By Morgann Darche

10/07/2026

What if the next generation had a say in shaping Europe's competitiveness agenda? On 24 June 2026, Stand Up For Europe and A Seat At The Table, together with the Young European Federalists (JEF) Brussels turned that question into reality with the Brussels Civic Incubator Lab.

Overview of the event

As a transnational project implemented in partnership by 10 organisations under the Citizens', Equality, Rights & Values (CERV) Programme, COMPASS (COMpetitiveness Policy for Accelerating Sustainable Solutions) aims to create inclusive, high-level platforms that connect young people with EU policymakers, academics, and industry leaders across nine EU Member States - Belgium, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, and Cyprus - ensuring broad geographic representation across the continent.

The Brussels event brought to the young public a panel of three experts, each of them with unique perspectives: László Andor, former EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Fabian Zuleeg, Chief Executive and Chief Economist at the European Policy Centre (EPC), and Antonello Pietrangeli, Youth Representative at the European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (CESI). 

After an initial round of introductory statements from the guests, the agenda featured two successive sessions, each part of the event building on the previous one. Through a "speed-dating" format with the experts, the participants had the chance to engage directly with each of the guests in small groups, and finally the event concluded with a World Café discussion during which the participants identified key challenges in five relevant economic sectors in which Europe has a stake.

Key topics addressed

The World Café format enabled participants to discuss the following themes: Tech & AI, Defence, Trade & Strategic autonomy, Healthcare & Biotech, and Sustainability. This allowed participants to engage in a more participatory discussion, thereby promoting public dialogue. 

Three cross-cutting tensions ran through all discussions: Europe's dependence on the United States, the persistent friction between regulation and competitiveness; and the call for targeted public investment across every theme. Let's now dive deeper in each of the topics.

Tech & AI

As regards the key issues raised, the first one was the growing strength of China’s technology industries. Another major concern was the lack of AI-related education and skills development. Several participants also questioned the increasing dependence on AI in everyday life. 

The role of politicians and policymakers was another important topic. Participants argued that many political decision-makers do not yet fully understand the social, economic, and technological consequences of AI which might lead them to struggle to create policies that both protect citizens and support innovation.

Participants also highlighted Europe’s limited technological sovereignty. AI factories, computing infrastructure, and other essential resources are often not located within the EU. In addition, fragmentation among EU Member States and overregulation were identified as major obstacles because they slow down decision-making and make it harder to build large-scale European AI projects. All of these elements impact the competitiveness of European AI tools. And we can see it with the example of Mistral, France’s most advanced AI tool, which is perceived as less competitive than leading US-based systems. 

At the same time, participants emphasized that Europe should not simply copy the US model. The EU has strong values and should find a balance between protecting these values and remaining competitive in a rapidly evolving global AI market. 

Participants therefore suggested targeted public investment and stressed the importance of communication: the popularity of AI tools depends not only on technical performance but also on visibility. Better marketing, combined with investment, cooperation, and a more unified EU strategy, could help Europe become a stronger and more independent actor in the global AI landscape.

Defence

Beyond the digital sphere, participants turned to a domain that has surged to the top of Europe's political agenda: Defence.

Key concerns centred on Europe's dependence on the US, an ongoing brain drain driven by the concentration of capital and opportunity across the Atlantic, and the absence of a strong shared European identity - which leads to sharply uneven enthusiasm for defence spending and military service across Member States. Participants therefore framed Europe's position as a choice between two flawed options: an unreliable US or an adversarial Russia - making the case for deeper political integration on defence, and for Europe to position itself as a credible defender of the rules-based international order.

As a response, participants identified investment in dual-use technology, prioritisation of European-made equipment, and direct action on brain drain as key solutions - complemented by efforts to make military service more meaningful to citizens across the continent.

Trade & Strategic Autonomy

As for Trade & Strategic Autonomy, the first issue raised was the lack of regulatory and strategic clarity at EU level. Participants also flagged the impact of Trump's sanctions as a concrete and immediate disruption to global trade flows. Here as well, bureaucracy was perceived as a significant obstacle to business competitiveness. 

More broadly, participants questioned whether the international trade system as structured around the WTO remains viable. The combination of unilateral measures, geopolitical fragmentation, and the weakening of multilateral institutions was seen as putting the rules-based international order under serious strain.

Still, Europe's continued commitment to a rules-based international order was identified by participants as a strategic asset, alongside targeted public subsidies to attract and retain strategic industries within Europe.

Healthcare & Biotech

Shifting from geopolitics to everyday lives, the fourth topic brought participants to a domain where European ambition and systemic fragility collide: Healthcare & Biotech. 

On this topic, AI emerged as a recurring concern. As it becomes increasingly integrated into medical decision-making, participants raised the unresolved question of liability: when an AI system contributes to a wrong diagnosis, who bears responsibility - the doctor or AI? Participants broadly agreed that this grey area requires dedicated regulation.

Rare diseases, mental health, women's health, and the demographic challenge of an ageing population were also flagged as underserved areas.

Participants further highlighted the structural fragmentation of European health systems, suggesting that a more centralised approach could improve both efficiency and equity of care.

As a response, The European Health Data Space (EHDS) was identified as a key opportunity to build a unified health data infrastructure across the EU, enabling better research, faster diagnosis, and more personalised care at scale.

Finally, participants called for a shift from a reactive "sick care" model to a preventive healthcare system, supported by scaled-up R&D investment - with the Innovation Act and Public-Private Partnerships identified as key levers.

Sustainability

The final topic addressed is perhaps the most structurally complex challenge of all: how to make sustainability not just an aspiration, but a viable and equitable framework for Europe's future.

First, a central frustration expressed was the marginalisation of environmental issues on the political agenda, especially since the Trump era. 

The ideology of constant economic growth was also identified as a structural obstacle to the green transition. Participants questioned whether current economic models are compatible with sustainability objectives, and called for a rebalancing towards slower, greener forms of competitiveness.

In addition, inequality was raised as a cross-cutting concern. Participants pointed out that the transition does not affect all actors equally - whether between rich and poor individuals, large and small companies, or developed and developing countries. This asymmetry complicates the design of fair and effective policies.

On the question of individual versus collective responsibility, participants argued that while individual willingness to change consumption habits matters, the primary burden of adaptation should fall on companies, which must be given the tools and incentives to invest in sustainability, with the clear message that delaying investment now will result in significantly higher costs later. 

Furthermore, participants expressed the view that public awareness of sustainability issues remains insufficient and unevenly distributed. Greater efforts are needed to reach blue-collar workers and broader non-specialist audiences. Opportunistic communication - for instance during extreme weather events such as heatwaves - was seen as an underused tool for shifting public perception.

As opportunities and potential responses, first, participants called for a stronger focus on adaptation alongside mitigation. Urban planning, infrastructure - including roads, parks, and schools - must be redesigned with climate adaptation in mind. And this adaptation must be coordinated across EU Member States to be effective.

The concept of "leapfrogging" was also proposed as a strategic opportunity: Europe could transition directly to green technologies, bypassing carbon-intensive intermediary stages. Third countries, often overlooked in global sustainability frameworks, should be integrated into this vision through mechanisms such as the EU Global Gateway initiative - and could help fill the geopolitical void left by the US withdrawal under Trump 2.0.

Finally, on regulation, participants called for a smarter regulatory framework: subsidising smaller actors and lower-income groups while taxing larger, more resource-intensive ones.

Main takeaways

The Brussels Lab demonstrated that participatory democracy is not just a principle, but a practice. By designing an event that went beyond passive attendance, Stand Up For Europe created the conditions for young Europeans to actively shape perspectives on EU competitiveness. This reflects SUFE's broader commitment to bridging the gap between EU institutions and young citizens, and to ensuring that the next generation has a voice in the decisions that will shape their future. The insights generated will feed directly into the COMPASS Youth Strategy Paper, offering concrete, youth-driven policy recommendations in response to the Draghi Report.