 to have the executive vice president of the commission, Margrethe Verstier, who has been generous enough to take time out of her extremely busy schedule. I heard you speaking in Trinity this morning, and I know you had various meetings with the government. She will address us for about five or 10 minutes or so on Europe in the world. And then we'll have Q and A with the audience and with our online colleagues. If anyone wants to ask a question from the room, please raise your hand. That's fairly simple and straightforward. And anyone on Zoom, you're able to use the discussion Q and A function that we all know so well now at the bottom of your screen. And you can send in your questions throughout the discussion and we'll try to pick them up as they come through. A reminder that both today's presentation and the Q and A are both on the record. And please feel free to join the discussion on Twitter using the IEA Twitter handle at IIEA. We're also live streaming today's discussion. So a very warm welcome to all of you tuning in via YouTube. My great-grandfather hardly needs any introduction. She's almost a household name. And since she was the model for Morgan, as many people believe, and this morning at Trinity, she was doing a sales job for the Vikings that we should learn to love. But she's the executive vice president for a Europe fit for the digital age and commissioner for competition. She was commissioner for competition in the previous commission. And of course she has a distinguished career in Danish politics. She was minister for economic affairs and the interior in Denmark. And she was the political leader of the Danish social liberal party from 2007 to 2014. So we're delighted you can be here, Vice President Moreta, if I may please. The floor is yours. Very much. And as you say, trying to make you love the Vikings probably also suggests that I shy away from very few things. Thank you very much for the invitation. Thank you for this very warm introduction. With so much happening right now, I really appreciate that we have this chance of coming together. Of course, I appreciate it that people can follow the live stream but I think really important that we can come together also in a room because a lot can be done online but really to have a sense of where we are I think is absolutely crucial because these are not just sort of periods of change. This is an inflection point in our history. We have war on the European doorstep, the cost of living crisis, the energy crisis, taking a deep, deep toll in many families, especially of course those who are on a smaller budget. The fact that we have not addressed the climate crisis to some degree has put us in this position but the climate crisis is here. And at the same time, the world is progressing and it is indeed important to make sure that these are developments that serves us as citizens, as human beings, which is part of my brief in the European Commission right now to make sure that technology serves each and every one of us. And this Russian unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine, it is an attack on shared uncommon values. Freedom, democracy, the right for every state to decide on their own, the integrity of the individual, that is the basis of all democratic thinking. And the attacks also, of course, seriously undermine our belief in international order, a rule-based international order. I think everyone is affected by this. Here in this country, a lot of people have got new Ukrainian neighbors, some Ukrainian colleagues, where they work. The energy market has been weaponized and turned against us, seemingly planned for a very long time. So we have the energy prices going to levels that was absolutely unprecedented. And the fact that the most vulnerable, I hit the hardest. I think it's a very important thing for everyone to realize. Also, when we answer the crisis that we have. And it comes directly after the pandemic and the lockdown of the pandemic. It was not a test. It was a real stress situation for all our systems, for all our communities. And as I said, the climate crisis is ongoing. And I think with the floodings that we have seen, with the drought that we have seen, if anyone was ever doubtful, it's a real thing. The thing is that in all of these crises, actually the one thing we do not have is institutional crisis. The European parliament, the council, the commission, the courts, national governments, it works. Well, this is Europe. So it doesn't work without discussion. It doesn't work without contradiction. It doesn't work without criticism. But that criticism, those discussions are qualifiers so that the solutions that we find and implement together, that they work. We saw that under COVID, with vaccine strategies that enabled every member state to start vaccinations at the same time. With the corona pass that enabled people to start moving around. It's now almost a global public good. 44 nation states are using the COVID pass as part of their public good infrastructure. And we now have the EU recovery plan. Have we met, let's say five years ago, and I would have stood here and said, Europe will take a loan in the name of the next generation of 750 billion euros. You said, oh, that crazy woman. And here we are. We have come in lending, we have come in ambitions, and we have a common obligation for the next generation in whose name this debt is written to make the best possible use of these funds. And another example is the sanctions against Russia. They were swift, they were united, they continue. They are taking that all without technology transfers from the coalition of sanctioning nations. Well, the capacity not only to innovate, but also to produce significantly undermined. The thousands of international companies have already withdrawn from Russia. They simply left. And Russia has experienced significant brain drain as well educate people are leaving. And trillions of rubles have been lost due to the Russian Central Bank. All of this, of course, will have to be maintained in order to keep the pressure on Russia and to keep undermining the financing of their war efforts. But these are examples of resolve, of Europe being that geopolitical actor that we set out to be. And we are indeed being tested. But the thing is that, I think everyone is resisting the temptation to see ourselves as bystanders, as these things are something that is happening to Europe. We have choices to make and important choices. They have been made to engage, realizing that there will be costs as there is to everything that one engages in for. In such a world, we don't see ourselves as alone. We see ourselves as having partners. As that it's a coalition of countries imposing sanctions. And to invest in the power of democracies, we need to be many more. And this will be my end. Because similar to the priority, I think that this country has always given to the relationship with the US. The transatlantic partnership remains the most important one for us. And what we do is not only talk about the historically shared values, the fact that we are interconnected because of family ties. But that we put that into something specific, the trade and technology council, I think is a very good example of this, pointing to specifics that are tangible, the ambition to set standards together, the ambitions to coordinate, so that people that we really support take the leadership in international organizations. Figuring out how to make sure that the shortage of semiconductors doesn't repeat itself, but indeed that more are produced. To figure out if we can do common chargers, not as an afterthought, 10 years, 15, 20 years after the first smartphone, but right now, when electrical vehicles are actually being built. Of course, we also have partnership with Japan, with Singapore, with South Korea. But my point is just to say, Europe is a much better partner when we are much more aware of our own strength. And in doing so, well, then we can actually make sure that we are effective in what we do. The union that we live in was born in the ashes of a horrible war. It was created as a vision to build strength from diversity. As said, nothing comes without discussion. By doing so, we escaped what was then the threats of protectionism, militarism, the iron fist of detectionship. And this is not the far past. For some countries, it is quite recent pasts. And yet, democracies have shown themselves to be strong. And that is the future of Europe, knowing who we are and being better at who we are. Thank you. Thank you very much for that optimistic vision of Europe's role in the world and its future. Can I start with a question which, since I've taken up this job in April, I've spent more time in Ireland in the last few months than I did in the previous 45 years. It's very interesting rediscovering my own country. But one of the things I pick up, particularly in business circles, and from a lot of our corporate members, is a concern about the future direction of Europe that with the departure of the United Kingdom, which was traditionally seen as very liberal and free market oriented. Not sure it was always the case, but that's certainly the image which was projected. There is a concern that there is a risk, and also with the pandemic, and therefore more state involvement issues about resilience being more important than efficiency, supply chains, maybe looking at being more flexible on competition policy, state aids. But there is a risk that Europe would become more protectionist, more state interventionist, and maybe with the tendency to over-regulate. What would you say to people who have those concerns? Well, first and foremost, I do understand why the question comes up. Because there is a debate about Europe's role in the world. Some say, you know, we need strategic autonomy, and I'd say, yes, open strategic autonomy. Because as I see it, the things that we want to achieve, we cannot achieve by ourselves. That being said, we should be better, stronger in order to be better partners. And as you say, the pandemic carved out a new role for the states. But also the transitions that we're in, the digital one, the climate one in particular, gives the state a new role. This is the first ever historically transition driven by state and government. You know, remember countries coming together in Paris, agreeing on the climate targets. Taking these promises back home and doing some the best, some not so much, but saying that this is what we want. That, of course, gives another role for the state. And maybe that role becomes a bit emboldened by COVID and lockdown. We can make people stay at home. We can close businesses. So I think it's really important to be measured as to what should the state do in order for these transitions to happen in an inclusive and the best possible way. Because the thing is that we will achieve nothing if it's only this public sector driving. You know, without private investments, without foreign direct investments, without that drive, we will not be successful. And the same thing goes with Europe and the rest of the world. If we think that we can do things on our own, we will achieve nothing. And this is why, you know, I'm trying to encourage that we can, you know, breathe fully and calmly in the complexity of open strategic autonomy. Strategic autonomy being able to take our own decisions and putting them into reality, but realizing that that only happens because of our openness. So I agree that things are changing, but I disagree that that translates into protectionism because that would seriously disable what we want to achieve. I turn to the audience. Please, you might say who you are. Well, I think first things first, to investigate who's behind the sabotage of the gas infrastructure. And then second, to be nuanced in our discussion about how do we see the protection of infrastructure as such. Now we think about underwater infrastructure, but that is not the only one. We also need to think even more carefully, for instance, about our energy grid, because as we integrate more different energy production sources, of course, they have to be secure as well. So that the grid cannot be manipulated via, for instance, a windmill or a hydro installation or whatever that might be. And I think it's good for us to think about this. And we have, you know, increased our focus. We did the commission and member states in the last commission, a sort of an assessment of our 5G infrastructure, how to make sure that was safe. On the basis of that, we built a toolbox that has been used by every member state to make sure that not only core, but also edge of the digital infrastructure is safe. We just table proposal to make sure that all the different things that we connect to the internet, that they are cybersecurity safe. So it's absolutely top of mind, because just as well as the potential is enormous, the more connected we are, the more vulnerabilities we have. So I think it's important to, you know, continue, but not to say that because we've had this incident, then all of a sudden everything is unsecured because work has been ongoing for a very long time to make us all have the necessary cybersecurity. Marie Cross, I'm a member of the Institute. Vice President, you mentioned a number of close partners, but you didn't mention China. Could I ask you what the EU position should be towards China? We have very close partnerships with the United States, but they have a very particular policy towards China. Are we in danger of being caught in the middle, or are we strong enough to develop our own policies on China? I think that's really interesting, because for instance, within the Trade and Technology Council, you know, we have always been very careful that it's about our relationship with the US and not about our relationship with the third party, because that's a strange marriage, no? And the second thing is that I completely stand by the EU-China strategy that we made in the Commission a couple of years ago, before the pandemic, which says that China is a systemic rival to us. We don't consider their rule of governance a democracy. So there is a rivalry here. And we see it actually playing out among other places on the African continent. They're also an economic competitor. There are things, for instance, where we would want to have a capacity. So welcome Chinese investment here, if we are welcome there. So we need to work on that economic competition. But last but not least, the Chinese also partners, because there will be no fighting climate change without the Chinese on board. And I think it's really important that we can live in that sort of complexity, because that is a complex relationship, because partnership is somewhere friendly thing, rivalry and competition, maybe not so much. And I think that is important. And we illustrate this complexity in different ways. But for instance, the take on the security or 5G networks shows that we have a different approach for the Americans. So I definitely think that we are able and capable and should have our own relationship with global partners. Please. Just we're seeing a lot of economic turmoil in the UK. And I suppose, do you think that could affect the progress of Brexit deal, the Northern Ireland agreement going through entirely? And I suppose when you're looking on to see what's happening in the UK, it's kind of casualised it. But is it almost a lesson for the point of view of EU that this is what happens is what could happen and you don't have the support. But I think here it's really interesting to see the differences. Because here you have an island with a budgetary surplus with a budget just proposed. And I understand quite positively welcomed because of the social profile of it, acknowledging the crisis that many families are in with growth previously under the pandemic, also now very low unemployment, not in the markets in very troubled time and an island of stability. And I think that is why there is very little risk of contagion from what we have seen in the UK that seems to be very UK specific. And that of course is a lesson to take if you can show that stability, then the risk of contagion is so much smaller. I also think that the relative stability in such troubled times, the level of stress is really, really incredible and it's a completely different anatomy of the crisis compared to the pandemic shows also sort of the stability of the euro. That markets have confidence. Of course things are a bit more wobbly than what they were a couple of months ago, but just imagine that every country had their own currency. You know, we wouldn't even know if there was water because the turmoil would be so big. So I think that we should thank a number of the fundamentals for the situation that we're in, but also then make sure that we support the fundamentals and one of them would be the single market. It's absolutely crucial that it works. And something that, oh, we're in an emergency so we should do emergency measures. Yes, but we should also make sure that the fundamentals are working for us because the single market will shorten the crisis and enable businesses to thrive. So that is absolutely essential. And these, I think, are very good lessons also for future crises. Thank you very much, Alex White. I'm a former government minister here in Dublin and I co-chair the Institute's Climate and Energy Group. And my question is also in the category maybe of questions that you might have to say it's too early to say or too early to tell. I think what your instinct is or what the commission's instinct is on the likely impact of the war on the climate transition strategy. And what I ask that question is, I suppose rhetorically we can say, and it's true that there should be an acceleration of the move, for example, to renewable energy to replace fossils and that it should give encouragement to that. On the other hand, we see the reemergence of coal. We see, to some extent, oil and certainly new infrastructure in respect of gas because inevitably from what we've seen in the last few months. So I'm just wondering, and I appreciate it's a high level, what's the overall, after all the work that's been done in relation to Paris, all the work that's been done by the commission indeed and by others, what's your instinct at the balance sheet? Do you think it's going to be good, bad, or indifferent? It's difficult to say how things will balance out because I think it is obvious that member states needs to prolong nuclear, make sure that they can use coal where I need it because the situation is such it is. Because the point is that there will be no green transition without that being just. If people see that it has, you know, adverse social effects, they say, sure, but next generation will have to deal with this. And everyone feels the stress, but also everyone is invited to be part of it, of solving it. And I think it's a very, very good thing when you're in such a situation that you see that it's not only government, it's not only sort of international organization that can do something, I can do something. I can layer up. I can shorten, what does it say, ship showers. There are a number of things I can do. I can follow around my teenagers to make sure that they turn out the light. And that is empowering instead of having to sit there in the cold and say I can do nothing. And the balancing is that we think that this should accelerate the green transition. We tabled a proposal called repower EU in order to accelerate the deployment of renewable energies, preferably in a way, again, so that people who live next to a windmill installation also see money in my pocket, money in my pocket, money in my pocket, money in my pocket every time it turns. And of course we hope that this acceleration will sort of outweigh the fact that more fossil waste is going to take effect right now. Because as we speak, climate change continues. It is not stopping. So it is absolutely essential that we continue. What will be very interesting is to discuss with economists what is the new European economic model. Because Europe is the miracle of the last 70 years built on really clever people. And I think it is very important that we take Ireland, who has invested heavily in people over these many, many decades, research development investments, but also very cheap energy, cheap labour in the supply chain, and a lot of cheap raw materials. It is highly likely now that energy will be higher, at least for some time, but it will be more expensive. So even with the best of circularity, how will this economy perform? I believe it will perform really well, but it will be different. So we have a lot of interesting discussion, which is why I am really appreciative of this institution existing. Because it is important that we have to discuss how to push this. Still some questions in the audience, but we have one from someone watching us from New Jersey in USA, Mark Zaschen, President of Walmart Investments, and he says, as the EU is in the vanguard of global regulatory frameworks, how can the EU bring other international actors onside to share the EU's mindset? Yeah, if we could only put something into context. Now, what has been really interesting for me, working with tech and competition and tech regulation over the last eight years, is to see how the global mood has changed. When I first was in the US with the first global case under my arm, they said, oh, that crazy woman. That has changed. I respect much, much more. You know, now we have the digital services act and digital market act. We have privacy, but they have also passed legislation in Japan, in South Korea, in Australia, in the US, they have table proposals. So the mood is changing. But I think the best thing that we can do is to look at the digital markets. Because this legislation reached beautifully on paper, if you like a complex legal language. But when on paper, we have changed nothing yet. If we can show that the enforcement actually works to open the market, to be pro innovation as we think it is, then of course I think that the octake globally can be really, really big. I'm speaking on my own behalf. My question is a follow on from the earlier one, which I appreciate is not your direct area of policy responsibility. But the simple truth is that the IPCC has fundamentally erred in every single pillar of its work. It has made totally incorrect conclusions in relation to carbon, methane, nitrous oxide, sea levels. It is wrong at every level. And the simple truth is that there is no climate emergency. And there is no relation between carbon levels and global temperature. Yes, my question really is, and these truths are poorly understood, but they're out there. And I think it's important to be brought into the debate and debunk the absolutely flawed work of the IPCC. And I suppose I'll also put it in the context of the huge carbon related costs that have been put on business for zero practical value. That is the truth. Thank you. Paul Sweeney, trade union background. Commissioner, I noticed I welcome your emphasis on climate but going back to something that David O'Sullivan said in his first question, which is business being worried about the level of state intervention. I would ask you, would you not think that the level and the success of the state intervention in three huge crises in just over a decade, financial crisis, and today the energy crisis gives us great hope that a state led move on climate is actually feasible. When I think of it that way personally, I'm very cheered up that we can deal with climate. One of the first times that I've been cheered up because of the level of it has to be good state intervention. Would you agree? Thank you. On the first question, I think for four decades, some scientists have been trying to debunk the work done by climate scientists without any success, which means that there is almost complete consensus about the climate emergency that we're in because we have free research that we can do to make sure that we can do that. I completely trust our universities to honor that, which means that I'm absolutely convinced with the work that we do right now. On the second question, what keeps me awake at night is not the level of state support because there can be little state support, there can be a lot. But if we allow that to disable the drivers that come from competition and if it was transparent so that taxpayers did not know where their money went. Because as long as that is the case, as long as it's open where money goes, where those who have the best ideas, they also get the funding, then I think a lot of good things can be achieved with an active state. But my point is to say that there is not the kind of state funding in the world that can allow us to do this only with state funding. For instance, we have these important projects of common European interest and we have two one batteries. So member states and businesses come together and that sort of crowds in private investment. So now the investment in batteries are the highest in Europe compared to any other jurisdiction in the world. Because of the state going in first, taking sort of the risk that the market cannot cover. That sort of pours in private investment and I think that is the kind of balance that we should be looking for. Instead of saying either or then say some of this is so new, there are so many risks associated to it that we need to go into this together. So I am completely with you that a state-led intervention can be a good thing as long as the state does not get so emboldened to think that anything can happen just with the state intervention. Because that closes the lights of innovation, of entrepreneurship and all those drivers that we need. And I think that is only fair to taxpayers that they know where their funding goes. Thank you. I think that is probably a very good note on which to end. We have run out of time. Thank you so much, my President, for joining us and for sharing with us your thoughts on Europe competition, the challenges we face, our successes but some of the future challenges. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much indeed.