The Competitiveness Council's debate on Horizon Europe’s next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10, 2028-2034), held on 9 December 2025, vividly exposed contrasting views among EU member states about priority-setting and governance. Austria voiced caution against early, rigid priority-setting, advocating for a flexible and lean approach. In contrast, Spain sought an independent research and innovation (R&I) decision space to safeguard disruptive research, while Ireland emphasized the necessity for stronger Member State influence over programme substance, proposing greater preparatory roles for national expert groups like ERAC.
Beyond these, countries like Germany and Slovenia balanced these views by supporting umbrella political priorities that still allow disruptive ideas and by promoting continuous Member State involvement. This divergence highlights a broader cleavage: centralized EU-level strategic frameworks versus national sovereignty and flexibility in determining R&I focus areas.
The debate took place within the EU Council’s Competitiveness Council, addressing the Horizon Europe successor and its interaction with the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF). The Danish Presidency presented a progress report, inviting ministers to define strategic priorities, clarify governance and involvement frameworks, and tackle issues ranging from widening participation and research security to simplification of rules.
Concrete proposals emerged throughout the discussion. Spain uniquely backed a significant nuclear fusion partnership, including constructions like a fusion prototype plant and scientific infrastructure investments. Finland outlined clear priority domains—AI, high-performance computing, quantum technology, semiconductors, and bioeconomy—linked with requirements for private sector commitments. The Netherlands pushed for expert-driven, excellence-rooted priority-setting, emphasizing emerging fields such as robotics and quantum, while France proposed performance-based management of partnerships with measurable targets and the discontinuation of underperforming projects.
Meanwhile, several Member States—Austria, Slovenia, Portugal—called for simplification measures such as two-stage applications and lump-sum funding to ease administrative burdens, reflecting broad consensus on the need to streamline FP10. However, on governance, Ireland, Poland, and Czechia urged clearer definitions of the FP10-ECF relationship, warning against ambiguity that could hamper coherent implementation.
In terms of policy orientation, the cleavages ranged from strengthening EU-level governance and integrating strategic partnerships to preserving national discretion and ensuring flexibility. Excellence in research was often pitted against inclusiveness and widening participation, with countries like Sweden and France emphasizing excellence as the programme’s core, while others like Slovenia and Poland pushing to better bridge innovation gaps across EU regions.
Stakeholders impacted include EU producers and research institutions, which may face tighter priority frameworks but benefit from simplified application processes. Consumers and society at large stand to gain from advancements in AI, clean energy, health, and fusion technologies. National authorities must navigate increased collaboration demands balanced against sovereignty concerns, while taxpayers anticipate clearer governance and efficient use of public funds.
Looking ahead, the European Commission, represented by Ekaterina Zaharieva, expressed a readiness to incorporate Member States' calls for predictability, stronger FP10-ECF linkages, sharper legislation, and enhanced engagement into forthcoming negotiations under the Cypriot Presidency. This suggests the next phase will likely focus on negotiating a careful balance between centralization and flexibility, implementing simplification reforms, and establishing clearer governance frameworks to maximize both research excellence and broad participation.