The Insider, Season 2, Episode 7

"The Legal Argument Brussels Doesn't Want to Hear"

Europe is redesigning its research and innovation architecture. FP10, the European Competitiveness Fund, defence research, dual use, competitiveness and security are all being pulled into the same conversation, and often treated as if the only question is how fast we can move.

But there is a more fundamental question underneath it all: Are we still operating within the limits of EU law?

In this episode of The Insider, host Ricardo Miguéis (INESC Brussels HUB) speaks with Prof. Kurt Deketelaere, one of Europe’s leading legal minds in research governance, about the issue almost no one in Brussels wants to confront: the legal validity of how defence research is being embedded into FP10 and the proposed European Competitiveness Fund (ECF).

FP10, the ECF, and a governance problem hiding in plain sight

Kurt explains why many universities and research organisations fear that, as currently drafted, FP10 risks becoming subordinate to the ECF. He discusses the joint statement issued by seven major university and research networks, and why they argue for two principles that must hold in the next cycle:

• Autonomy of FP10 and the ECF
• A clear interface that connects excellence to competitiveness (without merging them or placing one under the other)

The metaphor he uses is simple but powerful: FP10 as the generator of excellent science and talent; the ECF as the amplifier that scales it where Europe has a strategic interest.

The legal line: when a fund becomes a “specific programme”

Then the conversation goes where policy debates rarely go: into the treaty articles that determine who decides what.

Kurt lays out, in accessible terms, why he believes using the ECF regulation as the specific programme for FP10’s defence research might violate the EU’s “centre of gravity” principle; and why building a €125 billion line on shaky legal ground is a risk Europe cannot afford to ignore.

This is the “legal argument Brussels doesn’t want to hear”: not sensational, but deeply structural because it forces Parliament, Council and Commission to confront how far they are prepared to stretch the treaties in the name of speed and strategic autonomy.

Dual-use, safeguards, and Europe’s identity

The conversation also touches on one of the most difficult questions in today’s research landscape: the growing blur between civilian, dual-use and defence technologies. Kurt emphasises the importance of:

• Clear definitions
• Transparent flagging of dual-use calls
• Guarantees that researchers are not pushed toward militarised framing
• A firm separation between dual-use and deliberate defence research

What is EU-level R&I actually for?

The episode closes with the foundational question: what should EU-level research funding achieve?

Kurt brings it back to the treaties: Europe’s R&I mission is both to generate new knowledge and to strengthen its competitiveness. The challenge isn’t excellence (Europe has plenty). The challenge is turning excellence into impact, without sacrificing academic freedom, legal certainty, or the institutional safeguards built after the crises of the 20th century.

If you want to understand not just the proposals on the table, but what they mean for Europe’s long-term governance, legality and strategic direction, this episode offers a unique, unfiltered view from inside the debate.

Listen to Episode 7: “The Legal Argument Brussels Doesn’t Want to Hear” on The Insider.