Spanish defence firm backs Belgium joining FCAS fighter project despite French qualms
Belgium's participation in the multi-billion-euro next-generation fighter project would be "a positive step in the current geopolitical context", Jorge San José, Indra's director of the FCAS project, told Euractiv.
Adding another country to the joint French-German-Spanish programme "strengthens the collaborative nature" of the programme, one of Europe's largest and most ambitious defence projects, San José said.
Indra 'will work on identifying potential synergies with Belgian industries and see how they can contribute to and support the execution of the programme,' San José said.
Dassault Aviation CEO Éric Trappier last week sharply criticised Belgium's proposal to fully join the programme, saying that Belgium can't expect to join the FCAS project if the Belgian armed forces also buy American-made F-35 fighter jets.
Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken quickly fired back, saying the country had no use for lessons 'from arrogant industrialists' and that Brussels would need to re-evaluate joining FCAS.
Decisions on adding further partners to the programme are ultimately up to the French, German, and Spanish governments, not key industrial contractors. Belgium has been an official observer in the FCAS project for several years in order to evaluate its potential contribution.
San José declined to elaborate on potential synergies with Belgian firms. Alain de Neve, a defence aviation expert at Belgium's Royal Higher Institute for Defence, told Euractiv that local expertise in electronics could help with avionics, secure communications, and advanced simulation.
The German defence ministry and Germany's lead contractor on the FCAS programme, Airbus Defence, both declined to comment on Belgium's potential membership. The French and Spanish defence ministries did not respond to requests for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
28 minutes ago
- Euractiv
UK still waiting on terms for enlistment in EU's SAFE defence loans programme
The United Kingdom is eager for its defence giants to snag a share of Europe's rearmament spending splurge, but figuring out a deal is easier pledged than delivered. Despite optimistic signals this spring, negotiations have yet to start with London over it joining the EU's €150 billion Security Action for Europe (SAFE) lending scheme amid Brussels' summer slowdown and political wrangling. With EU capitals racing to submit spending plans by November, time is running out to strike a deal that ensures British firms aren't left watching from the sidelines. A deal allowing UK contractors to join SAFE could be struck within weeks, Foreign Secretary David Lammy said optimistically in May. By the end of July, however, it was clear that the UK would not receive a formal proposal for at least another month – narrowing the window for London to negotiate favourable terms for its companies. The clock is ticking. EU member states must submit their procurement wish lists by 30 November. If London wants British firms to be considered, it must align with that timeline. But that's without accounting for haggling among EU capitals over what kind of deal to offer London. The stumbling block: the agreement must strike a "fair balance", according to the legal text of SAFE, between the UK's contribution – both financial and industrial – to SAFE and what it stands to gain from the programme. What that balance means in practice has been left open to interpretation by both the European Commission and member states, three EU diplomats told Euractiv. Finding a way in Since signing a Security and Defence Partnership with the EU in the spring, the UK has been permitted to participate in SAFE-sponsored procurement deals. UK firms, however, are currently capped at making a maximum of 35% of the total value of any given project. A supplementary agreement would need to define both the precise eligibility criteria for UK firms and their suppliers, and the scale of London's financial contribution to the €150 billion pot – two politically sensitive issues. France, in line with tradition, is pushing to severely limit UK access to SAFE. Paris argues that EU-level defence schemes should primarily benefit companies based within the bloc. Germany and the Netherlands, among others, take a different view. They see buying from UK firms as a 'win-win', one diplomat said. EU countries, they argue, should be allowed to shop in the UK with SAFE loans. Defence contractors such as Rheinmetall have major production facilities set up in the UK. The Commission's method for calculating the UK's financial contribution is expected to be 'complex', another EU source noted. For one reason, there's no template to calculate the bill, an EU Commission official told Euractiv. An internal Commission document seen by Euractiv – in which the Commission pledges to keep countries in the loop during talks – underscores just how much influence member states will wield over the negotiations. Tight timeline, multiple hurdles Placing the Council at the centre of the process gives EU governments the discretion to treat third countries such as the UK, Canada, or Turkey differently, the EU official suggested. As of late July, multiple hurdles remain for the UK, according to the internal Commission document reviewed by Euractiv. The most immediate challenge is securing approval from all 27 EU member states – not just once, but repeatedly. A qualified majority is technically sufficient for the Commission to begin negotiations based on a proposed mandate. But in practice, defence industry files are almost always agreed by consensus, due to their politically sensitive nature. This makes the negotiations slower and more complex. The European Parliament will also weigh in, needing to give its consent to the final agreement before it returns to the Council – where another unanimous vote is likely to be required. (aw, jp)
Euractiv
12 hours ago
- Euractiv
Spanish prosecutors call for resignation of indicted attorney general
Spain's main prosecutors' associations are calling for the resignation of Attorney General Alvaro García Ortíz, who was officially indicted on Tuesday for allegedly leaking confidential information from an investigation involving the partner of a prominent opposition leader. García Ortíz, who has served as Spain's top prosecutor since August 2022, has been under investigation since early June for disclosing to the press an email containing personal data relating to a judicial probe into Alberto González Amador, the businessman and partner of Isabel Díaz Ayuso, leader of Madrid's Popular Party. González Amador is under investigation for alleged tax fraud and forgery. "García Ortiz should resign in order to defend himself as a private citizen – independent of the institution – rather than as attorney general," Cristina Dexeus, president of the Prosecutors' Association (AF), told Euractiv, describing his continued presence as causing "significant reputational damage" to the Spanish prosecution service. The Spanish Association of Independent Prosecutors (APIF) has formally requested that the judge overseeing García Ortiz's case at the Supreme Court suspend him temporarily. The judge has asked the Public Prosecutor's Office to respond within three days, Euractiv's partner Servimedia reports. The progressive prosecutors' association (UPF), to which García Ortiz belonged before becoming attorney general, said in a statement it "strongly disagrees" with Tuesday's indictment. When in Madrid... Despite mounting pressure, Spain's government has closed ranks around the attorney general. 'We support the actions of the state's attorney general. We believe in his innocence. He has the endorsement and support of the government,' Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez told journalists following the announcement. 'He has done and continues to do a magnificent job," said First Vice-President and Finance Minister María Jesús Montero. Defence Minister Margarita Robles took a more cautious line, stating that the decision to resign is ultimately "his personal choice." Under Spanish law, attorneys general are appointed by the government, a practice that has raised concerns in Brussels. The European Commission's 2025 Rule of Law Report recommended that Spain strengthen the 'independence and autonomy of the prosecution' from the government. Further doubts about the prosecution's independence have been fuelled by mounting corruption scandals surrounding Sánchez's inner circle, which have already forced several key figures to resign. A hearing of the attorney general is expected to take place this Autumn, reported El País. (cs, de)
Euractiv
12 hours ago
- Euractiv
Greek pharma sector braces for US tariff fallout, patients risk first impact
Greek pharmaceutical and medical technology executives have voiced growing concern over the anticipated extension of US tariffs to medicines and medtech products, warning that the move could severely disrupt innovation, fracture supply chains, and curtail patient access - particularly in smaller EU markets such as Greece. Industry leaders argue that the proposed measures risk undermining competitiveness and investment at a time when Europe is striving to strengthen its strategic autonomy in healthcare. Following the announcement of the EU-US trade deal and the impending outcome of the Section 232 investigation, Greek industry voices are calling for urgent clarity and exemptions for critical health products. They point out that the evolving US trade strategy and an insufficient EU reaction will significantly impact Greece, due to a challenging operating environment, ultimately impeding access to therapies and medical technology products. 'Imposing tariffs either by the US alone or by both sides, Greece is expected to suffer a significant blow,' Olympios Papadimitriou, President of the Hellenic Association of Pharmaceutical Companies (SfEE), told Euractiv. Fundamental risk for Greece Papadimitriou points to the overburdened pharmaceutical environment in Greece, which is struggling with mandatory returns and insufficient funding, as the main factor that could amplify the implications of US tariffs. '[Greece] is the country with the worst environment for on-patent medicines in the European Union (lowest prices and highest refunds). If economic pressure starts a chain of all kinds of cuts, Greece will be among the first to suffer the consequences,' he remarked. These developments are expected to have the greatest impact on patients. As Labrina Barmpetaki, President of Pharma Innovation Forum (PIF), explained to Euractiv, if the appropriate action isn't taken, 'there is a growing risk of launch sequence prioritisation, where smaller EU countries, such as Greece, could be deprioritised or excluded altogether from access to new medicines.' Some generics are exempt from the imposed US tariffs. However, the full impact remains uncertain as key elements are still unclear, and the anticipated imbalance caused by implementing tariffs threatens to disrupt supply chains. 'For Greece's export-oriented pharmaceutical sector, such tariffs would undermine future competitiveness and challenge established transatlantic flows,' Theodoros Tryfon, President, Panhellenic Union of Pharmaceutical Industries (PEF), tells Euractiv, adding that the generic industry is looking forward to further clarity on the scope of products to be exempted. The biotechnology industry also underlines the risks of delays, higher costs, and reduced patient access due to potential tariffs on medical technology, which includes medical devices and in vitro diagnostics. 'Potential tariffs or restrictions on the movement of these products could lead to significant delays in the availability of life-saving technologies, increased healthcare costs, and jeopardised access to modern and effective solutions for patients,' the Hellenic Association of Medical and Biotechnological Product Enterprises (SEIV) notes in a statement to Euractiv. For SEIV, patient health must not be used as a bargaining chip in trade disputes. 'Delays in the supply of critical medical technology products can have a direct impact on the quality and timeliness of care, particularly in countries with limited resources or heavy reliance on imported technologies.' Risks across the EU and the Atlantic The implications of imposing export duties on pharmaceuticals will be far-reaching. Barbetaki notes the concerns about added strain on public healthcare systems, particularly in Europe, where access to medicines is largely state-funded. 'Such a shift could carry social and budgetary consequences if it disrupts the flow or affordability of essential treatments', she adds, highlighting that Europe faces structural hurdles in attracting pharma investment, especially compared to the US, which offers stronger funding, IP protection, faster regulation, and better innovation incentives. Its market-driven healthcare model also gives it a clear competitive edge, Barbetaki points out. As Papadimitriou notes, tariffs on medicines are a blunt instrument that will disrupt supply chains, impact investment in R&D, and ultimately harm patient access to medicines on both sides of the Atlantic. 'Any tariffs risk worsening existing shortages and further straining supply chains,' Tryfon warns, adding that Europe has consistently proven to be a reliable supplier to the US, particularly for critical medicines where it often serves as the main or only alternative to Asia. Regarding medical technology, despite earlier assurances and expectations, the sector wasn't mentioned in the official announcement, with the products exempted based on the EU-US 'zero-for-zero' trade agreement. However, efforts are still underway for a last-minute change. Redisigned approach needed 'If the intent is to secure pharmaceutical investment in research, development and manufacturing, rebalance trade and ensure a fairer distribution of how global pharmaceutical innovation is financed, then there are more effective means than tariffs that would help, rather than hinder, global advances in patient care and economic growth,' Papadimitriou argues. He explains, from a European perspective, that means 'rethinking how we value innovation, significantly increasing what the region spends on innovative medicines and creating an operating environment that can accelerate turning Europe's great science into new treatments.' Barbetaki is on the same page: 'To remain globally competitive, Europe will need to strengthen its policy framework by supporting innovation, upholding strong IP protections, ensuring regulatory clarity, and aligning environmental and industrial legislation.' However, she adds that Europe should also reconsider its approach to pricing policies and cost-containment measures, 'aiming for a different model to remain attractive for global pharmaceutical launches.' The Greek pharmaceutical industry advocates for the exemption of EU-origin generics, biosimilars, and APIs, as Tryfon remarks. 'The EU and US essential medicines lists significantly overlap, which highlights the necessity for a tariff exemption on products that ensure uninterrupted patient access and are crucial for reinforcing transatlantic health resilience,' Tryfon explains. Exemption is also crucial for medtech provision. SEIV sent a letter to the Greek Ministry of Health and Greek Members of the European Parliament earlier in July, stressing the need for active support to exempt medical technology products from any trade or tariff measures. It followed a joint letter from MedTech Europe and the US-based AdvaMed to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, expressing strong concern over the exclusion of the sector from the list of industries included in the 'zero-for-zero' trade agreement. Greek MEPs weigh in From an economist's point of view in a modern, globalised world, tariffs do not make sense, S&D and PASOK MEP Nikos Papandreou told Euractiv, noting that they are used as a weapon, 'to force trading partners to do things they wouldn't do otherwise.' However, he doesn't think that the EU should have reacted by imposing high tariffs on American goods as a form of revenge. 'Nevertheless, it is a 'win-loss situation'; a win for the US and a loss for Europe. Politically, it is a defeat; economically, it's better than what it may have been,' he says. For the pharma industry, the story is a mixed bag, according to Papandreou, as key aspects remain unclear. 'Therefore, it's too early to determine what will happen to pharma overall. Will this encourage EU investments in the USA? My prediction in this unpredictable situation? Not a cent.' EPP & ND MEP Dimitris Tsiodras also awaits the finalised deal to draw safe conclusions. He recognises, however, that regarding pharmaceuticals, the exemption of certain generics will help ensure the availability of medicines for Greek and European patients and prevent the emergence of further shortages.' [Edited by Brian Maguire]
