Sorry but no, the problem isn't of industry closing down in France and opening back in Belgium, you're misrepresenting things. There has been a long history of the idea that we Europeans don't really need to "make things", that we could relocate our industry wherever it's more "efficient" (i. e. cheaper, because mostly of lower environmental and social safeguards, and because nobody directly pays for the externalities -- that's good old imperialism, colonialism in new clothes IMO) and keep the know-how, engineering, and power for us while Chinese or others would do the dirty work for us. And this stupid idea began to crumble a few years back already, and is now suddenly proven dead to everyone (hopefully).
There is such a thing as sovereignty, and it doesn't matter at which scale it happens; sovereignty implies having control on whatever things you can't do without. Can Europe or the US be sovereign without steel mills? maybe. Car manufacturing? possibly. Chemistry and pharmaceutical production? not so sure. Oil? see our leaders grovelling at MBS' knees while he's butchering Yemen. Ah.
In the US, some top brass came recently to the realisation that the US can't make a war plane without Chinese input anymore. That may be a problem sooner or later.
Similarly, the impact of the transfer of industries and money across Europe isn't a problem per se, it's only a problem because nothing provides any equilibrium -- no transfers at any significant scales. So far Germany sends cars and machines across Europe, and gets paper in exchange. At times, some important German minister or another goes harping that someday, that TARGET2 balance will have to be cleared. Does this even make sense? Can we have a European money, but not a European industry? I don't think so. Something will have to give at some point or another.