EU Competitiveness Ministers once again endorsed the need for the European Union to strengthen its strategic autonomy while remaining an open economy, at an informal meeting on Monday 22 March. National sensitivities were expressed, some insisting more on autonomy, others on economic opening.
The debate was “nuanced, rich and fruitful”, said Commission Vice-President Margrethe Vestager. She summarised the issue in one sentence: “How do we ensure that we maintain the openness that has enabled the prosperity we have today, while being more resilient in strategic value chains?” It has recognised the need for action to tackle addictions, but only those that are ‘truly’ strategic.
During his videoconference speech, the Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton, on the contrary, insisted on autonomy rather than openness. He drew attention to the importance of continuous and structured monitoring of strategic dependencies in collaboration with the different industrial ecosystems.
In line with his portfolio, Mr Breton also emphasised the protection of the internal market and urged Member States to put an end to disproportionate restrictive measures limiting the fundamental right of free movement.
Responding to numerous questions from the Portuguese Presidency of the EU Council (see EUROPE 12682/5), Ministers were more inclined to use and develop all means available to the Union to ensure fair competition with third countries. Many cited the risks of distorting foreign investment or the importance of a carbon adjustment mechanism at the EU’s borders.
All of them supported, with varying degrees of force, the importance of drawing up an overview of strategic dependencies, particularly in the field of cyber security. The issue of European dependence on Covid-19 vaccines was also mentioned, in view of the difficulties encountered with the Anglo-Swedish firm AstraZeneca. Import diversification was emphasised by the ministers. Here, some Member States, such as the Czech Republic, highlighted the interest of Latin America in this respect.
IPCEI projects and national recovery plans
Most Member States supported the use of Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI), highlighting existing projects in the field of battery electricity, microprocessors, or hydrogen. The Netherlands would have agreed, but not without stressing the impact of IPCEIs on the market. Italy would have emphasised the importance of direct European investment, as in the European Galileo, Copernicus or ITER programmes.
The issue of the lack of cross-border projects in the national plans in relation to the Next Generation EU Recovery Plan was reportedly mentioned by several Member States, including Italy. Luxembourg recalled the short time Member States have to prepare their national plans, by the end of April at the latest. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)