are nato. you are nato. we are nato.
why don't we stop abusing nato? nato is an alliance, we are allies. we are nato. the stronger we will be the stronger will be nato. so my job, which is not easy, is to coordinate, to make a stronger european pillar of nato. we believe it is important. it was part of member states. so now, by goal, is to make sure we can have the tools to create an incentive, a willingness for member states to work together. this is exactly where we are
when i presented the different front. european difference fund is basically exactly what it means. in other words. you need to have a few countries together with a single project, with big companies and then we have many many projects. many things. so countries come here and plan to invest in rnd for this project, as long as it is a corporation it works extremely well. in other words, we have incentive for specific project, and it is very clear, we know where we want to invest.
we have many projects. companies come to us together with a minimum of mistakes. and then we make sense about it. and it works. in terms of what we are working on, to encourage member states, this is why we have -- by the way, the difference fund. it is just -- a strategic pilot. this pilot is designed so that
of three member states come together and decide to purchase ammunition, the same product, equipment, then we will add to fall them to an incentive to work together. the european commission by treaty cannot purchase itself. but again, we are creating something to have the benefit to work together. when you start to see that it is working, you continue to work because you have a benefit. this is how we go step-by-step. i have no doubt that it would be successful and we have something like the sister project for the biggest procurement to incentive member
states, together, to be more organized but it takes time so on the one hand, i have to adjust the speed which is necessary for capacity, the ministry of defense, this is what we need in order to reach 2% and even more, it would be more, need to do more, we need to increase capacity to be very good for our allies and nato. >> i want to turn to digital and technology regulation. there are differences between the us and the year but he did. the first big difference is the eu can actually pass legislation that regulates the digital and technology space while the united states despite exposing a desire to implement and past digital regulation hasn't yet or hasn't passed
digital legislation. the second seems to be the us is much more focused on doing no harm to its companies and preserving innovation while the eu is more focused on preventing the potential harm that can come from online jewel platforms and digital activities, how do you balance this trade-off between trying to preserve innovation. do you feel the eu regulations are stifling innovation in the european union. >> i know the simplification. we are good at technology. it is absolutely not true. on the one hand it is
absolutely true we totally failed. it is true. but why? at the end of the day. sorry to say that, it were not for your work on science to start -- to give an answer, social network, one year college dropout students could do it. why did it work in this country? money and a big market. 310 times 2. unified. no chance to win. and then a lot of marketing but let's be honest, that's not how it started and i don't want to say that, fantastic progress and frogs, i don't want to minimize it. there is another one. which is industrial data.
much bigger than personal data. much bigger. because now we generate 10 times more data than we generate for industries that we generate for personal use of our data and here is where we have value. in order to do this, you need industries. personally, i think it was a great spot because it is true the us lost capacity in industry. i know it very well. the chairman and ceo of rca, new rca, rca was the leader, 25%. i had 18 factories in the us and the market was asking me to
do something, to close this, no more factories in the us, put them all in the matadors and send your factories to detroit, and i did it. at the end of the day, we don't have any jobs or capacity. that is why i think it was smart to industrialize especially in terms of the us. we need to speed up, not only where you create data but use the data and here europe is an extremely good position so we are putting things, helping companies or to benefit from a new generation of industrial data to benefit from it or use it but everyone will be welcome and we don't want to resist but
of course in partnership with all your friends. coming back on the regulation. because of this extremely good success of social platforms we did this without any regulations and a lot of catastrophes happening. we have a lot of fools in the physical world and in the digital world. you know that our children are spending 5, 6, 7, sometimes 8 hours a day, not in my family, i have examples, without any support, regulations. we have to do something. we are politicians, we have to do something for our fellow citizens. we don't want to take care of that, we first have to take care as a regulator. so we have to do it and we did
it. it was up pretty strong, spend a lot of money on the data. but that is where it was. to know all these guys for many years. to anticipate -- we -- even if i've been the victim for some quantitative to say my ability to do what i had to do but we did it. we did it with the parliament, with the council, and it worked well. and of course we did it after a large consultation, more than 3000 consultations. you forget to mention i have been a professor at hbs.
so governance is extremely important to me, and being a stakeholder, we are extremely important so we took all of this input and this how we design our regulations. i don't want to say it would be like that for the us but we needed to win all the stakeholders so if now it could be useful, be our guests. >> let me ask about twitter because élan must take over of twitter, the content moderation standard seems to have declined greatly, a lot of staff of been let go, now with the digital services act, you are sort of responsible for implementing that. are you going to take action against twitter? have there been steps taken or have you sent any signals to
elon musk that the way he is running that company is not fit with you but he did standards? >> as a regulator and then enforcer, what we will do, i don't think we will do what we have to do by going there. my job is to make sure, we are united by tradition. they will be strongly regulated. strongly, they will be regulated, they will have regulations to protect our children, to avoid harassment, do everything. then we will have an issue, and to give you the timeframe, by february 17th, the platforms in new york, we have to declare how many users we have.
it will qualify them for systemic platforms and the bigger they are the more organizations they have so twitter, like all of us, by february 17th, then they 17, then they will have more or less 3 months or something like that to adapt themselves. you have 3 months to election cycle, 3 or 4 months. by summer, we start to enforce. my job is to make sure everyone understands it. everyone is welcome in europe but we have our rules so no one would avoid the benefit of the largest stock market of the world, nobody.
twitter or tick-tock, to the open market and it is fine but in europe, in europe on the other side of the world, is it too much for you? you have to adapt to yourself so that is what i'm telling them by explaining when elon musk mentioned his intention to purchase twitter and maybe we have a chance, i met him and i said this is all yours. so good for you. but okay, that i met again with him and i said this is what you have to comply with, just be ready for it and by the way, i hope him like i offered to all the platforms a dry test, dry
run to show them what is missing today and whether we have to change very quickly. i had a meeting with tick-tock's ceo a few days ago and told him, everything you do would pass. so do that your self so i understand as mentioned, to get rid of whatever else, to fulfill our condition, have at least europe, to put more europe, we will see. what i know is my mission is to make sure everything is clear and they fulfill, if not, most
of them, all of them would comply. so i am sure that they will. of some don't, 6% venue continues and could have a battle. how we do it. >> i want to take a couple questions from the audience. if you have a question please raise your hand. last question for you ties to climate. and your efforts on responding to the ira, seems like the biggest advocates of the fiscal union are in washington with john kerry and catherine tie advocating the eu follow the us approach, there's been a lot of talk about the need for the year but he did to find ways to find more funds to borrow or
find ways to raise revenue to move toward a fiscal union so we can dress some of the issues you talked about on defense on climate. there is a division in europe on this. what is your view on the year but he did meeting to move toward a fiscal union to address issues like climate and provide more defense spending? >> i know john extremely well, he's a good friend of mine and -- we did not raise this condition. i've been working on it since the beginning of september. it is our mission -- we are not too late and this is what i keep telling, the us met in august and we meet in january,
that's 5 months to do it and we will do it. we will do it but you are absolutely right. we have to make sure we have enough funding and by the way, like the us, don't have the first offer available so what do we do? ball, the us will bowl, we ball. we have to ball and that is for good reason. the reason is to fight against climate change and we have to make sure as the commissioner said be very clear. i was advocating to have a compact so to act, like we did for the chip back to make sure we have all the same obligations made easy for all the member states. accelerating permitting, access to financing, making sure
things will be more easy for this technology. so this is why i am extremely pleased for the net 0 industry act which is a framework to make sure every member state is in the same family for the industry. second rule, now of course we have different options. some like germany, $200 billion but the package will be 60, 70, 80 billion but we have trouble waiting for it. the same for the debt. so all this, remaining money available, spain and italy, we have to see if we can adapt it. so to european investments in
the banks, we are working with a bunch of solutions and make sure everyone has access to the funding to have global access and the industrial base. one thing which is extremely important to enter the market now is based strongly on that, not like the market 20 years ago when buying a monkey was the answer. it's a new one, a new market. we are totally interconnected much more than in the past. so people didn't see this revolution of supply change. my job is to make sure supply chains continue to work. this is why we have the next generation year but he did package, to maintain our
supply-chain this. the new market, what are we are, need to make sure for the new industry we are better able to act exactly the same way, not one big member state or 2 or 3 and forgetting the others. we are 27, the us, delaware is as important as california. >> we are at the hour. i'm not sure if you have two minutes to stay past 10:00 but maybe -- we've got the thumbs up. i will take one question in the front and maybe one more in the back, if you could keep it to a question and introduce your self. >> okay. you have been one of the
strongest supporters, at least rhetorically, in terms of digital sovereignty for the year but he did. explain what you mean by that. when i travel in central europe i hear a lot of the time open strategic autonomy rather than digital sovereignty. do you see a difference between those two? >> not really. i am not choosing too much, it means different things in europe. i'm just saying we need to be available to monitor our own destiny. of course, understanding what we are, what our weaknesses, what we need to consolidate, working with our allies, we have to make sure in this geopolitics of supply chains,
whatever could happen, we continue to work because this is vital for our industries. when the decision had been to ban exports from the us for 24 vaccines, how painful it has been for us and for me to reach a dialogue until we find ways that our product manufacture in our facilities is the us, could be exported. it was painful. but we did it and we did with a very good friend of mine, the us chief vaccine, you -- a suggestion that we find a way, we said look, look, if we don't get what we need, what the us
needs and suggested, we need to find a solution. and we find a solution together and become the best friend. it was painful, we will never forget it. mentioning the supply-chain is important so i am really -- i worked in the private sector so i know what it is. but i know that in life, in politics and business even with your biggest and strongest ally, and 3 thing is best with true and expected balance. you need to tweet to -- teach two pillars, so -- >> commissioner, i think we could go on for hours given
your portfolio, but i know you have a busy day ahead of you in washington. i want to thank you for an interesting and wide-ranging discussion and i hope our two unions find a way to figure out ways to increase our cooperation and partnership. please join me in thanking the director. thierry breton. [applause] [applause]
>> start your day with washington journal, your window into the nation's capital, the only nationally televised forum for discussing the latest issues in washington and across the country. >> gives people an opportunity for to speak for themselves on issues they care about. >> join us for a live, 3 hour conversation with a variety of congressional members. >> one of the great institutions in this country where speech is sometimes unpopular but still be incentive. >> washington influencers. >> ask for bringing a discussion to all the policy issues, nobody else does that. >> you can watch washington journal live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now or online, c-span.org.